The Relationship Between School Culture and Student's Achievement in Amzonia Elemenitary Public School (Thesis)

I'HE REI,..ATI()NSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOl.
CULTURE AND STUDENT'

ACHIEVEMENT IN AMZON'A ELEMENI'ARY PUBLIC SCHOOIJ
By
Cheiig"Bau Liu
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPAR'TMENT OF EDUCATIONAL IJiADERSHIP
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR. OF EDUCATION
In the (jraduate College
THE UNIWRSITY OF ARIZONA
2004
UMI Number: 3132238
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3132238
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
rfli: UNiVERSfTY OF ARJZOi

CiRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certiiy that we have read tlie
dissertation prepared by
CHEN'G BAU Lll.i
entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCtiOOL CULTURE AND STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT IN ARIZONA ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCffOOLS
and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the
Degree of
Doctor of Education
'U(o^
Quinn David Ph.D.
date
James Chalfant Ba^.D.
date
Patricia First, J.D. Ed.D.
date
date
date
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the
candidate's submisvsion of the final copies of the disvsertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and
recommend that it be acceptedj&4iWHling the dissertation requirement.
Dissertation Director: Quiiraro
-H*.,
Ph.D.
r/;;,/Of
date
STA,TEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertalion has been subniitted iti partial fulilllmcnt of requiremenis for
an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University
libraxy to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Libraiy.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special
permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for
permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in who or
in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the
Graduate College when in his or her judgtnent the proposed use of tlie material is in
the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be
obtained from the author.
SIGNED:
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN'I'S
This study would not have been jsossible without the efforts of many people.
First, I would like to thank Dr. Quiim, my advisor and dissertation chair, for his
frequent and excellent advice and support throughout the experience. His expertise
and encouragement, in numerous classes as well as in the entire dissertation process,
were invaluable. Thank you for allowing me to use the data.
I would like to thank my minor committees. Dr. Chalfant (minor advisor) and
Dr. Pysh from the Department of Special Education for their passion and dedication.
Because they come from a different discipline and unique vision, they were always
able to provide support and help for what I needed from different angles. Thank you
for your instruction, guidance, and recommendation on my dissertation and in special
education, classes.
I would like to sincerely thank Dr. First for her understanding, kindness,
patience, efforts, suggestions, and great support during my dissertation process from
beginning to the end,
I would like to thank cveiy classmate from EDL Cohort 6 and 7 for their help
in each class. 1 also appreciated the help irom. Dr. Nicole Ofiesh (SERP), and other
EDL professors, Dr. Pedicone, Dr. McClean, Dr. Anderson, and Dr. Adrenas who
taught my classes at UA.
Finally, 1 would like to thank a good friend of mine Rudy Molina at the IJA
SAI.T center for spending time on con-ecting my dissertation as well as other
homework for other classes. I sincerely appreciate his friendship and his great efforts.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1.0
ABSTRACT
11
CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction: U.S. Educational Problem
American Educational (Cultural) Reforms
School Cultural Transformation
Statement of t he P roblem
Purpose of the Study and Research Question
Hypothesis o f the S tudy
A.ssuraptioiis for t his S tudy
Definitions of Terms
12
12
14
17
18
19
20
20
21
CHAPTER 2
24
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LriERATURE
Theoretical Literature: Organizational Culture

What is Culture?
Nature of o rganizational culture
Organizational Cultural Formation
Levels of Organizational Culture
School Culture and C limate
Relationship between Culture and Climate
Positives and Negatives of Culture:
Empirical literature: School Factors to Student Achievement
Introduction: Organizational Behaviors
Parental Involvement
Parent's Socioeconomic Status
Teacher Attitude and Characteristics
Professional Development
Principal's Impact on Student Achievement
Leadership Behavior Studies
Small Schools
Class Size
Conclusion: Person-Environment Interaction
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOG Y
Sample-s and Participants

Instrumentation
Data Collection Procedure
Statistical Technique and Data Analysis Design
Diagram of Research Design
24
24
25
27
29
32
35
37
39
39
41
45
47
50
53
57
60
63
67
68
68
69
74
76
77
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION.
80
Introduction
80
Overview of Statistical Technical Analyses
80
Description of the Samples and Participants..
81
Descriptive Data of AIMS Scores
86
Modification for this Study
88
Step 1: SCSAIMS R egression Analyses and Hypotheses
93
Regression Analysis on SCS and Math (AIMS)
93
Regression Analysis on SCS and Reading (AIM'S)
97
Regression Analysis on SCS and Writing (AIMS)
99
Step 2; School Factors-SCS Regression Analyses
.101
Collaborative I.eadership and School Factors Regression Analysis.......101
Collegial Support and School Factors Regression Analysis
105
Teacher Collaboration and School Factors Regression Analysi.s
108
Professional Development and School Factors Regression Analysis
Ill
Unity of Purpose and School Factors Regression Analysis
113
Learning Partnership and School Factors Regression Analysis
116
CHAPTERS SUMMARY AND DISSCUSION
Summary of the Step 1 Findings
Regression Analyses on SCS and MMS (Math)
Regression Analyses on SCS and AIMS (Reading)
Regression Analyses on SCS and AIMS (Writing)
Summary of the Step 2 Findings
Diagram of the Final Analysis Results
Hypotheses Testing and Conclusions
Discussion of the Stepl Findings
Discussion of the Step 2 Findings
Implications and Recommendations for Professional Educators
ITte L imitation o f the S tudy
Final Thoughts
Recommendations for Inittne Study
APPENDIX A
SCHOOL CULIJTRE SURVEY
119
119
119
120
120
121
123
125
127
135
138
139
139
141
143
APPENDIX B PERMISSION LETTER FOR ACCESSING IX) THE DA'IA.

FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOLCIJLTIJRE
144
APPENDIX C EXEMPT S'l'AlUS OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

APPROVAI
145
REFERENCES
...146
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1, Reliability of School Culture Survey (SCS)
71
Table 3.2, Dimension of school culture survey and items
72
Table 4.1, Statistical techniques
80
Table 4.2, School level and principaFs gender
82
Table 4.3, School level and principal administration
83
Table 4.4, School level and school size

Table 4.5, 2002-2003 School performance profile as reported by the
Arizona Department of Education
Table 4.6, AIMS .scores on math, reading, and writhig
(3"\ 8"', and 10th grade)
..84
85
...86
Table 4.7, Bivariate correlations between school factors
90
Table 4.8, ANOVA matrix from multiple linear regression analysis

on SCS and Math
94
Table 4.9, Model summary from multiple linear regression analysis

on SCS and Math
95
Table 4.10, Matrix of coefficient Irom multiple linear regression analysis

on SCS and Math
96
Table 4.11, Model summary from regression analysis on SCS

and reading (AIMS)
97
Table 4,12, NOVA matrix from muhiple linear regression analysis

on SCS and reading (AIMS)
97
Table 4.13, Matrix of coefficient from multiple linear regression analysis

on SCS and reading (AIMS),....,
98
Table 4,14, NOVA matrix from multiple linear regression analysis

on SCS and writing (AIMS)
99
Table 4.15, Model summary from multiple linear regression analysis

on SCS and writing (AIMS).,.
100
8
IJST OF TABLES- Continued
Table 4,16, Matrix of coefficients from multiple linear regression analysis
on. SCS an4 writing (AIMS)
.....100
Table 4.17, Independent variables and dependent variables for school

factors- SCS multiple linear regression analyses
101
Table 4.18, Model summary model summary from collabofative leadership

and school factors multiple linear regression analysis
102
Table 4.19, ANOVA matrix model siiramaiy from collaborative leadership

and school factors multiple linear regression analysis,
....103
Table 4.20, Matrix of coefficients model summary from collaborative

leadership and school factors multiple linear regression analysis
104
Table 4.21, ANOVA matrix from collegial support and school factors
multiple linear regression analysis
105
Table 4.22, Model summaiy from collegial support and school

factors multiple linear regression analysis
106
Table 4.23, Matrix of coefficients from collegial support and school

107
Table 4.24, ANOVA matrix from teacher collaboration and school

.factors multiple linear regression analysis
108
Table 4.25, Model .summary from teacher collaboration and school

lactors m ultiple linear regression analysis
109
Table 4.26, Matrix of coefficients from teacher collaboration and

school factors multiple linear regression analysis
109
Table 4.27, .Model summary from professional development and

Ill
Table 4.28, ANOVA matrix from professional developmen,C and

112
Table 4,29, Matrix of coefflcient.s lk)m professional development and

112
Table 4.30, .Model sunnnary from unity of putpose and scliool lactors
113
9
I.,1ST OP TAB.LES-- Continued
Table 4.31, ANOVA matrix from unity of purpose and school factors
multiple linear regression analysis...,
114
Table 4.32, Matrix of coefficients ixom unity of purpose and school factors
multiple linear regression analysis.
115
Table 4.33, Model suramaty from learning partnership and school fectors
multiple 1 inear regression analysis
116
Table 4.34, ANOVA matrix from learning partnership and school factors
117
Table 4.35, Matrix of coefficients from learning partnership and school

...118
Table 5.1, Matrix of bivariate correlations between SCS
137
Table 5.2, Research questions and statistical analysis techniques
142
10
U:ST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1, Dimensions for distinguishing between culture and climate
...36
Figure 2.2, Dimensions of leadership
58
Figure 2.3, Leadership style with degree of trust
59
Figure 3.1, Diagram of research design...
78
Figure 4.1, The dispersion of AIMS (Math)
..88
Figure 4.2, The dispersion of AIMS (Reading)
89
Figure 4.3, The dispersion of AIMS (Writing)
89
Figure 4.4, Final version of research design
92
Figure 5.1, .Diagram, of the final analysis results
124
Figtire 5.2, The scatter plots and the line of be.st fit
(Math/Leaning Partnership)
130
Figure 5.3, The scatter plots and the line of best fit
(Reading/Learning Partnership)
132
Figure 5.4, 'Ilie scatter plots and the lines of best fit
(Principal Tenure/SES/Leaming Partnership)
134
Figure 5.5, The scatter plots and the lines of best fit
(Principal Tenure/SES./Leaming Partnership
135
Figure 5.6, The scatter p!ot.s and the lines of best fit
(Principal Tenure*5 /SES/Learning Partnership)
135
11
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine whether selected dimensions of school
culture as measured by the School Culture Su:rvey (SC'S) (Valentine & Gruenert, 1998)
were related to student academic achievement on Math, Reading, and Writing as
measured by Arizona's Instrument for Measure Standards (AIMS). The SCS is a 35-item
Likert, and the Lil<.ert is ranged from I (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The
survey factored into six dimensions of school culture: Collaborative Iêadership, Teacher
Collaboration, Professional Development, Unity of Puipose, Collegial Support, and
Learning Partnership. The school culture factor of Learning Partnership subscale was
found to have a significant linear regression with Math, Reading, and Writing AIMS
scores by analyzing data from 1,120 teachers from a sample of 56 public elementary
schools. A secondary purpose of this study was to detemiine whether school culture
variables were associated with the characteristics such as principal's tenure, principal's
gender, the number of administrators, the number of the teachers, the percentage of
teachers earning a Masters Degree or higher, school size, school level, and
socioeconomic status (SES). Principal Tenure and SES were found to haiê a significant
linear regression with the school culture factor of Learning Partnership. A conclusion l:br
the study is that the variance in student achievement in Math, Reading and Writing
( AIMS) can be predicted and explained by the school culture factor of Learning
Partnership, which is defined as the degree to which teacher, parents, and students work:
together for the common good of the students.
12
CHAPTER 1; STATEMENT OF I'HE PRDBLEM
Introduction: U.S. Educational Problems
Schools have been viewed as providers of opportunities for social mobility, and
Americans have always placed a great deal of faith in education. Schools are regarded as
places in which that the hearts and minds of children are nurtured and developed, and
flinctioning as antidotes for ignorance and prejudice, and as solutions to numerous social
problems (Sadovnik, Cookson, & Semel, 2001). Lawrence Cremin (1990) pointed out
that Americans have expected their schools to solve social, political, and economic
problems and have placed on the schools "all kinds of millennial hopes and expectations"
(p. 92). Unfortunately, the American education system continues to struggle. For instance,
the crisis of inequalities of educational opportunity in the early 1970s, the allegedly
authoritarian and oppressive nature of the schools, and the way in which classroom
practices thwarted tiie personnel development of students (Sadovnik, Cookson, & Semel,
2001).
In 1983, the National C^'ommission on Educational Excellence, founded by the
President Reagan's Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell, issued its famous report, A
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. This report provided a serious
indictment of US education and cited high rates of adult illiteracy, declining SAT scores,
and low scores on international comparisons of knowledge by US students as examples
of literacy and standards. The committee stated, "the educational foundations of our
society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our ver>'
future as Nation and a people" (p. 5).
The educational problems became the focus of national attention during the 19808
and 1990s. The emphasis was shifted and the crisis was attributed to the decline of
standards and authority, which was thought to be linked to the erosion of US economic
superiority in the world (Sdovnik, Cooksoii, & Semel, 2001). The report of/I Nation at
Risk forced government leaders, educational reformers, teacher organizations,
administrators, and various other interest groups to attempt to improve the quality of US
schools. A larger number of studies of schools resulted from the 1983 report. Many of
these studies were qualitative and described the need to change schools drastically in
ways that are highly compatible with the finding of the effective schools research
Mterature.
Cuwently, the predicament of American education is that every public school
district is struggling to improve student achievement. The past several decades have
produced a great variety of broad proposals to raise the academic achievement of
elementary and high school students. Some proposals require for greater parent
involvement. Some seek to implement more school choice through the use of vouchers.
Some propose better teacher training and higher teacher salaries, a longer school year and
school day,, smaller schools and sra.aller classes, single-sex schools, and school unifomis.
More recently, a growing number of proposals focus on changes in school practices.
Increasing number of educators have proposed national and state tests as a means of
encouraging higher standards. At the same time many believe that in order to help
students learn, particularly those from low socioeconomic levels, it is best not to pressure
them to achieve on grade level (Chall, 2000).
14
It seems that politician, has his own solution when schools have problems. Some
of these politically driven refomis might help, but most of them failed to have any impact
in the classroom, Wilms (2003) points out that the problems are that those plans are little
more thjin symbolic political gestures designed to win the confidence of voters, and most
of them have little to do with the problem of how to improve the quality of teaching and
children's learning. Matters become worse because most reform.s are mandated by distant
legislatures and school boards without consulting teachers and administrators, tliose who
are closest to the scene of the action. Therefore, most teachers and administrators either
ignore the mandates or comply minimally. The phenomenon will continue to keep
teachers to work in isolation from one another, and administrators remain disconnected
from what goes on in the classroom. In addition, adversarial relationships between
teacher tmions and administrators continue to thwart most serious attempts to improve
what goes on in schools (Wilms, 2003).
American Educational (Cultural) Reform
By the time the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was brought to Congress for
consideration, many still wished to bring order out of seeming chaos in education. People
hoped to see the emergence of a consensus on what should be done to make schools more
effective. Apparently the hope was to legislate a simpler, more transparent understanding
of more rigorous scientific thought and methods would be instramental in improving the
perfonnance of schools (Owens, 2004). Owens (2004) found the following.
As dissatisiaction with public schooling has deepened over time, the search for
simple direct solutions has not borne fruit in the sense of an emerging broad
15
national consensus that points the way to effective school refoim, Instead, efforts
to improve the perft>nnaiice of schools have produced not widespread agreement
as to how to bring about improvement but a frustratingly broad array of very
different concepts, proposals, and programs some of wh ich are in conflict, (p. 9)
The 1980s and 1990s were the decades of significant debate and reform in U.S.
education. The educational movements of the 1980s and 1990s consisted of two waves of
movement (Barcharch, 1990; Passow, 1989) during those decades. The first wave of
reform began in 1983 and the second began in 1985, and continued through the end of the
1990s. In the 1980s, the major reform actors shifted from the federal to the state to the
local levels, hi 1990s, President Clinton's Goals 2000, placed the federal govenmient
back at the forefront of educational policy (Sdovnik, Cookson, & Semel, 2001).
According to Owens (2001; 2004), the so-called first wave of reform was an
initial reaction to the outpouring of critiques of schooling that began with the pubhcation
of A Nation at Risk in 1983. The movement was composed largely of an astonishing
increase in regulatory mandates imposed on the schools by the states. Those regulations
facilitated the reach of governmental bureaucracies directly into the classroom by, for
example, specifying what textbooks must be used, how many minutes should be devoted
to instruction, what teaching techniques should be applied, by establishing elaborate
systems of examinations and reportirig through, which compliance could be audited by
governmental agencies.
The first refonn movement mainly emphasized the issues of accountability and
achievement. To respond to the call for increased academic achievement, many states
increased graduatioo requirements, toughened cuniculum mandates, and increased the

use of standardized test scores to measure student achievement (Dougherty, 1990, p 3).
The wa:ve of refomi had taken teachers for granted and regarded them as low-level
functionaries of public hierarchical bureaucracies (Owens. 2001; 2004). It is obviously
that top-town reform became ineffective in dealing with the school's countless problems
from the mid to late 1980s. Although raising achievement standards for students and
implementing accountability measures for evaluating teachers had positive effects, many
including the National Governors Association believed that educational reform had to do
more than provide changes in evaluation procedures (Sdovnik, Cookson, & Semel, 2001).
In the 1990s, many thoughtllil observers were concerned that approaches with this
requisite detailed top-down bureaucratic administration of regularities were
counterproductive in two major ways. First, regulatory approaches were dnXang schools
to new heights of mindless rigidity that often failed to take into account the specific
individual educational needs of students and the specific circmnstances of the schools
that they attended. Heightening the bureaucratic control of schools, it was argued,
hampered teachers in making the professional judgments about the curriculum and
teaching. Decisions are best made not by the demanding from, some faceless distant
bureaucratic office but by highly qualified teachers, who in face to face interaction with
students can bring their professional insights to bear on the problem. Second, an
increasing body of research, made clear that teachershighly qualified and motivated to
do the best for their "client," namely the students--- were increasingly frustrated by their
growing inability to exercise their professional judgments in a school environment that
17
was becoming steadily bureaucratizeti. This was reflected in. the theo-growing evidence
of alienation and declining morale of the teachers who remained on the job (Owens, 2004,
p. 127-128).
School Cultural Transfornuition
"Cultural transformation refers to building cultural linkages between the vision
and goals of the school and, its teachers and students" (Weller and Weller, 2000, p. 11).
Weller (1998a) notes that cultural linkages are those traditions, values, attitudes, and
beliefs that are closely akin to the new vision and goals and those that are incorporated as
part of the school's new social characteristics. Some characteristics of leadership
behaviors that facilitate in transforming a school culture have been reported. Sergiovanni,
Burlingame, Coombs, & Thurston (1992) report that democratic leadership
characteristics, such as using teacher-teams in developing vision and goals, modeling,
reinforcing expected behaviors and holding high expectations for success, facilitate the
cultural transformation process. Several studies (Cunningham & Gresso, 1993; Weller,
Hartly, & Brown, 1994) suggest that effective transformation of .school culture requires
jointly developed visions and goals to ensure singular purpose and commitment. Time
and energy expended in shaping school culture provides the vested interest necessaiy for
success. Shared goveniance or teamwork is also a significant ingredient in cultural
transformation, Both shared governance and team work flows from initial teacher
involvement and allow teachers the latitude to develop school poHcies and practices
necessary to promote the new values antl beliefs of the school. New policies, consistent
18
with the new belief system, provide the infTastractiire for new norms, attitudes, traditions,
and behaviors essential for the acceptance of a, new culture (W'elier & Weller, 2000).
Welter and Weller suggest that school reform needs the transformation of school
cidture. Changes in structure are only technical, changes and cannot by themselves
significantly atJect school effectiveness, Cunningham and Gresso (1993) reported that
introducing new structures and conducting technical tampering can not singularly
transform schools into effective educational organizations. Only cultural change in
schools preceding structural changes will naturally evolve from and seive to reinforce the
new values, beliefs, and attitudes of the school.
Effective leadei-s transfon-ns the culture by bonding people's values, aspirations,
and ideals through the creation of a commonness that fosters mutual commitment and
allows for personal fulfillment. Allowing followers to take responsibility for their actions
and rewarding their achievements as they strive to attain new goals becomes central to
the leadership function (Etzioni, 1988). Weller and Weller (2000) suggest that
transformational leaders should energize their ibllowers by helping them align their needs
and expectations with those of the organization. Leaders provide clear direction and
support, and reward behaviors that solidify and perpetuate the values and beliefe of the
organization.
Statement of the Problem
Prior to the 1960's, most research done on the processes of teaching and learning
investigated such factors as lamily background, location of the community in which the
student lived, amount of money pro vided for education, and teacher and student
19
characteristics that were considered important. Relatively iittle research was done on the
school culture and classroom processes that related to student achievement. This type of
research culminated in the works of Coleniai) et al (1966) and Jencks (1972) who
reported that school tactors explained little of the variance in student learning; rather it
was home and community factors that were really important.
Recently, some researchers have shown impressive evidence for the impact of
school culture. Leslie Fyans, Jr, and Martin Maehr (1990) looked at the effects of five
dimensions of school culture: academic challenges, comparative achievement,
recognition for achievement, school community and perception of school goals. They
found that students are m.ore m,otivated to learn in schools with strong cultures. School
culture also correlated with teachers' attitudes toward their work. In a study that profiled
effective and ineffective organizational cultures, Yin Cheong Cheng (1993) found
stronger school cultures had better-motivated teachers, hi an environment with strong
organizational ideology, shai'ed participation, charismatic leadership and intimacy,
teachers experienced higher job satisfaction and increased productivity. Even with these
recent studies, there is still a great controversy on whether differences between school
cultures lead to vsignificant differences in student outcomes.
Purpose of the Study and Research Question
The purpose of this study was to investigate if various elements of school culture
are related to increased student academic achievements. The research question for this is,
"Does school culture impact student achievement on Math. Reading, and/or Writing?"
20
Hypotheses of Study
Null Hypothesis 1
Hq] ; The difference of student achievement in Math can not be explained

and predicted by the variance in one or more school culture factors of
Collaborative Leadership, Collegial Support, Teacher Collaboration, Unity
of Puqiose, Proiêssional Development, and Learning Partnership.
Null Hypothesis 2
Ho?.: The differences of student achievement in Reading can not be

explained and predicted by the variance in one or more school culture
factors of Collaborative Leadership, Collegial Support, Teacher
Collaboration, Unity of Purpose, Professional De velopment, and Learning
Partnership.
Null Hypothesis 3
H03: The difference of student achievement in Writing can not be

explained and predicted by the variance in one or more school culture
Collaboration, Unity of Puipose, Professional Development, and Learning
Partnership.
Assumptions for this Study

Several assumptions were made in the design of this study:
1. Participants were able to assess the culture of their schools, even though
the questionnaire required no personally identifying information.
21
2. It is possible that respondents may provide inaccurate or incorrect answers.
3. The perceptions of teachers' school culture can influence student
achievement on Math, Reading, and Writing (AIMS).
4. Using the same survey instrument to assess the school culture between
school levels will not misrepresent survey results.
5. The school culture survey can be used by administrators to improve school
culture.
Definitions of Terms
Collaborative Leadership. The degree to which school leaders establish
and maintain collaborative relationships with school staff. The leaders value
teachers' ideas, seek input, engage staff in decision-making, and trust the
professional judgment of the staff Leaders support and reward risk-taking and
innovative ideas designed to improve education for the students. Leaders
reinforce the sharing of ideas and effective practices among all staff (Gruenert,
1998, p. 98).
Teacher Colhihoration. The degree to which teachers engage in
constructive dialogue that fiuthers the educational vision of the school. Teachers
across the school plan together, observe and discuss teaching practices, evaluate
programs, and develop an awareness of the practices and programs of other
teachers (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Professional Development, The degree to which teachers value continuous
personal development and school-wide improvement. Teachers seek ideas from
22
seminars, colleagues, organizations, and other professional sources to maintain
current knowledge, particularly current knovvledge about instmetional practices
(Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Collegia! Support, The degree to which teachers work together effectively.
Teachers trust each other, value each other's ideas, and assist each other as they
work to accomplish the tasks of the school organization (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Unity of Purpose. The degree to which teachers work toward a common
mission for the school. Teachers understand, support, and perform, in accordance
with that mission (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
Learning Partnership. The purpose of this term is to measure the degree to
which teachers, parents, and students work together for the common good of the
student. Parents and teachers share common expectations and communicate
frequently about student performance. Parents trust teachers and students
generally accept responsibility for their schooling (Gruenert, 1998, p. 98).
School Effectiveness: The tenn refers to school academic achievement and school
non-academic achievement. Academic achievement includes standard tests such as
AMIS or Stanford Achievement Test. Non-achievement includes student attendance rate,
stalT stability, job satisfaction etc.
Student Achievement: The student achievement in this study refers to the scores
that students gain on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AMIS) in reading,
math, and writing on different school levels: 3"^ 8* and 10*'" grade.
23
Socioeconomic Status (SES): For the purpose of this study socioeconomic status
refers to the students at each school receiving tree and reduced hmches.
School Size: For the puipose of this study, the school size refers to the number of
student enrollment.
School Safety: Total number of incidents that occun*ed on the school grounds that
required the intervention of local, state or federal law enforcement.
24
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The conceptual framework of the section contains two main themes: theoretical
literature and empirical literature. The theoretical literature introduces (1) the definition
of culture, (2) the nature of organizational culture, (3) organizational culture formation,
(4) levels of organizational culture, (5) relationship between culture and climate, and (6)
positives and negatives of school cultures. The empirical literature includes the factors
that demonstrate how organizational behaviors or characteristics in school culture impact
student academic achievement. The school culture or school characters listed in the
empirical literature include (1) parental involvement, (2) parent socioeconomic status, (3)
teachers' attitudes and characteristics, (4) professional development, (5) principal
leadership behavior, (6) leadership studies, (7) small schools, and (8) class size.
Theoretical Literature: Organizational Culture
What is Culture?
Organizational culture has been defined by numerous researchers. Cultural
anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) found 164 different definitions of culture.
Ott (1989) summarized 58 books and articles that defined organizational culture
differently. The definitions range from the simple to the complex with no single
definition acceptable to all researchers. Although, in many respects, the culture of each
organization is unique, common ingi'edients in school cultures have been identified
(Lightfoot, 1983; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Sarason,, 1971).
Many definitions have been found in the literature. Some examples include;
organizational culture is the body of solutions to external and internal problems that has
25
worked consistently for a group and that: is therefore taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think about, and feel in relation to those problems {Scheiii, 1985,
pp. 19-20). "Cuhure can be defined as the shared philosophies, ideologies, values,
assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and norms that knit a community together"
(Kilmami, R. H., Saxto, M. J., & Serpa, R., 1985, p.5). Terrence Deal (1985, p. 301)
asserts "At the heart of most.. .definition, of culture is the concept of a learned pattern of
unconscious thought, refl,ected and re.inforced by behavior, that silently and powerfiilly
shapes the experience of a people." "Organizational culture is the rules of game; the
unseen meaning between the lines in the ru,lebook that insures unity" (Wilkins &
.Patterson, 1985, p.267).
Owens (2004) believes that culture represents the shared beliefs, norms, values, and
assumptions, and attitudes that telegraph what the organization stands for, its mission,
and its expectations. He concluded "Culture refers to the behavioral nomis, assumptions,
and beliefs of an organization, whereas climate refers to perceptions of person in the
organization that reflect those norms, assumptions, and beliefs." Weller and Weller (2000)
wrote that "culture is what the school's inhabitants traly believe and value, and it is
reinforced in the way they behave with regularity, both overtly and covertly. Culture is
the shared meanings and values that give a sense of community, direction, commitment,
and purpose to the organization" (p. 10).
Nature of Organizational Culture
Tbe concept of culture was used in the anthropology in the late 19th century, but
the anthropologists did not reach consensus on how it should be defined (Freytag, 1990),
26
Sathe (1983) stated "Different people think of different slices of reality wlien they talk
about culture" (p. 6). Thus the concept of organizational culture itself has not been well
defined by either researchers or practitioners. Early studies of anthropology were focused
on obser^âble behaviors exhibited by members of a society, which inciuded customs and
habits, but during the last decades most anthropologists who study culture have focused
more on the assumptions, values, and beliets that are used by a society's members to
interpret their experiences and to generate behaviors. These two methods have been
called "cultural adaptationist" and "ideational schools," and have influenced writers in
the field of organizational culture (Freytag, 1990).
The range of cultural definitions could be from very broad to very nanxiw. For
instances, Louis (1985, p. 126) simply stated that culture is "shared tacit knowledge,"
Schwartz and Davis (1981, p, 33) defined culture as "a pattern of beliefs and expectations
shared by the organizational members." Similarly, Cooke and Rousseau (1988, p. 245)
defined that culture is "shared beliefs and values guiding the thinking and behavioral
styles of organizational members." Wilkin (1983, p26) gives a broader definitions of
culture as "taken-for-grantcd and shai*ed assumptions that people make about how work
is to be done and evaluated and how people relate to one another. Wilkin also gave
ano ther definition; "Culture consists of the conclusions a group of people draws from its
experience. An organization's cuhure consists largely of what people believe about what
works and what does nof (Wilkin & Paterson, 1985, p. 267). Freytag (1990) concluded
that there are some commonalities in the definitions, and most writers based their
27
definition on shared assumptions, beliefs, or values that guide organization member's
behavior.
Other writers have also reported that components of culture include behavior,
values, and assumptions, which consists of distinct levels of ciilturc. Sdiein (1985)
divided culture into three levels: (a) Artifacts, such as art, technology, and behavior, (b)
values, which are group member's conceptions of what ought to be, and (c) assumptions
about reality. Similar to Sehein's concept, Sathe (1983) posited three levels of culture as;
organizational behavior pattenis, justifications of behavior, and the assumptions that
govern people's justifications and behavior. Freytag (1990, p.181) defined
"Organizational cultures a distinct and shared set of conscious and unconscious
assumptions and values that binds organizational members together and describes
appropriate patterns of behavior."
Organizational Cultural Formation
Freytag (1990) suggests that we should understand some obvious facts about
organizational characteristics before we can understand how organizational cultures form.
According to Freytag, the features of organization should include:
An organization exists in order fulfdJ the objectives, and these objectives

focus on the satisfaction of some need in the organization's environment.
Organizations consist of a group of people brought together to achieve these

objective,s.
The objectives must be such that they cannot be achieved by one person
acting alone.
28
Freytag (199()) demonstrates thsit these fects contain several irnpiications, and explains
each stage in how organizational culture is formed. First, the primary implication in
organizational cultural formation is that the behaviors of certain group members will be
interdependent, and the nature of dependencies will vary depending on the complexity of
the organization. Even in the small organizations, once particular jobs are defined with a
scope nanrower than achievement of the organizational objective itself, interdependencies
are created. Developing ways to handle these interdependencies presents the grist for
problems that all organijsations must face. Second, organizations must interact with their
environment. From the perspective of open-systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978), organizations
input raw materials and human resoiu'ces from their environments, engage in
t-ansformation, processes, and output the transfomied product or service to the
environment. To remain feasible, the organizations must produce the product or service to
fit the environmental needs. Thus, the organizations must interact with their environment
to obtain the infonuation about whether they are satisfying needs, and also they must
obtain human and material inputs. Developing ways to handle interactions with the
environment presents a second source of problems for organizations.
At the early stage of an organization's development, each problem, is new when
the organization encounters the external and internal environment. Therefore in order to
solve the problem, the organization must engage in some behaviors based on beliefs or
values that have been formed in other situations. If the solution is satisftictory, the
behavior is positively reinforced simultaneously with a. similar stimulus situation, and
more hkely to be repealed. During this formative stage, the beliefs and value of the
29
organizational leaders exercise the greatest influence on liow the problem is solved,
During the tinie of organizational development, the behaviors are still executed
consciously, but, over time, some of the behaviors begin to be executed unconsciously
(i.e. habits are foniied), and an assumption develops that when faced with, a particular
problem, situation that has been encountered in the past, a particulaj* behavior that has
been used in the past is still the most appropriate. The set of assumptions, both conscious
and unconscious, and values that are used to define appropriate responses to the many
problem situations that organization encounters become a central component of culture.
Freyta,g (1990) believes that organizational culture evolves over time naturally is
inherent in this statement of implication. One mechanism for cultural evolution is that
culture itself defines the response when new problem are encountered, and phenomenon
become an important feature for an organizational practitioner. This feature might be
positive so the direct managerial action is unnecessary to solve each problem. It may be
sometimes be negative when the behavior is not optimal, and the optimal solution is not
considered because of cultural constraints, or due to changes in the internal or external
environment. The organizational cultiue will be in jeopardy if the adaptations to
environmental changes cannot be made.
Levels of Organizational Culture
The organizational cultural fonnation mentioned previously is related to three levels
of organization. Edgar Schein (1992), a social psychologist who teaches at the Sloan
School of Management at M.I.T., claims that culture in organizations exists at three
levels: (a) artifacts, (b) espoused values, and (c) assumptions. They are regarded as a
30
comprehensive and theoretically useful model of organizational culture. Level one of
Schein's model is the most obvious, visible, and audible aspects of organizational culture.
These are artifacts such as tools, buildings, art, and technology, as well as patterns of
human behaviors. Because these artifacts are visible, they have been frequently studied
by using naturalistic field methods such as observation, interviews, and document
analysis. Therefore, to make sense of these artifacts and behaviors requires people to
decipher the meanings of the.se patterns (Owens, 2001; 2004). These patterns are not,
however, always easy to decipher. Within school environments, artifacts provide concrete
evidence of a culture. Examples are trophy cases, published mission statements, or the
way people greet strangers (Thompson, 1993).
Level two of Schein's model is concerned with the values and beliefs. Values are the
organizational member's sense of what ought to be. At this level, values are testable in
the physical environment and by obtaining social consensus. Values are the enshrined
solutions to organizational and human problems that arose in the past and were solved.
The solutions become beliefs and prescriptions: "You ought to do it this way. This is the
right way to do it." Espoused values are the things that individuals claim guide their
actions (Thompson, 1993). They are somewhat difficult to identify other than through an
interview or ob.servation of practice. Owens (2001; 2004) states that the values are
sometimes encoded in written language .such as in a mission statement, a statement of
philosophy, or credo. Documents such as these move us closer to understanding the basic
assumptions of the organizations of the organization but they merely reflect the basic
assumptions that are llie essence of the culture.
31
The final level of Schein's model is assumption, the foimclation of organizational
culture. Assumptions come Ixom values and are taken, for granted, invisible, and out of
consciousness. If individuals only see the two top levels of culture, they miss the most
iraportaot aspects, Schein (1985) aspects that "operate unconsciously, and that define in a
basic 'taken-for-granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment."
These ai-e basic unconscious beliefs about the relationships of individuals to the
environment; nature of reality, time, and space; the nature of human, nature; the nature of
human activity; and the nature of hixman relationships. The beliefs are so deeply
ingrained in us that we very rarely are conscious that they are beliefs. We generally
experience them as "truth" or "the way things are" (Thompson, 1993). Owens (2004)
agrees that these unseen assumptions form patterns but asserts that they remain implicit,
unconscious, and taken for granted, which the organizational members are unaware
miless they are called to the surface by some process of inquiry. One of the things we
take absolutely for granted is the existence of schools themselves, and the order of things
in schools.
32
School Culture and Climate
School climate. The terms culture and climate are both abstractions and many
people confuse the terms climate and culture, Luneiiburg and O.mstein (1996) define
school climates as "the environmental quality within the organization.. .and it may be
referred to as open, bustling, wann, easy-going, informal, cold, impersonal, hostile, rigid,
and closed" (p.74). School climate is part of school culture but does not encompass
school culture. School climate describes a. school's shared perceptions of its inhabitants,
its morale, and its attitude toward its function as an educational organization. Moreover,
climate is rooted in psychology whereas culture is rooted in history, sociology, and
anthropology.
Halpin and Croft (1963) refer to school climate as the quality of the euvironment.
The type of climate existing in a school includes elements such as the appearance of the
building, the maanerisms of the people, and the feelings individuals have about visiting
the school and tKmsacting business there. The climate of the school maybe warm and
pleasant or it may be hostile and unpleasant. Teachers, students, parents, and others may
be treated with dignity and respected as individuals, or they may be disrespected and
experience remarks that are in poor taste.
Eveiy individual can develops an intuitive sense that each school is distinctive and
unique in some almost indefinable powerful way by moving from school to school
Generally, chmate is defined as the characteristics of the total environment in a school
building, arid also is included in culture. According to Tagiuri (1968), organizational
culture is included in the total environment in an organization, that is, the organizational
33
climate. Renato Tagiuri (1968) asserted that the organizational climate is composed of
four dimensions and these four dimensions or subsystems are dynamically interrelated.
1. Ecology refers to physical and material factors in the organization. For
example, it includes the size, age. design, facilities, and the condition of the
building or buildings etc.
2. Milieu is the social dimension in the organization. This includes virtually
everything relating to the people in the organization.. For examples, race,
ethnicity, salary levels of teacher, socioeconomic levels of students,
education levels of the teachers, the moral and motivation of the adults and
students who inhabit in the school, level of job satisfaction, and a host of
other characteristics of the people in the organization.
3. Social system refers to the organizational and administrative stmcture of the
organization. It includes how the school organization, the way in which
decision made, and v/ho is involved in making them, communication patterns
among people, and so on.
4. Culture refers to the values, belief systems, norms, and ways o f thinking that
are characteristic of the people in the organization. For example, how people
do and behavior in, an organization.
School culture. Actually, the field of education lacks a clear and consistent
definition, of School Culture. The term has been used synonymously with a variety of
concepts, including "climate", "ethos" and "saga" (Deal, 1993). School culture has been
and can be defined in a number of ways. The concept of culture came to education from
34
the corporate workplace with the notion, that it would provide direction for a more
efficient and stable learning environment. Scholars have argued about the meaning of
culture fbr centuries. Noted anthropologist (3eertz (1973) has made a large contribution to
our current understanding of the term. For Geertz, culture represents a "historically
transmitted pattern of meaning". Those patterns of meaning are expressed both (explicitly)
through symbols and, (implicitly) in, our taken-for-granted beliefs.
,A review of the literature on school culture reveals much of Geertz's perspective.
Deal and Peterson (1990) note that the definition of culture includes deep patterns of
values, beliefs and traditions that have been tbrnied over the course of [the school's]
history. Heckraan (1993) .reminds us that school culture lies in the commonly held beliefs
of teachers, students and principals. These defi,nitions go beyond the business of creating
an efficient learning environment. They focus more on the core values necessary to teach
and intluence young minds.
Seifert and Vomberg (2002, p. 86) refer to school culture as "the interaction
among the following factors: attitudes and beliefs held by stakeholders inside and outside
the organization; cultural nontis of the school; and the relationships among individuals in
the school." School culture is composed of traditions, values, and beliefs that are held in
common by students, teachers, tmd, principals (Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 1999). Stolp and Smith (1994) define school culture as the historicallytransmitted patterns of meaning that include the norms, values, beliets, ceremonies,
rituals, traditions and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by rae.mbers of the
school coramuiiity. This system of meaning often shapes what people think and how they
act.
Relationship between Culture and Climate
The terra culture has a long hlstoi^f and the meaning of word has been discussed
for many years in a number of different fields, including anthropology, sociology, history,
English, and rhetoric. Stolp and Smith (1.995) summarize and make a distinct relationship
between culture and climate. Climate is the tenn typically used to describe people's
shared perceptions of the organization or work unit, where culture embrace not only how
people feel about their organization, but the assumptions, values, and beliefs that gives
the organization its identity and specify its standards for behavior. When discussing
climate, the focus is on, the impressions, feelings, and expectations held by members of
the school organization. These perceptions are aroused by the organization's structure
and settings, as well as by the social interactions among those who work and learn there.
Stolp and Smith (1995) used tvi/o circles to represent culture and climate. As
depicted in tigure 1, culture includes chmate, but climate does not encompass all aspects
of culture. The dimensions tor distinguishing between culture and climate can be
described as follows:
36
Figure 2.1. Dimemkm for distinguishmg between culture and climate.
School Culture /
1. Historical j
2. Internalized \
School Climate
1, Immediate
2. Surlace
Historical versus Immediate: Culture is a product of the history of relationship in

a school, whereas climate is defined by how people perceive those relationships in the
present. The comparison does not suggest that people's perceptions readily change Jrom
day to day.
Internalized versus Surface: Culture has to do with the value and assumptions
underlying behavior, where climate is ba.sed on people's perceptions of the behavior i tself
The underlying spoken words or the design of a school may not be easily detected,
whereas climate is the perception that people share about what is immediately visible,
Although this dimension is helpful, it is impossible to mark the boundaries between
school culture and climate with precision. The broken circle dividing culture and climate
37
ill the figure suggests that categories are not meant to be absolute or rigid. These
dimensions denote some unique qualities of climate and culture while still recognizing
their inseparable relationship. The lines are never definitive and the boundaries are not
represented by fine lines. Instead it is represented by tran^sitional shades of gray because
the climate emerges from, people's shared perception of culture. Deal (1993) states that
fomial definitions, though verifiable and rigorous, often fail to capture tJie robustness of a
concept as experienced by those that kno\ it first hand.
Positives and Negatives of Culture
All schools have cultures, and successful schools seem to have strong and
functional cultures aligned with a vision of quality schooling. Educators have recently
developed a much deeper understanding of school culture, and a deeper appreciation for
its importance in effective schools (Levine and Lezotte, 1990). Culture plays a major role
in school restructuring (Newmann and Associates, 1996) and school improvement efforts
(Fullan, 1998). Peterson (1998) believes that culture is the underground stream of norms,
vahies, beliefs, traditions, and rituals that builds up over time as people work together,
solve problems, and confront challenges. This set of informal expectations and values
shapes how people think, feel, and act in schools.
Culture inlluences the actions and the spirit of school life. It shapes a school's
motivation, commitment, effort, and focus. Sergiovanni (2001) found:
Culture senses as a compass setting to steer people in a common direction; it
provides a set of norms defining what people should, accomplish and how, and it
38
is a source of meaning, and it is a source of meaning and significance for teachers,
students, administrators, and others as they work. (p. 108)
He believes that once the culture is shaped and established in school, a strong
culture acts a powerful socializcr of thought and programmer of behavior. The shaping
and establishment of such a culture was not just happened suddenly, Instead they are a
negotiated product of the shared sentiments of school participants.
Although school culture inspires educators to learn and grow, to take risks, and to
work collegially, unfortunately sctiool cuhure can also contain negative attitudes and
beliefs that come from different sources. For example, if the staff development activities
were poorly conceived in the past and did not address teacher needs, the staff members
may see staff development, or any e ffort to improve teaching, as a waste of time. School
members might feel that their students can't learn after the school had struggled
academically for a long time. The belief that "nobody can teach these kids'" might have
long existed in the minds of the staff members. Some schools develop "toxic" cultures,
which actively discourage efforts to improve teaching or student achievement. In these
schools the spirit and focus are fractured and often hostile, the value of serving students is
replaced by die goal of serving self, a sense of helplessness and despair predominates,
and professional growth is not a prized activity (Deal and, Peterson, 1998), Staff members
resist reform, publicly ridiculing those who want to try new things. A toxic culture can
destroy motivation, dampen commitment, depress effort, and change the focus of the
school It can decrease learning, frustrate growth, stymie risk taking, and foster radical
individualism rather than collegiality (Peterson, 1999).
39
Empirical Literature: School Factors Related to Student Acbievement
Introduction: Organizational Behaviors
Organization is "a system of two or more people, engaged in cooperative action,
trying to reach an agreed-upon purpose. Organizations are bound systems of structured
social interactions featuring the use of incentives, communication systems, and authority"
(Sirns, 2002, p. I ), Sims defines organizational behavior as the body of knowledge
derived from the study of these actions and attitudes. Understanding organizational
behavior helps individuals to identify school problems, determine how to correct them,
and establish whether the changes would make a difference. Such knowledge can allow
organizational participants to better understand situations they face in the workplace and
change their behavior so their pertbmiance and the organization's etfectiveness increases.
According to Sims, organizational behavior includes a collection of separate theories and
models, ways of thinking about particular people and events. To appreciate behavior in
organizations, researchers and specialists in organizational behavior cannot only focus on
individuals acting because people frequently work together in groups or in teams in
organizational settings. Therefore, organizational behavior should include three distinct
levels of analysis: individuals, groups, and organizations (Sims, 2002).
Functioning as any other social organization, a school is like a world where
people live and work together. The school world has power, structure, logic, and values,
which combine to exert strong influence on the ways in which individuals perceive the
world, interpret it, and respond to it (Owen,s, 2004). Therefore, Owens (2004) concludes;
40
The behavior of people at work in an educational orgaiiizatioii'--" 'in
as
well as a groupis not merely a reflection of their idiosyncratic persotialities but

is influenced, if not defined,, by the social norms and expectation of culture that
prevail in the organization. This inteiplay between individuals and the social
environment of their world of work is power&l in giving rise to organizational
behavior, which means the behavior of people in the school organization, (p. 2)
Owens {2004) suggests that individuals who would be educational leaders should
be able to find the essentials of organizational behavior, which are essential in deciding
what to do as they engage in the practice of leadership. The reason is that leaders will
encounter many people in their professional practice whose understanding of
organizational behavior will be at a different stage of development from their own. In this
growing and developing field, it is important that people not merely understand and
internalize their commitment to certain principles and practices of organizational
behavior, but also understand why some may disagree with them and doubt their practical
usefulness in the harsh realities of the embattled US schools. As any practitioner
spending time in schools knows, cultural differences are real and directly influence the
quality of the work life. Empirical validations of common cultural features in school
organizations may better infomi the cun-ent efforts and help reduce educational faddism.
The primary puqiose of empirical literature is used to demonstrate how school cultural
behavior differences are related to student academic achievement.
41
Parental Involvement
Downey (2002) mentions that Jiiost research on, the field of parental involvement
in cbildren's education, includes; (a) the effects of parental interaction and involvement in
the school, and (b) the impact of parental involvement at home.
Interaction with teachers. There are several reasons for us to believe that a good
parent-teacher relationship contributes to children's school performance. "When parents
communicate constructively with teachers and participate in school activities, they gain a
clearer understanding of what is expected of their children at school and they may learn,
from teachers h o w to work at h o m e to enhance their children's education" ( I z z o ,
Weissberg, Kasprow, & Fendrich, 1999, p. 820). When parents attend parent/teacher
conferences, it creates continuity between the domin,ant spheres of influence in the
children's life, home and school (Epstein & Lee, 1995), and Hkely signals to children the
parents' value for them. Some agi-ee that children learn more when they receive
consistent messages fi*om home and school (Epstein, 1987). Epstein (1996) writes that the
"main reason ... for better communications a,nd exchanges am,ong schools, families, and
community groups is to assist students at all grade levels to succeed in school and in
life"(p. 5). Stevenson and Backer (1987) report the evidence that children's school
perform,ance is enhanced by a strong parent-teacher relationship. Grolnick and
Slowiaczek (1987) studied 300 eleven-fourteen year- olds and found a strong association
between teachers reported grades and parental involvement (the frequency of attendance
at parent-teacher conferences, open school night, and school activities and events).
42
Several studies report the opposite pattern: an inverse relationship between
parent/school contact and children's school success. Desiraoiie (1999) analysed the
National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) with a nationally representative sample
of nearly 25,000 eighth graders collected in 1988, and he toimd negative associations
between parents' contact with the school regarding academic matters and students math
and reading test scores and grades. Rigsby, Stull and Môrse-Kelly (1995) suggest that
one reason for this puzzling pattern is that parents might become involved with
adolescents' schooling when their children experience either behavioral problems or poor
grades.
Moses et al. (1989) report: the results of an intervention program with parents for
things such as; being a project leader, attending informational meetings, participating in
workshops, and acting as voluntary classroom helpers. He found that tlie children
demonstrated a marked increase in math perfonnance compared to the achievement of
students who attended the inter\'ention program without parental involvement.
School level parental involvement. Students may gain some benefits from their
parents' involvement at schools, but do they fare better by merely attending a school
where many other parents are highly involved? People might think that children benefit
from school-level parental involvement because it promotes infomiation sharing and
greater normative control over children's behavior. Coleman (1990) described this as
"social closure." Carbonaro (1999) found that social closure was related to better
performance on mathematics test scores and a decrease in the probability of dropping out,
but had no effect on reading test scores or grades. Other researchers analyzed the same
43
data and found that social closure was associated with lower math test scores (Morgan &
Sorenseii, 1999).
Sui-Chu and Willms (1996) analyzed NELS data and concluded that while
schools did differ in the level of involvement associated with parental volunteers or
attendance at parent-teacher conferences, school-level parental involvement plays only a
very small role In explaining students' math and reading test scores. They concluded that
while schools vary in the degree to which parents are involved in school activities,
relatively few schools have a strong influence in shaping the learning climate at home,
the dimension of parental i nvolvement most closely related to students' schoo l success.
Intervention studies also shows little evidence that school-level parental
involvement has any significant impact on students' school performance. Desimone,
Fimi-Stevenson and Henrich (2000) used a CoZi model of intervention plan to study the
effects on students' school achievement. The CoZi intervention model includes: (a)
parent and teacher participation in school-based decision making that is gi'ounded in child
development principles; (h) parent outreach and education begiiming at the birth of the
child; (c) child care for preschoolers and before- and after-school care for kindergarten
tlirougli sixth graders; and (d) parent involvement programs. In an evaluation of
comparing one CoZi school and one non-CoZi school, the CoZi school had better school
climate and parental involvement than the non-CoZi school, but parentchildren
interactions and children's level of achievement were not improved. It is possible that the
children experienced no improvements in school perfonnance because the intervention of
CoZi program was only in eflct for one year.
44
Current studies suggest that parental involvement in children's' schools via
attending parent-teacher conferences, contacting school officials, attending school events,
and developing a close-knit commimity where many parents know each other, probably
has modest positive effects on children's school perferrmance. If parents are serious about
helping their children do well in school, improving their relationship with teachers and
involvement in school activities are worthy goals.
Parental involvement at home. What parents do at home plays an important role
in shaping children's school-related skills. A lotigitudinal study (West, Denton, &
Gennino-Hausken, 2000) of early childhood on America's kindergartners. The findings
from the longitudinal study sliowed that eighteen percent of children entering
kindergarten in the U.S in the fall of 1998 did not know that print reads from left to right,
where to go when the print ends, or where the story ends in the book, but a small
percentage of children could already read words in context. The expectation that parents
have for their children is also related to children's school performance. Children with
parents who hope and expect thern to do well are more likely to do well in school than
their counterparts with parents who do not have high educational expectations for their
children (Milne, Myers, Rosenthal, & Ginsburg, 1986).
Other empirical studies show that parenting styles also affect students' school
achievement, A study was found association between the parents' style of interaction
(reported by the students) and student's grades that persisted despite stati.<5tical controls
for parent's education, race, family structure, and the children's sex (Dombusch, Ritter,
Leiderman, Roerts, & Fraleigh, 1987). Students describing their parents as employing an
45
authoritative style perfomied best in school, while students with authoritarian and
permissive parents were more likely to have lower school grades.
Hart and Risely (1992) studied forty families over a two and a half year period,
and found several dimensions of parenting style that were related to the child's
subsequent perfbmiance on IQ tests. They concluded that three primary dimensions of
parenting are what matter; (a) the absolute amount of parenting per hour, (b) parents'
social interaction with the children, and (3) the quality of speech to the child, Clark (1983)
studied ten African-American children, half of them were successful academically and
half of them were not. Clark reported that parents of high-achieving students have a
distinct style of interacting with their children. They created emotionally supportive home
environment and provided reassurance when the children encountered failure.
Parent's Socioeconomic Status
Many poor insufficient parental practices are highly conrelated with
socioeconomic status, and one of the reasons children from disadvantaged backgrounds
do less well in school than their more advantaged counterparts is because their parents'
interaction style did not prepare them for school. Some researchers (Stevenson & Baker,
1987) report that the typically positive effects of socioeconomics are mediated entirely by
parenting practices, but it is difficult to discern precisely how parenting styles and
socioeconomic status are related. Kohn (1969) argued that parents' style of interaction
with their children is influenced by parents' occupation. For example, parents who work
in jobs with little autonomy and are rewarded for adherence to external standards, tend to
parent in ways that prepare their children for success in these same kind of jobs. Kohn
46
(1969) found tbat working class parents put more empliasis on obedience than did
middle-class parents. In contrast, parents in occupations that allow for m,o.re sell'determiiied activities and decision-making tend to promote their children's skills for
assuming these kinds of middle-class occiipation.s. Middle class parents use a less
punitive style of discipline and put greater emphasis on developing children's internal
controls.
Types of parent occupations are also related to how parents interact with teachers
and school officials. Lareau (1987) found that teachers made active efforts on
parent/teacher relationships to involve working-class and middle-class parents, but low
income parents were less involved. Working class parents were less likely to attend
parent-teacher conferences because the costs of attending were greater for working class
parents tiian middle-class parents. Working class parents may find it hard to obtain
transportation, secure child care, and rearrange work schedules. Working class parents
also were likely to have a view that it is the school's job to educate their children. Lareau
(1987) writes "Working-class culture ... promotes independence between the spheres of
family life and schooling" (p. 82). Middle-class parents were more likely to think that
children's education as part of their responsibility. Middle-class parents were less
comfortable interacting with teachers because they reported feeling unqualified to discuss
academic problems. When they have contact with teachers or schools, working-class
parents often discussed non-academic issues such as bus schedules or playground
activities. Low-income parents experience greater financial stress and health-related
problems than other parents. Both of these keep them iTom developing consistent routines.
47
Children perform belter in school when their learning is not compromised by hunger,
distracting physical ailments, lack of adequate sleep, unattended visual limitations, or
other health related problems.
Teacher Attitude and Characteristics
An old saying, "you reap what you sow" has remained current for centuries and
teachers are not exempt. "The nature of the dynamic of social interaction in the classroom
is driven by the attitude of the teacher" (Coleman, 2001, p. 94). If teachers lack
enthusiasm, the students will be equally unenthusiastic. If teachers are sarcastic, students
will respond in kind. In general, teachers who are enthusiastic about the teaching, are
personable, and caring will encourage the same traits in their students. Teachers with
positive attitudes make a concerted effort to create a positive learning environment for
their students. Glass (2002) believes that characteristics can include qualities of teachers
that are viewed as personalsuch as mental ability, age, ethnicity, gender and the like
or as experientialsuch as certification status, educational background, previous
teaching experience and the like. Some characteristics are combinations of personal and
experiential qualities. The term "teacher characteristics" does not generally refer to the
direct observation of their impact on student's leamiug in tenns of either students' test
perfonnance or teaching behavior. Some of the empirical evidence shows that teacher
characteristics could improve students' measured achievement.
Teacher's expectation. Will students perfomi up to the level of expectation that
teachers hold? This was answered clearly in the Rosenthal (1973) study. One hundred
U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatoiy School airmen were randomly assigned to five math
48
classes. When teachers were told the students assigned to their class were high achievers,
they treated them accordingly, and student perforaiance was commensurate with the
expectation, Conversely, when teachers were told the students assigned to their class
were low achievers, they treated them as sitch and once again, student performance was
commensurate with the level of expectation (Rosenthal, 1973).
Teachers send messages to students via tone of voice, body language, and offering
encouragement or criticism that affect student performance. The Rosenthal (1973) study
clearly demonstrates the power of perception. Students wi th high ability perform at a
lower level when teachers were told they were low ability students and vice versa.
A student who has been labeled a disciplinary problem in one teacher's classroom
may be perceived as such by other teachers who have had no prior personal experience
with the student. Teachers m.ay be unconsciously less patient and tolerant in dealing with
students that have been labeled, Sometimes, these students will live up to their reputation
because they feel it is expected. If students sense that teachers are less tolerant or patient,
the students may act out as a result of faistration and resentment of being singled out
(Coleman, 2001).
Teachers also have unconsciously stereotypical perceptions on various ethnic
groups. This perception may direct the nature of interaction and expectations teachers
hold for certain ethnic groups (Kuykendall, 1992). Some examples of these stereotypes
might be that Asian students are good in math and science and are quiet and obedient;
African American students do not do well in math and science and are hyperactive and
American hidian students are not very competitive.
49
Academic preparation. Druva and Anderson (1983) suggest that there is a modest
relationship between, teachers' college course work: in the subject area in which they
subsequently teach and their students' achievement. Monk (1994) studied and analyzed
data front 3000 high school students from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth.
Monk coffdated teacher characteristics with student achievement, taking into account
student's earlier achievement, background characteristics, and teachers' inputs. The
greater the number of college-level mathematics or science courses the teachers has taken,
the better their students did on the mathematics and science tests. Goklhaber and Brewer
(1996) found a similar relationship in a secondary analysis of more than five thousand
high school sophomores and their teachers. The results indicate that college level math
courses taken by teachers was the only variable that accounted for any appreciable
variation in students' achievement.
Certification, Darling-Hammond (1997, p. 308) wrote "reviews of research over
the past thirty years, summarizing hundreds of studies, have concluded that even with the
shortcomings of current teacher education and hcensing, fully prepared and certified
teaches are ... more successfiil with students than teachers without this preparation."
Ashton (1996) noted that teachers with regular state certification receive higher
supervisor ratings and student achievement than teachers who do not meet standards, but
this observation was based on data with virtually no statistical controls being imposed.
Laczko and F3erliner (2001) researched the impact of certification status on student
achievement in two large urban school districts. They analyzed the information about the
teachers hired fbr the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. This information included
the school where they were currently leaching, the grade levels^ the teacher's certification
statuvs, highest degree earned, date and attended institution where it was achieved, age,
and number ot'years of teaching experience. Teachers were eliminated from the sample if
they taught any subject that was not included in Stanford Nine achievement battery.
Laczko and Berliner found that in the 1998-1999 school year, students taught by certified
teachers outscored their counte:rpar(.s taught by uncertitied teachers in reading, language,
and math.
Reitzug (2002) points out that school staff development includes four different
types. First, training is a traditional tbrm and includes workshops, presentations, and
other types of in-service. Training tyjjically includes a direct instraction/lecture
component, skill demonstration and modeling, and simulated skill practice, and
workplace coaching and consultation. Opportunities to learn that are embedded in the
work settings is the second form. Third, networks are collections of educators trom
across different schools that interact regularly to discuss and share practices around a
particular focus or philosophy of schooling. Professional development is the fourth.
School professional development can be completed through active involvement of
university faculty in, the school, fomial professional development experiences, and
through school-based collaborative research.
Historically staff development practice has been limited, fragmented, one-shot or
short term and pre-packaged. It occurred on the margins and focused on training verse
problem solving (Little, 1993). Most educators participate in a very limited amount of
51
staff development. Tliey migl-it attend one or two days of workshop or staff developnient
during a year days as well as participate in their school district's one or two annual staff
developnient days, Most of them are unconticcted and do not match the needs of each
school.
Sparks (1995) believes that staff development should consist of a broad range of
process and activities that contribute to the learning of educators, but most educators have
a narrow conception of staff development with only workshops and in-services. Guskey
(2000) thinks that professional development is a process and activities designed to
enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Developing teacher knowledge
and skills is more than acquiring existing skills and knowledge. It also includes enabhng
teachers to reflect critically on their practice and fashion new knowledge and beliefs
about content, pedagogy, and learners (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). "In
order to change practice in significant and worthwhile ways, teachers must not only leam
new subject matter and new instructional techniques, but they must alter their beliefs and
conceptions of practice, their theories of action" (Smyhe, 1995) (p. 93). Guskey (1986)
argues that tlie impact of professional development on student achievement should not be
hmited to an examination of only standardized test scores.
Although there are great deal of articles related to professional development. The
empirical literature on the topic is much less extensive. Du.e to a variety of confbimding
variables, it is difficnlt to establish a direct relationship between professional
development activities, improvement in teaching, and increases in student achievement
(Mullens, et aL, 1996). The executive directors of the National Staff Development
52
Council, Sparks and Hirsii (2000) note that "a growing body of research show that
improving teacher knowledge arid teaching skills is essential to raising student
performance. Ferguson (1991) found that teacher expertise accounted for 40% of the
difference in student achievement in reading and math. Armour et at. (1989) found that
differences in teacher qualifications accounted for more than 90% of the variance in
student achievement in a large urban district. Reitaig (2002) believes tliat the relationship
between professional development and student achievement is a function of both, the
quality of the professional development processes and activities, and the efficacy of the
substance of the professional development. That is, professional development can
improve student achievement only to the extent to which its content Ixicus can do so.
Shymanksy, Yore, and Anderson (1999) provide an illustrative example. They .studied the
impact of a high quality science professional development program on teaching practice
and student achievement. When the teachers were provided to change fheir teaching to
more regularly use the methods and objectives the professional development program
advocated, the student achievement in science did not improve subsequent to the
professional development initiative. This study suggests that it is not professional
development processes and activities alone that influence student's achievement. Rather
it is the content and methods being advocated in the professional development program in
combination with the quality of the professional development processes and activities
that influence student achievement. An alternative explanation may be that the student
achievement assessment strategy that was used may not have been congruent with the
content a:nd methods being advocated in the staff development program (Reitzug, 2002).
53
Several researchers (Statistic, 199S; Cohen & Hill, 1998) have demonstrated that
professional development definitely makes a difference in the quality of teaching in
schools and in the achievetnent of students. According to a survey from the National
Center for Education Statistics (199S), two-thirds of teachers report that professional
development activities have caused them to change their teaching. A second national
survey from the National Center for Education Statistics (1998) found that teachers who
participated in professional development {cused on standards were more likely to
describe teaching in ways consistent with the standards than teachers who did not
participate in the professional development. Cohen, and Hill (1998) assert that
professional development that was care&lly focused on particular objectives resulted in
more teaching practices consistent with the objectives. They found the giêater the amount
of professional development, the more practice was influenced. Other studies (Adey,
1997; Adey & Shayer, 1993; 1994; Shayer & Adey, 1996) report a significant coiTelation
between teachers' level of use of the strategies promoted by the professional development
effort and student's cognitive gain. Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine (1996) found that
there is a greater increase in student achievement for money spent on professional
development than for money spent on reducing class size or raising teachers' salaries.
Principal's Impact on Student Achievement
It is difficult to track the linkages between principals' leadership behavior and
student outcomes. The assertion that principals make a difference in student achievement
can be supported by theory and experience, but less clear to researchers and practitioners
of educational administration is exactly how or precisely in what ways principals affect
54
student learning. According to the review of literature, Hart and Bredeson (1996)
affraned that the behaviors, beliefs, and symbolic leadership of principals have both
direct and indirect impact on student learning. Kleine-Kracht (1993) claim that the
direction instructional leadership is hands-on and fece to face activities such as the
"immediate interactions of principals with teachers and other about the classrooms,
teaching, student performance, and curricula" (p. 188). In contrast, indirect instructionEil
leadership is invisible to others because either they are unaware of what constitutes
instructional leadership or they fail to see the connections between various activities and
teaching and learning. "Indirect instructional leadership activities are behaviors that deal
with the school's internal and external environment, the physical and cultural context
sun'ounding the classroom, teaching, and curricula, and the meanings that principals'
actions have for teachers" (p. 189).
Direct impacts. Principals directly influence student achievement througli
teaching, coaching, and modeling, and also influence students directly by their behaviors
that students observe. Principals' most direct intluence on individual students comes from
their personal contact with students througli occasional teaching and coaching, and
tlirough modeling of particular behaviors in their daily work. However, principals are
administrators not full-time teachers and coaches. Their ability to interact with students
on any given day is limited, although "direct activity is potentially more eflective than
indirect activity because it takes into account individual differences among teachers and
students" (Mur|)hy & Hallinger, 1988, p. 221). Under this circumstance, the direct
influence is a less efficient use of principals' efforts than more indirect methods because
of the naiTowness of scope and actual number of individual .students that a princifial can
work with on any given day.
Thus, principals engage in instmctional leadership and supenisory activities that
are more likely to have broad and lasting effects in the teaching-learning activity in
schools. These activities include classroom activity, school events, providing feedback to
students, working on curriculum with teachers, coordinating teaching-learning activities,
troubling-shooting, facilitating instructional deliveiy, participating on niultidisciphnary
teams to develop individual educational plans for students, working with teachers to use
student test data to improve their cumculum and instruction, and helping to select
instmctional materials instructional (Hart & Bredeson, 1996, p. 214).
Indirect impact. Miiny educators and scholars insist that all principal effects are
indirect because they argue that a principars influence on student outcome is mediated
through factors within and outside of the school environment. Bossert (1982) and others
indicate that principals' behavior has a direct impact on two school-level factorsschool
climate and instructional organization, and principals can indirectly influence students
achievement by positively affecting these factors. Duke (1987) proclaims that principals
"do not exercise direct control over the teaching-learning process" (p. 25). Duke points
out that principals employ their administrative skills by coordinating and troubleshooting
in four key areasstaff development, resource allocation, institutional support, and
quality control-to affect student achievement positively. Murphy and Hallinger (1988)
identified principals' work in policy development, monitoring of student progress, and
enforcement of policies and practices as indirect instructional management activities.
Through this indirect activity, the principal can influence the work
structure within which the staffs perfonn. Indirect principai activity is
advantageous in that it does not require constant supervision and therefore
consumes less of the principal's time. The major disadvantage in indirect
activity is that effectiveness of policy implementation in the absence of
direct supervision requires teacher commitment to the policies. Such a
consensus is often difficult to achieve, (p. 220)
liecfc, Larsen, and Marcoulides (1990) poist that "the principal may influence schoolstudent achievement through matmging the political the political relationship of the
school to its environment, supervising the school's instructional organization and
building a positive climate for learning" (p. 101). Firestone and Wilson (1985) describe
how principals work through bureaucratic and cultural linkages that govern teacher
behavior to influence student outcomes. Peterson (1989) describes principals as
instructional leaders who employ technical and cultural dimensions of schools to
positively influence teacher work and student learning. Keline-Kracht (1993) provides a
description of one high school principal who uses a variety of indirect instractional
leadership strategies and existing school stractures to influence teaching and learning.
Thus, in choosing to exert primarily an indirect influence on instruction,
the principal of North High School was faced with several significant
decisions. He has to select qualified and credible individuals to provide
direct instructional leadership. He had to allow these individuals to
exercise their responsibilities with genuine authority. He had to possess a
57
clear understanding of the school's purpose concrete in his decisions.
Finally, he had to encourage experimentation and innovation, (p. 210)
In, conclusion, principals have direct and indirect influences on student learning outcomes
in their schools. A principal's daily managerial responsibilities limit opportunities for
direct infl uence, thus, indirect sources of influence promise to complement direct
instructional leadership activities. When direct and indirect instructional leadership
behaviors are congruent with shared beliefs about student learning and with norms of
high expectations for indi vidual learning, they combine to create a powerful instructional
leadership strategy.
Leadership Behavior Studies
Behavior theorists attempt to determine what effecti ve leaders do by identifying
both behavior of leaders and the effects that leaders behavior has on subordinate
productivity and work satisfaction. Studies of leader behavior at the University of Iowa
(White & Lippitt, 1990) examined the outcomes on subordinate attitudes and productivity
when applied with varied leadership style, hi this study, the leaders were trained to
demonstrate three leading styles: democratic, authoritarian, and laissez-fair. Those
leaders demonstrated the behaviors consistently with the each leadership style from
complete control to near-complete freedom of choice. White and Lippitt found that
democratic leadership style was prefe:n-ed by workers. The democratic leading style
creates more grotip-mindedness, friendliness, and efficiency. Under authoritarian
leadership style, subordinates demonstrated aggressive or apathetic behavior in response
to authoritarian leaders. The Iowa study has been criticized but it is still considered a
classic research effort on the effects of leadership style on subordinates' attitudes and
productivity.
The Ohio State University also carried out a seminal leadership study. Two
dimensions were identified in this study: consideration and the ability to initiate structure
(Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Consideration refers to the expression of trust, respect, warmth,
support, and concern for subordinates' welfare. The capacity to develop initiating
structure refers to the leaders' attention to organizational goals, the tasks of organization
and assignments, the delineation of superior-subordinate relationships, and the evaluation
of task performance (I.unenburg & Ornstein, 1991). The Ohio leadership studies
fonnulate a two-dimensional model, and identify four leadership behaviors: (a) low
structure, high consideration, (b) higli stincture, low consideration, (c) low stracture, low
consideration, mid (d) high structwe, high consideration.
Figure 2.2. Dimensions of leadership.
Higli
Low Stiiictwre
sWCl
Hiili Coftsidcraiion
High Sttiicaire
Higli C
54e.catiim
IS
nee
U\ti
L&w Cktmkki'sttcti
Low Ci'-fj.kh.tttkm
i
Low
;i:.a 5 ti}i-' ffitcmsrt"
Ki-sh
59
Correlations were established between two items: initiating structures and
consideration, and subordinate woi:k satisfaction and perfooMance or productivity as
dero,oristrated by leaders' behavior. Subordinates satisfaction and productivity may be
improved by leaders who demonstrate high initiating and high consideration behavior
(Lunenbiirg & Omstein, 1991). Another study of leadership was completed at the
University of Michigan, which was attempted to identify the relationships among leader
behavior, group processes, and group performance. This study demonstrated three
leadership styles; (a) task-oriented behavior, (b) relationship-oriented behavior, and (d)
participative leadership (IJkert, 1961). Pre!iminary research indicated that productive
work groups have leaders who are relationship oriented rather than task-oriented.
Hôwever, some subsequent research has concluded that effective leaders should be both
relationship-oriented and task-oriented.
Likert's (1961) study also divides leadership into four styles: (a) exploitative
authoritative, (b) benevolent authoritative, (c) consultative, and (d) participative.
Figure 2.3 Leadership styles with degree of tnist.

Exploitative
Authoritative
Low
Benevolent
Authoritative
Consultative
Participative
(Democratic)
High
Degree of Trust
Likert suggests that leaders who utilize participative decision procedures are more
effective. If the leaders applied, consultative and participative leadership styles in
60
organizational situations, there was more evitience of trust, collaborative goals setting,
bottom-up comimmicatioii, and supportive leadership. If exploitative authoritative or
benevolent authoritative leadership was utilized, organizations were characterized by
threats, fear, punishment, top-down communication, and centralized decision making and
control. These characteristics were used to elicit subordinate confonnity to organizational
goals and productivity standards. Likert's continimm of leadership model is still refeited
to frequently by leadership analysts because it provides systematic understanding of
concepts that can often be applied to cross-organizational studies (Razik & Swnson,
2001). In an attempt to identify one leadership style that is optimal in all circumstances,
various studies on theories of universal leadership (Black & Mouton, 1981, Likert, 1961;
1967) concluded that effective leaders are supportive and task oriented,
Small Schools
The first challenge is to define small schools because school size varies
substantially from state to state. According to the hterature, Howley (2002) concludes
that in general one can think of high schools enrolling 400 or fewer aiid K-8 or K-6
elementary schools enrolling 200 or fewer as small The related positions taken in statelevel policies are very wide, and there is no solid justification among the literatures. In
cities and suburbs, small schools have recently become a refomi movement (Fine &
Somerville, 1998). Rural communities struggle to maintain small schools in the fece of
states' attempts to close them to consolidate several schools into a larger school (Meier,
1995).
61
From the review of literature, there are fcAv large-scale studies that have addressed
the issue of school size and student achievement. Lee and Smith (1997) created eight
high school size categorizes. Their research is based exclusively on data from the
National Center for Education Statistics' National Educational longitudinal Study of 1998
(NELS: 88), The study analyzed the individual achievement gains of students over the
course of their time in high school Lee and Smith compared between school sizes. He
found out that students attending high schools of 601-900 students and 901-1200 students
showed higlier achievement gains than those in schools enrolling of 1201-1500 students.
Students attending schools in the category of 301-600 students perfomied somewhat
better in reading and somewhat worse in mathematics than those in higli schools of 12011500 students. Students attending in higli schools of students enrolling fewer than 300
students performed significantly worse. Lee and Smith conclude that an ideal school size
of 600-900 students was the best equity and excellence compromise. Their
reconunendation for policy makers includes;
1. Many high school should be smaller than they are;
2. High schools can be too small;
3. Ideal size does not vary by type of student enrolled (i.e., low-SES or
minority); and
4. size is more important in some types of schools, because disadvantaged
studerit,s suffer disproportionate achievement costs in ver>' large or very
small schools.
62
The line of evidence of supporting small school has been under development since the
early 1980's. Investigations included a variety of influential vjmables such as
socioeconomic status (SES) measures, expenditures, class size, teacher characteristics,
and various measures of school and district size (Fowler & Walberg, 1991; Walberg
&Walberg, 1994). With SES controlled, the Walberg study focused on the influence of
school and district size by using data sets from New Jersey. Fowler and Walberg (1991)
report that the intluence of district size was several times as great as school size, and the
significance of their study is that it identified school and district size as a negative
influence on achievement. The research establishes the possibility that smaller schools
and districts were academically advantageous regardless of SES.
According to the investigation of a series of state-level replication studies, the
studies from Howley (1999; 1999) and Bickel (1999; 1999) show that in affluent settings,
the influence of school size is positively correlated with student achievement at the
school and district level as measured with state-maidated tests, but in impoverished
settings, the influence is negative. In other word, larger schools are academically
beneficial in affluent communities, but they are barmful in, impoverished communities.
Howley (2002, p. 59) refers to this phenomenon as "producing a different excellence
effect." He explains that "this concept of different excellence effect indicates that the
differences in achievement level are associated with the interaction of SES and size" (p.
75)." This study shows that the effect of size is not constant, but changeable, depending
on SES. The strength of the differential excellence effects also varied markedly from
state to state. For instance, predominately rural Montana maintains many small schools.
63
The state data were weaker on differential excellence effects, and higher achievement
equity compared to other states. The concept of achieveineiit equity refers to the
comparative strength of the relationship between SES and achievement. A strong
relationship is inequitable, and a weak relationship is equitable. Evidence of the
differential excellence effect of school size was strong in California, Georgia, Ohio, West
Virginia, and Texas.
Class Size
The impact of class size on educational outcomes is among the most researched
areas in education. There have been more than two hundred studies since the 1980s,
flowever, some of the early studies did not establish a connection between smaller class
size and student achievement, but mainly attempted to weigh the value of small classes
against larger classes. Other studies suffered from problems of met hodology and data
collection. The most acceptable studies supported the importance of smaller classes in
promoting student success (Finn, 1998).
After a review of early literature. Educational Research Service (1978) and
Robinson (1990) reported that reducing class sizes in the primaiy grades to 22 or fewer
students appeared to have a beneficial etlct on reading and math scores, especially for
economically disadvantaged students. After that, more sophisticated experiments have
confirmed and extended this conclusion.
The first refined analysis was completed by Glass and Smith (1978). Glass and
Smith analyzed 77 earlier research studies and found a connection between class size
reduction and acadcmic achievement. Glass and Smith report that as class size increases,
64
acliievement decreases. These repealed studies have provided evidence of important
relationships between the nimiber of students in the classroom and the success of
teacliing and learning in tlie same classrooms. This research demonstrated that an
appropriated class size was fewer than 20 students, and that the greatest benefits of small
classes are obtained in the early grades.
Some large scale studies and experiments in class size and student outcomes
began in the mid--l98()s. Projects included Indiana's Prime Time, HB in Texas, STAR
(Student/Teacher Achievenient Ratio) in Tennessee, Wisconsin's SAGE (Student
Achievement Guarantee in Education) project, and California's massive Class-Size
Reduction (CSR). Among them, the Prime Time and STAR were particularly important
because they provided the motivation tbr many district, states, and the federal
government to reduce class sizes on a large scale (Finn, 1998).
Indiana launched Project Prime Time between 1981and 1983 as a statewide
initiative. The Prime Time project began reducing first grade class size, but was not
entirely a class size reduction. Instead, it added teacher aids to classroom to reduce the
adult-to-child ratio -not truly resulting in small classes. Prime Time project reported
mixed results with some gains in student achievement on reading and math scores.
Achievement in reading was larger than that in math (M:ueller, Chase, & Walden, 1998).
This important outcomc demonstrated the feasibility of large-scale efforts to change
classroom organization in the pursuit of improved student leaniing,
Tennessee conducted the STAR experiment with 11.600 students from 1985 to
1989. This large-scale longitudinal study of class size provided the legislature and
65
administrators with con.vio,cing data to support class-size reduction for students statewide.
Small classes in K-3,, with 13-17 students, made a difference in studeiiit accomplishment
in the early years when compared to regular classes with 22-25 students, or regular
classes with a full-time teacher aide (Word, et al, 1990). The results of STAR were more
persuasive than the earlier studies. The most important findings are:
In eveiy grade level (K-3) students in small classes outperformed students

in larger classes on every achievement test administered in all subject
areas.
The benefits of small classes were greater for minority students and
students attending inner-city schools than for white students or those in
non-urban areas.
New analyses of the STAR data have shown that starting early (K or 1)
and continuous participation (3 to 4 years) in small classes leads to the
greatest benefits (Finn, et al., 2001),
The students who retwned to full-size classes in Grade 4 were stil! under investigation
after participating the STAR Project. Several studies of this longitudinal project were
reported as follows:
Pupils who attended small classes in K-3 performed significantly better in

all academic subjects in all subsequent Grades, 4, 6, and 8 (Finn, et al,
2001).
The more years pupils spent in small classes in K-3, the longer the benefits
lasted into later grades.
66
Pupils who attended small classes iji K,~3 were more likely to graduate
from high school and more likely to take SAT/ACT college admissions
tests (Krueger & Whitmore, 2001).
Secondary analysts at the Uni versity of London, the University of Chicago, and
Princeton University examined the STAR data by using different statistical
methods and they came out with the same conclusions (Goldstein & Blatchford,
1998). Project STAR provided the scientific support for the long-held belief of
educators and parents that small classes in the early grades had many advantages.
Because the impact was particularly strong for students at risk, the STAR project
motivated many districts, states, and even the U.S. Department of Education to
undertake fiirther reduced class initiatives. Approximately thirty-five states had
class-size legislation by the year 2000 (Pinn, 2002).
Other large-scale class-size reduction programs such as Wisconsin's
Project SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education), the Burk County
project in North Carolina, the massive CSR program in California, and the federal
initiative begun during the Clinton administration are iuiiong the CSR initiatives
that were accompanied by formal evaluations. These programs were not intended
to be controlled experiments; instead, their foremost purpose was to provide an
intervention--^
class -whose efficacy had already been demonstrated.
Occasionally, critics lose sight of that purpose and comment on these programs'
lack of tightly controlled research designs (Finn, 2002).
67
Concliisioni: Person-Environment Interactioti
Any discussion of organizational culture has its roots in the work of Kurt: Lewin
(1936), M'ho demonstrated that to understand human behavior requires us to consider the
whole situation in which behavior occurs. The terra "whole situation" is defined as
meaning both the person and the environment. "Ever>' psychological event depends upon
the state of the person and at the same time on the environment, although their relative
importance is different in different cases" (p. 3). Lewins used the foimula B = f (PE) to
describe this phenomena. This means the behavior is a function of the interaction of
person and environment. It is necessary to think of the person and the organizational
environment as complementary parts and inseparable, The perspective of organizational
culture helps us to understand that the environment with which people interact is
constituted of more than the immediate circumstances in which they find themselves. A
crucial aspect of miderstanding the culture of an organization is to understand the
organization's history and its traditions because individuals in an organization are
socialized to accept them. Thus, unseen but present in every human encounter with the
organization is the understanding and acceptance by participants of values and
expectations that are inherent in the tradition of the organization. Organizations normally
expend considerable effort, both fonnally and infonnally, to transmit and reinforce these
values and expectations through socialization processes. The influence of this interaction
among activities, physical environment, and temporal regularities is seen as not only
pervasive and relatively stable, but also as having very great pov/er to mold the behavior
of the people in the organization.
68
CHAPTER 3; METHODOLOGY
This Chapter presents the methods and procedures that were used to collect and
analyze the data of this study. Included in this chapter are sections desciibing the
participants and samples, instrumentation, data collection procedure, and statistical data
analyses.
Samples and Participants
This study was conducted in the State of Arizona, and the samples and the
populations for this study consisted of teachers and principals at public non-charter
schools, which included elementary, middle, and high schools. According to the design of
this study, the samples selected were based on the school's voluntary participation. The
invited population was 1,421 schools, with 142 schools agreeing accepted (10 % of the
sample) to participate in this study. The number of returned surveys used for this study
was 1829 from teachers and administrators of 76 schools. Schools and principals were
used as the units of analysis for the hypotheses of this study.
The sample of principals included descriptive statistics about the pri ncipal's
gender, principal's administration experience, and their school level. The sample
collection of schools included the number of teachers, the percentage of teachers holding
a master's degree or higlier, the school size (or student enrollment), student attendance
rate, dropout rate, grade level, and the percentage of students receiving free or reduced
lunch (proxy SES). All other related descriptive data analyses of samples are recorded in
Chapter 4.
69
Instrumentation
The School Culture Survey (SCS) (Valentine & Gruenert, 1998) was utilized in
this study. Valentine and Gruenert developed the SCS (see Appendix A) by analyzing
632 useable teacher-response sun'eys from 27 schools at the Missouri Center for School
Improvement's Project ASSIST (Achieving Successes through School Improvement Site
Teams).The SCS is a 35-item, Likeit, description questionnaire, with the likert ranging
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Factor analysis is the survey grouped
into six dimensions or subseales of school culture; Collaborative Leadership (items 2,
7,11,14,18, 20, 22, 26, 28, and 32), Teacher Collaboration (items 3, 8, 15, 23, 29, and 33),
Professional Development (items 1, 9, 16, 24, and 30), Unity of Puriôse (items 5, 12,19,
27, and 31), Collegial Support (items 4,10,17, and 25), and Learning Partnership (items
6, 13, 21, and 35). These six dimensions are based on a review of the literature on school
culture, effective school cultures, and collaborative school culture. The pur{)ose of SCS is
to provide school personnel insight toward the collaborative nature of the school culture
(Graenert, 1998).
Validity of the Instrument. In order to assess the validity of SCS, Gruenert (1998)
administered the School Climate Sui-\'ey to the participants at the same time with SCS.
The School Climate Sui-vey was an established instrument developed by the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (N ASSP) to assist schools with planning,
budgeting, school accreditation reports, school improvement initiatives, and longitudinal
research (Keefe & Howard, 1997). Only four (Teacher-Student Relations, Administration,
Student Academic Orientation, and Instructional Management) out of ten factors in the
70
School Climate Survey were chosen to correlate with the school culture survey because
the school climate factors not used were considered insufficient in their capacity to reflect
elements of culture (Gruenert, 1998). He found that each of the six School Culture factors
was higlily correlated with a minimum of two of the four cliniate fiictors of School
Climate Survey.
1. The culture lector Collaborative Leadership corrected with
Teacher/Student Relations (r = ,633), Administration (r = .657), and
Instructional Management (r = .488).
2. The culture factor Teacher Collaboration correlated significantly with
Teacher/Stduent Realtions (r = .532) and Student Academic Orientation (r
= .483).
3. Unity of Purpose correlated significantly with all four school climate
factors. Those correlations were Teacher/Student Relationships (r = .387),
Student Academic Orientation (r - .485), Administration (r = .384), and
Instructional Management (r - .454).
4. Professional Development coiTelations were statistically significant with
two climate factors, Teacher/Student Relations (r
.436) and Student
Academic Orientation (r = -475).

5. Collegial Support was statistically significantly with Teacher/Student
Relations (r = .506) and Administration (r = .544).
6. Learning Partnership was statistically significantly with Student Academic
Orientation (r = .416) and Instructional Management (r = ,439).
71
Overall, fifteen of the 24 correlations were significant at the ,05 level and another seven
were significant at the .01 level. Therefore, the new School Culture Su:rvey coo'eiated
highly with the established School CUmate Survey. These relationships support the
validity of the SCS (Gruenert, 1998).
ReliabilUy of Instrument. The chronbach alplia reliability of coefficients (Gruenert,
2003) for all six subseales of SCS is provided in Table 3.3, Since each factor of SCS
measures a unique aspect of the school's collaborative culture, Gruenert (1998, p. 89)
gives a brief purpose of using each subscale and provides more detail about the concepts
associated with each factor. Table 3.4 provides the constitutive definitions, purposes, and
sample items for each dimension of SCS.
Table 3.1
Reliability of School Culture Survey (SCS)
Subseales
Collaborative Leadership
Teacher Collaboration
Unity of Purpose
Collegial Support
Learning Partnership
Chronbach's Alphas
r = .910
r-.834
r=.82l
r - .867
r = .796
r = .658
N of Items
11
6
5
5
4
4
Tabie3.2
Dimension of School Culture Sunw and Items
Dimensioss
Collaborative
Leadei^Mp
(items 2, 7,
il, 14,18,
20, 22,26,
28, and 32)
Teacliei'
Collaboration
(items 3, 8,
15,23,2%
and 33)
Professional
Development
Items
2, Leaders value teachers' ideas.
7. Leaders m this school trost the professional judgments of
teachers.
11. Leaders take time to praise teachers that perform well.
14. Teachers are involved in the decision-making process.
18. Leaders in our school facilitate teachers working together.
20. Teachere are kept infomied on ciin"ent issues in the school.
22. My involvement in policy or decision making is taken
seriously.
26. Teachers are rewarde-d for experimenting with new ideas
and techniques.
28. Leaders support risk-taking and innovation in teaching.
32, Administrators protect instruction and planning tune.
3. Teachers have opportimities for dialogue and planning
Teacher Collaboration measures the
across grades and subjects.
deêe to which teachers engage in
8. Teachers spend considerable time planning together.
constructive dialogue that furthers the
15. Teachers take time to obser\'e each other teaching,
educational vision of the school.
Teachers across the school plan together, 23. Teachers are generally aware of what other teachers are
obser\'e and discuss teaching practices,
teaching.
29. Teachers work together to develop and evaluate programs
evaluate programs, and develop an
awareness of the practices and programs and projects.
33. Teaching practice disagreements are voiced openly and
of other teachers.
discussed.
Professional Development measures the 1. Teachers utilize professional networks to obtain information
and resources for classrooms instruction.
degree to which teachers value
9. Teachere regularly seek ideas from seminars, coileagneSj
continuous personal development and
Defiaitions and Purposes

Collaborative Leadership measures the
degree to which school leaders establish
and maintain collaborative relationships
with school staff. The leaders value
teachers' ideas, seek input, engage staff
in decision-making, and trust the
professional judpiient of the staff.
Leaders support and reward risk-takiiig
iuid innovative idej^ designed to
improve education for the students.
Leaders reinforce the sharing of ideas
and effective practices among all staff.
Table 3.2
Dimensions of School Culture Swvey and Item (Continued)
(items i, 9,
16,24, and
30)
Collegia!
Support
{items 5,12,
19, 27, and
31)
Unity of
Puipose
(items 4,10,
17, and 25)
Learning
Partnei-sliip
(items 6,13,
21, and 35)
school-wide improvement. Teachers

seek ideas from seminars, colleagues,
organizations, and other professional
sources to maintain current knowledge,
particularly current knowledge about
instructional practices.
Collegiai Support measures the degree to
which teachers work together effectively.
Teachers trust each other, value each
other's ideas, and assist each other as
tliey work to accomplish the tasks of the
school orgamzation.
Unity of Puipose measures the degree to
wliich teachers work toward a common
mission for the school, Teachei^
understand, support, and perform in
accordance with that mission.
Learning Partnership measures the
degree to which teachers, parents, and
students work together for the common
good of the student. Parents and teachers
share common expectations and
communicatc frequently about student
performance. Parents trust teachers and
students generally accept responsibility
for their schooling.
and conferences.
16. Professional development is valued by the faculty.
24. Teachers maintain a current knowledge base about the
learning process.
30, The faculty values school improvement.
5, Teachers support the mission of the school.
12. The school mission provides a clear sense of direction for
teachers.
19. Teachers understand the mission of the school.
27. The school mission statement reflects the values of the
community.
31. Teaching perfomiance reflects the mission of the school
4. Teachere trust each other.
10- Teachers are willing to help out whenever there is a
problem.
17. Teachers' ideas are valued by other teachers.
25. Teachere work cooperatively in pmips.
6. Teachers and parents have common expectations for student
performance.
13. Parents trust teachers* protessional judgtiients.
21. Teachers and parents commmiicate frequently about student
perfonnance.
35. Students generally accept responsibility tor their schooling,
for example they engage mentally in class and complete
homework assignments.
74
Data Collection Procedure
The data was based on the pre-existing data from tlie Arizona Department of
Education (ADE). Before analyzing the data, the researcher obtained a permission letter
from the state associate school superintendent (see Appendix B). The following
description illustrates the protocol for the ADE data collection.
All schools in Arizona were invited to participate in the study of school culture by
ADE, The state and the researcher sent a copy of the invitation letter by email to
invite all superintendents and school principals to participate in this study.
Before the surveys were delivered, the participating principals needed to
complete an information form on the Internet that included the school name,
school district, principal name, principal gender, number of years of being
principal at this school, percentage of student receiving free/reduced lunch, and
grades served at the school. Based on the principal's infoiTOation, a packet of
sunêys which contained a return envelope, a copy of the principal's invitation
and an outline for adrainistering surveys was maxiled to each school during the
first two weeks of March, 2004. After receiving the packet of surveys from the
researcher, each school principal or school site coordinator would deliver a copy
of the sui-vey with a computer scorable answer sheet enclosed in an envelope to
each participant.
There were no financial costs to participate in the study. Although these
items took no moiê than 10-15 minutes to complete, the participants were still
encouraged to fill out the survey with patience and care. The guidelines of the
75
survey explained the piupose of the study in general temis, anonymity was
guaranteed, and any information disclosed about the project focused on buildinglevel, not individual, results. There were no identitiable risks associated with
completion of the survey. Each respondent was instmcted not to put their names
on the answer sheet. Schools were assigned a code number for anonymity,
Participation was completely voluntary, and any participant could choose to
withdraw at any time with no consequence.
The survey was completed by the teachers and administrators. Each
completed survey was placed in an envelope by the respondent, and sealed and
handed directly to a designed neutral person (i.e. aid, secretary). For maintaining
anonymity, there were no identification marks for respondents. Individuals who
chose not to complete the surv'ey would return the unused survey in the white
envelope and seal it. After all surveys were completed, the neutral person placed
both used and unused envelopes into a white mailing envelope and mailed it back
to the researcher.
The other school information (e.g. the labels of school size, achievement
profile/school perfornumce, grade level, school safety, number of teachers, and number
of administrators), student achievement on, the 3rd, 8*'^, and 10^' grade (e.g. AIMS scores
on reading, writing, and mathematics) and characteristics (e.g. student enrollment,
attendance rate, and mobility), and teacher background (e.g. educational level, years of
teaching experience, the number of teachers) were collected from, the Arizona School
76
Report Card on the website of Arizona State Educational Department (Student Report
Card & Review, 2004).
The information about the principals' gender, years of administration, number of
students receiving free/reduced lunches (SES proxy) that were not listed on the school
profile 01.1 web was collected tirom the participating principals when they filled in the
Internet form for this study.
Statistical Technique and Data Analysis Design
Multiple linear regression is a method of analysis for assessing the strength of the
relationship between each of a set of explanatory variables (known as independent
variables), and a single response (or dependent variable) (Landau & Everitt, 2004).
Simply put, multiple linear regression analysis allows for the prediction of one variable
from several other variables (Cronk, 2004). In this study, multiple linear regression was
applied to analyze the data. The significance levels were set at the level of .05 (p < .05)
and .01 (p < .01).
Two steps of analyses were employed. The first step of the analysis for this study
was based on the school culture characteristics that related to gains in student academic
achievement of AIMS (Arizona's Instrament to Measure Standards) scores in reading,
writing, and mathematics. When running the data, the six factors of the School Culture
Survey (SCS) were used as independent variables, and the student academic achievement
of AIMS scores in reading, writing, and mathematics were used as dependent variables,
Multiple linear regression using SPSS was applied to analyze the data and test ttie
hypotheses.
77
The second step of analyses was involved with the pattern of relationships
between school culture and other school characteristics such as principal's administration
experience, principal's gender, student enrolliTient, student background, and student
achievement. As opposed to step one, the scores of the School Culture Sui-vey were used
as dependent variables, and the other school factors that may influence student
achievement were used as independent variables. The various school factors inciuded
student background (e.g., gender, race, childhood experience, attendance rate, dropout
rate, grade level), teacher information (e.g., years of teaching experience, teiminal degree,
courses taken in college, hours of service of training etc.), principals characteristics (e.g.,
gender, years of administration, tytê of leadership, etc.), size or level of schools (e.g.,
student enrolnient, small, mediuni, large, etc.), and socioeconomic status (school district,
parent etc.). Finally, seven factors (principars gender, principal tenure, student
enrollment, number of teachers, numbers of administrators, the percentage of teachers
who earned Masters Degree or higher, and SES) were chosen as independent variables
for step two analyses.
Diagram of Research Design
The diagram in Figure 3.1 provides a simple logical portrayal of this study's
design, Two steps of data analyses were described as follows;
Step 1: Multiple linear regression wa.s adopted to analyze if there was a
significant linear regression between school culture and AIMS scores (Math,
Reading, or Writing),
step 2: To analyze if there was any significant multiple linear regression between
school culture and other school factors.
Figure 3.1. Diagram of research design.
Step 1: Regressiofl Analyses
Step 2: Regression Analyses
School Factors
Principal's Temtre
Principal's Gender
School Cultiire
1
Student Em-ollment
SES
!N of Admimstrators
N of Teachers
Professional Leadership
Coliegial Support
Unity of Purpose
AIMS
Math
Reading
Writing
y'
80
CHAPTER 4; FiNDlNGS AND INTERPRETATION
Introduction
This chapter describes and provides interpretation of t!ie results of the data
consisting of descriptive analyses and inferential analyses. Descriptive analyses contain
the data frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations from samples and
participants. The inferential analyses report the relationships between variables. The
statistical methods used were descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression. The
units of analysis were schools and principals. Tables summarizing the results of the
findings are contained within this chapter.
Overview of Statistical Technical Analyses
Multiple linear regression is a method of analysis for assessing the strength of the
relationship between independent variables and a single dependent variable. Multiple
hnear regression analysis allows the prediction of one variable from several other
variables {Cronk, 2004). The Forward, Backward, and Enter methodologies of multiple
linear regression were applied to analyze the data. The significance levels were set at the
level of .05 (p < .05) and .01 (p < ,01).
Three objects of data analyses are addressed in this chapter. First, the description
of the samples and the participants are provided. Second, is an analysis if any significant
relationships between school culture and student academic achievement. Third, is an
investigation of school factors that might significantly affect the school culture. Table 4.1
indicates the statistical techniques employed in th,is Chapter.
81
Table 4.1
Statistical Techniques
Attempted Research
.Analyses
Variables
Independent
Variables
Dependent
Variables
Statistical Analysis
Techniques
Descriptive
Statistics
Demographics of
Samples and
Participants
Analyzing ^
relationship between
school culture and
student academic
achievement
School Culture
Survey
Student Academic
Achievement
(AIMS scores)
Multiple Linear
Regression
Analyzing the
school culture and
school factors or
characteristics
School
Characteristics
School Culture
Survey
Multiple Linear
Regression
The resulting multiple linear regression output contains five components;

Variables Entered/Removed, Model Suramaiy, ANOVA, Coefficients, and Excluded
Variables. For this study, only three components (Model Summary, ANOVA, and
Coefficients) of the outputs were used to interpret the results and, test the hypotheses.
Description of the Samples and Participants
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 provide information concernin,g the demographic
characteristics of the 76 schools in this study. The largest percentage of participating
schools were elementary schools counted as 73.7 % (n = 56); Mîddle or junior high
schools accounted for 14.5 % (ii = 11) of all sample schools; High schools counted as
11.8 % (n =3) of all samples. About forty seven (47.4 %, n = 36) percent of schools were
administered by male principals and 52.6% (n
40) of schools were administered by
females. The percentage of principals having 1-3 years of administration experience at

their current location was 56.6 % (n == 43). The percentage of principals having 46 years
of administration experience was 26.3 % (n = 20). The percentage of principals having 7~
9 years of administration experience was 10.5% (n = 8). The percentage of principals
having 10 or more years of administration experience was 2,6 % (n = 2). The principaf s
administrative experience ranged from I year up to 11 years, and the average years of
principal tenure was 3.58 years.
Table 4.2
School Level and Principal's Gender
School Level * Principal Gender Crosstabulation
School Level
Principal
Gender
male
Count
% of Total
female
Count
% of Total
Total
Count
% of Total
Elementary
School
22
Middle/Jr
School
8
High School
6
28.9%
10.5%
7.9%
47.4%
34
40
44.7%
3.9%
3.9%
52,6%
56
11
76
73.7%
14.5%
11.8%
100.0%
Total
36
83
Table 43
School Level and Principal Administration
Principal Administration * School Level CrosstabulatSon
Principal Administration
1-3 yrs
School Elementary Scbt Count
Level
%ofTota
Middie/Jr School Count
% ofTota
High School
Count
% ofTota
Total
Count
% ofTota
4-6 yrs
7-9 yrs 10or>yrs No data
Total
32
14
56
42.1%
18.4%
9.2%
1.3%
2.6%
73.7%
11
7.9%
5.3%
.0%
.0%
1,3%
14.5%
6.6%
2,6%
1.3%
1.3%
.0%
11.8%
43
20
76
56.6%
26.3%
10.5%
2.6%
3.9%
100.0%
Note. The tenure for principals ranged from 1 to 11 years (N = 73, M = 3.58, Std. Dev. =
2.522).
As shown in the Table 4.4, the school sizes ranged from 69 to 2,061 students, and
the average size was 618.67 students. The percentage of school sized with 1-299 students
was 16 % (n = 12). The percentage of schools with 300-599 students was 36.8% (n = 28).
The percentage of school with 600-799 students was 21.1 % (n = 16). The percentage of
schools with 800 students or more was 5.3 % (n - 4).
84
Table 4.4
School Level and School Size
School Size * School Level Crosstabulation
_
1-299
School Elementary Sch Count
300-599 600-799 800 or > No Data
Total
10
26
56
% of Tots 13.2%
34.2%
11.8%
10.5%
3.9%
73,7%
11
.0%
1,3%
6.6%
5,3%
1.3%
14.5%
2.6%
1.3%
2.6%
5.3%
.0%
%ofTot< 15.8%
30.8%
21.1%
21.1%
5.3%
Middle/Jr Schoc Count

%0fT0tJ
High School
School Size
Count
______
%ofTotf
Note. The student enrollments ranged from 69 to 2,061 (n = 72, M

371.624).
___
11.8%
100.0%
618.67, Std, Dev.
S5
The iiifomiation on school perfomiaiice profiles is provided io Table 4.5. The
percentage of schools labeled as Under Performing was 8 % (n = 6, 5 elementary schools
and 1 middle school). The percentage of schools labeled as Pertrming was 63 % (n = 46,
34 elementary schools, 4 middle school, and 8 high schools). The percentage of schools
labeled as highly performing was 11% (n = 8, 4 elementaiy schools, 3 middle schools,
and 1 high school). The percentage of schools labeled as excelling was 9.6% (o = 8, 6
elementary schools, and 2 middle schools). The percentage of unlabeled schools was
8.2% (n = 6) because they were new or small schools.
Table 4.5
2002-2003 School Performance Profile as reported by the Arizona Department of
Education.
School Performance Profile * School Level Crosstabulation
School Performance Profile

Under
Highly
Performing Performing Performing Excelling Mot Evaluatec
School Elementary Soh Count
5
34
4
6
5
% of Tots
6.8%
46.6%
6.8%
8.2%
5.5%
1
Middle/Jr Schoo Count
4
3
2
0
% of Tots
1.4%
4.1%
2.7%
5.5%
.0%
High School
Count
1
0
8
0
0
% of Tots
1.4%
.0%
11.0%
.0%
.0%
Total
Count
6
46
8
7
6
% of Tots
8.2%
63,0%
11.0%
9.8%
Total
54
74.0%
10
13.7%
9
12,3%
73
8.2% 100.0%
86
Descriptive Data for AIMS Scores
Table 4.6 indicates the roeari, standard deviation, rainiimim and maximum of
AIMS scores (Math, Reading, and Writing) gained by the 3"', 8'*' and l
graders:
!. Tlie Math score of the third grade at elementary schools range from 434-573 and
the m.ean score is 515.53 (M, = 515.53, Std. Dev. = 27.57); Reading scores range
from 483-548 and the ra,ean score is 517.35 (M = 517.35, Std. Dev. = 14.75);
Writing scores range from 475 to 562, and the mean score is 522.35 (M = 522.35,
Std. Dev. = 19.35).
2. The Math, score of the S"'" grade at middle or junior high school range from 424 to
487, and the mean score is 455.7 (M = 455.7, Std. Dev. = 17.39); Reading scores
range iTom 471 to 514 and the mean score is 499.6 (M = 499.6, Std. Dev. = 13.39);
Writing scores range from 466 to 502, and the mean score is 487 (M = 487, Std.
Dev. = 12.32).
3. The Math score of the 10*'^ grade at higli school range from 489 to 498 and the
mean score is 489.5 (M: = 489.5, Std. Dev. =~ 6.9); Reading scores range from 493
to 523, and the mean score is 510.38 (M = 510.38, Std. Dev. = 9.77); Writing
scores range from 459 to 546, and the mean score is 486.13 (M, = 486.13, Std.
Dev. = 26.16).
Table 4.6
AIMS Scores on Math, Reading, and Writing
8^", and 10th Grade)

Descriptives
Statistic
95% Confidence tnlerva! for

Mean
Math (AIMSI
Reading (AIMS)
Writing ( M U S )
School Level
Elementary School
Mean
615.53
Lower Bound
507.78
Upper Bound
523,28
Std. Deviation
27.568
Minimum
434
Maximum
573
Range
139
Middle/Jr School
455.70
443.26
468.14
17.385
424
487
63
High School
489.50
483.73
495.27
6.908
479
498
19
Elementary School
517.35
513.20
521.50
14.752
483
548
65
Middle/Jr School
499.60
490.03
509.17
13.385
471
514
43
High School
510.38
502,21
518,54
9.768
493
523
30
Elementary Schooi
522.35
516.91
627.80
19.356
475
662
87
Middie/Jr School
487.00
478.19
495.81
12.320
466
502
36
High School
486.13
464.25
508.00
26.161
459
546
87
Note. The mean of Arizona State AIMS cores on 3^*^ grade are 523 (Math), 523 (Reading), and 530 (Writing); 8^ grade are 498
(Matb), 505 (Reading), and 502 (Writing); 10*'' grade are 491 (Math), 512 (Reading), and 479 (Writing).
Modification for this Study

Sample Examination. In this study, the Boxplot method was adopted to examine
the sample dispersion. As shown, on Figure 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, the AMS scores on Math,
Reading, and Writing were found with very different ranges between school levels. After
examining the existing sample of 76 schools, the study was limited to the elementary
school level when ninning the regression analyses because the sample sizes of the .middle
school and high school were too small. If necessary, the outliers of the sample scores on
Math (e.g., school 19 and 49) and Writing (e.g., school 34 and 71) would be removed
from analyses.
Figure 4.1. The dispersion of AIMS (Math) scores

600
High School
Elementary School
Middle/Jr School
School Level
Figure 4.2. The dispersi,oi:i of AIMS (Reading) scores

560
540
520
CO
500
1
S
o> 480
c
ig
CC
460
51
~v
10
High School
Elementary School
Middie/Jr School
School Level
Figure 4.3. The dispersion of AIMS (Writing) scores
520 -
High School
Elementary School
Middle/Jr School
School Level
90
Collinearity Premnfkm. Colliiiearity refers to the correlations among independent:
variables. Two issues were raised if there was a high degree of collinearity between two
or more independent variables. The first issue refers to the question of whether the
variables are actually measuring difierent constructs because the purpose of raultiple
regression is to produce the most parsimomous expianaiion of the changes in the
dependent variables based on two or more predictors. Tire second issue is concerned with
the difficulty of separating the itidividnal contribution made by each independent variable
to die prediction of changes in the dependent variable (Keit, Hall, & Kozub, 2002).
Several ways could be applied to prevent or deal with the issue of collinearity.
Bivariate correlation was used to examine the cojTeiation between independent variables.
After all of the attempted independent variables (school factors) were tested, the residts
were presented on Table 4.7. Student enrollment was tbund highly correlated with
Number of Administrators (r = .817, p < .01) (Two tail) and Number of Teachers (r
= .939, p < .05) (Two tail). School Size was used as a new title to replace the highly
correlated independent variables, using student enrollment for School Size when entering
the data. Therefore, the final edition of research design was modified and re-presented on
Figure 4.4.
Table 4.7
Bivariate Correlations between School Factors
Correlations
Nof
jfidministr
ators
Student
EnroHmertt
Pearson CorreiaSon
Student Eorolfmem
Sig. p-talied)
.817"
Sig. (2-tait8d)
.000
72
N
M of Teachers
Principai 6der
.181
-.408"
.230
.137
,001
72
1
73
72
72
72
69
65
.847"
-043
-.2*
.230
-.278*
.000
.718
.013
.055
.024
73
73
73
70
6S
.847"
.000
72
73
Pearsai Correiatson
.226
.043
.231*
Sig. t2-iaiied)
.057
.718
.050
72
73
73
73
.23r
-.219
.252*
-.450"
.050
.062
.036
.000
73
73
70
68
.047
.205
-.178
.684
.088
,154
73
73
70
66
-.003
,0
.436
,648
-.134
-.289*
-.219
.047
.280
.013
.062
.694
72
73
73
73
76
73
SS
Pearson Correlation
.181
.230
.252*
.205
-.093
-.109
Sig. f2-t3lied)
.137
.066
.036
,088
.438
.377
69
70
70
70
73
73
68
1
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed j
'
-.134
.057
.939"
Sig. (2-taiM)
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Stiidents %)
.228
.000
.000
Pesrsoii Corretetion
Prindpai Tenum
.939**
.000
Sig. (2-tajied)
Prir?cipal
Tenure
,817**
Pearson CofreiaSon
N
Master Dsgree or
fslgher (Teacher %|
72
Pearson Correlation
Princlpa!
Gender
Free
Reduced
Lunch
(Students %|
Coffeiation is sgniScant at the 0.01 tevei (2-taited).

' Coirelatson is significant at the 0.05 level {2-tafled).
-.408**
-.278*
-.450"
-.178
.056
-.109
o
2
N of Administrators
N ofTeamers
Master
Dsgree or
higher
(Teacher %J
.024
.0X5
.154
.648
-377
65
66
66
6S
69
68
Figure 4.4. Final version of researcli design.
Step 1: Regression i\nalyses
Step 2: Regression Analyses
School Factors
PriiicipaFs Tenure
School Culture
PriticipaFs Gender
SES
School Size
AIMS
Professional Leadership
Coiiegial Support
Unity of Purpose
Math
Reading
Writing
Teacber Ediication Level
l-s/
93
Step 1: SCSAIMS Regression Analyses
Regression Analysis on SCS and Math (AIMS)
Table 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 display the outcomes of backward multiple linear
regression analyses based on SCS scores from elerneiitary schools and the 3''*^ grade math
scores. As shown in Table 4.8, the ANOVA matrix', the significance level on the far right
of the Model 6 is .000 (p < .001). This indicates that there is a significant linear
regression between, independent variables (Learning Partnership) and the dependent
variable (Math) (F (1, 49) = 20.955, p < .001).
The R square (called the coefficient of detennination, R*'-" ,30) on Table 4.9
indicates the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (Math) that can be
explained by variation in the independent variable (Learning Partnership). Thus, 30 % of
the variation in the Math score can be explained by the difference in the school culture
factor of Learning Partnership.
As shown in the Table 4.10, the value of Constant is 371.758 and the slope of the
regression Hne is 40.954 on Model 6. The prediction equation can be obtained and
expressed as:
Math = 371,758 + 40.954 * (Learning Partnership)
(1)
94
Table 4.8
ANOV.A, Matrix from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Math
AN0VA9
Model
1
Regression
Sum of
Squares
13554,077
Residual
Mean Square
2259.013
24444.629
44
555.560
Total
37993.706
50
Regression
13511,873
2702.375
Residual
24486.833
45
544.152
Total
37998.706
50
Regression
13422,213
3355,553
Residual
24576.493
46
534.272
Total
37998.706
50
Regression
13324.822
4441.007
Residual
24673.884
47
524.976
Total
37998.706
50
Regression
12697.628
6348.814
Residual
25301.077
48
527.106
Total
37998.706
50
df
Regression
11382.450
11382,450
Residual
26616.256
49
543.189
Total
37998.706
50
F
4.066
4.966
.001
6.281
.000
8.461
.000"
12.045
.000
20.955
.000^
a- Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership, Teacher Collaboration, Coilegial

Support, Collaborative Leadership, Unity of Purpose, Professional Development
b. Predictors; (Constant), Learning Partnership, Teacher Collaboration, Coilegial
Support, Collaborative Leadership, Professional Development
c- Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership, Coilegial Support, Collaborative
Leadership, Professional Development
d. Predictors; (Constant), Learning Partnership. Coilegial Support, Collaborative
Leadership
e. Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership, Collaborative Leadership
Predictors; (Constant), Learning Partnership
9- Dependent Variable: Math (AIMS)
Sig.
.003
95
Table 4.9
Model. Summary from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Math
ftflodel Summary
Adjusted
Model
R Square
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.597^
,357
.269
23.570
.596'^
.356
.284
23.327
,594'^
,353
,297
23.114
.592'^
.351
.309
22.912
.578
.334
.306
22.959
.547^
.300
.285
23.306
a. Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership, Teacher

Collaboration, Collegia! Support, Collaborative
Leadership, Unity of Purpose, Professional
Development
b. Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership, Teacher
Collaboration, Coilegial Support, Collaborative

Leadership. Professional Development
c. Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership, Coilegial

Support, Collaborative Leadership, Professional
Development
d- Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership, Coilegial
Support, Collaborative Leadership
e- Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership,
Predictors; (Constant), Learning Partnership
96
Table 4.10
Matrix of Coefficient from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Math
Cwfficiente
UnstarKJardteetJ
Coefficients
Model
1
358.539
51.670
Collaboretive Leadership
-2S.515
18,665
Teacher Cclla&oration
-6,842
Professional
Development
1S.818
Sig.
6.939
,000
-.341
-1.367
,170
16.8S2
-.099
-.406
,08?
28.378
-ise
.S57
,580
-6.372
23.117
-.077
-.276
,784
13.596
21.306
.168
.638
,527
learning Partnership
51620
14.493
.690
3,502
.001
7 062
.000
(Constant)
3S6.198
SO,441
CollaboraUve Leadership
-27.973
16.227
-.374
-1.724
.092
-6,769
16.676
'MS
-40o
.687
Professional
Development
13,869
28,086
.157
.565
.S78
Collegial Support
11.819
20,098
.137
.888
.559
49.662
12,502
,664
z.sn.
.000
(Constant)
361.469
48.297
7.484
.000
-29,920
15.351
-.400
-1.948
.068
Professional
Development
10.457
24,493
,103
.427
.671
Collegial Support
10,975
19.808
,128
.554
.582
.681
4.255
.000
50.959
11.977
(Constant)
371,944
41.238
28,051
14.595
16.420
9.020
.000
-.37S
-1.922
.061
15.023
.191
1.093
.280
.691
51.723
11.739
(Constant)
396.299
34.770
-18.460
11.686
53.097
11.695
371.758
31.576
40.9S4
8.947
Colleglal Support
Collegial Support
Beta
Unity of Purpose
4
Stci Error
(Constant)
Standardized
Coefficiente
(Constant)
a. Dependent Variable: Math (AIMS)
4.406
.000
11.398
,000
-.247
-1,580
.121
.710
4.540
.000
11.773
.000
4.578
,000
.647
97
Regression Analysis on SCS and Reading (AIMS)
Table 4. ] 1, Table 4.12, and Table 4,13 display the outcome of ftmvard multiple
linear regression analyses on the SCS scores of the elementary schools and the 3"''' grade
Reading scores.
In Table 4.12, the ANOVA matrix, demonstrates that the significance level on the
far riglit is .001 (p< .01). This means that the linear regression is significant between
independent variable (Learning Partnership) and dependent variable (Reading) (F (1, 49)
= lL54,p<.01).
Table 4.11
Model Summary from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Reading (AIMS)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
.437^
Adjusted
R Square
.191
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.174
13.407
a- Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership
Table 4.12
Matrix of ANOVA from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Reading (AIMS)
ANOV/!f
Regression
Sum of
Squares
2074.234
Residual
Model
Total
df
Mean Square
2074.234
8807.413
49
179.743
10881.647
50
a- Predictors; (Constant), Learning Partnership

b. Dependent Variable: Reading {Alt\/IS)
F
11.540
Sig,
.001
R, square (called the coefficient of determination, R" = , 191) on Table 4.11

indicates the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (reading) that can be
explained by variation in the independent variable (I.earaing Partnership). Thus, 19.1 %
of the variation in the Reading (AIMS) score can be explained by the difference in the
school culture factor of L,earning Partnership.
According to Table 4.13, the value of Con.stant is 45.5 and the slop of the
regression, line is 17.483, so the prediction equation could be obtained and expressed as:
Reading = 455.979 + 17.483 * (Learning Partnership)
(2)
Table 4.13
Matrix qf Coefficient from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Reading
(AIMS)
Coefficient^
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
B
455.979
17.483
a- Dependent Variable: Reading (AIMS)
Std. Error
18.164
5.146
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.437
Sig.
25.103
.000
3.397
.001
99
Regression Analysis on SCS and Writing (.AIMS)
Table 4,14 dispJays the outcome of multiple linear regression analysis on the
elementary school SCS scores and Writing scores of the 3"' grade.
The outputs fi'om Table 4.14 show that the significance level on, the far right
is .000 (p < .001). This means that the linear regression is significant between
independent variables (Learning Partnership) and the dependent variable (Writing) (F (1,
49) = 23.842, p < .001).
Table 4.14
Matrix ofANOVA from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Writing (AIMS)
ANOVA"
Model
1
Regression
Sum of
Squares
6131.662
df
1
Mean Square
6131.662
267.183
Residual
12601.985
49
Total
18733.647
50
F
23.842
Sig.
.000
a- Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership

b. Dependent Variable: Writing (AIMS)
R square (called the coefficient of determination, R' = .327) on Table 4.15

indicates the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (Writing) that can be
explained by variation in the independent variable (Learning Partnership). Thus, 32,7 %
of the variation in the Writing score can be explained by the difference in the school
culture factor of Learning Partnership.
100
Table 4.15
Model of Summary from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Writ ing (AIMS)
Model Summary
R Square
Model
.572
Adjusted
R Square
.327
Std. Error of
the Estimate
16.037
.314
0- Predictors: (Constant), Learning Partnership
By examining TabJe 4.16, the Constant is 416.831 and the slope of the regression
line is 30.059, so the prediction equation can be obtained and expressed as;
Writing = 416.831 + 30.059 * (Learning Partnership)
(3)
Table 4.16
Matrix of Coefficients from Multiple Linear Regression Analysis on SCS and Writing
(AIMS)
Coefficients?
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
B
416.831
Std. Error
21.727
30.059
6.156
a- Dependent Variable: Writing (AIMS)
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.572
t
19.185
Sig.
.000
4.883
.000
101
Step 2: School Factors-SCS Multiple Regression Analyses
The focus of this section was on multiple linear regression between school culture
(SCS subscales) and other school fectors. As opposed to the previous analyses, six
subscales of SCS dimensions were used as dependent variables, and the school factors
(principal tenure, principal's gender, number of student enrollment, the percentage of
teachers earning masters degrees or higher, and the socioeconomic status) were used as
independent variables. The predicted equations related to the school factors and SCS
were not addressed in this section, and not reported here. Table 4.13 provides the
information on the variables used in this section.
Table 4.17
Independent Variables and DependetU Variables for School FactorsSCS Multiple
Linear Regression Analyses
Independent Variables: School Factors

Principal Tenure
PrincipaFs Gender
School Size
Teacher's Mater Degree %
SES
Dependent Variables; SCS Subscales

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Collegial Support
Unity of Puipose
Collaborative Leadership and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

According to the three components of backward multiple linear regression
analysis outputs on Table 4.18, Table 4.19, and Table 4.20, Principal Tenure and SES
were found as statistically significant on linear regression with the Collaborative
!02
Leadership factor of school ciilture (F (2, 44) = 5.246, p < .01), with, R square of .193
vari,ance.
Table 4. J 8
Model Summary from Collaborative Leadership and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
Mod! Summary
.165
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.365314
.244
.172
,363896
.483^
.233
.180
.362135
.439"
.193
.156
.367328
R
,506
R Square
.256
.494"
3
4
Model
1
Adjusted
R Square
a- Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch

(Students %), Principal Tenure, Principal Gender,
Master Degree or higher (Teacher %), Student
Enrollment
b. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch
Student Enrollment
c- Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch
(Students %), Principal Tenure, Principal Gender
d. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch
(Students %), Principal Tenure
103
Table 4.19
ANOVA Matrix from Collaborative Leadership and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
ANOVA
iVIodel
1
Regression
Sum of
Squares
1,881
df
Mean Square
.376
.133
Residual
5.472
41
Total
7.353
46
Regression
1.791
.448
Residual
5.562
42
.132
Total
7.353
46
Regression
1.714
.571
Residual
5.639
43
.131
Total
7.353
46
Regression
1.416
.708
Residual
5,937
44
.135
Total
7,353
46
F
2.819
.028
3.381
.017''
4.356
.009'=
5.246
.009*^
a- Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %), Principal Tenure,

Principal Gender, Master Degree or higher (Teacher %), Student Enrollment
b- Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %), Principal Tenure,
Principal Gender, Student Enrollment
c- Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %), Principal Tenure,
Principal Gender
d. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %), Principal Tenure
e Dependent Variable: Collaborative Leadership
Sig.
104
Table 4.20
Matrix of Coeffwients from Collaborative Leadership and School Factors Multiple
Linear Regression Analysis
Coefficient#
Unstandardfeed
Coefficients
B
3.471
Std. Error
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.128
-.898
,375
Master Degree or
higher (Teactier %)
.003
.003
.117
,821
.416
Principal Gender
.165
.109
.194
1419
.164
Principal Tenure
.052
.022
.322
2.329
.025
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.004
.002
-.292
-2.089
,043
(Constant)
3.537
.265
13.347
.000
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.107
-.765
.449
Principal Gender
.166
.108
.208
1.540
.131
Principal Tenure
.055
.022
.342
2,525
.015
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.004
.002
-.301
-2.168
.036
(Constant)
3.438
,230
14.937
,000
Principal Gender
.161
.107
.203
1.507
.139
Principal Tenure
.053
.022
.330
2.464
.018
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.004
.002
-.276
-2.056
.046
(Constant)
3.711
.144
25.736
.000
.051
.022
.315
2.326
.025
-.004
.002
-,294
-2.167
.036
Model
Standardized
Coefficients
(Constant)
Principal Tenure
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
Beta
t
12.490
.278
a- Dependent Variable: Collaborative Leadersliip
Sig.
.000
105
Collegial Support and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
This section was analyzed with the backward method of multiple linear regression.
The components of multiple linear regression outputs on Table 4,21, Table 4.22, and
Table 4,19 indicates that Principal Gender has a significant linear regression with
Collegial Support subscale of SCS survey (F (1, 45) = 4.396, p = .042) with a R square
of .089 variance.
Table 4.21
ANOVA Matrix from CoUegial Support and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression
Analysis
ANOVA'
Sum of
Squares
Model
1
Regression
df
Moan Square
.787
.157
Residual
3.989
41
.097
Total
4.775
46
Regression
.782
.196
Residual
3.093
42
.095
Total
4.775
46
.749
.250
Residual
4.027
43
.094
Total
4.775
46
Regrssslon
Regression
.638
.319
Residual
4.137
44
.094
Total
4.775
46
Regression
.425
.425
Residual
4.350
45
.097
Total
4.7?S
4{5
a. Predictors: (Constant), Frse or Reduced lunch (Students %). Principal Tenure,

b. Prtsdictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %}, Principal Tenure.
Principal Gender, Student Enrollmetii
c. Prsdictofs: (Constant). Free or Reduced Lunch (Studoriis %), Principal Gsritjar,
Student Enrollmani
d. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Rerluced Lunch (Students %), Principal QenrJer
0. Predictorfj: (Constant), Principal Gender

f. Dopendenl Variable: Colleoial Support
Sig.
1.617
.177^
2,0S7
.104''
2.685
.060'=
3.392
.043'^
4.396
.042
106
Table 4.22
Model Summary from Collegial Support and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression
Analysis
Model Summary
Adjusted
Model
R Square
R
.165
.406''
R Square
.063
Std, Error of
the Estimate
.311909
.405''
.164
.084
.308339
,396^
.157
.098
.306014
.365''
.134
.094
.306647
.298
.089
.069
.310924
a- Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch

(Students %), Principal Tenure, Principal Gender.
Enrollment

(Students %), Principal Tenure. Principal Gender,
Student Enrollment
c. Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch
(Students %), Principal Gender, Student Enrollment
d. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch

(Students %), Principal Gender
. Predictors: (Constant), Principal Gender
107
Table 4.23
Matrix of Coefficients from Collegial Support and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
Coefficient!^
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
,237
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.173
-1.147
.258
Master Degree or
higher {Teacher %)
.001
.003
.032
,210
,835
Principal Gender
.186
.093
.290
2.002
.052
Principal Tenure
.010
.019
.079
.542
.591
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.003
.002
-.246
-1.661
.104
(Constant)
3.858
.225
17.181
.000
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.167
-1.141
,260
Principal Gender
.189
.091
.294
2.068
.045
Principal Tenure
,011
.018
.085
.595
.555
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.003
.002
-.248
-1.702
.096
(Constant)
3.898
.213
18.332
.000
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.157
-1.087
,283
Principal Gender
.184
.090
.287
2.043
.047
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.003
.002
-.250
-1.724
.092
(Constant)
3.771
21.219
.000
Principal Gender
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
(Constant)
Principal Gender
Beta
t
16,198
Sig.
B
3.844
(Constant)
OC
Standardized
Coefficients
.000
.180
.090
.280
1.989
.053
-.002
.002
-.212
-1.505
.140
3.520
.149
24,331
.000
.191
-091
2,097
.042
a- Dependent Variable: Collegial Support
.298
108
Teacher Collaboration and School Factors ,Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
This section was analyzed using the backward method of multiple linear
regi:ession. Table 4,24, Table 4.25, an.d Table 4.26 show that none of the school factors
was found to have a significant linear regression with the Teacher Collaboration subscale
of SCS (F (1, 45) = 3.598, p > .05).
Table 4.24
ANOP^/l Matrix from Teacher Collaboration and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
anova'
Regression
df
Mean Square
.946
.189
Residual
5.786
41
.141
Total
6.731
40
.935
.234
Residual
5.797
42
.138
Total
6.731
46
.854
.285
Residual
5.877
43
.137
Total
6.731
46
.657
.329
Residual
8.074
44
.138
Total
6.731
46
.498
.498
Residual
6-233
45
.139
Total
6.731
46
Regression
Regression
Regression
Regression
F
1.340
2.082
.117
2.381
.104^
3.598
.064
b. Predictors; (Constant), Principal Tenure, Principal Gender, Master Degree or higher

(Teacher %), Student Enrollment
c. Pre<jictors; (Constant), Principal Tenure, Master Degree or hightsr (Teacher %),
Student Enrollment
e- Predictors; (Constant), Principal Tenure

t- Dependent Variable: Teacher Collaboration
.267
1.693
a- Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %), Principal Tenure,

Principal Gender, Master Degree or higtier (Teacher %), Student Enrollment
d. Predictors: (Constant), Principal Tenure, Student Enrollment
Sig.
o
cr
Sum of
Squares
!\/lodel
109
Table 4.25
Model Summary from Teacher Collaboration and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression A nalysis
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square
.375
.140
.373"
.356
4
5
Adjusted
R Square
.036
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.375648
.057
.371506
.127
.066
.369710
,312^
.098
.057
.371545
.272
.074
.053
.372170
.139
a. Predictors: (Constant). Free or Reduced Lunch

(Students %), Principal Tenure. Principal Gender,
Enrollment
t>. Predictons: (Constant), Principal Tenure, Principal
Gender, Master Degree or higher (Teacher %), Student
Enrollment
c. Predictors: (Constant), Principal Tenure, Master

Degree or higher (Teacher %), Student Enrollment
d. Predictors; (Constant), Principal Tenure, Student
Enrollment
e. Predictors; (Constant), Principal Tenure
110
Table 4.26
Matrix of Coefficients from Teacher Collaboration and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
Coefficient^
Unstandardized
Coefficients
8
IVIodel
1
(Constant)
t
10.612
Sig.
.286
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.207
-1.350
.184
Master Degree or
tiigher (Teacher %)
.003
.003
.160
1.046
,302
Principal Gender
.083
.112
.109
.738
.465
Principal Tenure
.042
.023
.272
1.832
.074
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.001
,002
-.042
-.281
.780
(Constant)
2.987
.234
12.787
.000
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.197
-1,335
.189
Master Degree or
higher (Teacher %)
.003
.003
.163
1.083
.285
Principal Gender
.085
.111
.111
.765
.449
Principal Tenure
.042
.023
.272
1.852
.071
3.107
.172
18.033
.000
.000
.000
-.192
-1.307
.198
.004
,003
.178
1.199
.237
.040
.022
.261
1.793
.080
3.216
,147
21.811
.000
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.155
-1.073
.289
Principal Tenure
.045
.022
.290
2.013
.050
3.096
.096
32.098
.000
.042
.022
1.897
.064
(Constant)
Master Degree or
higher (Teacher %)
Principal Tenure
Beta
3.033
Student Enrollment
Std. Error
Standardized
Coefficients
(Constant)
(Constant)
Principal Tenure
3- Dependent Variable: Teacher Collaboration
.272
.000
Ill
Professional Development and School Factors Multiple l/inear Regression Analysis
Table 4.27, Table 4.28, and Table 4.29 were obtained by using multiple linear
regression.. The outputs demonstrate that none of the school fectors was found to have a
significant regression with the Profession Development subscale of SCS survey (F (5, 41)
= 2.236, p > .05).
Table 4.27
Model Stimmmy from Professional Development ami School Factors Muhiple Linear
Model Summary
R Square
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.214
.118
.264307
Adjusted
Model
R
.463
a- Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch

Enrollment
112
Table 4.28
ANOVA. Matrix from Professional Development and School Factors Multiple Linear
ANOVAf>
Model
Regression
Sum of
Squares
.781
df
5
Mean Square
.156
.070
Residual
2.864
41
Total
3.645
46
F
2,236
Sig.
a- Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch {Students %), Principal Tenure.

Principal CJender, Master Degree or higher (Teacher %), Student Enrollment
b. Dependent Variable: Professional Development
Table 4.29
Matrix of Coefficients from Professional Development and School Factors Multiple
Linear Regression Analysis
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
(Constant)
B
3.908
Student Enrollment
.000
Master Degree or
higher (Teacher %)
Std. Error
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
19.436
.201
Sig.
.000
.000
-.226
-1.547
.130
.001
.002
.070
.480
.634
Principal Gender
.151
,079
.269
1.912
.063
Principal Tenure
.019
.016
,165
1163
.251
>.003
.001
-.299
"2.083
.044
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
a. Dependent Variable: Professional Development
113
Unity of Purpose and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
By examinlTig three components from the backward multiple linear regression
analysis outputs on Table 4.30, Table 4.31, Table 4.32; three school factors (Principal
Tenure, Principal Gender, and SES) were found to have a significant linear regression
with the Uraly of Piir{)ose subscale of SCS (F (3, 43) = 5.941, p < ,01) with R square
accounting for .293 of the variance.
Table 4.30
Model Summary from Unity of Purpose and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression
Analysis
Model Summary
Model
1
2
3
R Square
R
.584
.341
Adjusted
R Square
,260
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.295699
,316
.250
.297730
.293
.244
,299040
.562^
,541'=
a. Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch

Enrollment
Master Degree or higher (Teacher %)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch
(Students %), Principal Tenure, Principal Gender
Table 4.5i
ANOVA Matrix from Unity of Purpose and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression
Analysis
ANOVrf
Regression
Sum of
Squares
1.854
df
5
Mean Square
.371
,087
Residual
3.585
41
Total
6.439
46
Regression
1.716
.429
Residual
3.723
42
.089
Total
5.439
46
Regression
1.594
,531
Residual
3.845
43
.089
Total
5.439
46
F
4.241
Sig.
4.839
.003'
5.941
.002
a. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Luncti (Students %), Principal Tenure,

b. Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %), Principal Tenure,
Principal Gender, Master Degree or higher (Teacher %)

c. Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %). Principal Tenure,
Principal Gender
d- Dependent Variable: Unity of Purpose
O
o
Model
1
115
Table 432
Matrix of Coefjficlenls from Unity of Purpose and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
Coefficient^
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
3.614
Std. Error
.225
Student Enrollment
.000
.000
-.168
-1.257
.216
Master Degree or
higher {Teacher %)
.003
.002
.186
1.390
.172
Principal Gender
.193
.088
.283
2.193
.034
Principal Tenure
.044
.018
.317
2.438
.019
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.004
.002
-.308
-2.343
.024
(Constant)
3.499
.207
16.916
.000
Master Degree or
higher (Teacher %)
.003
.002
.155
1.174
.247
Principal Gender
.190
.089
.277
2,140
.038
Principal Tenure
.042
.018
.304
2.329
.025
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.003
.002
-.272
-2.107
.041
(Constant)
3.597
.190
18.925
.000
Principal Gender
.204
.088
.298
2.307
.026
Principal Tenure
.046
.018
.334
2.599
.013
.003
.002
-.291
-2.257
.029
Model
1
Unstandardized
(Constant)
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
a. Dependent Variable; Unity of Purpose
Beta
t
16.066
Sig.
.000
116
Learning Partnership and School Factors Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
This section was obtained using foward of muUiple linear regression. The outputs
on Table 4.33, Table 4.34, and Table 4.35 show that Principal Tenure and SES were
found to have a significant linear regression with Learning Partnership (F (2, 44) =
11.495, p < .001) with an R square accounting for .343 of the variance.
Table 4 J 3
Model Summary from Learning Partnership and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
.504
,254
.238
.345011
sse"
.343
.313
.327493
a-
Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch

(Students %)
b.
Predictors: (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch

(Students %), Principal Tenure
117
Table 4.34
ANOVA Matrix from Learning Partnership and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
ANOVA
Mode!
Regression
Sum of
Squares
1,828
df
Mean Square
1.828
.119
Residual
5.356
45
Total
7.185
46
Regression
2.466
1,233
Residual
4.719
44
.107
Total
7.185
46
F
15.361
11.495
a. Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %}

b. Predictors; (Constant), Free or Reduced Lunch (Students %), Principal Tenure
c. Dependent Variable: Learning Partnership
SIg.
.000
,000"
118
Table 4.35
Matrix of Coefficients from. Learning Partnership and School Factors Multiple Linear
Regression Anafysis
Coafficfent^
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
B
3.915
Std. Error
.111
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.007
.002
(Constant)
3.736
.129
Free or Reduced
Lunch (Students %)
-.007
.002
.047
.019
(Constant)
Principal Tenure
3' Dependent Variable: Learning Partnership
Standardized
Coefficients
t
35.276
Beta
-.504
Sig.
.000
-3.919
.000
29.058
.000
-.493
-4.036
.000
.298
2.438
.019
119
i 1 i \PTEIl 5; SUM:MARY AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was first (Step I) to detemiine what selected
dimensions of school culture, as measured by the School Culture Sun-ey (SCS), were
related to student academic achievement in Math, Reading, and Writing (AIMS). The
second study (Step 2) was to determine if elements of school culture were affected by
variables such as principal tenure, principal's gender, number of administrators, the
number of teachers, the percentage of teachers earning a masters degree or higher, school
size, school level, and socioeconomic status (SES). Multiple linear regression was used to
run the data and the results were used to test the hypotheses. All of the outputs are
summarized in this section.
Summary of the Step 1 Findings and Hypotheses
Regression Analyses on SCS and AIMS (Math)
1.
A significant linear regression was found between the Learning

Partnership and 3"^ grade Math (AIMS) scores (F (1, 49)
20.955, p
< .001).
2.
R square (called the coefficient of determination, R''= .30) indicates the

proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (Writing) that can be
explained by variation in the independent variable (Learning Partnership).
Thus 30 % of the variation in the Math score can be explained by the
difference in school culture score on the Learning Partnership factor.
3.
A significant regression equation was found (F (1, 49)
20.955, p < .001)
with an R square of .30. The prediction equation can be expressed as:
120
Math = 371.758 + 40,954 * (Learning Partnership)
(1)
Regression Analyses on SCS and AIMS (Reading)

1. A significant linear regression was ;fbund between the Learning Partnership and
3'"'' grade Reading (AIMS) score (F (l^ 49) = 11.54, p < .01), F is significant at the
level of .001 (p < .01).
2. R. square (called the coefficient of determination,
= .191) indicates the
proportion of the variance in the dependent variable (Reading) that can be

explained by variation in the independent variable (Learning Partnership). Thus,
19.1 % of the variation in the Reading score can be explained by the difference in
the school culture score on the Learning Partnership factor.
3. A significant regression equation was found (F (I, 49) = 11.54, p < .01) with an R
square of .191. The prediction equation can be expressed as;
(2)
Regression Analyses on SCS and AIMS (Writing)

1. A significant linear regression was found between the Learning Partnership and
grade Reading (AIMS) score (F (1, 49) = 23.842, p < ,01). F is significant at
the level of .001 (p < .01).
121
2. R square (called the coefficient of determination, R'" = .327) indicates the
proportion of the variance iti the dependent variable (Writing) that can be
explained by variation in the independent variable (Learning Partnership). Thus,
32.7 % of the variation in the Writing score can be explained by the difference in
the school cuhure score on Learning Partnership.
3. A significant regression ec|uation was found (F (I, 49) = 23.842, p < ,001) with an
R square of .327. The prediction equation can be expressed as:
Reading = 416.831 + 30.059 * (Leadership Partnership)
(3)
Sunimai-y of the Step 2 Findings

The summary of findings on step 2 indicates any significant linear regression
between school culture (SCS subscales) and other school factors. The prediction
equations are not demonstrated in this section. By examining the three components of
multiple linear regression analysis outputs, the results were presented as follows:
1. School FactorsCollaborative Leadership Multiple Linear Regression Analysis:
According to the three components of muhiple linear regression analysis outputs
on Table 4.14, Table 4.15, and Table 4.16; Principal Tenure and SES were found
to have a significant hnear regression with Collaborative leadership subseale of
SCS survey (F (2, 44) = 5.246, p < .01), with R square of .193 variance,
2. School Factors-Collegial Support Multiple Linear Regression Analysi.s: As
shown in the components of multiple linear regression outputs on Table 4.17,
122
Table 4.18, and Table 4,19; Principal Gender was found to have a significant
linear regression with Collegial Support siibscale of SCS survey (F (1, 45) =
4,396, p < .05), with R square of .089 variance.
3. School Factors-Teacher Collaboration Multiple linear Regression Analysis: The
components of SPSS outputs on Table 4.20, Table 4.21, and Table 4.22 show that
none of the school factors was found a significant linear regression with Teachcr
Collaboration (F (1, 45) = 3.598, p > .05).
4. School Factors-Professional Development Multiple linear Regression Analysis:
The components of outputs on Table 4.23, Table 4.24, and Table 4.25
demonstrate that none of the school liictors was found to have a significant linear
regression with Profession Development subscale from SCS survey (F (5,41) =-
2.236, p > .05).
5. School Factors-Unity of Purpose Multiple Linear Regression Analysis: By
examining three components of m ultiple linear regression analysis outputs on
Table 4.26, Table 4.27, Table 4.28; Principal Tenure, Principal Gender, and SES
were found to have a significant linear regiêssion with the Unity of Puipose
subscale of SCS (F (3, 43) = 5.941, p < .01) with R square of .293 variance.
6. School Factors-Learning Partnership Multiple Linear Regression Analysis: The
components of SPSS outputs on Table 4.29, Table 4.30, and Table 4.31 indicates
that Principal Tenure and tlie percentage of students receiving free/reduced lunch
program (SES) were found to have a significant linear regression with Learning
Partnership {F (2, 44) = 11.49.5, p < ,001) with R square of .343 variance.
123
Diagram of the Final Analysis Results

The purpose of using a diagram was to summarize the rcsuhs and simplify the
complicated relationships found between dependent variables and independent variables.
In Chapter 4, the Diagram of Analysis Step on Figure 4.3 was used to represent the
procedures (Step 1 and Step 2) of the research analyses. In this section, the Diagram of
Analysis Results on Figure 5.1 is used to present the entire picture of the final results of
this study. Any significant linear regression found between independent variables and
dependent variables was presented by a line with arrows and the numbers attached to the
lines are the value of R^. The absence of a line between two variables represents that
there is no significant linear regression found in this study.
As shown in the Figure 4.3, the symbols of R'î2. R.^456, and 'R~n in the note were
used to represent that the variance of the dependent variable can be signi ticantly
explained and predicted by the variance of two or more independent variables
simultaneously, but it does not mean that the total R square value is equal to the
-s
^
' 2
combination of two individual R square values of variance (e.g., Rô t- ir, + R 2).
For in.stance, R^n was used to represent that the variance of Collaborative
Leadership can be significantly explained and predicted by the variance of Principal
Tenure (R"i) and the variance of SES (R"?) simultaneously. R*'i2 does not mean that R"i
plus R^2.
Figure 5.1. Diagram of the final analysis results.
<
Step 2; Regression Analyses

School Factors
PriocipaFs Tenure
Step 1; Regression Analyses

School Ciilture Subscaies
AIMS
Collaborative
Leadership
Coilegial
Support
Principars Gender
Teacher
Collaboration
School Size
Unity of
Purpose
SES
Proiessional
Development
Teacher Education Level
Learning
Partnership
Reading
125
Hypotheses Testing and Conclusions
111 this section, Ho represents Null Hypothesis. Each hypothesi.s was examined by
the statistical analysis in Chapter 4. The Diagram of Analysis Results on Figure 5.1 also
can be used to help making the conclusions for each hypothesis.
Null Hypothesis I
Ho; The differences of student achievement in Math (AIMS) can not be

explained and predicted by the variance in one or more of school cuhure
Collaboration, Unity of Purpose, Professional Development, and Learning
Partnership.
Conclusion 1:
This Null Hypothesis was rejected because a significant linear regression

was found between the school culture factor of Learning Partnership and
Math (F (1, 49) -- 20.955, p < .001), with R square .30, Thus, 30 % of the
variation in the Math score can be explained by the difference in school
culture score on Learning Partnership and can be predicted by the
fbllowing prediction equation:
Math == 371.758 + 40.954 * (Ixaming Partnership)
(I)
Nul! Hypothesis 2
Ho : The differences of student achievement in Reading (AIMS) can not be

explained and predicted by the variance in one or more of school culture
factors of Collaborative Leadership, Collegia! Support, Teacher
Collaboration, Unity of Purpose, Professional Development, and Learning
Partnership.
Conclusion 2:
This Null Hypothesis was rejected because a significant linear regression

was found between the school culture factor of Learning Partnership and
Reading ((F (1, 49)
11.54, p < .01), with R square of .191 variance. Thus,
19 % of the vari ation in the Reading score can be explained by the

difference in school culture score on Learning Partnership and can be
predicted by the following prediction equation:
Reading == 455.979 -t-17.483 * (Learning Partnership)
(2)
Null liypothesis 3
Ho : The differences of student achievement in Writing (AIMS) can not be

explained and predicted by the variance in one or more of school culture
C'ollaboration, Unity of Putpose, Professional Development, and Learning
Partnership.
127
Conclusion 3:
This Null Hj/potliesis was rejected because a significant linear

regression was found between the school culture factor of Learning
Partnership and Writing (F (1, 49) = 23.842, p < .001), witii R square
of .327 variance. Thus, 32.7 % of the variation in the Writing score can
be explained by the difference in school culture score on Learning
Partnership and can be predicted by the following prediction equation:
Writing
416.831 + 30.059 * (Learning Partnership)
(3)
Discussion of the Step 1 Findings

This section focused on the Step 1 regression analyses between school culture and
AIMS scores on Math, Reading, and Writing. Three issues were examined in this section:
(a) How to apply the equation (b) Explanation of the strength of R^ value, and (c) Re
examine the findings and equations by scatter plots. The multiple regression analysis
between Math and SCS was used as an example to explain these tiiree questions in detail.
Reading and Writing were only focused on the direction of the line of best fit, direction,
and, the scatter plots.
When examining the outputs from linear regression analyses in Chapter 4, the
Math (AIMS) score was found to have a significant linear regression with one school
culture subscale (Learning Partnership). A significant regression equation was found (F
128
(1, 49) = 20.955, p < .001) with an II square of .28.5 variance. The prediction equation
was expressed as:
Math = 371.758 + 40.954 {Learning Partnership)
(1)
What message does this prediction equation bring up for the readers of this study? Some
of the infoniiation to discuss in tliis section includes;
1. First, according to tlie standard error of estimate, 95% of the Math score can be
predicted by entering the gained scores of Learning Partnership subscale. For
instance, if a school's score of Learning Partnership is 3.5, then the predicted
Math score could be obtained by this equation shown as follow;
Math =- 371.758 + 40.954 * (Learning Partnership)

= 371.758 + 40.954* (3.5)
= 371.758 + 143.339
-515.09
2. Each equation was expressed with a value of R square (called the coefficient of
determination, R'"= .30). The
value indicates the proportion of the variance in
the dependent variable (Math) that can be explained by variation in the

independent variable (Learning Partnership). Thus 30 % of the variation in the
Math score can be explained by the difference in the school culture score on
129
Learning Partnership. What vahie of
would be sufficiently high to be ysellil? Is
the value of R' = .30 large or small? The size of the correlation or regression
coefficient is known as the effect size. In, ntultiple regression, the effect si,?,e is
equal to R^. The larger the effect size, the greater the predictive nature of the
variable. According to Kraemer and Thiemann (1987), the size of the effect can
be detemiined in one of three ways. First, the effect could be based on substantive
knowledge. It depends on what is being investigated. Sometime we want to know
about effects, even if they are very small. An example of this is knowing the
potential risks of living near high voltage power Unes. The effect of living near
power lines may be veiy small but it may be noticeable if it is 1 in 500. The
second way of determining the expected effect size is to base an estimate on
previous research. The researcher could see what effect sizes other researchers
studying similar fields have found, and use their results to get an estimate of the
effect size we would be likely to find. Third, Cohen (1988) has defined small,
medium, and large effect sizes for values of R". He defined small value as R
0.02, a medium size as
0.13 and large size as
= 0.26. These can serve as
researcher guidelines when applying multiple regression.

3. Third, the equation provides information about the relationship and direction
between the dependent variable (Math) and independent variable (Learning
Partnership). In this equation, Math scores have a positive correlational
relationship with Learning Partnership, That means that Math scores increase as
the score of the Learning Partnership subscale goes up. Re-examination of the
relationship can be accomplished through the use of scatter plots. Figure 5,2
provides combined scatter plots, the line of best fit, and the directions of line
slope.
Figure 5.2. The scatter plots and the line of best fit (Math/Leaniog Partnership).
Linear Regression
560H
Math (AIMS) 371,.p + 4lS?9S3 leal\ pir

R-Square = 0.30 o
^
520-1
S
i
I
I
083,.
... '-onm CV r,
2 48oH
440-^
2.500
3.000
3,500
4.000
131
Reading was found to have a significant linear regression with the Learning
Partnershi{>. A significant regression equation was found (F (1, 49) = 11.54, p < .01) with
an R square of .191. The significant prediction equation was;
(2)
For instance, if a school's score of Learning Partnership is 3.5, then tiie predicted
Reading score could be obtained by this equadon shown as follow:

-455.979+ 17.483 * (3.5)
= 455.979 + 61.03
-517.17
According to the standard en-or of estimate, 95% of the Reading score can be
predicted by entering the gained score of Leadership Partnership. The relationship is
positive between Learning Partnership and Reading scores. When the Learning
Partnership score increases, the Reading score increases. The scatter plots are presented
in the Figure 5.3.
132
Figure 5-3, The Scatter Plots and the Line of Best Fit (Readiiig/Learaing Partnership)
Linear Regression
Re^îng (AIMSf=
R-Squar = 0.19
525*^
'
O)
0
't!)
B)+ 7 48 leaCP^H"
n
0%"'
Tj o
'"5
vU
tc
600-
475I
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
133
Writing was found to have a significant linear regression with Learning
Partnership (F (1, 49) = 23.842, p < .001), with an R square of .327 variance. The
significant prediction equation was presented by:
Writing = 416.831 + 30,059 * (Learning Partnership)
(3)
For instance, if a school's score of Learning Partnership is 3.5, then the predicted
Writing score could be obtained by this equation shown as follow:
Writing = 416.831 + 30.059 * (Learning Partnership)

= 416.831 + 30.059 * (3.5)
= 416.831 + 105.206
- 522.03
According to the standard error of estimate, 95% of the Writing wScore can be
predicted by entering the gained score of Leadership Partnership. The relationship
between Learning Partnership and Writing score is positive. The writing score goes up as
the Learning Partnership subscaic score increases. The scatter plots and the line of best lit
were presented in the Figure 5.4.
134
Figure 5,4. The scatter plots and the lie of best Jit (Writing/Leadership Partnersliip).
Linear Regression
sso-i.
Wrlting (AIMS) = 416.83 + 3p,oe le,an par

R-Square6533 O
'''
m
S
<.
S2S-
Ocl3
6
ro
(J
soo-
rvf
0^'
47S-
!
2.S00
3,000
a.aio
I
4.000
Discussion of the Step2 Findings

Th,e purpose of the School Culture Survey (SCS) is to measure the collaborative
nature of a sSchool culture, and to provide school leaders a different perspective through
which to view the context of improving their schools (Gruenert, 1998). Surprisingly, only
the Learning Partnership suhscale wsis found to have a significant linear regression with
student achievement on AIMS scores (Math, Reading, and Writing) even though the
gained scores of elementary schools on the six factors of SCS have very high degrees of
correlation with one another (Table 5.1). Also, only two independent variables (Principal
Tenure and SES) from the school factors were found to have a significant linear
regression with Learn ing Partnership in Step 2 analyses. The scatter plots of regression
and the lines of best fit were shown in Figure 5.5. The line of best fit for Principal Tenure
and I.eaming Partnership regression analysis was too narrow to see, therefore the scatter
plots were spread out by multiplying Principal Tenure by 5. The new diagram of scatter
plots was reproduced on Figure 5.6. The slopes of lines of best fit allow us to explore
some infonnation. The subscale of Learning Partnership has a positive relationship with
Principal Tenure, but has a negative relationship with SES. The longer tenure a school
principal has, the higher degree of Learning Partnership within a school. A school with
higher rates of students in free or reduced lunch programs indicates a lower degree of
Learning Partnership.
136
Figure 5.5. The scatter plots and the lines of best fit (Principal Teiiure/SEiS/Leaming
partnership).
120
100
-i"
4-
"f''
'I"
80
60
'i[- -i-
40
20
"
Principal Tenure
Leamlng Partnarship
"*
Free
or Rsduoeii tunc
Learning Parirwrehip
-20
2.8
3,0
3.2
3.4
3,6
3,S
4.0
4.2
4.4
Figure 5.6. The scatter plots and the lines of best .fit (Princ-ipal Tenure*5 /SES/Leamiiig
Partnership).
120
100
80
420
<> -oo
o -oo
^
O O-
<3^
o o
+ Free or RetJuc#!) tunc
HI
Ltaming Pfii flrship

O- Prlndpal Ti.Miitre"g
"20
Learning Partriorahip
2.0
3.0
Z3
4.0
4,6
Figure 5,5. The original numbers of principal tenure was multiplied by 5.
Table 5.1
Matrix of Bivariate Correlations between SCS
Correlations
Coilaborative
Teacher
Professional
Leadership Collaboration Devetopment
Spearman's rho Coilaborative Leadershi Correfation Coefficier
Sig. (2-taiied)
N
1,000
Unity of
Puipose
Collegia!
Support
Learning
Partnership
.660**
.753**
.842**
.667**
,653**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
56
56
56
56
56
5S
.778**
.612*"
.702"
.406*'
Correiation Coefficier
.660"
Sig. {2-taiied}
.000
.000
.000
.000
.002
58
56
58
56
56
56
.748**
.771"
.576"
1.000
Professional
Correlation Coefficier
.753"
.776"
Devetopment
Sig. (2-tai!ed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
56
56
56
56
58
68
,842**
.612"
.748"
.725*'
.760**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
-000
.000
.000
56
56
56
56
56
5S
.667**
.000
.702**
_771
125"*
.000
.000
.000
56
66
56
56
56
.653**
.406*'
,576**
.760"
.528"
Sig. {2-taSied)
.000
.002
.000
.000
,000
56
56
56
56
56
^
Unity of Purpose
Collegia! Support
Sig. (2-tai!ed}
U
1.000
1,000
1.000
.528*^
.000
56
1.000
se
**- Correlation is slgrîfic^nt at the 0.01 level {2-talied).
~a
138
Implications and Recommendations fbr Professional Educators
There is certainly not a definitive answer about exactly how and to what extent
school cuhure influences the quality of a school, but there are indications that it is a
construct of importance. Principals may want to consider the following recommendations
in the pursuit of school improvement.
Based upon the infonnation received, results of the sui-vcy would imply that
perceptions of teachers should be considered when discussing the leadership
styles of principals.
Principals in the pursuit of their daily routines may want to take into
consideration how they are viewed by their teachers as to style and the style's
effectiveness.
Teachers and administrators at each school could decide if there are areas of
school culture which they would like to improve.
Principals could use the school culture survey to measure the strength and
weakness of their school culture, and provide themselves an opportunity to
cultivate a positive school culture based on the results of the study.
Researchers could use the same methodology to realize what other school
factors could have a connection with student achievement.
Researchers could use the same methodology to obtain similar prediction

equations for their schools to estimate the student achievement on other
standard tests on Math, Reading, and Writing,
139
The Limitation of the Study
Three research limitations were considered in this study. First, the study was
completed in, the State of Arizona and AIMS scores were used as dependent variables,
Theretbre, the obtained prediction equation can only be applied to the schools in Arizona.
Second, the schools were used as research units, so to obtain a large enough sample size
was difficult even though the numbers of returned sun'eys from participants were very
high. Third, the survey collection was voluntary, so the scores might not fully present the
complete assessment of the schools with low suivey return rates.
Final Thoughts
In this study, only one subscale (Learning Partnership) of school culture was
found to have a significant linear regression with student achievement on AIMS (Math,
Reading, or Writing). What about the other subscales? There are some possible reasons
for the lack of significance for the other factors. For instance, a school might provide
services such as Teacher Collaboration, Professional Development, or Collegial Support,
but those services might not be related to the real needs of teachers in the field for
improving student achievement. The lack of significance might be also caused by
variance in attitudes among people. Participating teachers are likely to compare their new
principals with their previous ones, so the scores would be influenced by the previous
experiences.
The outcomes of this study can be viewed as siuprising, but they are supported by
the review of literature mentioned in Chapter 2. Hart and Bredeson (1996) state that the
behaviors, beliefs, and symbolic leadership of principals have both direct and indirect
140
impact on student learning, but many educ-ators and scholars (e.g., Bossert and others,
1982; Duke, 1987) insist that all principal effects are indirect because they argue that a
principal's influence on student outcomes is mediated through factors within and outside
of the school environment. In this study, we found a similar phenomenon, in that
different components of school culture were not found to be significant. Student's
achievement was viewed as an indirect impact by Principal Tenure through the Learning
Partnership factor relating to the partnership between teachers and parents.
In addition to the Principal Tenure factor, SES was also found to be indirectly
related to student achievement (Math, Reading and Writing) through the Learning
Partnership subscale. As mentioned in Chapter 2, many of the insufficient parental
practices are highly correlated with socioeconomic status, and this is one of the reasons
children from disadvantaged backgrounds do less well in school than their more
advantaged counterparts.
Typically the positive effects of socioeconomics are mediated entirely by
parenting practices, but it is difficult to differentiate precisely how parenting styles relate
to socioeconomic status. A school leader needs to know that SES might play a different
role when we want to find out the interactions between parents, children, and schools. For
instance, a parent's style of interaction with their children is influenced by a parent's
occupation (Kohn, 1969), and the type of parent occupation is also related, to how parents
interact with teachers and school officials.
Tracking the linkages between principal leadersliip behaviors and student
outcomes is not easy. A difference in student achievement made by principals can be
141
supported by theory and experience, but it is less clear to researchers and practitioners of
educational adininistration exactly how or precisely in what ways principals affect
student learning. Researchers agree that effective schools are the result of effective
principals (Dufour, 1986; Kelly, 1981; Norton, 1984; Georgiades, 1985; Smith & Piele,
1989; Ubbcn & Hughes, 1987; Boston, 1990), However the debate continues as to
whether or not the principal alone is responsible for creating an effective school mid
healthy learning culture, or if it is related to the response of others^ directly or indirectly,
to what the principal does or does not do (Keefe & Jenkins, 1984; Smith & Piele, 1989).
Recommendations for Future Study
Some interesting related studies could be obtained by breaking down the topics in
this study. Future research could use different variables and sample sizes to analyze the
differences between gi'oups. Every topic could be modified into narrower or broader
perspectives depending on the researcher's interests and expertise. For instance, a future
study can focus on the comparison of school culture between school levels or the
comparison of school culture between school sizes. Table 5.2 provides some preliminary
research direction and the possible required statistical techniques.
142
Table 5.2
Research Questions and Statistical Analysis Techniques
Attempted Research
Analyses
1. Demographics of
Samples and
Participants
2. Analyzing the
school culture and
student academic
achievement
3. Analyzing the
school culture and
teacher
characteristics
4. Analyzing the
Principal's Genders
related to school
culture
5. Comparison of
school cuhure
among school levels
6. Comparison of
Principal's Tenure
and school culture
7. Comparison of
Teacher's
Educational Level
and School culture
8. Comparison of
school culture
among school size
9. Comparison of
school culture and
attendance rate,
mobility, SES, and
Mobility
Variables
Independent
Variables
Dependent
Variables
Statistical
Analysis
Techniques
Descriptive
Statistics
School Culture or
Climate
Student Academic
Achievement
Correlation.,
Pearson Product
Moment
School Culture
Teachers'
Characteristics
(e.g., educational
level and years of
teaching)
Correlation
Pearson Product
Moment
Principal's Gender
School Culture
t-test or
Correlation
School Levels
School Culture
ANOVA
Principal's Tenure
School Culture
Correlation or
Regression
Teacher's
iiducational Level
School culture
CorrelatioD
School Size
School culture
ANOVA or
CoiTelation
School Culture
Attendance Rate,
Mobilitv
SES '
Multiple
Regression
T~test,
Correlation
ANOVA
143
APPENDIX A
School Culture Survey

To what degree do these statements describe the conditions at your school?
Rate each statement on the following scale:
1^Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree
1. Teachers utilize professional networks to obtain information and resources for classrooms
instruction. (PD)
2. Leaders value teachers' ideas. (CL)
3. Teachers have opportunities for dialogue and planning across grades and subjects. (TC)
4. Teachers trust each other. (CL)
5. Teachers support the mission of the school. (UP)
6- Teachers and parents have common expectations for student performance, (LP)
7. Leaders in this school trust the professional judgments of teachers. (CL)
8. Teachers spend considerable time planning together, (TC)
9. Teachers regularly seek ideas from seminars, colleagues, and conferences. (PD)
10. Teachers are willing to help out whenever there is a problem. (CS)
11. Leaders take time to praise teachers that perform well. (CL)
12. The school mission provides a clear sense of direction for teachers. (UP)
13. Parents trust teachers' professional judgments. (LP)
14. Teachers are involved in the decision-making process. (CL)
15. Teachers take time to observe each other teaching. (TC)
16. Professional development is valued by the faculty. (PD)
17. Teachers' ideas are valued by other teachers. (CS)
18. Leaders in our school facilitate teachers working together. (CL)
19. Teachers understand the mission of the school. (UP)
20. Teachers are kept informed on current issues in the school. (CL)
21. Teachers and parents communicate frequently about student performance. (LP)
22. My involvement in policy or decision making is taken seriously. (CL)
23. Teachers are generally aware of what other teachers are teaching. (TC)
24. Teachers maintain a current knowledge base about the learning process. (PD)
25. Teachers work cooperatively in groups. (CS)
26. Teachers are rewarded for experimenting with new ideas and techniques. (CL)
27. The school mission statement reflects the values of the community. (UP)
28. Leaders support risk-taking and innovation in teaching. (CL)
29. Teachers work together to develop and evaluate programs and projects. (TC)
30. The faculty values school improvement. (PD)
31. Teaching performance reflects the mission of the school. (UP)
32. Administrators protect instruction and planning time. (CL)
33. Teaching practice disagreements are voiced openly and discussed. (UP)
34. Teachers are encouraged to share ideas. (CL)
35. Students generally accept responsibility for their schooling, for example they engage mentally
in class and complete homework assignments. (LP)
CL = Collaborative Leadership (items 2, 7,11,14,18, 20, 22, 26, 28, and .12)
TC = Teacher Collaboration (iteni.s 3, 8, 15, 23, 29, and 35)
PD = Professional Leadership (items 1, 9, 16, 24, and 30)
CS = Collegial Support (items 5, 12, 19, 27, and 31)
UP = Unity of Purpose (items 4, 10, 17, and 25)
LP = Learning Partnership (items 6, 13, 21, and 35)
144
APPENDIX B
Permission Letter for Accessing to tlie Data Itorn the Arizona Department of Education
School Culture.
Chens
2S};0N
l
Ave,Apt 230
Apifi 20, 2004
Dr r)or,nCiU3VV!-'s
Associate Suputintendonf:
Research, Standards & Accountability
Arizona Department of Education
Dear Di". Lewis;
f am wiiling to feq;jest permission to obtain and use the data that the Arizona Department of Education
coitected in the recent Schof^ Culture Study. I wouW lite to snaty tha eterficnlar/ school data and
!ook for refatonships among the schoof culture subscaies and school AfMS scorns on math, reading
and writing. I v/oultl like to use the data as part of my dissertation research at th University of
Afkona's Edi]<sfionai leaderahtp Program. If this fequest is accsplabie, pleas sign and date your
acknowledgement of my permission to use tiie data at the bottom of this sheet.
! would be happy to share tho resuiis of any future data analysis with you at yoiir convenience. If you
have any further questioris, please contact me at cbl!Ut3û.afizona edu or by phone at 520-628-2090.
Sincerely.
Cheng bau Liu

OoGforal Student - Educational leadership
i grarrt Cheng bau Liu access to the data from the Amm Department of Educatioti School Cwiure
145
APPENDIX C
Exempt Status of Human Subjects Approval
iHt University Of
Human Subjects Proieerton Program

httpv' / www, irb, ariioiia .edts
ARIZONA
Tucson Arizona
1350 N. Vine Avenue

P.O.Box 245137
Tmsito, M 657J4-513
ammmi
5 May 2004
Cheng-bau Liu, MEd.
Advisor: David Quinn, Ph.D.
224 College of Education Building
P.O. Box 210069
RE: THE ilELAT,lONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL CULTURE AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
IN ARIZONA K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Dear Mr, Liu;
We received documents concerning your re.ari:h propo.sal as cited above. This project involves tlie
review and analysis of aggregate school data, including .school culture data, AIMS math, reading and
writing data from Arizona elementary sciiools that is piiblically available on-line. The procedures to
be followed in this study j3ose tio risk to subjects providing the data. Regulations i.ssued by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human .Services [45 CFR Pari 46.110(b)(2)] exempt this type of research
from review by our Institutional Review Board.
Exempt .status is granted with the understanding that no further change.s or additions will be tiaade
either to the procedures followed or to the consenting instrument used (copies of which we have on
file) without the review and approval of the Human Subjects Committee and your College or
Departmental Review Committee. Any research related phy.sical or psychological harm to any
subject must also be reported to each committee.
Thank you for informing us of your work. If you have any questions concerning the above, please
contact this office.
Sincerely yours,
Rebecca Dahl, Ph.D., R.N.

Director.
Human Subjects Protection Program
RD:pm
cc:
Oepartmental'College Review Comswittee
1,46
REFERENCES
Adey, P. S. (1997). Factors influencing uptake of a large scale curriculum, innovation.
ERIC, ED 408672.
Adey, P. S,, & Sliayer, M. (1993). An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects
following an extended inter\''ention programm,e in the high school science
cuiTiciilum. Cognition and Instruction, 11 (I), 1-29.
Adey, P. S., & Shayer, M. (1994). Realty raising standards: Cognitive intervention and
academic achievement. London: Rout ledge.
Alexander, K, & Pallas, A. M. (1983). Private schools and public policy: New evidence
on cognitive achievement in public and private schools. Sociology of Education,
56, 170-182.
Armour, T. E. et al. (1989). An outliner study of elementary^ and middle schools in New
York City: Final report. New York: New York City Board of Education.
Ashton, P. (1996). Improving the preparation of teachers. Educational Researcher, 25(9),
21-22.
Baker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the
environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA; Stanford University Press.
Barcharch, S. (1990). Educational reform: Making sense of it all. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Bickel, R. (1999). School size, socioeconomic status, and achievement: A Georgia
Replication of Inequity in Education. VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program, ERIC,
ED 433398.
147
Bickcl, R. (1999). School size, socioeconomic status, and achievemeni: A Texas
Replication of Inequity in Education. VT: Rural Challenge Policy Program, ERIC,
ED 433986.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J, S. (1981). How power affects human behavior. In Hall, J,
(Ed), Models for management: The structure of competence
ed., pp. 113-
120).
Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B,, Lee, G. V. (1982). The instmctiona!
management role of the principal Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 3464.
Boston, J. A. (1990). School leadership arid global education. In K, A. Tye (Ed.), Global
education: From thought to action (pp. 86-99). Alexandria, VA: Association for
supervision and curriculum development (1991 Yearbook).
Bowles S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
Carbonaro, W, J. (1999). Opening the debate on closure mid schooling outcomes.
American Sociological Review, 64, 682-686.
CaiToll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge. New York: Guilford Press.
Chang, Yin Chcong. (1993). Profiles of organizational culture and effective schools.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 4(2), 85-110.
Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
148
Cohen, D. K. & Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policy and dassmorn performance:
Mathematics reform in California. J3RIC, ED 417942.
Cohen,, D. K. & Hill, I-I. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: The
Mathematics reform in California. ERIC, ED 418842.
Cohen, J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2"'' ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbauni
Coleman, G, (2001). Issues in education: View from the other side of the room. Westpoit,
CT: Greeinvood.
Coleman, J. R. (1990), Foundation of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Coleman, J. R., HolTer, T., & .Kilogore, S. (1982). High School Achievement: Public,
Catholic and Private Schools Compared. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., WeinField, F., &
York, R. (1966). Ecpmlity of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1985). High school achievement: Public,
Catholic, and Private Schools Compared. New York: Academic Press.
Cooke, R. A. & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral nonTi.s and expectations: A
quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group &
Organization Studies, 13, 245-273.
Cremin, L. A. (1990). Popular education and its discontents. New York: Ha;r|ier and Row.
149
Cronk, B.C. (2004). How to use SPSS: A step by step guide to analysis and interpretation
(3"' ed.). Giendale, CA: Pyrczak.
Cuban, L. (1990), Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1% 313.
Cunningham, W. ., & Gresso, D, W. (1993). Cultural leadership: The culture of
excellence in education. Needhara Height, MA: AJly and Bacon.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A hlneprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of refonn. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.
Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ED 325914.
Deal, T. (1993). The culture of schools. In Sashkin, M and Walberg, H. (Eds.),
Educational Leadership and School Culture. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Deal, T. E. (1985). Cultural change: Opportunity, silent killer, or metamorphosis? In
Kilmami, R. H., Saxto, M. .1., Serpa, R. & associates (Eds.). Gaining control of the
cooperate culture. San Francisco; .lossey-Bass.
Deal, T.E. (1993). The culture of schools. In Sashkin, M. & Walberg, H. .1. (Eds.)
Educational leadership and school culture. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Deal. T, E. and Peterson, K. D. (1998), Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
150
T3esiraone, L, (1999). Linking parent imolvement with student achievement: Do race and
income matter?
Desiraone, L., Finn-Stevenson, M., & Henrich, C, (2000). Wbole school reform in a lowincome African American community: The effects of the CoZi model on teachers,
parents, and .students. Urban Education, 35(3), 269-323.
Dombusch, S. M., Ritter, Leiderman, Roerts, & Fraleigh (1987). The relation of
parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 12441257.
Dougherty, K. (1990). The effects of community colleges: Aid or hindrance to
socioeconomic attainment? Sociology of Education, 60, 86-103.
Downey, D. B. (2002). Parental and lumily involvement in education. In Molnar, A. (Ed.),
School Reform; Proposal. Greenwich, CT; lAP.
Druva, C. A., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher
behavior and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 467-479.
Dufour, R, P. (1986), Must principals choose between teacher morale and an effective
school? NASSP Bulletin, 70(490), 33-37.
Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York:
Random House.
Educational Research Service (1978). Ckm size: A summary of research. Arlington, VA:
ERS.
151
Epstein, J. L. (1996). Advances in family, community, aad school partnerships. New
School, New Community, 12(3), 5-13.
Epstein, .1. L., & Lee, S. (1995). National patterns of school and family connections iii the
middle grades. In Ryan, B. A., Adams, G. R., Gullotta, T. P., Weissberg, R. P., &
Jampton, R. L. (Eds.). The Family-School Connection, Theory Research and
Practic, (pp. 108-154). Thousand Oaks, Ch: Sage.
Estein, .1. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practice and
parent involvement. In Jiirrelmann, K., Kaufniann, K., & Losel, F. (Eds.). Social
interaction: Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136). New York: Degruyter.
Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension: Toward a new theory of economics. New York:
The Free Press.
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform resistance, and the real-life
problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for public education; New evidence on how and why money
matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28, 465-98.
Fine, M. & Somerville, .T. (1998). Big imaginations: A creative look at urban public
schools. Chicago: Cross City Champaign for Urban School Reform. ERIC, ED
427127.
Finn, et al (2001). The enduring effects of small classes. Teachers College Record, 103,
145483.
152
Finn, J. D. (1998). Class size and students at risk: What is known? What is next?
Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvenient.
Finnan, C. & Meza, J'. {2003). The accelerated schools project; Can a leader change the
culture and embed reform? In Murphy, J. & Datnow, A. (Eds.), Leadership lesson
from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks, C A: Corwin Press.
Finnan, C., & Ixvin, H. M. (2000). Changing school culture. In Elliott, J. & Altrichter, H.
(Eds.), Images of educational change (pp. 87-98). Mîlton Keynes, UK.: Open
University Press.
Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. D. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students: Culture
change in schools, classrooms, ami individuals. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Finnan, C., Schnepel, K. C., & Anderson, L. W. (n.d.). Powerful learning environments:
The critical link between changes in school culture and improvements in student
learning. Unpublished manuscript.
Firestone, W. A. & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkage to
improve instruction: The principal's contribution. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.
Florio-Ruane, S. (1989). Social organizational of classes and schools. In Reynolds, K.
(Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 163-172).
Fowler, W. & Walberg (1,991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189-203.
Freytag, W. R. (1990). Organizational culture. In Murphy, K. R. & Saal, F. E. (Eds.)

Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice. Hillsdale, New
Jersey; Lawrence.
Freytag, W, R. (1990). Organizational cultitre. In M'urpliy, K. R., & Saal, F. E. (Eds.).
Psychology in Organization (pp. 180-181). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Fiillan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency.
Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6-10.
Fyans, Leslie, Jr., & Maehr, Martin. (1990). School culture, student ethnicity, and
motivation. IJrbana, IL; The National Center for School Leadership. ED 327947,
Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The inteipretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Georgiades, W. (1985). The principal is an instructional leader: Myth or reality?
Educational Considerations XII (3) (pp. 12-16), Manhattan, KS: Kmsas State
University.
Glass, G. V. & Smith, M. L. (1978). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of
class size and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development.
Glass, G. V. (2002). Teacher character. In Molnar, A. (Ed.), School Reform Proposals:
The research evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Goldhaber, D. D. & Brewer, D. J, (1996). Why don't schools and, teachers seem to matter?
Assessing the impact of imobservable on educational productivity. Journal of
Human Resources, 52(3), 505-520.
154
Goldstein, H. & Blatchfofd, P. (1998). Class size and educational achieveiBcrit; A
review of methodology witb particular re ference to study design. British
Educational Research Journal, 24, 255-268.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996), The effect of school resources on
student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66{3), 411-416.
GrolnickjW. S., & Siowiaczek, M. L. (1987). Parental involvement in children's
schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization, and motivational model.
Children Development, 6'5(1), 237-252.
Gruenert, S. (1998a). Development of a school culture. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.
Gruenert, S. (2003). Correlations of collaborative school cultures with student
achievement. The paper submitted to NASSP Bulletin, Indiana State University.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 1S(5), 5-12.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Hart, A. W. & Bredson, P. V. (1996). The principalship: A theory of professional
learning and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Hart, B., & Risely, R. T. (1992). American parenting of language-learning children:
Persisting di fferences in femrily-children interactions observed in natural home
environments. Dtmdopmental Psychology, 28(6), 1092-1105.
Heck, R. I'L, Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, (3. A, (1990). Instructional leadership and
school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Bkhicational Administratkmal
Quarterly, 26(2), 94-125.
Heckmaii, Paul (1993). School restructuring in practice: Reckoning with the culture of
school. International Jcyurnai of Educational Reform 2(3), 263-71.
Howley. C. (1999). The Matthew Project: State Report for Montana. Randolph, VT;
Rural Challenge Policy Program. ERIC, ED 433173.
Howley, C, (2002). Small schools. lo Molnar, A. (Ed.), School reform proposals: The
research evidence (pp. 49-- 77). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Public.
Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow, & Fendrich (1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher
perceptions of parental involvement in children's education and school

perfomiance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 817-839.
Jencks, C. (1985). How much do high school students learn? Sociology of Education, 5S,
128-135.
Jencks, C.S., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Ginits, H., Heyn.s, B., &
Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect offamily and
schooling in America. New York; Basic Books.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Mew York:
Wiley.
Keefe, J. & Howard, E. (1997). Redesigning schools for the new century: A systems
approack Reston, Virginia: NASSP.
Kelly, E. A. (1981). Auditing school climate. Educational Leadership, 39, 180-183.
Kerr, A. W., Hall, H. K., & Kozub, S. A. (2002). Doing statistics with SPSS. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE
Kilmann, R. H. (1985). Five steps for closing culture-gaps. In Kiiniami, R. H., Saxtx), M,.
J, J Seipa,, R. & associates (Eds.) Gaining control of the cooperate culture (p. 5),
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Kilmami, R. H., Saxto, M. J., & Seipa, R. (1985), Gaining control of the cooperate
culture. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.
Kleine-Kracht, S. P. (1993). Indirect instructional leadership; An administrator's choice.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 29i2), 187-212.
Kohn, M. L. (1969). Class and Conformity, Chicago; Chicago University Press.
Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckliolm, C. (1952), Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions. New York; Vintage Books.
Krueger, A. B. & Whitmore, D, M. (2001). Would smaller classes help close the blockwhite achievement gap? Princeton University Industrial Relations Section
Working Paper,# 451. Retreated Jan 1, 2004, from
www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/working papers.htmL
Lacz, 1.1,, & Berliner, D. C. (2001). The iffects of teacher certification on student
achievement: An analysis of the Stanford Nine. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Landau., S. & Everitt, B. S. (2004). A handbook of statistical analyses using SPSS. New
York; Chapman & Hall/CRC
157
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class and family-school relatioiisliip: The importance of
ciilturaJ capital. S(3ciolog}^ of Education, 56, 73-85.
Lee, V, & Smith., J. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, J 9(3), 205-277.
Levine, D. U. & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and
analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Cetiter for Effective
Schools Research and Development,
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: M^cGraw-HilL
Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New
York; Basic Books.
Likert, R. (1961), New pattern of management. New York; McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York:
McGraw-Hill
Little, J. W. (1993). Teacher professional development in a climate of educational refonn.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, I5{2), 129-153, 143.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago; University of Chicago Press.
Louis, M. R. (1985). Sourcing workplace cultures: Why, when, and how, In Kilmann, R.
H., Saxton, M. J., Serpa, R., & Associates (Eds.), Gaining control of corporate
culture (pp.126-136).
Lunenburg, F. G., & Omstein, A. C. (1991). Educational administration: Concepts and
practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworlh.
l5iS
McQuillan, P. J ( J 998), Educational opportunity in an nrhcm American high school: A
cultural analysis, Albany: State University of New York Press.
McQuillan, P. J. (1998). Educational opportimity in an urban American high school: A
cultural analysis. Albany: State Uni versity of New York Press.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for American from a small school in
Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
Milne, A. M., Myers, D. E., Rosenthal, A. S,, & Ginsburg, A. (1986), Single parents,
working mother, and the educational achievement of school children. Sociology of
Education, 59, 125-139.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondarj'' mathematics an,d science
teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, J 3(2), 125145.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, C-A: Sage.
Morgan, M. S. & Sorensen, A. B. (1999). Parental networks, social closure, and
mathematics learning: A test of Coleman's social capital explanation of school
effects. American Sociological Review, 64, 661-681.
Moses, R. (1989). The algebra project: Organizing in the sprite of Ella. Harvard
Educational Review, 59(4), 423-433.
Mueller, D. J., Chase, C. L, & Walden, J. D. (1998). Effects of reduced class sizes in
primary classes. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 48-50.
159
Mullens, J. E,, et al (1996). Stiulmt iMirning. teaching quality, and professional
development: Theoretical linkages, current measurement, and recommendations
for future data collection. ERIC, EID 417158.
Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school
districts. Journal of educational research, <Sf 175-180.
National Center for Education Statistic (1998). Status of educational reform in public
elementary and secondary schools: Teachers perspectives. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistic (1998). Toward better teaching: Professional
development in J993-1994. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Newmann, F.M. and Associates (1996). Authentic achievement: Restrucitmng schools
for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Norton, M. S. (1984). What's so important about school climate? Contemporaty
Education, 56(1), 43-45.
Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
Passow, A. H., el al. (1989). The national case study: An empirical comparative study of
education in twenty-one countries. New York: Wiley.
160
Peterson, K. D. (1989). Secondmy principals and inslnictional leadership: Complexities
in a diverse role. National Center for Effective Secondary Schools, University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Peterson, K,. D. (1999). Time use flows from school culture. Journal of Staff
Development, 20(1), 16-19.
Piirkey, S. C. & Smith, M. S (1983). Effective schools: A review. The elementary' school
journal 83(4), 427-449.
Razik, T. and Swnson, A. (20()l). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; Merrill Prentice Hall.
Reitzung, U. C. (2002). Profession development. In Moliier, A. (Ed.), School reform:
Proposal. Greenwich, CT: Inforaiation Age Publishing.
Rigsby, L. C., Stull, J. C., & Morse-Kelly, N. (1995). School perfomiance: Complicating
explanatory models by incorporating race and gender. Philadelphia, Temple
University.
Robinson, G, E. (1990). Synthesis of research on the effects of class size. Educational
Leadership, 47(1), 80-90.
Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting "The culture of the school and the problem of change."
New York: Teachers College Press.
Sarason, S. B. (1971), The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Sarason, S. B. (1972). 'Ilie creation of settings and future societies. San Francisco:
Jossey~Bas.s.
Sathe, V, (1983). Implications of corporate culture: A manager's guide to action.

OrganiziUkmal Dynamics, 12, 5-23,
Schein, E. H. (1985). How culture forms, develops, and changes. In Kilmann, R, H.,
Saxto, M. J., Serpa, R. & associates (Eds.), Gaining control of the cooperate
culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture ami leadership. (2jid ed.) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. M. (1981). Matching cor|>orate culture and business strategy.
Organizational Dynamics, 10, 30-47.
Sdovnik, A. R., Cookson, P. W., & Semel, JR. S. F. (2001). Exploring education. A
Person Education Company, MA; Needham Heiglits.
Seifer, E. H. & Vomberg, J. A. (2002). The new school leader for the 2f* century: The
principalskip.
Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1992).
Educational Governance and Administraiion. Boston; Allyn and Bacon.
Shaw, J & Reyes, P. (1992). Journal of Educational Research, 85, 5, 295-302.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. S. (1996). Long-term far-transfer effects of a cognitive
intervention program: A replication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Associations New Yoi"k.
Sims, R. R. (2002). Managing organizational behavior. Westport, CT; Quorum Books.
Smith, S. C, & Fiele, P. K. (1989). School leadership: Handbook of excellence
Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearing House on Educational Management.
ed.).
Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace. In, Guskey, T. R., & Huberrnan,
M. (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices
(pp. 92-113). New York: Teachers College Press.
Southwest Eiducational Development Laboratory (1999). School context-school culture.
Retreated Jan 4, 2004 from http://www.sedl.org/change/school/culture.html.
Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (2000). A National Plan for Improving Professional Develop
Development. ERIC, ED 442779.
Sparks, D. (1995). Focusing staff development on improving student learning. In Gawelti,
G. (Ed,), Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement (pp. 163-172),
ERIC, ED 394629.
Sparks, J. A., York, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (1999). A study of the impact of a long-term
local systemic reform on the perceptions, attitudes, and achievement of grade %
students. ERIC, ED 429820.
Spmdler, G. D. (1999, August 25), Personal community.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1987). Cultural dialogue and schooling in Schocnhausen
and Roseville: A comparative analysis. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,
18{r), 3-16.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1993). Cross-cultural, comparative, reflective interviewing
in Schoenhausen and Rosevill. In Schratz, M. (Ed), Voice in Educational
Research (pp. 150-175). New York: Palmer.
Stevenson, D. L., & Backer, D. P. (1987), The family-school relation, and the child's
school perfonnance. Children Development, 58, 1348-1357.
163
Stogdill, R. & Coons, A. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Stolp, S. Sc Smith, S. C. (1995). Transforming school cidture: Stories, symbols, values ^
the leader's role. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Mtiiiagement, 5207
University of Oregon, ED 386783.
Stolp, Stephen & Smith, Stuart. (1994, J'aniuiry). School culture and climate: The role of
the leader. OSSC Bulletin. Eugene; Oregon School Study Council.
Student Report Card & Review (2004). Retrieved April 29, 2004, from
http://www.ade.az.gov/srcs/lind school.asp?rdoYcar"^2004.
Sui-Chu, E. H. & Willms, .1. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth grade
achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.
Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri, & G. Litwin
(Eds.). Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept (pp. 11-32). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School, Division of Research.
Thompson, M. G. (199.3). Understanding school culture. Independent School, 52 (3), 3740.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utophla; A century of public school
refomi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
Ubben, G. C. & Hughes, L. W. (1987). The person, the job, and the organizational
environment. The principal (pp. 3-14). Newton, Mass: Allyn Bacon, Inc,;
Walberg, H. & 'W'alberg, H, (1994). Losing local control. Echicational Researcher, 23(5),
19-26.
Walberg, 1-1. (1989). District size and student learning. Education and Urban Society,
2i(2). 154-163.
Wax, M. L. (1993). How culture misdirects multiculturalism. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 24{2), 99-115.
Weller, L. D. & Weller, S. J. (2()()1). Quality human resource leadership. Publisher:
Rowman & Littlefield,
Weller, L. D., Hartly, S. H., & Brown, C. L. (1994). Principals and TQM: Developing
vision. The Clearing House, <57(5), 298-301.
West, J., Denton, K., Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America's kindergartners: Findings
from the early childhood longitudinal study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, Fall
1998, NCES 2000-070. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, 2000.
White, R., & Lippitt, R. (1990). Leader behavior and member reaction in three social
climates. In Hall, J. (Ed.), Models for management: The structure of competence
(2"^^ ed., pp. 1464 72). The Woodlands, TX: Woodstead Press.
Wilkin, A. L. & Paterson, K. J. (1985). You can't get here fomi here: What will make
culture-change projects fail. In Kilmann, R. H. & Saxton, Serpa, R., & Associated
(Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 262-291), San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Wilkin, A. L. & Patterson, K. J. (1985). You can't get there from here: What will make
culture projects fail. In Kilmann, R. H., Saxto, M, J., Serpa, R. & associates (Eds.),
Gaining control of the cooperate culture (p.267). San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.
165
Wilms, W. W. (2003). Altering the Structure and Culture of American Public Schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (8), 606-615.
Word, Ev., et al. (1990). Students/Teacher Ac.hievement Ratio (STAR): Tennessee's k-3
class size study. Nashville, TN: Tennessee State Department of Education.
Yukl, G, A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, MJ: Princeton Hall

The Relationship Between School Culture and Student&#39;s Achievement in Amzonia Elemenitary Public School (Thesis)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Relationship Between School Culture and Student&#39;s Achievement in Amzonia Elemenitary Public School (Thesis)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

I'HE REI,..ATI()NSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOl.

CULTURE AND STUDENT'

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

UMI Number: 3132238

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

rfli: UNiVERSfTY OF ARJZOi

CHEN'G BAU Lll.i

entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCtiOOL CULTURE AND STUDENT

James Chalfant Ba^.D.

Patricia First, J.D. Ed.D.

Dissertation Director: Quiiraro

CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LriERATURE

Theoretical Literature: Organizational Culture

Sample-s and Participants

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

SCHOOL CULIJTRE SURVEY

APPENDIX B PERMISSION LETTER FOR ACCESSING IX) THE DA'IA.

APPENDIX C EXEMPT S'l'AlUS OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

Table 3.2, Dimension of school culture survey and items

Table 4.1, Statistical techniques

Table 4.2, School level and principaFs gender

Table 4.3, School level and principal administration

Table 4.4, School level and school size

Table 4.7, Bivariate correlations between school factors

Table 4.8, ANOVA matrix from multiple linear regression analysis

Table 4.9, Model summary from multiple linear regression analysis

Table 4.10, Matrix of coefficient Irom multiple linear regression analysis

Table 4.11, Model summary from regression analysis on SCS

Table 4,12, NOVA matrix from muhiple linear regression analysis

Table 4.13, Matrix of coefficient from multiple linear regression analysis

Table 4,14, NOVA matrix from multiple linear regression analysis

Table 4.15, Model summary from multiple linear regression analysis

Table 4.17, Independent variables and dependent variables for school

Table 4.18, Model summary model summary from collabofative leadership

Table 4.19, ANOVA matrix model siiramaiy from collaborative leadership

Table 4.20, Matrix of coefficients model summary from collaborative

Table 4.22, Model summaiy from collegial support and school

Table 4.23, Matrix of coefficients from collegial support and school

Table 4.24, ANOVA matrix from teacher collaboration and school

Table 4.25, Model .summary from teacher collaboration and school

Table 4.26, Matrix of coefficients from teacher collaboration and

Table 4.27, .Model summary from professional development and

Table 4.28, ANOVA matrix from professional developmen,C and

Table 4,29, Matrix of coefflcient.s lk)m professional development and

Table 4.35, Matrix of coefficients from learning partnership and school

Table 5.1, Matrix of bivariate correlations between SCS

Table 5.2, Research questions and statistical analysis techniques

Figure 2.2, Dimensions of leadership

Figure 2.3, Leadership style with degree of trust

Figure 3.1, Diagram of research design...

Figure 4.1, The dispersion of AIMS (Math)

Figure 4.2, The dispersion of AIMS (Reading)

Figure 4.3, The dispersion of AIMS (Writing)

Figure 4.4, Final version of research design

Figure 5.1, .Diagram, of the final analysis results

increased graduatioo requirements, toughened cuniculum mandates, and increased the

Hq] ; The difference of student achievement in Math can not be explained

Ho?.: The differences of student achievement in Reading can not be

H03: The difference of student achievement in Writing can not be

Assumptions for this Study

An organization exists in order fulfdJ the objectives, and these objectives

Organizations consist of a group of people brought together to achieve these

Historical versus Immediate: Culture is a product of the history of relationship in

The Relationship Between School Culture and Student's Achievement in Amzonia Elemenitary Public School (Thesis)

The Relationship Between School Culture and Student's Achievement in Amzonia Elemenitary Public School (Thesis)