School Staff Members in California: How Are School Climate Perceptions Related to Perceptions of Student Risk and Well-Being?

Background: An extensive body of research shows that school climate is an important factor for individuals and schools, and recent research suggests that positive climate may reduce inequalities in educational achievement connected to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Yet current conceptualizations of school climate largely overlook the perspectives and experience of staff members. School staff (e.g. teachers, administrators, social workers) have different roles and experiences in schools than students, and are expected to take action to create positive climate for students. This study uses a statewide dataset from California to test a theoretical model of school climate according to school staff members, and to explore associations between staff experiences of school climate and their perceptions of school violence.

Methods: Data for this study come from the 2013 statewide administration of the California School Climate Survey (CSCS). In 2013, approximately 54,000 school staff members completed the survey. The majority of the sample was teachers (n = 38,205), over 2,000 respondents were administrators, over 2,600 counselors, school psychologists, nurses, and social workers, and over 8,000 other staff members. Items from the CSCS assessed staff perceptions of school climate, their reports of student risk behaviors, and student well-being. Staff characteristics include: role in school; school type (elementary, middle, high); years of experience. Stepwise OLS models were used to examine associations between school climate and student risk factors, and student well-being. Stepwise regression models will be organized by the four primary categories of school climate: Safety; Relationships; Teaching and Learning; and Institutional Environment.

Results: Controlling for staff characteristics, decreases in school climate predicted higher levels of student risk. Step 1 included staff characteristics; step 2 added response to discipline (b = -0.455, p < .001); step 3 added respect for others (b = -0.085, p < .001) and supportive relationships (b = -0.171, p < .001); step 4 added meaningful participation (b = -0.07, p < .001) and the need for training (b = 0.112, p < .001). Models for well-being showed associations between higher ratings of climate and higher levels of well-being: step 2, response to discipline (b = 0.403, p < .001); step 3, respect for others (b = 0.069, p < .001) and supportive relationships (b = 0.240, p < .001); step 4, meaningful participation (b = 0.091, p < .001), and need for training (b = -0.041, p < .001).

Conclusions and Implications: First, results from this study support a modified school climate theory and indicate that categories of student climate can also be used to evaluate staff member perspectives. Further, results suggest that certain elements of school climate are more important than others, and that how schools approach discipline is a key factor. Findings about risk and well-being suggest that staff perceptions of climate include their own experiences and those of their students. As policy makers endeavor to make changes to school climates, knowledge of how staff members experience climate is critical. Continued research should investigate how staff members experience elements of climate, and the influence of wider school contexts.