examining culture and school performance

7/29/2019 Examining Culture and School Performance

1/18

Examining culture andperformance at different middle

school level structuresMartin Omar Gomez

John OConnell High School, San Francisco, California, USA

George A. MarcoulidesUniversity of California, Riverside, Riverside, California, USA, and

Ronald H. HeckDepartment of Educational Administration, University of Hawaii, Honolulu,

Hawaii, USA

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to propose and test a model of school culture and examinedata from schools in Southern California to identify educationally important aspects ofteacher-perceived cultural variables and how these perceptions differentially impact schoolperformance in K-8 and middle school structures.

Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using a sample of 628 teachers from 59schools (17 K-8 schools and 42 middle schools) in five different schools districts in Southern California.The proposed model was tested using structural equation modeling techniques.

Findings The proposed model was determined to fit the data well. The theoretical and practicalimplications of the model concerning culture and school performance within the framework ofeducational management and school configuration are discussed.

Originality/value This paper identifies educationally important aspects of teacher-perceivedcultural variables and how they impact school performance, and also it discusses the theoretical andpractical implications of the proposed model.

Keywords Teachers, Schools,Culturaltechniques, Educational administration,UnitedStates of America

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionA number of different models for school structure have been used over the past century inthe American educational school system to address issues with helping adolescentstransition from elementary school settings to high school settings. At the turn of thetwentieth century, completing a K-8 education was standard (kindergarten through eighth

grade levels) for most individuals, with fewer than 10 percent of students graduating fromhigh school (Tyack and Cuban, 1995). Although enrollment rates continued to increaseoverall for five to 19-year-olds during the first part of the century (i.e. from 51 percent in1900 to 75 percent in 1940), even by the beginning of World War II, over 50 percentpopulation had completed no more than an eighth grade education (see Snyder, 1993).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

This research is based on the dissertation of the first author submitted in partial satisfaction ofthe doctoral degree requirements at the University of California, Riverside.

Examiningculture and

performance

205

Received 25 February 2011Accepted 7 April 2011

International Journal of Educational

Management

Vol. 26 No. 2, 2012

pp. 205-222

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0951-354X

DOI 10.1108/09513541211202004


2/18

In an effort to assist students in transitioning to and graduating from high school,educators tinkered with various school structures that might better address the socialand academic needs of 12-14 year old adolescents. During the early decades, the juniorhigh school configuration (seventh through ninth grade levels) appeared. This

configuration mirrored the departmentalized curricular structure of the high school. Bythe 1960s and 1970s, the middle school (sixth through eighth grade levels) approachbecame increasingly popular, with students beginning with one teacher during sixthgrade and gradually transitioning to a departmentalized structure across core andelective courses in the seventh and eighth grades. This model was seen as moredirectly addressing the social and academic needs of adolescents as they transitionedbetween the elementary setting, typically with one teacher at one grade level, to themore complex departmentalized instruction typical of the high school setting.

Recently, interest in the K-8 configuration has returned, mainly because some of thecurrent research findings concerning school outcomes for this particular model have beenpositive (Arcia, 2007; Byrnes and Ruby, 2007; Connolly et al., 2002; Juvonen et al., 2004;Offenberg, 2001; Weiss, 2008; Weiss and Kipnes, 2006; Yecke, 2006). One of the obviousadvantages to this configuration is that students do not have to transfer to another school,so there is no break in their instruction. Previous results have noted that studentachievement tends to dip after students transfer from elementary to middle or junior highschool (Alspaugh, 1998). Positive results for K-8 schools compared to other school modelsinclude overall higher student test scores, increased involvement of parents and staffmembers, higher participation rates in extracurricular activities, greater levels of studentleadership and self-esteem, student attendance in more prestigious high schools, increasedsafety and well being, fewer discipline issues, and more positive views of teachers (Arcia,2007; Byrnes and Ruby, 2007; Connolly et al., 2002; Juvonen et al., 2004; Offenberg, 2001;Weiss, 2008; Weiss and Kipnes, 2006; Yecke, 2006).

Other recent research results, however, has shown that K-8 schools do not always

outperform middle schools, once a number of other educational process variables areconsidered in addition to more obvious differences in grade structure. This worksuggests that the major factors in determining student achievement include amotivated staff and strong leadership, and not simply the configuration of the school ora change in the educational program (Balfanz et al., 2002; Erb, 2006; Viadero, 2008;Weiss, 2008; Whitley et al., 2007; Yecke, 2006).

Research focusThis study attempted to expand on this latter line of research and compare variousdimensions of school culture in K-8 schools in contrast to middle schools, in order toexplore whether or not the positive effects associated with the K-8 setting highlightedin the extant literature actually occur and, if so, to provide an understanding of the

effects. We drew on research establishing a linkage between educational processes(values and beliefs, expectations, academic and organization, teacher practices) andschool outcomes. These include processes related to the instructional environmentsurrounding classrooms, teaching practices, and school-level strategies aimed atacademic improvement (Creemers, 1994; Kyriakides et al., 2010; Opdenakker and VanDamme, 2007). These various beliefs, attitudes, and processes are often referred to as aschools academic culture or capacity for producing quality school instructionalpractices and learning (Mulford and Silins, 2003).

IJEM26,2

206


3/18

More specifically, we investigated the following:

. the generalizability of a previously validated school culture model originallyproposed by Heck and Marcoulides (1993) concerning how teacher perceptions ofschool culture explain student achievement in a sample of K-8 and middleschools in California; and, more specifically; and

. the hypothesis that K-8 schools exert stronger positive cultural influences overschool performance than middle schools do.

The remainder of the paper is comprised of three sections. We discuss the studysparticipants and the constructs comprising our proposed theoretical model in themethod section. We then provide the findings of our model tests in the results section.Finally, we draw conclusions and suggest some implications of our research.

MethodData

A total of 59 schools from five different school districts participated in the study. Out ofthe 59 schools, 17 were identified as K-8 schools and the remaining 42 were middleschools. Several criteria were used to select school districts for participation. Selectedschool districts had:

. K-8 and/or middle schools;

. higher than 60 percent free and reduced lunch participation;

. higher than 20 percent of English language learners; and

. parent Education Level greater than 1.90 (high school graduate) but less than2.90 (college graduate).

All data confirming the district and schools SES measured by percentage on free and

reduced lunch, population, and CST scale scores were taken from the CaliforniaDepartment of Education (2007) (www.cde.ca.gov) web site in the DataQuest feature.All schools with similar student SES levels (measured by percent of free and reducedlunch) and similar percentages of ELL (English Language Learner) students weresurveyed in order to reduce the difference in student performance that is explained bythose two variables.

All teachers from each school site were contacted to participate in the study. Thesample consisted of 628 teachers within the 59 schools who returned usable surveys (i.e.154 K8 teachers and 474 middle school teachers). The response rates were similar acrossthe two types of schools in the study; that is, 25.4 percent for K-8 teachers in the sampleand 26.3 percent for middle school teachers (with approximately 11 teachers per school).Although return rates in such surveys of school processes are typically less than 50

percent, previous research has determined that stable structural equation modelingsolutions can be obtained with samples ranging from five to 15 teachers per school site.

School performance was measured using mean score values on ELA, Algebra 1,Science and History in the eighth grade for the 2008-2009 school year. An arithmeticaverage value of the reported CST scores was calculated for each school and then eachschool was ranked from lowest score (one) to highest score (60). Sixth-grade CST scoresfor the same schools were also used to compute mean score value using data from the2006-2007 school year. These data were examined in order to determine if there was a


performance

207


4/18

drop in student achievement due to the transition to middle school (as has been notedin previous research). All CST information was collected from the CaliforniaDepartment of Education (CDE) web site. Additionally, school demographic variableswere also obtained from the CDE web site. These variables included percentage of

non-white students, percentage of students in free and reduced lunch, percentage ofstudents in the English Language Learners (ELL) program, percentage of studentswith disabilities, and average parent education level.

Proposed modelFigure 1 depicts the originally proposed theoretical model by Heck and Marcoulides(1996b) utilized in this study. As a group, the factors or latent variables (represented byellipses) are viewed as loosely comprising students perceptions of the threesubsystems of school culture (i.e. socio-cultural, organizational process, and individualbeliefs). We consider organizational structure and organizational values to be givensin the context of the proposed model; that is, they are considered exogenous variables

since their variability is determined by other variables outside of the proposed model.Of course, we recognize that organizational structure and values are themselvesdynamic processes; however, since the data are cross-sectional, we reasoned that theschools structure and its values would be reflective of wider sets of cultural values inthe environment and, thus, relatively stable at any one point in time. In contrast, weconsider organizational climate, managerial processes, and teacher attitudes to beendogenous variables, in that other variables in the proposed model determine theirvariability. The exogenous variables, therefore, indirectly affect organizationalperformance through the endogenous variables in the model.

In order to describe school achievement through organizational culture, Heck andMarcoulides (1996b) developed the The Organization of the School and TeacherSatisfaction with Their Work Environment: A Survey of Secondary School Teachers in

Singapore (OSTSWE). The OSTSWE was created based on research by Marcoulides andHeck (1993a), which is a study about how organizational culture can make a difference infor-profit organizational productivity. The instrument was designed to measure a varietyof strategic interactions between principals and teachers, focusing on how the school isstructured and governed, how it is organized instructionally, and how teachers perceive

Figure 1.Proposed model oforganizational culture andschool performance

IJEM26,2

208


5/18

elements of its culture and climate. The OSTSWE has already been shown to possessgood psychometric properties (e.g. Heck and Marcoulides, 1996b). Moreover, theseprevious examinations using the instrument suggest that 75-80 percent of the variance inperceptions about culture lies within schools. Given that we were interested in examining

differences in teacher perceptions about two types of school structures, we conducted ourexamination of organizational culture at the individual teacher level.

Constructs comprising the modelIn the OSTSWE, the first important cultural subsystem (the sociocultural subsystem)is measured by the following two factors: organizational structure and managerialprocesses. Organizational structure is intended to measure the attitudes and beliefsrelated to the organizations structure and operational processes implemented toachieve desired results. Organizational structure is measured by one scale: level ofbureaucracy and this scale is measured utilizing five questions on the surveyinstrument. Low scores for organizational structure are associated with less rigidity

and more teacher autonomy. Managerial processes is intended to measure how theorganization functions over time as a result of its particular structure, purposes, valueand belief systems, and is measured by three questions on the OSTSWE: availability ofresources (measured by three questions on the survey instrument), administrativeresponsiveness (measured by four questions on the survey instrument), and principalsleadership (measured by six questions on the survey instrument).

The second important component of culture, the organizational value subsystem, ismeasured by the following factors: organizational values and organizational climate.The organizational values factor is intended to measure principles, ideologies, andactivities representing values thought to be important in achieving schoolproductivity. On the OSTSWE, organizational values are measured by three scales:time for teacher collaboration and meetings among teachers (measured by three

questions on the survey); support for innovation (measured by three questions on thesurvey); and encouragement for teacher participation in decision making (measured bythree questions on the survey instrument). The second factor, organizational climate, isintended to measure teachers perceptions of how things are on a day-to-day basisregarding a variety of topics. Organizational climate is measured by three questions:willingness to socialize with staff (measured by six questions on the survey), open staffcommunication (measured by three questions on the survey), and teacher collegialityand the availability of help (measured by four questions on the survey).

The third important component of culture, the individual belief subsystem, iscomposed of teacher attitudes. The teacher attitudes factor is measured within theareas of teacher classroom instruction, student academic ability, and studentbackground. On the OSTSWE, teacher attitudes is measured by two scales:

perceptions about students capabilities to learn academic material and the attitudesthey bring from home (measured by three question on the survey), and teacherperceptions of the parents support of their child, the teacher, and the school (measuredby three questions on the survey). Finally, school performance (which is the dependentvariable in the proposed model), describes the level of academic performance within theschool, and was measured in this study by the CST 8th grade mean scale scores ofstudents obtained in English Language Arts (ELA), Algebra 1, Science and History forthe 2009 school year.


performance

209


6/18

ResultsThe proposed model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) techniquesimplemented through LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2006). The analysisattempted to determine whether or not the K-8 and middle school data fit the originally

proposed Heck and Marcoulides (1996b) model. The assessment of model fit wasconducted by examining the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI),Normed Fit Index (NFI), Chi-Square Test, the Root Mean Square Error ofApproximation (RMSEA), and the 90 percent Confidence Interval of the RMSEA fitcriteria. These fit indices were selected due to their widespread use and their usefulnessin comparing samples of unequal sizes (Marcoulides and Heck, 1993b). It is commonlyaccepted that individually examined values for the CFI, GFI, and NFI approaching orabove 0.95 are expected for good model fit. In contrast, RMSEA values close to 0.05 andsmall confidence intervals with the left tail end including the value zero are indicativeof good model fit. Additionally, a non-significant value obtained for the chi-square (x2)test and evaluated through its corresponding p-value is indicative of good model fit.However, because it is well known that the chi-square test is notoriously sensitive tosample size and has a tendency to reject models that are only marginally inconsistentwith the data, more emphasis is placed on the other fit criteria (Raykov andMarcoulides, 2008).

Since the study utilized an a priori defined model to be tested, a first objective lies indetermining the adequacy of model fit to the MS and K-8 data. Once model fit isdetermined, then the significance of the various parameter estimates can be ascertainedfor each school structure type. If the model does not show adequate fit to either theconsidered MS or K-8 data, then the paths and even the variables included in the modelmight potentially have to be re-conceptualized. On ascertaining good model fitseparately to the MS and K-8 data, a subsequent test of model invariance will be usedin order to compare if the parameter estimates are the same for the two school structure

types.Tests of model invariance allow researchers to study potential group differences

and expand the literature as it attempts to add insights into the construct validity ofmeasures (Marcoulides and Heck, 1993b). In particular, these tests enable a discussionwith regards to the potential similarities and differences within the proposed modelacross the K-8 and middle school data when attempting to explain how culturevariables impact school achievement. The value of a proposed theoretical model is saidto be greatly-enhanced, if the same model can be replicated in samples from the sameor from different populations (Heck and Marcoulides, 1990). On determining overallmodel invariance, parameter estimates can then also be compared in order to examinethe contribution of each observed and latent variable to the overall model across theK-8 and middle school types. Assessing the magnitudes of the parameter estimates can

provide information with regards to the strongest and weakest path estimate of culturevariables (direct and indirect) on school achievement in the proposed model (Koufterosand Marcoulides, 2006; Marcoulides and Heck, 1993b). Additionally, assessing themagnitude of the parameter estimates of the paths in the model provides insightconcerning the predictive power of any one variable on another.

In order to compare the achievement differences between MS and K-8 schoolsincluded in this study, tests of group difference using t-tests will also be conducted.These t-tests compare the mean scaled CST scores of the K-8 schools against those of the

IJEM26,2

210


7/18

middle schools at both the sixth (mean CST scores on Math and ELA) and the eighthgrade level (mean CST scores on Algebra 1, ELA, Science, and Social Studies).Examining the results of these t-tests provides insight regarding which type ofmiddle-level structure may be significantly outperforming the other by comparing the

averages on mean CST scores at the sixth grade level and then at the eighth grade level.Table I provides descriptive information about the observed variable means and

standard deviations across both teacher groups. The observed variable means,standard deviations, and mean comparison t-statistic with corresponding p-value arepresented for each parceled variable included in the model. The observed variables arelisted according to which particular latent variable (italicized) they measure. Theyfocus on teacher perceptions regarding:

. their schools level of bureaucracy;

. how much innovation is encouraged by school administrators;

. the principals responsiveness to teacher issues;

.

their social relationships with their peers; and. their collegiality with their peers were similar across both school groups.

More specifically, MS teachers, more than K-8 teachers, believe they are provided more:

. time for collaboration;

. situations to participate in educational decision making;

. availability to resources;

. effective principal leadership practices; and

. open communication with their peers.

K-8 MS

VariablesMean

(n 154) SDMean

(n 474) SD t-value p-value

Organizational structureDegree of bureaucracy (x5) 13.93 3.03 14.10 3.41 20.54 0.59

Organizational valuesTime for collaboration (x11) 9.62 2.97 10.60 2.75 23.70 0.00Encourage innovation (x12) 11.00 2.31 11.40 2.28 21.82 0.70Participate in decisions (x13) 10.12 3.10 10.99 2.97 23.11 0.00

Managerial processesAvailability of resources (x8) 8.86 3.01 9.89 2.87 23.79 0.00Principal responsiveness (x9) 13.18 3.01 13.63 2.75 21.70 0.90Principal leadership (x10) 21.74 6.54 23.11 5.45 22.57 0.01

Organizational climateSocial relationships (x2) 23.42 4.06 24.10 4.04 21.80 0.72Open communication (x3) 10.01 3.57 10.81 3.14 22.63 0.01Collegiality of teachers (x4) 13.99 2.16 14.20 2.09 21.03 0.30

Teacher attitudesPerceptions of parents (x7) 10.43 3.21 9.19 3.02 4.32 0.00

Table I.Descriptive statistics of

variables in both groups


performance

211


8/18

In contrast, K-8 teachers tended to have higher perceptions of parental support thanteachers in the MS group.

Table II presents the obtained criteria fit for the proposed model examined acrossthree separate snapshots of the collected data:

(1) The entire sample of teachers regardless of school structure.

(2) Teachers from the k-8 schools alone.

(3) Teachers from the MS structure alone.

As can be seen by examining these fit indexes, with the expected exception of thesignificant chi-square value, all the measures of model fit indicated good fit of themodel to each of the three snapshots of the collected data. Thus, it is clear that the apriori proposed model fits the obtained data at the total sample level, the K-8 level, andthe MS level.

The parameter estimates, standard errors, and t-values for the endogenous andexogenous latent variables obtained for the total sample and the separate K-8 and MS

data sets are summarized in the Appendix 1 (see Tables AI and AII). All factorloadings for the latent variables included in the model were found to be statisticallysignificant as determined by examining their t-statistic values and ensuring that thet-value was greater than 1.96 (the critical value at a 0:05; Raykov and Marcoulides,2008). The obtained factor loadings provide evidence that the variables included in theproposed model are important measures of the considered latent variables. Allparameter estimates exhibited small standard errors confirming that the observedvariables are stable estimates of the latent variables (see Appendix 2 (Table AIII) fordetailed information concerning the parceled variables and survey questions that wereused to measure each latent variable).

The obtained parameters estimates for the path coefficients examining the impact ofthe exogenous latent variables (e.g. Organizational Values) on the endogenous latent

variables (e.g. Teacher Attitudes) are presented in Figure 2. The first provided valuecorresponds to the parameter estimate, the value below in parenthesis to thecorresponding standard error, and the third the corresponding t-test value. Generallyspeaking, an effect size of 0.2 to 0.3 is considered to be a small or weak effect,around 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 to 1.0, a large or strong effect.

We contrast the effects across K-8 and middle schools in Figure 2. The direct effectof organizational values on managerial processes was found to be statisticallysignificant across the both the K-8 and MS groups. The obtained values for K-8[0:65; t628 17:71;p , 0:01] and MS [0:64; t628 26:62;p , 0:01], respectively,

Total sample

(n 628)

K-8

(n 154)

MS

(n 474)

Chi-Square (x2) 332.17 141.09 267.67p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.97 0.96 0.96Normed fit index (NFI) 1.00 1.00 1.00Comparative fit index (CFI) 1.00 1.00 1.00Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.10 0.12 0.1090 percent confidence interval for RMSEA (0.09; 0.11) (0.09; 0.14) (0.08; 0.11)

Table II.Measures of model fit

IJEM26,2

212


9/18

indicate that teachers in both school structures reported that the latent variable,organizational values, had similar direct effects and is considered to be a strongpredictor of managerial processes. As specified previously, this parameter estimate canbe interpreted just like a regression coefficient and indicates that for every one unitchange in the measure of organization values there is respectively in each schoolstructural type a corresponding 0.64 or 0.65 increase in the value of the measure ofmanagerial processes. This finding essentially implies that teachers that are given timefor collaboration, are encouraged to be innovative, and participate in school widedecisions also had similar access to the resources they needed and a principal that was

responsive with effective leadership practices.The direct effect of organizational values on teacher attitudes was also found to be

statistically significant across the K-8 and MS considered groups. Nevertheless, for K-8teachers, the latent variable organizational value (0.83) was more important inpredicting teacher attitudes than for the MS teachers (0.30). K-8 schools with moreinnovation, and more teachers participating in decision-making were much more likelyto be associated with higher teacher perceptions of the parental support that theirstudents have. The direct effect of organizational values on organizational climate wasalso found to be significant across the K-8 and MS teacher groups. For both groups thelatent variable organizational values appeared to be equally important in predictingorganizational climate (0.76 and 0.72). Thus, K-8 and MS teachers from schools withhigh organizational values were similarly associated with teachers in schools that

exhibited high teacher relationships, communication, and collegiality.All other paths considered in the model were found to be non-significant. For

example, the magnitude of the path between organizational structure and managerialprocesses was found to be 20.01 for the K-8 teachers and 20.09 for the MS teachers.We noted similar non-significant results for the paths between organizational structureand organizational climate.

The parameter estimates for the K-8, and MS groups between the endogenousvariable paths are also presented in Figure 2. As can be seen by examining the results

Figure 2.Examining standardizedstructural coefficients in

the proposed modelbetween K-8 and middle

schools


performance

213


10/18

displayed in Table III, the magnitude of the path between organizational climate andteacher attitudes was similar for MS teachers [0:60; t628 7:50;p , 0:01] and K-8teachers [0:37; t628 4:62;p , 0:01] . Thi s s ug ges ts th at , t he i mp ac t of organizational climate on teacher attitudes is perceived as being similar by MS and

K-8 teachers. Thus in both groups, teacher perceptions of their relationships,communication, and collegiality with their colleagues were positively associated withperceptions of parental support that their students have.

The parameter estimate between managerial processes and teacher attitudes wasfound to be significant for teachers from both types of school structures. Nevertheless,for teachers from K-8 schools [0:26; t154 2:31;p , 0:01] it appears to be somewhatless important than for teachers in the MS configuration [0:64; t474 2:67;p , 0:01].MS teachers and K-8 teachers associate higher levels of principal leadership methods tohigher levels of teacher perceptions of their students parental support. The magnitudeof the path between managerial processes and organizational climate was also found tobe significant in both the K-8 and MS teacher groups (K-8 0.42, MS 0.46). Thus

both teachers from both K-8 and MS configurations perceive principal actions to besimilarly important in explaining the schools collegiality and communication. The

direct path between organizational climate and school performance was determined tobe significant only in the K-8 teacher group [0:33; t154 2:40;p , 0:01]. It appearsthat organizational climate is not perceived by MS teachers as impacting schoolperformance. Similar differences between the perceptions of teachers from K-8 and MSschool configurations were also determined for the path between teacher attitudes andschool performance [0:17; t154 3:93;p , 0:01]. This result indicates that K-8teachers were more likely to feel that higher teacher perceptions of students parentalsupport were predictive of school performance. Thus, attitudes of teachers in K-8school configurations were a better predictor of school performance than attitudes ofteachers in middle schools. All other paths considered in the model were found to benon-significant at p , 0:05.

In addition to examining direct effects, the magnitude of indirect effects in the modelcan also be investigated. Based on a review of the literature, a number of indirecteffects on school performance were examined in this study (see Table III for a completelist of the indirect effects examined in this study). It is noted that the magnitude of theindirect effect can be readily computed using the so-called tracing rule (which in mostcases is essentially the product of the corresponding path coefficients between variousdirect effects). For example, to determine the indirect effect of organizational values onschool performance (0.25) for K-8 teachers, the product of the direct effects betweenorganizational values on organizational climate (0.76) and between organizationalclimate and school performance (0.33) is taken.

As can be seen by examining the indirect values displayed in Table III, themagnitude of the indirect effects of organizational values on school performance viaorganizational climate and on school performance via managerial processes weresizeable for the K-8 teachers. In the MS teacher sample the indirect effect fororganizational values on school performance via managerial process was found to besizeable. For the total sample, the magnitudes of indirect effects of organizationalvalues on school performance via organizational climate and on school performancevia teacher attitudes, as well as the indirect effect of organizational climate to school

IJEM26,2

214


11/18

Totalsample

(n

628)

K-8

(n

154)

MS

(n

474)

Organizationvalues!

Organizationalclimate!

Schoolperformance

(0.74)

(0.4

2)

0.3

1

(0.7

6)

(0.3

3)

0.2

5

(0.7

2)

(0.0

5)

0.0

4

Organizationalvalues!

Teacherattitudes!

Schoolperformance

(0.80)

(0.6

2)

0.5

0

(0.8

3)

(0.1

7)

0.1

4

(0.3

0)

(0.2

4)

0.0

7

Organizationalvalues!

Managerialprocesses!

Schoolperformance

(0.65)

(0.1

9)

0.1

2

(0.6

5)

(0.2

4)

0.1

6

(0.6

4)

(0.5

4)

0.3

5

Organizationalstructure

!

Organizationalclimate

!

Schoolperformance

(20.03)

(0.4

2)

2

0.0

1

(20.0

3)

(0.3

3)

2

0.0

1

(20.0

6)

(0.0

5)

2

0.0

03

Organizationalclimate!

Teacherattitudes!

Schoolperformance

(0.81)

(0.6

2)

0.5

0

(0.3

7)

(0.1

7)

0.0

6

(0.6

0)

(0.2

4)

0.1

4

Table III.Indirect effects to school

performance


performance

215


12/18

performance via teacher attitudes were sizeable. All remaining indirect effects werenoted to be of little importance in predicting the various outcome variables considered.

A t-test comparing the combined mean scaled CST scores of ELA and mathachievement between K-8 and middle schools at the sixth grade level indicated that the

sixth grade students at K-8 schools (m 335:58; SD 27:18) did not significantlyoutperform their middle school sixth grade peer schools [(m 332:72; SD 20:36);t626 1:39;p 0:165]. However, a second independent sample t-test comparing themean scaled scores between achievement (average of ELA, Algebra 1, Science, andSocial Studies CST scores) of K-8 and middle schools at the eighth grade level indicatedth at e ig hth g rade st ud en ts i n K -8s ( m 344:24; SD 33:22) significantlyoutperformed eighth grade students in middle schools [m 338:15; SD 23:72);t626 2:49;p 0:013]. It is noted that the sixth grade CST scaled scores were takenduring the 2006-2007 school year and the eighth grade scores were taken from the2008-2009 school year in order to theoretically study the same cohort of students.

DiscussionThe purposes of this study were to:. examine the generalizability of a proposed model of organizational culture and

its relationship to student outcomes; and

. determine whether organizational processes that might explain differences inachievement outcomes in different school structures serving 12- to 14-year-oldstudents.

These types of school settings have not been as frequently studied as either elementaryor high school settings.

Our results contribute to an understanding of educational processes and outcomesat middle grade levels in at least two important ways. First, the study provides support

concerning the construct validity of the originally proposed Heck and Marcoulidesmodel (1996b) regarding the effects of organizational processes comprising schoolculture on school outcomes across teachers from both K-8 and MS school structures.More specifically, it indicates that the component dimensions of a schools academicand social culture are positively related to each other and to student outcomes inschools serving young adolescents. This provides additional evidence of the proposedmodels construct validity in describing educational processes and outcomes in thesetypes of schools. This was particularly evident in terms of the positive indirect effectsof organizational values and school climate to explaining school outcomes, and thedirect effect of teacher attitudes in being positively related to outcomes regardless ofschool type (see also Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood and Mascall, 2008; Leithwood et al.,2010). Overall, this provides support for the view that organizational consists of several

related subsystems (i.e. sociocultural, organizational, individual), which can bepositively related to outcomes. Our proposed model suggests all three subsystems arerelevant to understanding differences in patterns of belief, behavior, and outcomesamong the schools investigated.

Second, given the additional evidence that K-8 schools outperform middle schools atthe eighth grade level, our results also help illuminate specific aspects ofteacher-perceived cultural variables within K-8 and MS structures that areimportant and further suggest possible paths through which such perceptions about

IJEM26,2

216


13/18

organizational processes may impact school performance. This provides initialevidence for considering which aspects of K-8 and middle school settings may yieldpositive academic benefits for students.

Our results therefore provide initial clues about which components parts of schools

organizational culture may be amenable to school-level action directed at improvingoutcomes. Since the examined model was found to fit the teacher data from both typesof school structures and because a statistically significant difference was determined inthe eighth grade performance, one can compare the specific aspects of the model acrossthe two teacher groups and confirm which paths differ and infer that the higherperformance may indeed be explained by the higher teacher perception on thatparticular path. Because some variables emerged as better predictors of performanceaccording to teachers from each school type, strategic school improvement might resultfrom becoming more aware of teachers perceptions about key organizationalprocesses (e.g. academic orientation underlying organizational values, organizationalclimate, teacher attitudes) and also consider ways to change those aspects that appearto influence school performance.

In particular, in K-8 settings, we noted considerable continuity of direct and indirectrelationships involving teachers perceptions of their schools academic values, theirclimates, and teacher attitudes in being more strongly related to outcomes. These pathswere not as clearly evident in middle school settings, although we did note that therelationship between organizational values, managerial processes, and studentoutcomes was positive and substantial, and the indirect relationship between climate,teacher attitudes, and outcomes was also positive. It is not clear from these data,however, what might be possible reasons for systematic differences in organizationalrelationships across these two types of settings. We caution that simply changingleadership practices to mirror successful schools may not necessarily result in directspecific changes in outcomes; however, it is clear that discussions of best practices by

leaders and staff, at least as perceived by teachers, must at least begin with anunderstanding of the important variables influencing school outcomes (Heck andMarcoulides, 1996a; Leithwood et al., 2010; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1997; Leithwood andMascall, 2008).

The proposed model examined and tested in this study across teachers from twodifferent types of middle level school structures compared quite favorably withprevious studies of organizational culture and performance in for-profit organizations(Marcoulides and Heck, 1993a), at the high school level in Singapore (Heck andMarcoulides, 1996b), and across elementary and high school level data obtained fromthe Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) data (Marcoulideset al., 2005). Although the overall model tested in this study was determined to fitequally well with both types of middle school structures considered, the actual

magnitude of the parameter estimates within the model reflecting the effects acrossspecific latent variables and on the outcome variable differed somewhat across the twoschool types. Based on results obtained in past research studies, it appears that theobserved variation of the parameter estimates across the two school types found in thisdissertation can most likely be attributed to different school contexts considered.

This inferred difference as a function of the school context is further supported bythe fact that the model fit and parameter estimates obtained on the total teacher sample(i.e. when ignoring the two considered school structures) were quite similar to those


performance

217


14/18

obtained for the originally proposed Heck and Marcoulides (1996b) model.Nevertheless, once the separate teacher groups (school configuration) wereintroduced into the analysis, the model did not fit the data from the two schoolstructures in the same manner. Indeed, since the actual magnitude of effects within the

model also changed once school configuration was taken into account, it is clear thatthe school configuration is the key factor bringing about these changes. For example,similar to the originally proposed model, in the total teacher sample the sole importantdirect factor in explaining school performance was teacher attitudes. In contrast for theK-8 group, the most important variables explaining school performance wereorganizational climate and teacher attitudes. In the MS group no significant directeffects to school performance were determined.

It should be emphasized that a number of the observed variations between themiddle and K-8 schools in the examined model did not follow some of the currentmiddle level literature. For example, K-8 teachers were found to have higherperceptions of parental support (see details provided in Table III) due to the longerperiod of time that they work with the same parents and thus have more chances toconnect with them compared to the MS teachers. Because K-8 teachers worked with thesame parents for a longer period of time (nine years at the K-8 versus three years at theMS), however, our data suggest that they may become more frustrated with the lack ofsupport by the principal to connect the parents with the school. In other words,although there are more parental contacts within the K-8 school structure, themagnitude of this path may suggest that the K-8 teachers believe that more should bedone by the schools leadership to actually connect the community to the schools inorder to follow what was found in the literature review.

A second example refers to the fact that organizational structure (i.e. middle schoolversus K-8) did not appear to affect outcomes indirectly in the model. Although Beckeret al. (2009) found that efficacious adult-student relationships are easier to foster within

the K-8 structure, this study determined that organizational structure did not have anindirect effect on school performance for either school structure type. In fact,non-significant parameter estimates were observed for both K-8 and MS schools.However, the lack of influence of grade configuration on school performance found inthis study is quite consistent with recent results reported by Williams et al. (2010).

Because structural types do not appear to account directly for differences inoutcomes, but process variables do, as Heck and Marcoulides (1993) have suggested,instead of comparing the pros and cons of different middle level structures, especiallysince organizational structure has been found not to affect school performance, schoolleaders are encouraged to focus on school climate and on school-wide studentimprovement goals in order to raise teacher attitudes and collegiality. Improvingteacher attitudes and collegiality is important as it is those variables that have been

found to impact school performance in both school structures. As they note Becausetime in the school day is limited, there are trade-offs associated with schoolmanagement (p. 26). Hence, deciding on which variables are important in facilitatingstrong educational outcomes becomes a crucial aspect of school leadership aimed atfacilitating school academic improvement (Leithwood et al., 2010).

Our results should be considered in relation to a few limitations. First, we were notable to obtain direct information about how teachers instruct in their classrooms. It islikely that differences in teachers classroom effectiveness have a direct effect on

IJEM26,2

218


15/18

student learning (as well differences in their attitudes). Second, although concerns canbe raised about any attempt to reduce the complexity of complex day-to-dayeducational relationships in schools to a model of organizational culture and estimateits relationship to outcomes, there is a benefit in doing so if it helps to identify paths

that might provide insight to strategic actions that can improve classroom instructionand the environment surrounding the schools instructional practices. These two areashave been identified in a recent meta-analysis of school factors that influence outcomes(Kyriakides et al., 2010). Further research related to schools leadership, academic andsocial organization, and values may help illuminate strategies for improvingeducational practices in schools that lead to increased outcomes for early adolescentstudents. This is because school climate, teacher attitudes, and organizational valuesappear to explain school performance more than the other latent variables(e.g. structure) in the considered model.

References

Alspaugh, J.W. (1998), Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school andhigh school, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 20-5.

Arcia, E. (2007), A comparison of elementary/K-8 and middle schools suspension rates, UrbanEducation, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 456-69.

Balfanz, R., Spridakis, K. and Neild, R.C. (2002), Will Converting High-Poverty Middle Schools toK-8 Schools Facilitate Achievement Gains?, Philadelphia Education Fund, a Research Brieffor the School District of Philadelphia, November.

Becker, N.C., Gomez, M. and Zykowski, J. (2009), Achieving a delicate balance: a guide to theadvantages, disadvantages, and unique challenges of educating middle-grade students ina contemporary K-8 school in Southern California, Graduate School of Education,University of California, Riverside, CA, May.

Byrnes, V. and Ruby, A. (2007), Comparing achievement between K-8 and middle schools:

a large-scale empirical study, American Journal of Education, Vol. 114, pp. 101-35.California Department of Education (2007),Fact Book 2007. Handbook of Education Information,

California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA, (online), available at: www.cde.ca.gov

Connolly, F., Yakimowski-Srebnick, M.E. and Russo, C.V. (2002), An examination of K-5,6-8 versus K-8 grade configurations, ERS Spectrum, Vol. 20 No. 2, Spring, pp. 28-37.

Creemers, b. (1994), The Effective Classroom, Cassell, London.

Erb, T.O. (2006), Middle school models are working in many grade configurations to booststudent performance, American Secondary Education, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 4-13.

Heck, R.H. and Marcoulides, G.A. (1990), Examining the contextual differences in thedevelopment of instructional leadership and school achievement, The Urban Review,Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 247-65.

Heck, R.H. and Marcoulides, G.A. (1993), Principal leadership behaviors and schoolachievement, NASSP Bulletin, May, pp. 20-8.

Heck, R.H. and Marcoulides, G.A. (1996a), The assessment of principal performance: a multilevelevaluation approach, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 11-28.

Heck, R.H. and Marcoulides, G.A. (1996b), School culture and performance: testing theinvariance of an organizational model, School Effectiveness and School Improvement,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 76-96.


performance

219


16/18

Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J. and Marcoulides, G.A. (1990), Instructional leadership and school

achievement: validation of a causal model, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26No. 2, pp. 94-125.

Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (2006), LISREL 8.80, Scientific Software, Chicago, IL.

Juvonen, J., Le, V., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C. and Constant, L. (2004), Focus on the WonderYears: Challenges Facing the American Middle School, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica,CA, available at: www.rand.org/.

Koufteros, X. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2006), Product development practices and performance: a

structural equation modeling-based multi-group analysis, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 103, pp. 286-307.

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P. and Demetriou, D. (2010), A synthesis of studies

searching for school factors: implications for theory and research, British EducationalResearch Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 807-30.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1997), Explaining variation in teachers perceptions of principals

leadership: a replication, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 312-24.

Leithwood, K. and Mascall, B. (2008), Collective leadership effects on student achievement,Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 529-61.

Leithwood, K., Patten, S. and Jantzi, D. (2010), Testing a conceptualization of how school

leadership influences student learning, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46No. 5, pp. 671-706.

Marcoulides, G.A. and Heck, R.H. (1993a), Organizational culture and performance: proposing

and testing a model, Organization Science, Vol. 4, pp. 209-25.

Marcoulides, G.A. and Heck, R.H. (1993b), Examining administrative leadership behavior:

a comparison of principals and assistant principals, Journal of Personnel Evaluation inEducation, Vol. 7, pp. 81-94.

Marcoulides, G.A., Heck, R.A. and Papanastasiou, C. (2005), Student perceptions of culture and

achievement: testing the invariance of a model, International Journal of EducationalManagement, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 140-52.

Mulford, B. and Silins, H. (2003), Leadership for organizational learning and improved student

outcomes: what do we know?, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33, pp. 175-95.

Offenberg, R. (2001), The efficacy of Philadelphias K-to-8 schools compared to middle grades

schools, Middle School Journal, March, pp. 23-9.

Opdenakker, M.C. and Van Damme, J. (2007), Do school context, student composition and school

leadership affect school practice and outcomes in secondary education?, BritishEducational Research Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 179-206, available at: www.informaworld.com

Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2008), An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis,Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.

Snyder, T. (1993), 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait, National Center forEducation Statistics, Washington, DC.

Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995), Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform,Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Viadero, D. (2008), Evidence for moving to K-8 not airtight, Education Week, Vol. 27 No. 19,pp. 11-13.

Weiss, C.C. (2008), Re-examining middle school effects: what the research says, Principal,Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 60-1.

IJEM26,2

220


17/18

Weiss, C.C. and Kipnes, L. (2006), Reexamining middle school effects: a comparison of middlegrades students in middle schools and K-8 schools, American Journal of Education,Vol. 112, pp. 239-72.

Whitley, J., Lupart, J.L. and Beran, T. (2007), Differences in achievement between adolescents

who remain in a K-8 school and those who transition to junior high school, CanadianJournal of Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 649-69.

Williams, T., Kirst, M.W. and Haertel, E. et al. (2010), Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: whySome Schools do Better, EdSource, Mountain View, CA.

Yecke, C.P. (2006), Mayhem in the middle: why we should shift to K-8, Educational Leadership,Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 20-5.

Further reading

California Teachers Association (2006), Trend toward reconfiguration puts middle schools indanger of extinction, available at: www.cta.org

Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2006), A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling,2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Viadero, D.K-8. (2006), K-8 structure gives no academic boost, analysis finds, Education Week,Vol. 25 No. 25, pp. 5-6.

Yecke, C.P. (2005), Mayhem in the Middle: How Middle Schools have Failed America and How toMake them Work, Thomas R. Fordham Institute, Washington, DC, available at: www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/found.cfm?author&keywordmayhemin themiddle

Appendix 1

Observed variable Total sample ( n 628) K-8 ( n 154) MS ( n 474)

Managerial processesAvailability of resources (x8) 0.81 0.87 0.78

(0.03) (0.07) (0.04)23.88 13.26 19.53

Principal responsiveness (x9) 1.00 1.00 1.00Principal leadership (x10) 0.90 0.90 0.90

(0.04) (0.04) (0.04)22.5 22.5 22.51

Teachers attitudesPerceptions of students (x7) 1.00 1.00 1.00Organizational climate

Social relationships (x2) 0.71 0.75 0.71(0.03) (0.06) (0.04)20.86 12.39 17.01

Open communication (x3) 1.00 1.00 1.00Collegiality of teachers (x4) 0.42 0.31 0.46

(0.03) (0.08) (0.04)14.39 4.09 12.97

School performanceSchool performance (x1) 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table AI.Factor loading matrix

(variables reflectingendogenous latent

variables)


performance

221


18/18

Appendix 2

About the authorsMartin Omar Gomez is an Assistant Principal with the San Bernardino School District.

George A. Marcoulides is a Professor of Research Methods and Statistics at the University ofCalifornia, Riverside. George A. Marcoulides is the corresponding author and can be contacted

at: [email protected] H. Heck is a Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Hawaii,Manoa.

Observed variableTotal sample

(n 628)K-8

(n 154)M.S.

(n 474)

Organizational structure

Degree of bureaucracy (x5) 1.00 1.00 1.00Organizational valuesTime for collaboration (x11) 1.00 1.00 1.00Encourage innovation (x12) 0.63 0.62 0.62

(0.02) (0.04) (0.02)30.88 15.78 27.72

Participate in decisions (x13) 0.74 0.71 0.75(0.02) (0.04) (0.02)

37.52 17.78 30.29

Table AII.Factor loadings(variables reflectingexogenous latentvariables)

Latent variable Observed variable Question on survey

Organizational climate Social relationships (x2) 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 (alpha 0.75)Communication open (x3) 8, 9, 10 (alpha 0.77)Collegiality of teachers (x4) 20, 21, 22

a, 23 a (alpha 0.79)Organizational structure Bureaucracy (x5) 2, 3, 4, 5 (alpha 0.70), 28

a

Teacher attitudes Teacher perception of students (x6) 35, 36 (alpha 0.63), 47b

Teacher perception of parents (x7) 31a, 38a, 39 a

Managerial processes Resources available (x8) 6, 7 (alpha 0.70), 46b

Responsiveness by principal (x9) 11, 12, 13 (alpha 0.86), 14a

Leadership by principal (x10) 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 (alpha 0.79)Organizational values Time for collaboration (x11) 32, 33, 34 (alpha 0.68)

Innovation encouraged (x12) 18, 19 (alpha 0.61), 37a

Participate in decision making (x13) 15, 16, 17 (alpha 0.60)Notes: aThese numbers are added to the survey. bThese numbers are newly constructed questions toensure each observed variable is composed of three or more items. Dependent variable SchoolPerformance measured by: 2006-2007 CST sixth grade mean scale scores: ELA, Math, History, Science.2008-2009 CST eighth grade mean scale scores: ELA, Algebra 1, History, Science

Table AIII.Latent and observedvariables included in thesurvey

IJEM26,2

222

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

examining culture and school performance

Documents