THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL

EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR

EDUCATIONAL PLANNING

ARVIN D. JOHNSON

ABSTRACT
This study was designed to examine relationships between student perceptions of school
effectiveness and student achievement in mathematics and reading. Data were collected from over
350 middle school students in a large southeastern school district in the United States. The results
revealed statistically significant correlations among the different student perceived aspects of
school effectiveness. In addition, a statistically significant correlation between mathematics and
reading achievement scores on standardized test was revealed. Data did not yield any statistically
significant correlation between the student perceptions of school effectiveness and student
achievement. These findings are contradictory to empirical research on school effectiveness and
student achievement. Notwithstanding these contradictions, the results of the study provided a
foundation for discussion of educational planning issues and implications for educational
planning practices.

INTRODUCTION
Public educators across the nation are facing increasing pressure to reduce the
achievement gap and find innovative ways to improve student achievement. Scores of initiatives,
policies, laws, school and school district reorganizations, and school improvement documents
reveal this pressure. Many Americans simply feel that public educators are not doing an acceptable
job of educating children. Hess (2015) contributed to this belief with this statement, “The United
States boasts the world’s highest per capita income and one of the best-funded school systems, yet
our children fall below international norms in graduation rates and test performance” ( p. 1).
Statements and feelings similar to these stimulate research and inquiry into variables that are related
to student achievement.

One of the original drives for increased student achievement came from the No Child
Left Behind Act (2002). This act, signed into law in 2002, mandates that all students receive
quality educational services and that schools show adequate yearly academic progress (Munich &
Testani, 2005). However, this law has been replaced with the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act.
The Every Student Succeeds Act maintains the fundamentals of the No Child Left Behind Act
including high educational standards, accountability, and closing the achievement gap. The new
law is designed to provide more flexibility to states and local school districts by considering the
unique needs of the community (Klein, 2015).

RATIONALE
Research on effective schools can help educators and legislators better understand what
relationships exist between effective school practices and student achievement. Research in this
area could reveal advantageous findings for educators and be conducive to meeting some of the
goals of the Every Student Succeeds Act. The use of federal policy to improve student
achievement underscores the need and significance of research in this area (Hargreaves et. al.,
2014). Research providing explanations that may help educators and legislators solve some of the
achievement problems in our country must be supported and encouraged.

Educational Planning 31 Vol. 23, No. 2

 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
A large majority of the research on effective schools began approximately 40 years ago.
Understanding the historical foundations of educational can assist in handling the complex
changes and issues faced today. Several seminal studies provide the historical framework for
understanding of effective schools. The Coleman Report (1966) examined the relationships
between many individual and social factors and school learning. The report concluded that other
factors, not the school quality, were the primary determinants of academic achievement (Lezotte,
1991). These factors were family background, socioeconomic status, school demographics,
student perceptions of environmental control, teacher’s literacy level, and student background.
This is possibly the report that spawned the effective schools movement, as these findings were
the catalyst for many research studies on improving student achievement and school effectiveness
(Hargreaves et. al., 2014).

A major historical report that influenced effective schools research was A Nation at
Risk, published in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence in Education). This report changed
many perceptions about education in America. It suggested that there was a need for a more
challenging school curriculum in the United States. This was due to research findings that revealed
students in the United States were falling behind foreign counterparts in many academic areas.
This report suggested that America’s dominance as the world leader in education, commerce,
industry, science, and other areas was being surpassed by counterparts across the globe. This
report was based on documented research that concluded the following dreadful results: When
compared to other developed nations, American students were not first or second on 19 academic
tests. Almost 23 million Americans were illiterate. The average achievement level of high school
students in the United States on standardized tests was lower than when Sputnik was launched in
1957. There was a steady decline in science achievement scores as measured by national
assessments of science in 1969, 1973, and 1977. Many other disturbing conclusions were revealed
in this report. This report and other studies further invigorated the pursuit of marked
improvements in academic achievement and the creation of more effective schools in America.

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The primary purpose of this research was to determine if a correlation existed between
student perceptions of school effectiveness and student achievement. The research question was:
What effective school variables, as measured by student perceptions, best correlate with student
achievement in mathematics and reading? The correlations between student perceptions of school
effectiveness and student achievement provides a rationale for school leaders to transfer more
school-wide focus on the specific correlates as a means of improving student achievement (Barber,
Whelan, and Clark, 2010; Jacobson, 2011)

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

One of the major problems today’s educators face is determining why student
achievement is not improving in all schools and for all students. Trust in public schools has
eroded, schools are under extraordinary surveillance, and stakeholders are demanding
improvements in student achievement (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). A clear and present example of
this pressure is reveal in the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. School districts are responsible
for delivering improvements in student achievement and educators are held accountable when they
do not (Schlechty, 2011). Statewide standardized testing is a primary measure of accountability.
This accountability travels directly to the individual teacher via individual student test scores.
Test-based accountability places great pressure on administrators and teachers to take appropriate
steps to improve student achievement in public schools. The pressure for increased improvements
in student achievement and educator accountability illustrates the national significance of research
on student achievement. The significance of this study is that the data inform educators on

Educational Planning 32 Vol. 23, No. 2

variables that may have a relationship to student achievement. Data obtained from this research
can also yield valuable information to educators in terms of the school effectiveness. The results
should have an impact on how administrators interact with students and their staff. This
comparative study could guide educators to pursue further, more refined, research on school
climate variables and student achievement.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Definitions
The definition of an effective school may vary depending on a number of factors. Some
definitions are single sentences, while others are based on policy or procedures. Some researchers
have suggested that there is no agreement on what makes an effective school (Reid, Hopkins, &
Holly, 1987). This lack of wide-spread agreement continues in the field of education today.

Trujillo (2013) analyzed school effectiveness over 50 empirical studies to identify

frequently referenced correlates of effective schools districts. Results of his analysis indicated that
the correlates leading to higher student achievement were: standards-based curriculums, strong
instructional leadership, frequent monitoring and evaluation, and focused professional learning.
This finding supports some of the seminal studies on effective schools from nearly four decades.

The study of Dobbie and Fryer (2011) on school effectiveness suggested that some of the
currently referenced measures of school effectiveness such as class size, student funding, and
certification did not have a strong positive relationship with student achievement. In contrast, the
research supported some of the research found in the seminal studies on school effectiveness.
They found that frequent teacher feedback, data usage to inform instruction, large-scale tutoring,
student time on task, and high expectations contributed to nearly half of the effectiveness of
schools.

Horng and Loeb (2010) sought to describe effective schools through a new lens of
instructional leadership. They reported that traditional ingredients of effective schools centered on
the narrow areas of teaching and learning, strong school leadership, and curriculum and
instruction. Their research suggests that strong organizational management should define effective
schools more than principal participation in daily classroom instruction. The results indicated that
strategic hiring, teacher support, and resource allocation had a larger impact on student
achievement than the traditional ingredients of instructional leadership. They found that principals
who spent more time on organizational management activities had better student achievement
results.

Most current definitions are centered on overall student achievement regardless of factors
such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, or other factors. Lezotte (1997) described
effective schools as schools that are successful in educating all students regardless of their
socioeconomic status or family background.

Many definitions cover pertinent aspects in defining effective schools, and most have
valid points that are specific to many schools. Defining an effective school creates controversy
because many formulas and definitions currently exist. A definition of an effective school is in
many ways dependent upon the specific school in question. For example, schools that serve
primarily low-achieving students may define effectiveness in terms of student gains, while schools
serving high-achieving students may measure effectiveness through individual student
achievement levels. This would be an example of gains versus absolute achievement as a qualifier
of school effectiveness. Some schools may measure achievement through whole-school
achievement levels, while others measure achievement through student subgroups. An effective

Educational Planning 33 Vol. 23, No. 2

school will be defined differently depending on the faction providing the definition. An important
point for educators is that every school has specific needs, and a single set of characteristics
cannot be used to measure the effectiveness of every school.

Seminal Studies
Much literature on effective schools extends back to the 1970s. These research studies
and findings are among the first commonly known publications and reports which facilitated the
start of research into effective schools. This line of research has evolved over time and has
contributed valuable findings to educators, policy makers, and the general knowledge base. Many
of the classical studies have led to further, more in-depth research which has produced a variety of
results. These studies helped establish this major research area.

Odden (1995) reviewed results from effective school research. Odden identified seven
common principles that researchers attribute to an effective school. Five of his findings directly
support the five correlates of effective schools that Edmonds (1982) identified. Odden identified
strong instructional leadership; high, but realistic expectations; a safe and orderly school;
monitoring student progress; consensus of school academic goals or mission; instructional teacher
engagement; and continuous professional development. Odden’s research directly supports the
original five correlates and provides support for teacher engagement, one of the characteristics
often identified in effective schools research. Other researchers have conducted similar reviews
with similar findings.

Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1995) conducted a review of school effectiveness literature
reported over 25 years. The researchers studied over 20 major studies from all the major areas of
school effectiveness research: input-output studies, case studies, outlier studies, and process-
product studies. They found that most of the studies reported findings that were similar. Based on
this review of studies and literature, Wang et al. suggested that the following characteristics could
affect student achievement: strong instructional leadership, high expectations, clear academic and
behavioral goals, safe and orderly school climates, maximizing student time, and academic
emphasis. Their findings align with other studies that have listed common characteristics of an
effective school. Their study is significant because it provided a review of many of the classical
studies.

Mortimore and Sammons (1987) conducted a study in the United Kingdom on

elementary school effectiveness. Researchers wanted to determine if different student intake
characteristics were related to school effectiveness. Trained researchers made observations in
schools and in classrooms to determine which variables were present in effective schools but not
present in ineffective schools. The 10 differences noted in their study were a positive climate,
parental involvement, instructional leadership, active involvement of vice principals, work-
centered environment, continuity of teachers, involvement of teachers in curriculum planning,
sharply focused lessons, frequent communication among children and teachers, and careful record-
keeping.

Ronald Edmonds (1982) was one of the first researchers to study characteristics of
effective schools. Edmonds’ research encouraged other researchers to study the common
characteristics of effective schools. Edmonds published Programs of School Improvement, a
report based on qualitative research conducted by Edmonds and his associates. Edmonds began by
identifying schools that were considered effective schools. These schools were successfully
educating students regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and other factors. After identifying
these schools, Edmonds and his research team identified the common characteristics in these so-
called effective schools. Characteristics such as philosophies, procedures, policies, and practices

Educational Planning 34 Vol. 23, No. 2

were encapsulated and grouped. After close examination, Edmonds found that effective schools
had several common characteristics. These characteristics became known as the correlates of
effective schools. There were five original characteristics found: strong instructional leadership, a
strong instructional focus, teacher behaviors that convey high expectations, frequent monitoring of
student achievement, and a safe and orderly school (Lezotte, 1997). The early correlates studies
served as a starting point for many other studies that have focused on the characteristics of an
effective school.

Brookover and Lezotte (1979) conducted a large study of 68 elementary schools to study
expectation levels, academic norms, sense of academic ineffectiveness, and other factors of
schools as they related to student achievement. Corollary case studies included a random sample
of schools that were effective, but served students from families with a low socioeconomic status.
The results yielded that school climate is a strong forecaster of student achievement. In other
words, the school climate and students’ perception of their education are related to student
achievement. In total, climate variables accounted for 73% of the variance in student achievement.
The Brookover and Lezotte study was among the first that contributed to the knowledge base of
effective schools.

Some reviews may also be considered classical because they provided syntheses of
classical studies after they were conducted.

Findings in the studies I have described led the way for further research in the area of
effective schools. These seminal studies and reports were pioneering research that recounted the
record of how and why effective schools research came into existence. These studies also served
as the developmental lens through which the overall construction and evolution of effective
schools research is revealed.

Correlate Studies
Shatzer, et. Al. (2014) conducted research to determine the impact of transformational
leadership and instructional leadership on student achievement. The results revealed that
instructional leadership explained more of the variance in student achievement than
transformational leadership. This findings support the correlation between instructional leadership
and student achievement.

Romero-Zaldivar, et. Al. (2012) conducted research to observe the relationship between
using virtual appliances to frequently monitor student progress and student achievement.
Monitoring student progress with virtual appliances involves using computer simulations to
monitor student progress. The results revealed a significant correlation between monitoring
student progress via virtual appliances and student achievement. These findings are aligned with
other empirical research that supports the idea that frequent monitoring of student progress has a
positive relationship with student achievement.

Sebastian and Allensworth (2012) used a multilevel structural equation to observe the
relationship between principal leadership and student achievement. One of the findings from this
study suggests that student achievement was related to principal leadership, but only through the
learning climate created. This finding supports research that has suggested that instructional focus
is positively related to student achievement. A strong instructional focus is one of the original
correlates of effective schools (Edmonds, 1982).

One of the original correlates of effective schools is strong instructional focus. Hallinger
(2011) conducted research to identify leadership influences on school improvement over the past

Educational Planning 35 Vol. 23, No. 2

30 years. The researchers examined data from numerous empirical studies and found that
leadership impacted school improvement in several ways to include; the principal can influence
school improvement by collaborating with others; principal leadership should build capacity for
school improvement.

Valentine and Prater (2011) conducted research to examine the relationship between
instructional leadership and student achievement. The researchers found that positive principal
instructional behaviors were correlated with higher student achievement. The research also
suggests that leaders who had a modeled vision had the strongest correlation to student
achievement. This research supports the idea that instructional leadership is linked to student
achievement.

Delisio and Dunne (2007) explored three effective schools in New York to observe what
strategies were used to make the schools effective. The schools in the study all served primarily
low-income and minority students. These schools were identified as effective by high standardized
test scores despite high poverty levels. The researchers visited all three schools with the intention
of identifying common strategies through interview, survey, and observation. The study revealed
that there was no panacea that worked for all schools, but there were patterns that identified how
these schools supported student achievement. The most common characteristics in all schools
were teacher engagement of students, small class size, high expectations about behavior and
academics, dedicated and caring staff, and structured daily rituals and routines. This study
supports one of the original correlates of effective schools and the related findings.

Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2004) conducted a literature review of studies that
suggested effective school leadership can bolster student achievement. In their study, the
researchers reviewed more than 5,000 studies that observed the effects of school leadership on
student achievement. This number was reduced to 70 studies that reported actual quantitative
school data on student achievement and instructional leadership. Waters et al. asked teachers
(14,000) to rate their principals’ leadership abilities. Results revealed a positive correlation
between teacher perceptions of effective instructional leadership and student achievement. The
researchers also identified 21 areas that defined effective instructional leadership and are
correlated with student achievement.

Edmonds’s (1982) original correlates of effective schools were strong instructional focus,
frequent monitoring of student achievement, strong instructional leadership, teacher behaviors that
convey high expectations, and a safe and orderly school. Many of the studies in this literature
review report findings that support the original correlates of effective schools and other variables.

METHODOLOGY
The intent of this study is to examine the relationship between student perceptions of
school effectiveness and student achievement. Correlation and descriptive analyses were the
primary means of data analyses. The research hypothesis was as follows: When student
perceptions reflect a higher presence of the characteristics of an effective school, higher levels of
school achievement will be observed.

Sample
A cluster of middle school students in a large urban school district in Florida were used in
this study. Student participants completed a form of the More Effective Schools survey
instruments. Principals at selected schools who agreed to participate were asked to randomly select
two eighth-grade homerooms to participate in the study. Each homeroom had approximately 20-25

Educational Planning 36 Vol. 23, No. 2

students. Two magnet schools and one specialized school were not included because their student
bodies are not representative of middle school students in this district.

Instrument
An established 50 item Likert-type student survey called the More Effective Schools
Surveys were used to obtain the eighth-grade students perceptions of school effectiveness. The
More Effective Schools Surveys, developed by Cardella, Sprecher, Sudlow, and Spencerport
Central Schools (2000), are instruments that assess parent, student, and staff perceptions of school
effectiveness. The Catalogue of School Reform, National Diffusion Network, United States
Department of Education, and the New York State Education Department provided evidence of
the validity of the uses of the surveys through a review of the research and literature. Content
validity was assessed by a panel of experts and knowledgeable practitioners.

The surveys measure student perceptions of seven effective school constructs: clear
school mission, frequent monitoring of student progress, high expectations, instructional
leadership, home-school relations, time on task, and safe and orderly environment. Each construct
is measured by numerous questions. Using SAS (Version 9.1), coefficient alphas were determined
for student items in each subscale. All of the alpha coefficients domains were within the preset
acceptable range of .70 or higher, except for the opportunity to learn domain, which yielded an
alpha coefficient of .67 (See Table 1).

Table 1
Student Internal Reliability Estimated Using Raw Scores
Domains (Constructs) Reliability

Clear school mission .70

Frequent monitoring .73
High expectations .78
Home/school relations .70
Instructional leadership .74
Opportunity to learn .67
Safe and orderly environment .78
Reliability for all items .92

DATA COLLECTION
More Effective Schools Surveys
After permission to conduct research was granted by the school district and principals,
data collection began by preparing the school contact persons to provide instructions to teachers
on the administration of the More Effective Schools student surveys. Two homerooms were
randomly selected by the principal at each school. Of the 1,150 parental consent forms sent to
parents, 365 parents (approximately 32%) consented to their child’s participation in the study. All
of these student surveys were used in the data analysis.

Student Achievement Measures

The data on student achievement were obtained from school achievement data through
the local Department of Education, which produces an annual report that provides detailed

Educational Planning 37 Vol. 23, No. 2

 information on school performance on state-wide standardized testing. This report aggregates
student achievement data and provides the mean scale and developmental scores by district,
school, and grade level in mathematics and reading. In this study, the mean scale scores were used
as the measure of student achievement in mathematics and reading. Eighth-grade school
achievement data in mathematics and reading were observed over a 3-year period and were used
to examine the relationships between perceived school effectiveness and student achievement.

Student Achievement Measures DATA ANALYSES

The dataobtained
Data on studentfrom
achievement
the More were obtainedSchools
Effective from school achievement
Surveys and thedata through the
state-wide testlocal Department of Ed
scores
which produces an annual report that provides detailed information on school performance on state-wide standardized testin
were analyzed using the SAS version 9.1 to determine the relationships among the seven subscales
report aggregates student achievement data and provides the mean scale and developmental scores by district, school, and gra
of the More Effective
in mathematics Schools
and reading. In thisSurveys.
study, theItmean
is important to were
scale scores recognize
used asthese relationships
the measure because
of student the in mathema
achievement
subscales
reading. are the school
Eighth-grade correlates used todatadefine
achievement effectiveand
in mathematics schools.
reading AwerePearson
observedproduct-moment
over a 3-year period and were
correlation
examine coefficientbetween
the relationships provides information
perceived about the relationship
school effectiveness between two variables on a
and student achievement.
scale of -1.00 to 1.00 (Iversen & Gergen, 1997). A significance level of .05 was used for all
statistical tests. Results of the data analyses are DATA reported in Table 2. Eighteen of the 21 (86%)
ANALYSES
correlation testings from
Data obtained werethestatistically significant.
More Effective The strength
Schools Surveys of the correlations
and the state-wide among
test scores were the using the SAS
analyzed
9.1 to determine
student the relationships
subscales ranged from among
.45 the
to seven
.91. subscales of the More
This suggests that Effective Schools
all student Surveys.that
subscales It is were
important to recogni
relationships
statistically because the had
significant subscales are the
moderate correlates
to strong used to define effective schools. A Pearson product-moment cor
relationships.
coefficient provides information about the relationship between two variables on a scale of -1.00 to 1.00 (Iversen & Gergen, 1
significance level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Results of the data analyses are reported in Table 2. Eighteen of the 2
A Pearson product-moment correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship
correlation testings were statistically significant. The strength of the correlations among the student subscales ranged from .45
between
This mathematics
suggests andsubscales
that all student reading that
achievement using the
were statistically achievement
significant resultstofrom
had moderate strongtherelationships.
schools that
providedA responses to the More Effective Schools surveys (r = .97, p < .01).
Pearson product-moment correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between Results of the
mathematics and
correlation using
achievement analysis indicated statistically
the achievement results fromsignificant relationship
the schools that between one
provided responses to theofMore
the subscales of
Effective Schools surveys (r
<student perceived
.01). Results of theschool effectiveness
correlation (home/school
analysis indicated relations)
statistically and student
significant achievement
relationship between (r one= of
-.21
the subscales of
perceived school effectiveness
for mathematics and r = -.27(home/school relations)
for reading). Noand student
other achievement
statistically (r = -.21 for
significant mathematics were
relationships and r = -.27 for read
other statistically
revealed between significant
studentrelationships were revealed
perceived school betweenand
effectiveness student perceived
student school effectiveness
achievement (See Table and 3). student achievem
Table 3).
Table 2
Table 2
StudentSubscale
Student Subscale Pearson
Pearson Product-Moment
Product-Moment Correlations
Correlations for Morefor More Effective
Effective Schools Surveys
Schools Surveys
Domains S1
Domains S1S2 S2 S3
S3 S4
S4 S5 S5
S6 S6
S1. Clear school
—
S1. Clear school mission
mission —
S2. Frequent
.79** —
monitoring
S2. Frequent monitoring .79** —
S3. High
.77** .78** —
expectations
S3. High expectations .77** .78** —
S4. Home/school
.60** .53** .41 —
relations
S4. Home/school relations .60** .53** .41 —
S5. Instructional
.57** .77** .77** .17 —
leadership
S5. Instructional leadership
S6. Opportunity to
.57** .77** .77** .17
.84** .76** .79** .16 — .69** —
learn
S6.
S7.Opportunity to learn
Safe and orderly .84** .76** .79** .16 .69**
.91** .68** .70** .51** .45** — .80**
environment
**pSafe
S7. <.05and orderly environment .91** .68** .70** .51** .45** .80**
**p <.05

Table 3
Correlations between Student Subscale Scores on the More Effective
Schools Survey and Mathematics and Reading Achievement Scores
Domains Mathematics Reading
Clear school
-.05 -.03
mission
Frequent -.10 -.05
Educational Planning 38 Vol. 23, No. 2
Highit i -.10 -.03
t ti
Table 3
Correlations between Student Subscale Scores on the More Effective
Schools Survey and Mathematics and Reading Achievement Scores
Domains Mathematics Reading

Clear school mission -.05 -.03

Frequent monitoring -.10 -.05

High expectations -.10 -.03

Home/school relations -.21** -.27**

Instructional leadership -.26 -.23

Opportunity to learn -.11 -.06

Safe and orderly environment -.08 -.01

Mathematics .97**
**p <.05

DISCUSSION
I expected to find that the correlations among the domains of the More Effective Schools
Surveys would yield small positive correlations because they are intended to measure different but
complementary aspects of school climate. However, I did not expect them to be highly correlated
with each other because they were purported to measure different aspects of school climate. This
suggests that aspects of school climate that were measured are related. This finding suggests that
there is a need for more research on different aspects of school culture.

Only one subscale of student data from the More Effective School Surveys indicated
statistically significant relationship with student achievement. These results contribute to the
knowledge base in education research and the practice of school-based leadership. Many other
empirical studies also suggested that school climate did have a significant relationship with
student achievement. Researchers and school administrators would be extremely erroneous to
presume there is no significant relationship between the two. Based on my experience as a former
school administrator and researcher, I strongly believe that aspects of school climate and student
achievement are positively related. This relationship maybe indirect and modest, but cannot be
dispensed based on the finding in a single study. I offer a discussion of potential explanations of
these data and seek to continue efforts to study this area.

There were many factors that could have influenced these results. Sampling procedures
were vital in the results yielded in this study. Student cluster samples were used to administer the
More Effective Schools surveys in this study. The More Effective Schools surveys in this study
were not a requirement for every student. Participation was strictly voluntary. The mental state of
students when they took the surveys may have influenced their responses. Finally, these results
illustrate the difficulty of measuring and reporting school climate variables without consideration
of other influential factors. Results of data analyses provide a foundation for several conclusions
and recommendations for educational planning and practice.

Educational Planning 39 Vol. 23, No. 2

 CONCLUSIONS

The first conclusion is that measuring school climate can be an elusive and imprecise
task. School climate is comprised of many different aspects. As was the case in this study, the
instrument used measured seven domains of school climate. Researchers must acknowledge the
difficulty of measuring a construct and continually try to find ways to adequately perform the task.

Second, the results obtained from this study are tentative and would need to be confirmed
by more research. Although earlier research has suggested that the school climate variables
observed in this study were positively related to student achievement, it is the responsibility of
researchers to be doubtful and to continue examining these variables. Because of the results in this
study, more research is warranted. Development cannot be arrested when research provides results
contrary to conventional wisdom. Researchers must continue to examine school climate variables
in many different educational settings.

Third, defining an effective school is a difficult task and there are many valid approaches
to defining an effective school. The review of the literature illustrated some of the controversy of
defining an effective school. When conducting research on effective schools, researchers must
decide which approach is most appropriate for their particular interest. Researchers must
determine if using a blanket shared definition or idiosyncratic definitions for different settings
would be most appropriate for their research.

Fourth, school climate data are very important to the overall functioning of schools. Prior
research and the results in this study have revealed the importance of school climate. It is
important to local administrators because the impact of school to school culture and climate cannot
be over looked. Numerous educational scholars and consultants have written about the importance
of school climate.

Finally, as the findings from this study illustrate, mathematics and reading achievement
are closely related. This is also a very common finding in research. This conclusion has several
implications for practice. School-based administrators should capitalize on this finding that is
consistent in empirical research.

One of the goals of this study was to provide recommendations to inform practice and the
field of education and educational planning. The recommendations are advisory guidelines and are
provided with the understanding that every school has specific dynamics that only relate to that
school. The recommendations may not be applicable to every school situation and/or setting.
Therefore it would be imprudent to consider these recommendations as prescription to creating an
effective school in every setting. Educational planners should consider geographic location,
socioeconomic status of student families, family background, teacher stability, teacher education
and experience, and other factors when determining the effectiveness of a school. These
recommendations are based on a study from one large urban school district. Nonetheless, these
recommendations should provide considerations for educational planners who seek to make
improvements in the academic and social functioning of schools.

Recommendation 1: Future researchers in this area of study should be cautious about

attempting to examine school climate domains individually. It may be more viable to observe
school climate as a single construct, because domains of climate examined in this study revealed
that the domains were closely related to each other.

Educational Planning 40 Vol. 23, No. 2

 Recommendation 2: Future researchers should be very careful when selecting sampling
types for school climate research. In most cases, researchers should attempt to obtain large random
samples for research. Random sampling approach is expected to be more representative of the
population than cluster and convenience samples.

Recommendation 3: Administrators should emphasize the relationship of mathematics

and reading to faculty. The two subject areas must be integrated to maximize the impact on
student achievement. Mathematics teachers should be encouraged to integrate reading skills into
their lessons/student activities and reading teacher should be encouraged to do the same for
mathematics. Neither subject should be taught in isolation. Because studies examining these
relationships are correlational, it cannot be determined which subject influences the other. This is
why it is recommended that subjects are synchronously delivered to students. Mathematics
requires adequate reading skills for successful understanding and completion of many
components. Reading is also enhanced by the ability to use processing and reasoning skills
involved with mathematics. This type of pedagogy will allow students to synthesize information,
which is a skill that requires higher-order thinking. Student using higher-order thinking is a skill
aligned with common-core like instruction, a long held best practice, and a student- ability most
school administrators wish to observe in classrooms.

Recommendation 4: School-based administrators must keep classroom instruction as the

primary focus to improve student achievement. While many variables impact student learning,
classroom instruction has the most impact on student achievement among variables that can be
controlled at the school level. However, students are the product of schools and are too unique to
regulate the depth of their educational experience to student achievement. Many ancillary
variables, such as school climate and culture, have an indirect impact on student achievement and
the overall educational experience. These variables cannot be marginalized and should be
strategically integrated to support classroom instruction and the overall learning environment
based on the specific needs students within the school.

Recommendation 5: Future researchers should investigate other ways to examine school

climate. Perception data were used in this study, but other ways could include, but are not limited
to, community perceptions of school quality, focus groups and interview data, and reports of
discipline violations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL PLANNING

The insight yielded from this research presents several implications for educational
planning researchers and practitioners. The one of the rudimentary goals of educational planning is
to design educational experiences that will provide a foundation for student success. This study
provides recommendations for educational planners that can help the process of mapping out
strategies to ensure that students are afforded an optimal learning environment that emphasizes the
correct components of school culture. Because data in this study were limited, educational
planners must continue to explore the importance of school culture and how it impacts the learning
environment. This research provides educational planners an impetus to examine other areas of
school culture that were not captured in this study. There are many aspects of school culture not
examined in this study, but may be related to the seven areas addressed. For instance,
cyberbullying, social media, video-taping of incidents, threats of terrorism, socio-emotional
interactions, discrimination, and other areas may be included as planners continue to study school
culture. As stated in recommendation three, there is a strong positive correlation between math
and reading achievement. This finding should compel educational planners to examine ways to
ensure that the curriculum have the two subjects embedded and delivered in a systematic manner.

Educational Planning 41 Vol. 23, No. 2

In recommendation four, educational planners are reminded that the primary determinant of
student achievement is classroom instruction and that all other variables are support variables.
When planning for student academic success, educational protocols must include plans to
continuously examine classroom instruction. Educational planning involves studying variables
that are, or have the potential to be, related to student achievement. This research contributes to
this knowledge base and provides next steps and recommendations for educational planners.

REFERENCES
Association for Effective Schools. (2015). More effective schools surveys. Retrieved from:
http://mes.org/surveys.html.
Barber, M., Whelan, F., & Clark, M. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium: How the world’s
top school systems are building leadership capacity for the future. Retrieved from:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Education/Knowled
ge_Highlights/~/media/Reports/SSO/schoolleadership_final.ashx
Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes
in student achievement. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Urban
Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED181005)
Cardella, F., Sprecher, S., Sudlow, R., & Spencerport Central Schools (2000). More effective
schools student and staff surveys. New York: H.W. Meyers, University of Vermont.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 35 U.S.C. § 3401 (1965).
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., et al. (1966). The
equality of educational opportunity study. Washington, DC: United States Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Delisio, E., & Dunne, W. (2007). Common elements of effective schools. Retrieved from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/schools/schools005.shtml
Dobbie, W., & Fryer Jr, R. G. (2011). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from
New York City. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Edmonds, R. R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED221536)
Hallinger, P. (2011) Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal
of educational administration, 49(2), 125-142.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (2014). International handbook of
educational change: Part two. New York, NY: Springer.
Hess, F. M. (2015). Common sense school reform. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(3), 66-69.
Iversen, G., & Gergen, M. (1997). Statistics: The conceptual approach. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success.
International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44.
doi:10.1108/09513541111100107
Kannapel, S., & Clements, S. (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing high- poverty
schools. Available from www.pritchardcommittee.org
Klein, A. (2015). ESEA Reauthorization: The Every Student Succeeds Act Explained. Politics K-
12. Retrieved from: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-
12/2015/11/esea_reauthorization_the_every.html

Educational Planning 42 Vol. 23, No. 2

Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI:
Effective School Products.
Lezotte, L. (1997). Learning for all. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products.
Meyers, H., Cardella, F., Sprecher, L., & Sudlow, R. (1994). The More Effective Schools Teaching
Project Spencerport School Survey: Pilot development and assessment Phase II. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, Louisiana, April 5, 2004.
Mortimore, P., & Sammons, P. (1987). New evidence on effective elementary schools.
Educational Leadership, 45(1), 4-8.
Munich, J., & Testani, R. (2005). NEA sues over NCLB: The bucks are big, but the case is weak.
Education Next, 4.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 1001 (1) (2002).
Odden, A. (1995). Educational leadership for America’s schools. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Reid, K., Hopkins, D., & Holly, P. (1987). Towards the effective school. Oxford: Blackwell.
Romero-Zaldivar, V. A., Pardo, A., Burgos, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2012). Monitoring student
progress using virtual appliances: A case study. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1058-
1067.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom
instruction and student learning: A Study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.
Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Leading for learning: How to transform schools into learning
organizations. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2014). Comparing the effects of
instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for
practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445-459.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Franciso,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Trujillo, T. (2013). The reincarnation of the effective schools research: Rethinking the literature on
district effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 426-452.
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership
and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin,
95(1), 5-30.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning. Educational
Leadership, 61(7), 48-51.

Educational Planning 43 Vol. 23, No. 2