Josip BurušićTHE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN

ELEMENTARY...

THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WITH POOR, AVERAGE
AND GOOD SCHOOL’S LEARNING ENVIRONMENT*

Josip Burušić**
Received: 13. 7. 2018 Original scientific paper
Accepted: 4. 3. 2019 UDC 37.018.2:37.06
DOI https://doi.org/10.30924/mjcmi.24.si.1

Abstract. The cross-sectional research de- of school climate quality - school climate is sig-
sign was used to investigate differences in teach- nificantly better in schools with better school’s
ers’ perception of school climate in schools with learning environment. The performed hierar-
poor, average and good school’s learning envi- chical regression analyses, demonstrated in ad-
ronment, and to explore to what degree is pos- dition, how school’s learning environment and
sible to explain six school climate dimensions by characteristics of teachers and teaching practice
school’s learning environment, some teacher’s (e.g. gender, age, work experience and education
characteristics and teaching practice experience. level) are powerful predictors of (positive) school
Participants in the study were 785 teachers from climate. In this paper, we provide possible expla-
44 primary schools in northern part of Croatia, nation and stress importance on school climate
121 males and 579 females. Participants rated as an essential concept in school effectiveness
school climate in school where they teach and concerns and activities.
in addition provided information about various
school’s learning environment. Schools which Keywords: school climate, school’s learn-
teachers perceived as having good school’s ing environment, elementary school, school
learning environment clearly differ in the level effectiveness

1. INTRODUCTION effectiveness, with the aim of exploring the

strength of a relation between schools’ or
Ever since the seminal study by
students’ achievement, as most used indi-
Coleman et al. (1966), it is possible to iden- cators of school effectiveness and various
tify two general trends in the field of school possible determinants of achievement. The
effectiveness research. The first trend is pri- second trend is represented by numerous
marily based on the identification and cata- programs and initiative for school improve-
loguing of numerous determinants of school ment, where primary concerns are related

*
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Education of Republic of Croatia through Scientific of
Excellence Centres and is a part of activities of Croatian Centre for School Effectiveness and Management research.
Special thanks to Maja Ribar and Marija Šakić Velić for their help in preparation of the manuscript.
**
Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences, Croatian Center of Scientific Excellence for School Effectiveness and
Management, Marulicev trg 19, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. Email: [email protected], Phone: (+3851) 48 86 832,
Fax: (+3851) 48 28 296.

1
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues

to desired student-level outcomes, teacher and consequently more effective teaching

or school-level outcomes, as well as the styles and methods. This approach did not
outcomes on the level of entire educational consider the direct, but only the indirect ef-
system (Townsend, 2007). fects of a more favorable school climate. As
Berkowitz at all. (2017) stated, better mate-
Traditional studies have tried to iden- rial conditions generally increase the differ-
tify the determinants of school effectiveness ences in dominant patterns of behavior of
primarily among various structural charac- students, teachers and parents, which has
teristics of schools, such as physical, socio- indirect effects on effectiveness. Today, it is
environmental and financial conditions in noticeable that all processes within a school
which they work, while the majority of con- are significant determinants of school cli-
temporary studies are primarily focused on mate, and school climate affects the effec-
consideration of processes within schools, tiveness of teaching and learning within
such as teaching styles, teacher behaviors a school, and is related to achievement of
and interactions. One of the reasons for this students, teachers and schools (Dronkers &
shift of focus are the outcomes of certain re- Robert, 2003).
view studies, such as the Hanushek (1986)
study, which have concluded that the rela-
tionship between structural characteristics
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
of schools, primarily material and financial
resources, and school achievement as an in- Jonathan Cohen of American National
dicator of school effectiveness, is modest. School Climate Council stated in aninflu-
However, some authors dispute Hanushek’s ential paper that school climate represents
(1986) findings (e. g. Hedges, Laine & “patterns of people’s experiences of school
Greenwald, 1994) and claim that the posi- life and reflects norms, goals, values, inter-
tive correlation between school’s material personal relationships, teaching and learn-
resources and school outcomes is not chal- ing practices, and organizational structures“
lenged. Namely, sufficient evidence exists (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral,
that schools which have more material re- 2009, p. 180). In the existing literature, dif-
sources available are more successful, but ferent terms are used for the concept of
this evidence did not prevent the strength- school climate. Yonezawa, Jones, Mehan,
ening of focus of educational research on & McClure (2008) state that the concept of
the role of processes within schools. school climate is also termed “the ecology of
the school,” “a safe and healthy school set-
An important group of studies that have ting,” “classroom participation structures,”
been focused on processes within schools a “caring school environment” or the “cul-
are those on the role of school climate in ture of the school.” These authors also as-
improving school effectiveness (Berkowitz, sert that the concept of “personalization”
Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2017). In the is used in contemporary studies, which in-
beginning, these studies were based on the cludes the need that schools approach each
expectation that better material conditions student individually, creating a school envi-
in schools, and more favorable sociodemo- ronment focused on satisfying the needs and
graphic characteristics of parents and social wishes of each individual student. Halpin
composition of student population, result in and Croft (1963), the pioneers of school
a greater demand of a school upon teach- climate research, think that the meaning of
ers, better quality of school administration, school climate corresponds to the meaning

2
 Management, Vol. 24, 2019, Special Issue, pp. 1-15
Josip Burušić: THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN ELEMENTARY...

of “personality” in the case of an individual, If placed in the theoretical mod-

with school climate being an indicator of el of school effectiveness (Creemers &
“personality of school”, since it encompasses Kyriakides, 2006), the construct of school
collective perception of teachers of school climate would present a “school-level”
behavior, and also affects the attitudes and factor, which basically reflects the qual-
behaviors of all the people in the school. In ity of school processes, i. e. a collection
Croatian literature, Domović (2003, p. 143) of processes, perceptions, beliefs, com-
defines school climate „as a relatively stable mon norms, and psychosocial conditions
quality of school setting that affects the be- of teaching and teacher’s work – in short, a
havior of its members and is based on a com- collection of positive and supportive or neg-
mon perception of behavior in the school, ative and aversive factors within school that
and is under the influence of formal organi- strengthen or suppress the effects of other
zation, non-formal organization, personality factors on school effectiveness. Johnson
of members and school management”. and Stevens (2006, p. 2) state that “school
climate can either be seen as a construct
In contemporary educational literature, representing the involvement of everyone
numerous review studies on different as- in a school or as something that is primar-
pects of school climate can be found (e.g., ily a function of the teachers or of the stu-
Anderson, 1982; Benbenisty & Astor, 2005; dents”. In the case of school effectiveness
Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, model, school climate would present global
2009; Cohen & Geier, 2010; Wang, & involvement of all the actors.
Degol, 2016). These studies have an em-
phasis on the importance of school cli- Thapa et al. (2013, p. 2) claim that the
mate for understanding the effectiveness of global construct of school climate is com-
schools and teachers in common, as well as prised of five dimensions which should
recognition that school climate is an impor- be considered, namely “(a) Safety (e.g.,
tant concept, on which attempts of school rules and norms, physical safety, social-
emotional safety), (b) Relationships (e.g.,
improvement are based. Numerous empiri-
respect for diversity, school connectedness/
cal studies on the determinants of school
engagement, social support, leadership,
climate also exist, as well as on the imme-
and students’ race/ethnicity and their per-
diate and deferred effects of (poor) school
ceptions of school climate), (c) Teaching
climate on certain school outcomes. Thapa,
and Learning (e.g., social, emotional, ethi-
Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro
cal, and civic learning; service learning;
(2013, p. 3) summarize the outcomes of
support for academic learning; support for
studies stating that „there seems to be an
professional relationships; teachers’ and
abundant literature on school climate from
students’ perceptions of school climate),
different parts of the world that documents
(d) Institutional Environment (e.g., physical
a positive school climate: (a) having a pow-
surrounding, resources, supplies), and (e)
erful influence on the motivation to learn; the School Improvement Process“.
(b) mitigating the negative impact of the so-
cioeconomic context on academic success; Besides the theoretical definition of
(c) contributing to less aggression, violence, school climate, an important issue that has
less harassment; (d) acting as a protective been (scarcely) examined in previous stud-
factor for the learning and positive life de- ies is the differences in school climate de-
velopment of young people.“ pending on different school characteristics,

3
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues

such as differences between more or less that differences in school climate exist be-
good functioning schools, which are in the tween private and public schools, favoring
focus of the present study. Several studies private schools, which produces differences
(e.g. Buening, 2014; Johnson and Stevens, in school achievement as well. Bryk and
2006) have particularly examined this is- Schneider (2002) concluded that, in schools
sue, but the possibility of generalization of with better school climate, students of low-
findings is limited, for several reasons. The er SES especially benefit from better school
primary reason is different theoretical con- climate, attaining better school achievement
ceptualizations of school climate, resulting than expected, based solely on their socio-
in different approaches to measurement. economic background. Van Houtte (2005)
This problem was implicitly recognized in states that a basic cause of differences in
the early period of school climate studies by school achievement is attributed to school
Anderson (1982), who considered (from the climate.
organizational theory point of view) that the
definition of school climate is a great chal- However, as stated in a review paper by
lenge for researchers, since numerous defi- Berkowitz et al. (2016), despite empirical
nitions and models exist, and the prominent evidence and counterevidence, the expecta-
practice is to approach the definition of the tions regarding the consequences of school
concept implicitly. As Thapa et al. (2013) climate for school effectiveness of schools
state, this practice is present in large nation- with various characteristics are not clear.
al research communities such as the USA, The reasons for this are differences in con-
and it is even more pronounced in attempts ceptualizations, measures, and proposed
to compare the outcomes from different mechanisms through which positive school
educational systems, as well as in compari- climate can contribute to the explanation of
sons of educational systems according to school achievement. One of the reasons lies
their level and quality of school climate. also in numerous determinants of school
climate and complexity of school climate as
Bearing these conceptual and meth- an organizational characteristic.
odological challenges in mind, an impor-
tant question that has not been adequately To summarize, numerous factors within
answered is to what extent school climate a school shape a good or poor “learning
contributes to the achievement of students, environment” and should produce differ-
teachers and schools that have different ences in school climate as well. It can be
teaching, learning and working internal expected that school climate is better in
conditions. Johnson and Stevens (2006) schools with better organizational function-
have shown that the importance of school ing, where learning environment is a crucial
climate is greater in schools with better component, but this expectation is not suf-
contextual conditions, such as schools in ficiently empirically confirmed in the exist-
financially and socioeconomically more ing literature.
advanced surroundings. Cheema and
Kitsantas (2014) state that the relationship
between socioeconomic status (SES) and
3. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
school achievement is weaker in schools
with more positive school climate in com- The general of this paper is to examine
parison with schools with less positive the relationship between school’s learn-
school climate. Buening (2014) has shown ing environment and school climate, and

4
 Management, Vol. 24, 2019, Special Issue, pp. 1-15
Josip Burušić: THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN ELEMENTARY...

to test differences in school climate be- namely Organizational Climate Description

tween schools with poor, average and good Questionnaire (Hoy & Clover, 1986)
school’s learning environment. The out- and Organizational Climate Description
comes of the present study can enrich the Questionnaire (Kottkamp, Mulhern, &
existing body of knowledge by providing Hoy, 1987). Conceptually, the instrument
empirically based evidence, which could assesses various aspects of school climate
improve the explanation and understanding related to the relationships among teach-
of the role of school climate. ers, the relations of teachers towards work
and students, and the relationship of prin-
cipals towards teachers and school in
general (Proroković & Slišković, 2008).
4. METHOD
In this study, we used the instrument by
4.1. Participants Proroković and Slišković (2008) in the
conceptually original form, with changes
Participants in the study were 785 teach-
related to items content formulation, where
ers from 44 primary schools in northern
we adopted official educational nomen-
part of Croatia, who participated in the
clature appropriate for elementary schools
program of research activities, conduct-
(e.g. changing term “professor” to “teacher”
ed by the Centre of Scientific Excellence
etc.).
in School Effectiveness and School
Management. In the total sample, 121 were Principal axis factor analysis with
males (17.3%), 579 females (83.7%), and Varimax rotation yielded a six-factor so-
85 participants have not answered the ques- lution, with Scree-test as criterion for de-
tion on their gender. The age range of par- termining the number of factors. Some
ticipants was from 26 to 66 years, with the items from the full form of the question-
average age of 43.64 years (SD = 9.76). naire were excluded due to low commu-
Participants had from zero to 43 years of nalities, low saturations with the obtained
work experience, with the average of 16.21 factors, and cross-loadings on several fac-
years (SD = 10.54). More than half of the tors, as to obtain a simple and interpret-
participants (475; 67.5%) had a university able factor structure. The retained six fac-
degree or higher level or education, while tors explained 48.2% of total variance,
the remaining participants finished the with first factor explaining 14.14%, second
teacher training college degree, or bach- 14.14%, third 5.64%, fourth 5.55%, fifth
elor’s degree equivalent. 5.03%, and sixth 3.69% of variance. After
analyzing the saturations, the first fac-
4.2. Constructs and measures
tor was named Interpersonal Relations at
Perceived School Climate. School Work, the second Principal’s Management
climate was operationalized modified Style, the third Relation towards Work
Organizational Climate Questionnaire for and Students, the fourth Control, the fifth
High Schools (Proroković & Slišković, Interpersonal Relations outside Work, and
2008), comprised of 63 items answered on sixth Work Overload. In computing scores
a 4-point Likert type scale (1 – ‘Seldom’; for all factors, negative items were re-
4 – ‘Almost Always’). Proroković and coded in the way that higher scores reflect
Slišović (2008) constructed the question- a more positive school climate. The reli-
naire, following theoretical and methodo- abilities of the obtained school climate di-
logical idea of two previous questionnaires, mensions were .92, .94, .81, .81, .78, and

5
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues

.76 for Interpersonal Relations at Work, teacher gender, number of years of teaching
Principal’s Management Style, Relation experience, and education level (lower and
towards Work and Students, Control, higher teacher education).
Interpersonal Relations outside Work, and
Work Overload, respectively. 4.3. Procedure
The data was collected in groups,
Quality of School Learning Environment.
completely anonymously, as a part of re-
Assessment of quality of school learn-
search activities of the Croatian Center
ing environment is conceptually derived
of Scientific Excellence in School
from educational effectiveness models (e.g.
Effectiveness and School Management.
Scheerens, 1989), where a list of internal
After obtaining participants’ consent for
school’s work conditions and process-in-
participation in the study, the participants
dicators of school functioning was created,
were asked to complete a questionnaire.
encompassing the entire spectrum of inter-
The completion of the questionnaire lasted
nal conditions, which reflect school’s learn-
on average half an hour. After the question-
ing environment. A total of 22 items related
naires were completed, the teachers were
to learning environment were selected and thanked for their participation and the aims
teachers were asked to rate, on a five-point of the study were explained to them in
Likert type scale, to what extent each of detail.
these conditions was satisfactory in their
school (1 – completely unsatisfactory; 5 –
completely satisfactory). This inventory of
school learning environment conditions was 5. RESULTS
analyzed by using the principal axis factor To address the objective of this study,
analysis with Varimax rotation. Three inter- firstly the results exploring the role of
pretable underlying factors of work condi- school’s learning environment and charac-
tions were obtained. One item (“Possibilities teristics of teachers and teaching in the pre-
to sanction teachers who do not meet the diction of dimensions of school climate are
expected standards”) was removed from the presented. For this purpose, six hierarchical
analysis due to saturations for two factors. regression analyses were conducted, with
The retained three factors explained 54.12% school climate dimensions as criterions,
of total variance, with the first factor explain- and characteristics of teachers (i.e. gender,
ing 26.26%, the second 14.69%, and the age, work experience and education level)
third 13.17% of variance. Considering the as predictors in the first step, and character-
content of items and conceptualization of istics of internal school’s learning environ-
school effectiveness model, the first factor ment as predictors in the second step.
was labelled Work Conditions at the Level
of School, the second Relations between Secondly, the differences in dimensions
Students, and the third Relations Among of school climate are compared among
Teachers. Cronbach alpha coefficient of in- schools, classified into three categories,
ternal reliability was .92 for the first factor, namely schools with poor, average and
and .85 for the second and the third factor. good school’s internal learning environ-
ment. Schools with poor learning environ-
Teacher’s Characteristics and Teaching ment are those in the first quartile of results
Experiences. Some important and teach- on a certain dimension of work conditions,
ing characteristics were collected, such as schools with average learning environment

6
 Management, Vol. 24, 2019, Special Issue, pp. 1-15
Josip Burušić: THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN ELEMENTARY...

are those in the middle 50% of results teachers and teaching, with the total model
on a certain dimension, and schools with explaining 48.5% of variance of this di-
good learning environment are those in the mension of school climate. The quality of
highest quartile of results on a particular school climate, pertaining to interpersonal
dimension. relations at work increases with greater
satisfaction with work conditions at the
5.1. The explanation of school level of school and relations among teach-
climate with school’s learning ers. When it comes to principal’s manage-
environment and characteristics ment style, school’s learning environment
of teachers and teaching significantly contributes to the prediction
of this dimension of school climate, and
The results of hierarchical regression the only significant predictor identified in
analyses predicting dimensions of school this analysis was related to work conditions
climate from characteristics of teachers and at the level of school, which are positively
school’s learning environment are shown associated with the quality of principal’s
in Table 1. School’s learning environment management style. In prediction of relation
significantly contributes to the prediction towards work and students, based on char-
of interpersonal relations at work, over and acteristics of teachers and school’s learning
above the contribution of characteristics of environment, characteristics of teachers did

Table 1. Hierarchical regression analyses predicting dimensions of school climate from

characteristics of teachers and school’s learning environment

Dimension of school climate

Interpersonal
Interpersonal Principal’s Relation towards
Control relations outside Work overload
relations at work management style work and students
work
Steps and
∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β ∆R2 β
predictors
Step 1 .006 .002 .004 .005 .006 .019*
Gender -
-0.03 0.01 -0.05 0.01 -0.01 0.09*
female
Age 0.04 0.01 -0.12 -0.02 0.06 0.02
University or
higher -0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.07 0.03 -0.05
education
Work
-0.03 -0.05 0.11 -0.04 -0.13 0.03
experience
Step 2 .479*** .444*** .297*** .080*** .284*** .083***
Work
conditions at 0.22*** 0.58*** 0.45*** 0.28*** 0.14** 0.12*
school level
Relations
among 0.04 0.05 -0.06 0.02 0.03 0.17**
students
Relations
among 0.51*** 0.08 0.18*** -0.01 0.41*** 0.04
teachers
Total R2 .485*** .445*** .301*** .085*** .290*** .102***
N 559 557 563 558 559 563

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

7
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues

not contribute significantly to explaining learning environment in dimensions of

this dimension of organizational climate. school climate are examined and the results
School’s learning environment explained of these comparisons are shown in Table 2.
30.1% of variance, over and above charac- Significant differences on all dimensions of
teristics of teachers. Satisfaction with work school climate were found among schools
conditions at the level of school and with with poor, average and good work condi-
relations among teachers are positively re- tions at the level of school, relations be-
lated to better relation towards work and tween students and relations among teach-
students. ers. When it comes to conditions at the
level of school, Games-Howell post hoc test
In case of prediction of principal’s con- showed that the perceived school climate
trol, the overall variance of this dimension on all dimensions is the best in schools with
of school climate explained by the used good work conditions, followed by schools
predictors is smaller than that in previous with average and poor work conditions (p
analyses, namely 8.5%, but it is significant. < .05). The only dimension of school cli-
The only significant predictor of greater mate, on which schools with poor and av-
control is related to more favorable work erage conditions at the level of school did
conditions at the level of school. When it not differ, was work overload, but this di-
comes to prediction of interpersonal rela- mension was rated less positive (i.e., greater
tions outside work, the overall model ex- work overload) in both groups compared to
plains 29.0% of variance on this dimension schools with good work conditions.
of school climate, but characteristics of
teachers do not contribute significantly to Next, Games-Howell post hoc test re-
this prediction. Variables that significantly vealed that school climate is the best in
positively contribute to the prediction of in- schools with good relations among stu-
terpersonal relations outside work are work dents, followed by schools with average
conditions at the level of school and rela- and poor relations among students on di-
tions among teachers. Work overload was mensions of interpersonal relations at work,
the only dimension of school climate with principal’s management style, relationship
significant contribution of characteristics towards work and students, interpersonal
of teachers to its explanation. Specifically, relations outside work and work overload.
teacher’s gender is a significant predictor, The perceived control was significantly
with female teachers perceiving less work higher in schools with good, compared to
overload than their male colleagues. Better schools with poor and average relations
work conditions at the level of school and among students, while groups with poor
better relations between students predicted and average relations among students did
lower work overload. not significantly differ.

5.2. Differences in school climate Finally, post hoc tests (Games-Howell)

among schools with poor, showed that there were significant differ-
ences among all three groups of schools
moderate and good school’s
with different relations among teachers with
learning environment
respect to all dimensions of school climate.
Differences among schools with poor, School climate is the best in schools with
moderate and good work conditions on good relations among teachers, followed
all three dimensions of internal school’s by those with average relations, and the

8
 Management, Vol. 24, 2019, Special Issue, pp. 1-15
Josip Burušić: THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN ELEMENTARY...

worse in schools with poor relations among teachers (Table 2). Games-Howell post
teachers. hoc test showed that the perceived school
climate on all dimensions is the best in
Significant differences on all dimen-
sions of school climate were found among schools with good work conditions, fol-
schools with poor, average and good work lowed by schools with average and poor
conditions at the level of school, relations work conditions (p < .05). Next, Games-
between students and relations among Howell post hoc test revealed that school
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and analysis of variance examining the differences between schools
with poor, moderate and good school’s learning environment on the dimensions of school climate

School’s learning environment

Poor (1) Average (2) Good (3)
M SD M SD M SD F η2 Post hoc
Conditions at the level of school
Interpersonal relations at worka 3.00 0.52 3.48 0.42 3.72 0.32 140.78* .269 1<2<3
Principal’s management style a
2.79 0.57 3.32 0.48 3.74 0.31 186.56* .328 1<2<3
Relation towards work and students b
2.58 0.45 2.95 0.42 3.33 0.39 143.55* .271 1<2<3
Controla
2.55 0.63 2.73 0.61 3.05 0.56 31.51* .076 1<2<3
Interpersonal relations outside workc 2.21 0.50 2.53 0.56 2.92 0.55 78.52* .170 1<2<3
Work overload d
2.19 0.64 2.33 0.62 2.55 0.66 14.98* .037 1, 2 < 3
Relations among students
Interpersonal relations at work e
3.16 0.51 3.40 0.48 3.66 0.40 58.56* .132 1<2<3
Principal’s management stylee 3.02 0.61 3.24 0.55 3.56 0.47 52.53* .120 1<2<3
Relation towards work and students f
2.79 0.48 2.90 0.49 3.14 0.46 28.67* .069 1<2<3
Controle
2.64 0.64 2.68 0.60 2.98 0.62 19.12* .047 1, 2 < 3
Interpersonal relations outside work d
2.31 0.52 2.49 0.59 2.81 0.58 41.46* .097 1<2<3
Work overloadf 2.12 0.61 2.34 0.59 2.57 0.69 26.79* .065 1<2<3
Relations among teachers
Interpersonal relations at work g
2.96 0.50 3.50 0.39 3.82 0.23 211.37* .355 1<2<3
Principal’s management style g
2.89 0.61 3.33 0.51 3.64 0.39 92.78* .194 1<2<3
Relation towards work and studentsf 2.65 0.48 2.96 0.44 3.31 0.39 91.43* .191 1<2<3
Controlg
2.57 0.64 2.77 0.59 2.97 0.67 17.69* .044 1<2<3
Interpersonal relations outside work h
2.15 0.47 2.59 0.55 2.96 0.54 103.46* .212 1<2<3
Work overload f
2.15 0.63 2.37 0.60 2.53 0.70 16.98* .042 1<2<3

Note. The numbers in parentheses in column heads refer to the numbers used for illustrating signifi-
cant differences (p < .05) in the “Post hoc” column.
a
df = 2, 765. bdf = 2, 773. cdf = 2, 768. ddf = 2, 772. edf = 2, 770. fdf = 2, 778. fdf = 2, 777.
g
df = 2, 769. hdf = 2, 771.
*p < .001.

9
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues

climate is the best in schools with good models of school climate. Phelan, Davidson
relations among students, followed by and Yu (1996) conclude that in order to de-
schools with average and poor relations velop schools with “students at the center”,
among students on dimensions of interper- it is necessary that school internal and es-
sonal relations at work, principal’s man- pecially learning context, as important de-
agement style, relations towards work and terminants of learning environment, are at a
students, interpersonal relations outside satisfactory level. These two contexts within
work and work overload. The perceived school have a direct effect on student school
control was significantly higher in schools achievement, but they also have an indirect
with good, in comparison to schools with effect, by creating a positive school climate.
poor and average relations among students In the present study, schools with poorer
(p < .05). Finally, post hoc tests (Games- learning environment, i.e. with more poorly
Howell) show that school climate is the best educated and less motivated teachers, lower
in schools with good relations among teach- sense of student belonging to school, sur-
ers, followed by those with average and rounding that does not motivate students or
poor relations among teachers with respect teachers to achieve more, are also schools
to interpersonal relations at work, princi- with poorer school climate. Consequently,
pal’s management style, relation towards these schools have poorer school and stu-
work and students, interpersonal relations dent outcomes. Higgins-D’Alessandro and
outside work and control, while in the case Sakwarawid (2011, according to Thapa et
of work overload, schools with poor rela- al., 2013) showed that students with dis-
tions among teachers rated this dimension abilities can profit from school only if they
of school climate significantly more nega- feel included, accepted and respected by
tive than those with average and poor rela- other students and teachers. Similar conclu-
tions (p < .05). sion can be applied to all students, irrespec-
tive of their status and possible difficulties or
disabilities.
6. DISCUSSION Based on the outcomes of the study
The outcomes of all performed analyses regarding the relation between school’s
point to the conclusion that school climate learning environment and school climate,
is a characteristic that has a strong poten- it is possible to reinterpret, to a certain de-
tial for discriminating schools, based on the gree, older educational studies, primarily
quality of their functioning. Schools, where focused on the role of material conditions,
teachers perceived the learning environment in explaining school and students’ achieve-
to be poor, average or good, clearly differ in ment. These studies showed that material
their quality of school climate. Specifically, conditions are necessary to ensure school
in all of the analyses school climate is sig- effectiveness. On the other hand, some re-
nificantly better in schools with better learn- searchers have tried to dispute these find-
ing environment. ings. It is possible, as well as expected, that
an indirect relation exists between material
The findings of this study present a valu- conditions and school achievement, through
able contribution to the existing body of school climate (Brookover, Schweitzer,
knowledge on the quality of school climate Schneider, Beady, Flood, & Wisenbaker,
by empirically supporting a number of ex- 1978). The effects of student and fam-
pectations, described in different theoretical ily characteristics, which were a dominant

10
 Management, Vol. 24, 2019, Special Issue, pp. 1-15
Josip Burušić: THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN ELEMENTARY...

theme in studies during 1970s, and their in- Dević, 2013). These findings can contribute
fluence on school effectiveness, can be con- to the existing body of knowledge in the ed-
sidered in the similar way. ucational studies, since they are obtained in
an educational system that significantly dif-
When considered together, the material fers from those in developed countries, with
conditions, characteristics of students, par- respect to equality of schools in available
ents and teachers, and as demonstrated in material resources, and in addition, where
this study, characteristics of schools, such as huge intragroup variabilities among schools
school climate, clearly point to the necessity working conditions exist.
of conceptualizing schools as “dynamic sys-
tems that influence a broad range of dimen- The outcome of this study that the di-
sions of student learning, including affective, mension of school climate, pertaining to
social, behavioral as well as academic do- relations towards work and students, can
mains” (Deakin Crick, et al., 2013). be predicted, based on characteristics of the
learning environment, related to direct in-
The second important outcome of this
terpersonal relations among students is in-
study is related to the possibility of pre-
teresting and provides a conceptual confir-
dicting school climate and its dimensions,
mation of the performed analyses. Namely,
based on characteristics of teachers and la-
according to the results of this study, teach-
tent dimensions which determine the qual-
ers’ approach depends on the behavior and
ity of school’s internal learning environ-
ment. The results of the hierarchical regres- interactions of students. In other words, al-
sion analyses provide a detailed insight into though it can be expected that teachers (ide-
the possible mechanisms of how a positive ally) have a universal approach to teaching
school climate could be created and main- and universal standards of quality in their
tained. The features of work conditions at work, this finding empirically confirms that
school have been shown to be the most im- teachers adapt their approach to processes
portant determinant of school climate, while within classrooms and schools. In the ex-
the relations among students and relations isting models of school effectiveness, the
among teachers are generally less impor- variability in teachers’ behavior, which is
tant, i.e. important only for some conceptu- not a result of the need to achieve the same
ally similar aspects of school climate, such educational goals through different and
as interpersonal relations in school and rela- available ways, is often ignored. This cer-
tion towards work and students. tainly presents an important area for future
studies.
The findings that stress the importance
of work conditions at school, as an impor- The results of this study should be con-
tant aspect of the quality of school learning sidered taking into account the employed re-
environment, need to be considered within search design. Possible future improvements
a particular context. In the Croatian educa- of the research design used in this study
tional system, significant differences in stu- can be based on the suggestions by Thapa
dent achievement exist, depending on the et al. (2013). Namely, the relations between
urbanization level of school’s surrounding, school’s learning environment and perceived
material conditions and other determinants school climate should be examined longitu-
of school achievement, primarily related dinally, since such a design would enable a
to material resources (Burušić, Babarović, clearer representation of the strength and dy-
Šakić, 2009; Burušić, Babarović, Šakić & namics of relations between these constructs.

11
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues

Hierarchically structured relations among interacting with numerous individual fac-

behavior of students and teachers and pro- tors, extensively examined in many educa-
cesses in the school setting should also be tional studies.
taken into account. A combination of quanti-
tative and qualitative approach, using mixed-
method models, would also present a signifi- 7. CONCLUSION
cant improvement of the research design and Schools, in which teachers perceive the
provide valuable information for a more de- school’s learning environment as a good
tailed understanding of the dynamics of rela- one, clearly differ in the level of school
tions pertaining to school climate, as well as climate quality - school climate is signifi-
an explanation of certain mediating process- cantly better in schools with better school’s
es that is clearer and closer to school reality.
learning environment. The performed hier-
Studies based on such complex re- archical regression analyses demonstrated
search designs could improve knowledge that school’s learning environment and
gained by using cross-sectional designs. characteristics of teachers and teaching
They should stress the importance of ecol- practice (e.g. gender, age, work experience
ogy within schools, where the paramount and education level) are powerful predic-
goal is to create internal school condi- tors of school climate. The outcome of the
tions, in which teachers, students and par- study suggests how educational system can
ents experience school as a place of posi- potentially improve overall effectiveness,
tive feelings. The outcomes of this study stressing an importance of the issues related
confirm the expectation that the analysis to positive school climate. Schools can po-
of school achievement must acknowledge tentially enhance student achievement and
the processes related to organizational cli- learning outcomes by improving their learn-
mate. They represent an important aspect, ing environments.

References synthesis of the associations between

socioeconomic background, inequality,
1. Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search school climate, and academic achieve-
for school climate: A review of the re- ment. Review of Educational Research,
search. Review of educational research, 87(2), 425-469.
52(3), 368-420.
5. Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H.,
2. Bascia, N. (2014). The School Context
Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood,
Model: How School Environments
P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978).
Shape Students’ Opportunities to
Elementary school social climate
Learn. In Measuring What Matters,
People for Education. Toronto: and school achievement. American
November 8, 2014 Educational Research Journal, 15(2),
301-318.
3. Benbenisty, R. & Astor, R.A. (2005).
School violence in context: Culture, 6. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust
neighborhood, family, school, and gen- in schools: A core resource for im-
der. New York: Oxford University Press. provement. Russell Sage Foundation.
4. Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., 7. Buening, J. G. (2014). Non-Academic
& Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research Differences Between Public and

12
 Management, Vol. 24, 2019, Special Issue, pp. 1-15
Josip Burušić: THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN ELEMENTARY...

Private High Schools: The Importance effectiveness: The importance of es-

of School Climate (Doctoral disserta- tablishing a dynamic model. School
tion, Miami University). Effectiveness and School Improvement,
8. Burušić, J., Babarović, T., & Šakić, 17(3), 347-366.
M. (2009). Odrednice uspješnosti os- 15. Deakin Crick, R., Haigney, D., Huang,
novnih škola u Republici Hrvatskoj: re- S., Coburn, T. and Goldspink, C.
zultati empirijske provjere. Društvena (2013) Learning power in the work-
istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena place: the effective lifelong learning
pitanja, 18(4-5 (102-103)), 605-624. inventory and its reliability and validity
9. Burušić, J., Šakić, M., Babarović, T., & and implications for learning and de-
Dević, I. (2013). School achievement velopment, The International Journal
in urban and rural areas in Croatia: Is of Human Resource Management, 24
the quality of education equal for all? (11), 2255–2272.
In B. Boufoy-Bastick (Ed.), Cultures 16. Domović, V. (2003). Školsko ozračje
of educational policy: Comparative in- i učinkovitost škole. Jastrebarsko:
ternational issues in policy-outcome re- Naklada Slap.
lationships (pp. 187–217). Strasbourg,
France: Analytrics. 17. Dronkers J, Robert P (2003) The effec-
tiveness of public and private schools
10. Cheema, J. R., & Kitsantas, A. (2014).
from a comparative perspective. EUI
Influences of disciplinary classroom
Working Paper SPS 2003-13. European
climate on high school student self-ef-
University Institute, Florence.
ficacy and mathematics achievement: A
look at gender and racial–ethnic differ- 18. Halpin, A., & Croft, D. (1963). The
ences. International Journal of Science organizational climate and individual
and Mathematics Education, 12(5), value systems upon job satisfaction.
1261-1279. Personnel Psychology, 22, 171-183.
11. Cohen, J. & Geier, V.K. (2010). School 19. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The econom-
Climate Research Summary: January ics of schooling: Production and ef-
2010. New York, N.Y. (www.schoolcli- ficiency in public schools. Journal of
mate.org/climate/ research.php). Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-1177.
12. Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. 20. Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., &
M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School cli- Greenwald, R. (1994). An exchange:
mate: Research, policy, practice, and Part I: Does money matter? A meta-
teacher education. Teachers college re- analysis of studies of the effects of dif-
cord, 111(1), 180-213. ferential school inputs on student out-
13. Coleman, J., Campbell, E.,Hobson, comes. Educational Researcher, 23(3),
C.,McPartland, J.,Mood, A.,Weinfield, 5-14.
F., York, R. (1966.). Equality of edu- 21. Higgins-D’Alessandro, A., &
cational opportunity, Washington, DC, Sakwarawich, A. (2011, October).
U.S. Department of Health, Education, Congruency and determinants of teach-
and Welfare, Office of Education. er and student views of school culture.
14. Creemers, B. P., & Kyriakides, L. Paper presented at the Association for
(2006). Critical analysis of the current Moral Education annual conference,
approaches to modelling educational Nanjing, China.

13
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues

22. Hoy, W. K., & Clover, S. I. (1986). on school effectiveness. Paper for the
Elementary school climate: A re- OECD Educational Indicator Project,
vision of the OCDQ. Educational Semmering, Austria, 18–22 September
Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 1989.
93-110. 29. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., &
23. Johnson, B., & Stevens, J. J. (2006). Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013).
Student achievement and elementary A review of school climate research.
teachers’ perceptions of school climate. Review of Educational Research, 83(3),
Learning Environments Research, 9(2), 357-385.
111-122. 30. Townsend, T. (2007) (eds).
24. Kottkamp, R. B., Mulhern, J. A., & International Handbook of School
Hoy, W. K. (1987). Secondary school Effectiveness and Improvement.
climate: A revision of the OCDQ. Springer International Handbooks of
Educational Administration Quarterly, Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
23(3), 31-48. 31. Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or cul-
25. National School Climate Council ture? A plea for conceptual clarity in
(2007). National school climate stan- school effectiveness research. School
dards. http://www.schoolclimate.org/ effectiveness and school improvement,
climate/documents/school-climate- 16(1), 71-89.
standards-csee.pdf 32. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016).
26. Phelan, P., A. Davidson & H. School climate: A review of the con-
Yu (1996). Adolescents’ worlds: struct, measurement, and impact
Negotiating family, peers and school. on student outcomes. Educational
New York: Teachers College Press. Psychology Review, 28(2), 315-352.
27. Proroković, A., Slišković, A. (2008). 33. Yonezawa, S., Jones. M., Mehan, H.,
Upitnik organizacijske klime za sred- & McClure, L. (2008). School cli-
nje škole. Zbirka psihologijskih skala i mate and student achievement. In T.
upitnika. Sv.4. ur. Penezić, Z.; Ćubela- Timar and J. Maxwell-Jolly (Eds).
Adorić, V.; Proroković, A.; Ivana Connecting the dots and closing the
Tucak Junaković: Sveučilište u Zadru, gap. Chapter wrote for the California
Zadar. Superintendent of Public Schools P-16
28. Scheerens, J. (1989). Process- Council. Davis, CA: Center for Applied
indicators of school functioning: A se- Policy in Education, UC Davis.
lection based on the research literature

14
 Management, Vol. 24, 2019, Special Issue, pp. 1-15
Josip Burušić: THE PERCEIVED SCHOOL CLIMATE IN CROATIAN ELEMENTARY...

PERCIPIRANO ŠKOLSKO OZRAČJE U HRVATSKIM OSNOVNIM

ŠKOLAMA S LOŠIM, PROSJEČNIM I DOBRIM ŠKOLSKIM
OKRUŽENJEM ZA UČENJE

Sažetak obzirom na kvalitetu školskog ozračja, pri čemu

je ozračje mnogo bolje u školama s boljim okru-
U ovom se radu koristi kros-sekcijski istraži- ženjem za učenje. U radu se koristi hijerarhijska
vački nacrt za istraživanje razlika u nastavničkoj regresijska analiza, koja pokazuje da su školsko
percepciji školskog ozračja u školama s lošim, okruženje za učenje, kao i obilježja nastavnika
prosječnim i dobrim školskim okruženjem za uče- i njihove nastavne prakse (npr. spol, dob, radno
nje, kao i za utvrđivanje razina u kojoj je moguće iskustvo i razina obrazovanja) snažni prediktori
objasniti šest dimenzija školskog ozračja pomoću pozitivnog školskog ozračja. Pružaju se moguća
školskog okruženja za učenje, obilježja nastavni- objašnjenja navedenih rezultata i naglašava zna-
ka i njihove prakse u nastavi. U studiji je sudje- čaj školskog ozračja kao koncepta, ključnog za
lovalo 785 nastavnika/ica iz 44 osnovne škole u pojam i aktivnosti, vezane uz školsku efektivnost.
sjevernom dijelu Hrvatske, od čega 121 nastavnik
i 579 nastavnica. Sudionici su ocjenjivali školsko Ključne riječi: školsko ozračje, školsko
ozračje u svojoj školi, kao i školsko okruženje za okruženje za učenje, osnovne škole, školska
učenje. Škole, u kojima nastavnici/e okruženje za efektivnost
učenje percipiraju kao dobro, jasno se razlikuju s

15