360 Degrees of School Climate: Utilizing Surveys and Observations to Get a Fuller Picture

Introduction:  School climate has been linked to multiple student behavioral, academic, health, and social-emotional outcomes.  However, there is little consensus among educators, policymakers, and researchers regarding the definition and measurement of school climate.  This study seeks to present and use a validated measure of school climate based on the U.S. Department of Education’s (USDOE) three-factor model, which includes the domains of safety, engagement, and environment.  Additionally, as most measures of school climate have been survey-based, this study will examine the relationship between observations of the school physical environment and aspects of school climate.  School and classroom indicators of disorder (such as poverty level, school-size, concentration of students with behavior problems) have been associated with diminished perceptions of safety and climate. 

Methods:  Drawing upon two consecutive waves of data from over 25,000 high school students (46% minority), a series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses examined the fit of the model with the USDOE framework. A similar set of analyses were conducted with observational data from the 58 involved schools to create validated scales of The School Assessment for Environmental Typography (SAfETy).  The SAfETy draws on previously validated measures and was constructed to provide an observational tool that delineates and measures school physical environment indicators theorized to be linked with behavioral and academic outcomes.  Thee-level hierarchical linear models will be conducted to understand the relationship between perceived and observed measures of school climate, while adjusting for school-level factors and classroom clustering. 

Results: Results from the validation of the USDOE framework suggest an adequate model fit with the theorized three-factor model of school climate, which included 13 subdomains: safety (perceived safety, bullying & aggression, drug use); engagement (connection to teachers, student connectedness, academic engagement, school connectedness, equity, parent engagement); environment (rules and consequences, physical comfort, support, disorder). We also found consistent measurement invariance with regard to student sex, grade level, and ethnicity.  Results from the SAfETy validation identified 13 scales assessing aspects of disorder, surveillance, school ownership, and student and staff interactions.  Interrater reliability was good (ICC=.86).  Future analyses will discuss the convergent and divergent perspectives that these two validated measures provide about the climate of schools.      

Conclusions:  Findings provide examples of complementary ways to access school climate that encompass the domains of safety, engagement, and environment.  Multiple vantage points offer the opportunity to gain a broader understanding about the influence of school climate on student educational and health outcomes.