COMISION DE POLITICAS DE DESARROLLO ACADEMICO

The lack of a universal definition has hindered research into school culture and made its measurement more difficult (Van Houtte, 2005; Schoen & Teddlie, 2008; Pritchett, 2012). The use of similar terms in different national contexts also causes confusion. Any definition of school culture is further clouded if we consider concepts such as school climate and school ethos. Such expressions are often considered in the same context as school culture, but little work has been done explaining how they may be similar or different at the same time.

15

Torrington and Weightman (1993) consider that “the concept of organisational culture and ethos are very similar” but note a slight difference (1993, p. 44). They argue that the “ethos of a school is a more self-conscious expression of specific types of objective in relation to

behaviour and values” (1993, p. 44). Importantly, they suggest that the use of the term culture is more common in management circles whereas ethos is used more often in education

(Torrington & Weightman, 1993).

Even more confusion exists when we consider the difference between school culture and school climate (Ramsey, Spira, Parisi & Rebok, 2016). If we return to the view that school culture is like the weather, beyond our control, a similar perspective has been offered about school climate by Freiberg (1999): “much like the air we breathe - it tends to go unnoticed until something is seriously wrong” (Freiberg,1999, p. 1). Perry’s ‘esprit de corps’, has been used as much to describe climate as well as culture. This ambiguity continues. Freiberg and Stein (1999) suggested that school climate was the “heart and soul of the school. It is about the essence of a school that leads a child, a teacher, an administrator, a staff member to love the school and to look forward to being there each day” (Freiberg & Stein, 1999, p. 11). Stevens and Sanchez (1999) see school climate in terms of people’s perceptions of a school. Yet the measures they use are remarkably similar to those cultural indicators used by Schein and others.

Climate combines beliefs, values and attitudes of students, teachers and

administrators, parents, office personnel, custodians, cafeteria workers, business partners, community members and others who play important roles in the life of the school (Stevens & Sanchez, 1999, p. 124).

One explanation for the overlap between culture and climate, and for the confusion in definition, is that whilst both concepts emanate from different research communities, they remain part of the same construct (Schoen & Teddlie, 2008). For example, school culture research generally produces studies of a qualitative design and from an anthropological viewpoint whilst, by contrast, school climate research has historically produced quantitative studies “typically viewed from a psychological perspective” (Schoen & Teddlie, 2008 p. 133). The culture /climate debate has extended beyond a mere suggestion of overlap. Van Houtte (2005) for instance, argues that school culture is a component of climate, whilst Schoen and Teddlie (2008) assert that climate is only one level within school culture. Other researchers see school culture as more comprehensive than climate (Eller & Eller, 2009) and,

16

even though the conceptual distance between the two is small, Hoy and Feldman argue that it is nonetheless real (Hoy & Feldman,1999). From my scrutiny of the literature, therefore, I agree that school culture is an all-inclusive concept into which more specific climate studies would conveniently fit.

Attempts to merge culture and climate research traditions have led to the creation of new definitions and models of school culture. For the purpose of this study, I intend to use the definition created by Schoen and Teddlie which identifies school culture as:

the shared basic assumptions and espoused beliefs that exist in the Professional Orientation, Organisational Structure, Quality of a Learning Environment, and Student-Centred Focus of the school that determine and sustain the norms of behaviour, traditions and processes particularly to a specific school (2008, p. 139). The Schoen and Teddlie (2008) school culture model is broken down into the following sections:

 professional orientation: the activities and attitudes that characterise the degree of professionalism present in the school. For example: efficacy, professional behaviour, autonomy, formality, collaboration, partnerships.4

 organisational structure: the style of leadership, communication and process that characterise the way the school conducts its business. For example: collegiality,

vision / unity of purpose, planning, communication, collaborative leadership, professional development, external support, efficiency

 quality of the learning environment: the intellectual merit of the activities in which students are typically engaged. For example: innovation, self-esteem, recognition, traditions, stories, myths.

 student centred focus: the collective efforts and programmes offered to support student achievement. For example: student learning, achievement, goals, participation.

Their definition allows for the integration of culture and climate research methodologies (quantitative and qualitative) and is consistent with other major studies. This, together with Schein’s levels of organisation, provides a basis from which to identify common concepts and to diagnose culture and potentially measure its strength.

17 2.6 School culture; concepts and components

Since there are multiple definitions of school culture (Sarson, 1996; Prosser, 1999; Barth, 2002; Deal & Peterson, 2009; Pritchett, 2012), it follows that agreement on what constitutes school culture is equally difficult to achieve. Several studies in the last twenty years have described concepts central to the make-up of school culture. The choice of concepts adopted is derived from Maslowski’s (2001) review of inventories for measuring school culture in secondary schools and based on several studies, summarised in Appendix 1, with their accompanying concepts (Saphire & King, 1985; Snyder, 1988; Edwards, 1996; Pang, 1996; Cavanagh & Dellar, 1998). These concepts have been used extensively to measure school culture in North America, Asia and Australia and illustrate an emerging reference to common terms such as collaboration, professionalism, collegiality and collaborative leadership whilst also employing concepts distinct to each study.

Table 2.1: Comparison of school culture concepts identified by researchers School culture concepts Snyder 1988 Pang 1996 Edwards 1996 Cavenagh 1998 Gruenert/ Valentine 1998 Maslowski 2001 Collegiality _{/ / / /} Efficacy _/ Professionalism _{/ / / /}

Vision / Unity of purpose _/

Professional Development _/ Collaboration _{/ / / /} Collaborative Leadership _{/ / / /} Partnerships _/ Planning / communication / / / Goals / Assessment _{/ / /} Student Learning/ Achievement / / / Innovation /change _/

Self Esteem / Recognition _/

Participation _{/ / /}

Programme Development _/

Formality / stability / rules _{/ /}

Autonomy _/

External support _/

18

Research over the last twenty years, however, has built upon these earlier studies and two, also shown in Appendix 1, require greater scrutiny. Maslowski’s (2001) schools culture inventory, based upon Quinn’s (1983) competing values framework, examines eight concepts and was developed for his research in Dutch schools. Whilst recognising his extensive effort to measure culture in relation to school performance, Maslowski’s focus on complex

psychological measures of culture does not, I suggest, yield a model or identify concepts that school leaders in an English educational context would find helpful as a practical tool. By contrast, Gruenert and Valentine’s (1998) school culture survey, identifies cultural concepts using a vocabulary which resonates more readily with an English audience. The wide-ranging and overlapping concepts, outlined in Appendix 2, exemplify the lack of a single, coherent or agreed framework within which to research school culture. Nonetheless, the comparative analysis in Table 2.1, accompanied by a list of definitions in Appendix 2, shows that it is possible to identify concepts that occur in studies undertaken in the last thirty years, and around which there appears some degree of consensus.

The analysis of school culture concepts in Table 2.1 aligns with Schoen and Teddlie’s (2008) definition of school culture. It provides an opportunity to assess the validity of the definition chosen. By mapping the school culture concepts discussed, I have shown that the definition chosen as a basis for this study provides a framework which includes all relevant concepts. Although there is not an even distribution of concepts across the four sectors of the Schoen and Teddlie (2008) definition, all are evident. In addition, I have italicised on page 16 the school culture concepts identified by Gruenert and Valentine (2008) to show that their chosen concepts also are evident in all four sectors and thus representative of the definition I have chosen to use. Therefore, I suggest that the Gruenert and Valentine school culture survey is sufficiently in line with other contemporary surveys to provide a valuable, quantitative measure of school culture in an English setting.

With a clearer perspective on how school culture research has evolved, the research traditions upon which it is based, the historic confusion surrounding its definition and an indication of its characteristics and concepts, it is now appropriate to consider why further research into school culture is necessary and justified.

19