Not All Staff Experience Positive School Climate: Exploring Unobserved Heterogeneity in School Staff Reports of School Climate

Background: Research on school climate has linked positive school climate with improved academic and social emotional outcomes for students. While school climate affects all people within schools, school staff are largely absent from current climate definitions. There is reason to believe there are important distinctions in how staff see school climate depending on their roles in schools, experience, and school placement. This study aims to answer these questions: 1) What latent patterns (subgroups) exist among teachers in California?; 2) How do characteristics of staff (e.g. school type or job) predict their affiliation with subgroups of school climate?

Methods: Data from the 2013 California School Climate Survey (CSCS) were be utilized for this study. This analysis included school staff (teachers, administrators, counselors, psychologists, and support staff) from schools across the state of California (n = 54,000). Relevant characteristics of staff used to predict latent class membership: Job in school; School type (elementary, middle, high); ethnicity; years of experience. Latent class analysis (LCA) is an appropriate tool to identify subgroups that are meaningfully different in how they perceive the multiple dimensions of school climate. Individual LCA models were run using school climate variables, followed by a combined model including staff characteristics to determine how staff characteristics predict membership in particular latent classes.

Results: A 4-class model was the best fitting model for school climate. The Negative group  (3.8%) reflects the highest need for training, highest student risk, lower student well-being, and lower ratings of all other climate elements. The Lackluster group (20%) reflect similar needs for training and high ratings of student risk, but better ratings of well-being and climate elements. The Higher Discipline and Support group (47%) reflects higher ratings of how the school handles discipline and supportive relationships than the previous groups. The High group (29%) reflects the lowest reports of student risk and need for training, and very high ratings of all other elements. Teachers in 5^th grade or above were 1.75 times as likely to be in the Negative class (vs. High class) (OR = 1.75 [1.32, 2.32]), and special education teachers were 1.4 times as likely to be in the Negative class (vs. High class) (OR = 1.40 [1.05, 1.86]). Any staff members working in middle school and high school were 2.7 and 3.72 (respectively) times as likely to be in the Negative (vs. High) class (OR = 2.70 [2.05, 3.56], OR = 3.72 [2.81, 4.94], respectively).

Conclusions and Implications: First, results indicate there is a substantial proportion of staff who experience positive school climate, and more who endorse positive experiences with discipline and support in their schools. However, there are staff who experience a negative environment. Results also indicate that staff teaching older students and/or those working in middle/high schools experience lower climate than others. School leaders and policy makers must consider how multiple dimensions of climate influence school staff and their work with students. Further, there may be schools that have staff from all subgroups, or schools that may offer examples for improving climate.