searching for school characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: a...

Searching for School Characteristics that Make a Difference for the Achievement of

All Students: A 40-Year Odyssey

Taiwan, May, 2014www.waynekhoy.com

[Papers>Taiwan: Academic Optimism]

1© Hoy, 2014

Overview: From Oklahoma to Ohio

What makes some schools better places to work and learn than others?• General Nature of School Climate—What is School Climate?• Conceptual frameworks for School Climate and its Measures: 3 Perspectives

Control Perspective: Humanistic to Custodial School ClimatesOpenness Perspective: Open to Closed School ClimatesHealth Perspective: Healthy to Unhealthy School Climates

• Collective Trust in Schools• Collective Efficacy in Schools• Academic Emphasis in Schools• Academic Optimism of Schools• Academic Optimism and Student Achievement• Implications for Practice

2 © Hoy, 2014

School Climates: Humanistic, Open & Healthy Climates

I Control Perspective—Continuum from Custodial to Humanistic• Custodial School Climate. Watchful mistrust and autocratic control are the critical

aspects of a custodial perspective.• Humanistic School Climate is optimistic about students and teachers have open and

friendly relations with students. Teachers and students are willing to act on their own volition and accept responsibility for their actions.

II Openness Perspective—Continuum from Closed to Open• The Closed School Climate is one imbued with game playing, close teacher supervision,

teacher apathy, and low morale.• The Open School Climate is one anchored in authentic, open, and transparent

interactions among faculty members, supportive supervision, & high morale.III Perspective on Health of Interpersonal Relations—Continuum from Unhealthy-Healthy• The Unhealthy School Climate is imbued with conflict and poor interpersonal relations.• The Healthy School Climate is one in the interpersonal relations between teachers,

teachers and administrators, and teachers and students are positive-good interpersonal relations. 3 © Hoy, 2014

Oklahoma FindingsHumanistic Control and Openness in School Climates: A Comparative Analysis

Humanistic Schools contrasted with Custodial ones

Principals were:More Considerate—kind and thoughtfulMore Personal—warm and helpfulMore Engaging—easy interactionsMore Friendly—caring More Supportive—avoided close supervision

Faculty had: Higher Morale Greater Engagement. Greater Openness

1. The more open the climate, the more humanistic the control perspectives—two go together. The relation is a reciprocal one.

2. There was openness and authenticity in teacher-principal relations and openness in teacher-teacher relations in humanistic schools .

(Appleberry & Hoy, 1969; Hoy & Appleberry, 1970; Hoy, 2008)

Three years in Oklahoma and then back to east coast, Rutgers in NJ4 © Hoy, 2014

Rutgers Studies in New JerseySchool Climate and Student Outcomes: Alienation and Self-Actualization Alienation:

NormlessnessPowerlessnessMeaninglessnessIsolationSelf-estrangement

1. Climate was related to student alienation in NJ high schools.2. In general, the more open the school climate, the less alienated were the students. 3. In general, the more humanistic the school climate, the less alienated the students.4. Open and humanistic schools were antidotes for student sense of powerlessness and normlessness.5. Students suffered less from a sense of powerlessness, normlessness, and self-estrangement or isolation

(Hoy, 1972; Hartley & Hoy, 1972; Rafalides & Hoy, 1971).

Self-actualization

6. Humanism of school climate related to student level of self-actualization (Diebert & Hoy, 1977).7. But graduate students and administrators want to know if climate was related to student achievement.8. We started to look in each sample of schools, but to no avail.9. Preliminary evidence suggested –No Relations! Correlations Yes, but with controls—No10. Openness and Humanism in school climate were not related to student achievement.11. Summary of Findings Next

5 © Hoy, 2014

Summary of Climate Studies1. School Climate does capture the feel of the school.2. Openness and humanism seem to have positive effects on

students—less alienated, more committed, greater confidence, and higher self actualization.

3. But neither the openness of the climate nor the humanism of teachers was related to academic performance.

4. Every climate study we did at RU, where we could, we checked its influence on academic performance, but with SES included as a control, there was no relation.

5. School climate was related to affective student outcomes, but not related to academic outcomes; SES overwhelmed everything when it came to achievement.

6 © Hoy, 2014

Why No Relation between Climate and Student Achievement?

James Coleman’s classic national study of American Public Schools (1966) was also discouraging because he also found: “Only a small part of (student achievement) is the result of school factors, in contrast to family background differences between communities.”

Together with my own research and Coleman’s findings, I came to believe that organization and school climate had little to do with school achievement; achievement primarily in the hands of teachers in the classroom.

Thus, I turned my attention to research to different areas.

7 © Hoy, 2014

Detour: New Research Directions1. Bureaucratic structure was directly related to teacher alienation.

2. Bureaucratic structure was negatively related to innovation and change.

3. Bureaucratic socialization of new teachers—more bureaucratic and custodial.

4. Key principal behaviors to develop loyal teachers: 1) Consideration2) Initiating structure3) Leading by example4) Emotional detachment 5) Hierarchical independence.6) Authenticity

5. Patterns of Administrative Succession for Principals.Outsiders versus InsidersChange Status QuoHigher Satisfaction Lower SatisfactionMore Influence Less InfluenceMore Emotional Detachment Less Emotional DetachmentHigh Faculty Morale Lower Faculty Morale

8 © Hoy, 2013

9 © Hoy, 2013

Return to the Quest Ron Edmonds’s Challenge to Coleman: Case Studies of Urban School.

Edmonds found and argued that high achievement was a function of:

– Strong Principals– High Expectations for Students– Emphasis on Basic Skills– Orderly environments– Frequent, systematic evaluations

One or two cases don’t really prove much—Could the findings be generalized?

Another look at School Climate: A New Perspective—Organizational Health

Organizational HealthOrganizational Health Inventory (OHI)

• School-Community Interactions Institutional Integrity

• Principal Teacher-Interactions Principal Influence

Consideration

Initiating Structure

Resource Support

• Professional Interactions Morale

• Teacher-Student Interactions Academic Emphasis

One factor—Health Index= combination of the seven aspects of health.

No relation between overall health of school climate and achievement, controlling for SES.

Multiple Regression—use individual tests rather than index. We finally found one property of schools that made a difference on student achievement when controlling for SES (family background and community differences in wealth).

Academic Emphasis of the School was related to Student Achievement—the relation held for all levels—elementary, middle, & high schools—20 years.10 © Hoy, 2014

The First Generation of Trust Studies—Rutgers(Hoy & Kupersmith, 1984,1985)

TRUST: A generalized sense held by the work group that the word or promise of another could be relied upon (Rotter)

Measures of Collective Faculty Trust:1. In Colleagues2. In Principal 3. In District

Faculty Trust related to many important attributes:Authentic leadership of the principalMorale of facultyOpenness of climateHealth of schoolSubjective measure of effectiveness

BUT NOT to ACHIEVEMENT, controlling for SES.It was on to Ohio State. Thus, far only one school variable has been identified that predicts academic achievement

controlling for SES.

11 © Hoy, 2014

Trust: The Second Generation—Ohio Statea more refined definition of trust

Megan Tschannen-Moran (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, 1998; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011).

TRUST: Trust is a state in which individuals and groups are willing to make themselves vulnerable to others and take risks with confidence that others will respond to their actions in positive ways, with: Benevolence, Predictability, Competence, Honesty, and Openness.

Faculty Trust in:In ColleaguesIn Principal

New DimensionsIn StudentsIn Parents

Surprise!!! Faculty Trust in Students and Parents is one thing, not two (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).

Faculty Trust in Students and Parents was related to Student Achievement controlling for SES.Relationship is true regardless of school level (elementary, middle, high school).Also true in other countries—for example, including Taiwan.Second organizational property to make a difference in achievement (1998).

12 © Hoy, 2014

Collective Efficacy—Ohio State

Roger Goddard-A Study of Collective Efficacy of Elementary Schools (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Goddard, 2001, 2002).

Grew out of the work of Albert Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control(1997), who claimed efficacy could be framed as a collective as well as an individual construct.

In fact, he maintained that collective efficacy was more important than SES in predicting student achievement.

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY: teachers as a whole (as a collective) have a sense that they can organize and execute decisions and influence the activities that have positive effects on students.

Developed a reliable and valid measure of the collective efficacy of a school.

Collective Efficacy was related to achievement regardless of SES and just as important or more so than SES.

Collective Efficacy was the third property of schools that predicted student achievement controlling for SES and other demographic characteristics of schools (next)

13 © Hoy, 2014

Collective Efficacy—Ohio State

Relationship is true regardless of school level (elementary, middle, high school).Also true in other countries.

These three school properties are the three characteristics that make a difference in school achievement beyond SES.

• Academic Emphasis• Collective Trust [in Students and Parents]• Collective Efficacy

What about the three properties working together?

Three properties added together should explain more variance in achievement-But they don’t because they are so highly correlated with each other.

HOW TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM?

14 © Hoy, 2014

AcademicEmphasis

CollectiveEfficacy

FacultyTrust

Academic Optimism is the uniting of these three concepts into an integrated whole.

Efficacy is the belief faculty can make a positive contribution to student learning: teachers believe in themselves. Trust is the belief that students, parents, teachers can cooperate to improve student learning:

teachers believe in their students. Academic Emphasis is the academic enactment of these beliefs:

teachers act to improve academic success of students.

Academic Optimism is the collective belief that that: The faculty can make a difference--cognitive facet (efficacy).Students can learn--affective and emotional side (trust).Academic performance can be achieved--behavioral enacted (academic optimism).

The elements of academic optimism and their reciprocal relation to each other.

Academic Optimism: A New Construct (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006)

15 © Hoy, 2014

StudentAchievement

Science

Academic Optimism

Mathematics

Academic EmphasisCollective EfficacyFaculty Trust in Students and Parents

Urbanicity

SocioeconomicStatus

Priori StudentAchievement

Mathematics Science

Academic Optimism and School Achievement: A Theoretical Model

16 © Hoy, 2014

StudentAchievement

Science

Academic Optimism

Mathematics

Academic Emphasis

Collective Efficacy

Faculty Trust in Students & Parents

A Test of the Academic Optimism and Student Achievement Model (Hoy, Tarter, Hoy, 2007)

1.00

.90

.75

.99

.92

17 © Hoy, 2014

StudentAchievement

Science

Academic Optimism

Mathematics

Academic Emphasis

Collective Efficacy

Faculty Trust in Students & Parents

Urbanicity

SocioeconomicStatus

Priori StudentAchievement

Mathematics Science

A Test of the Academic Optimism and Student Achievement Model (Hoy, Tarter, Woolfolk Hoy, 2006)

.02.20

1.00

.90

.19

.75

.99 .21

.92

.60

.97 .96 R2=.67**

18 © Hoy, 2014

Academic Optimism


Enabling Structure Student Achievement

SocioeconomicStatus

Principals Creating A Culture of Academic Optimism and Student Achievement: A Path Model (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006)

19 © Hoy, 2014

Academic Optimism


Enabling Structure Student Achievement

SocioeconomicStatus

A Test of Enabling Structure, Academic Optimism, Achievement Model (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006)

.98 .96 .95

.37** .54**(Math)

.21 (Math)

Math R2=.48**

20 © Hoy, 2014

Why Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?

School Conditions that Promote Learning and Achievement

&Study of Trust in Chicago (Bryk & Schneider, 2002)

1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and Internalized Responsibility

2. Outreach to Parents

3. Professional Community--Collaborative Work Practices and Commitment to Improve Teaching and Learning.

4. High Expectations and High Academic Standards

21 © Hoy, 2014


School Conditions that Promote Achievement

Bryk & Schneider (2002) Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy (2006) Study of Trust Study of Academic Optimism

1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and Internalized Responsibility Collective Efficacy

22 © Hoy, 2014




1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and Collective Efficacy

Internalized Responsibility

2. Outreach to Parents 3. Professional Community Collaborative Work Practices and Commitment to Improve Teaching

Faculty Trust in Parents and Teachers

23 © Hoy, 2014







4. High Expectations and Academic Emphasis High Academic Standards


24 © Hoy, 2014







4. High Expectations and Academic Emphasis High Academic Standards

ACADEMIC

OPTIMISM


25 © Hoy, 2014

How Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?

Dynamics of School Properties to Promote Student Achievement

Collective Efficacy

Culture of Academic Optimism

Trust inParents & Students

Academic Emphasis

RelationalTrust

GOAL THEORYGoals are:• Specific• Challenging• Attainable• Embraced

COOPERATION• Students• Teachers• Parents

StudentAchievement

Feedback

Feedback

Motivation• Responsibility• Effort• Persistence• Resilience

26 © Hoy, 2014

Conclusions

• There is strong evidence that academic optimism is a latent construct consisting of 1) academic emphasis, 2) collective trust in parents and students, and3) collective efficacy.

• Academic Optimism is directly related to school achievement even after controlling for SES and earlier achievement.

• Academic Optimism is as strong predictor of achievement as SES; Academic optimism can be developed, but SES cannot.

• Optimism in academic matters is a strong force for achievement.

• Trust in parents and students seems to liberate teachers to innovate in the classroom without fear of retribution from parents.

• Collective efficacy signals a “can do attitude” of faculty and enables teachers to set and pursue challenging goals with students.

• Academic emphasis focuses behavior on academic matters and mobilizes to teachers to action.

• Academic optimism is related to school achievement in other countries and cultures [Jason (Hsin-Chieh) Wu—Wu, Hoy, & Tarter, 2013; Wu, 2013).27 © Hoy, 2014

Implications and Applications

How can a culture of academic optimism be cultivated? At least three paths:

1. Cultivate a Culture of Trust: In colleagues, In administration, and most importantly in Students and Parent—benevolent, open, reliable, competent, and honest.

Open and transparent teacher-student and teacher-parent relations are the hallmarks of authenticity and trust.• Reach out to parents in projects that require their cooperation

and involvement—newsletters, parent-teacher events, celebrations of achievement.

• Make operation of school transparent and open to parents.• Be honest with parents.• Showcase achievement of schools and highlight competence and

accomplishment of teachers as well as students.• Embrace students and work through difficulties with parents.• Be predictably kind and compassionate about helping students.

28 © Hoy, 2014


2. Develop Collective Efficacy in the School: The faculty as a collective must believe that they can make a difference in the success of students.

Three major sources of efficacy: Mastery Experiences, Vicarious Experiences, and Social Persuasion.

• Mastery: Structure experiences for teachers so they can have successful direct experiences; place them in situations for success. New teachers have schedules and situations where they can succeed. Success breeds success, mastery, and efficacy—Experience success!

• Model: Give teachers models to emulate; provide examples and stories of success; observe experts in action; provide vicarious experiences for success—Provide models of success!

• Persuasion: Reinforce direct and vicarious experiences with supportive persuasion—Motivate and coach success! You can do it! Believe in yourself, set realistic goals, and achieve.

29 © Hoy, 2014

In Brief:

1. Experience Success (Mastery)Provide direct experiences for success.

2. Model Success (Modeling)Provide models for success.

3. Coach Success (Persuasion)Persuade individuals they can succeed.

30 © Hoy, 2014


3. Focus on Academic and Intellectual Achievement: The faculty must embrace the goal of academic achievement—the school leader needs to be an intellectual leader.

• Celebrate intellectual achievements of faculty and students—assemblies, honor societies, awards, trophies, ceremonies, newspaper accounts, etc.

• Make academic achievement a major force of schooling—honor rolls, letters of commendation, graduations with distinction, news releases, etc.

• Hire intellectually curious teachers and nurture their curiosity.• Make schools intellectually stimulating places to learn: Nurture

» Creativity » Curiosity » Reflection among students and teachers.

31 Hoy, 2014

Implications and ApplicationsFinally, what makes academic optimism of the school so important in improving student achievement is its strong influence on motivation—both teacher motivation and student motivation.

At the heart of such motivation is:

• Responsibility• Effort• Persistence• Resilience• GRIT

Academic Optimism enhances these motivation forces.

32 © Hoy, 2014


Checks and Balances

Warning: Be concerned with all three elements of academic optimism and not just one of the elements.

For example—Building an academic focus can come by rigid adherence to procedures, which if not met, result in negative sanctions or punishment. Yet building strong academic focus this way may actually undermine trust and create an atmosphere of secrecy. So if building increased academic emphasis reduces openness and trust, DON’T DO IT.

Conversely, building trust can create a laissez faire atmosphere can undermine academic emphasis-if so, DON’T DO IT.

Basic Rule: Use all three elements (trust, efficacy, and academic emphasis) to check any attempt to improve academic optimism. Don’t use any strategy that improves one aspect of academic optimism at the expense of any other element. 33 © Hoy, 2014

A Brief Summary for Teachers and Leaders

• Cultivate Trust: Open and transparent teacher-student relations provide a path to authenticity and academic optimism and student achievement.

• Build Efficacy: Efficacy is the engine of change, reform, and achievement.

• Foster school Academic Emphasis: Celebrate academic successes—academic emphasis focuses behavior on academic matters.

• Embrace Academic Optimism: Optimism leads to both increased achievement and well-being for all.

• Develop GRIT: learn resilience, self-discipline, and perseverance.

• Accept Responsibility for learning: It is a key in effective motivation.

Keys to School Success: Trust, Efficacy, Academic Emphasis, Academic Optimism, GRIT, Responsibility .

34 © Hoy, 2014

1. Appleberry, J.B. and Hoy, W.K. (1969), “The pupil control ideology of professional personnel in ‘open’ and ’closed’ elementary schools”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 74-85.

2. Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2002), Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

3. Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D. and York, R.L. (1966), Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

4. Diebert, J.P. and Hoy, W.K. (1977), “Custodial high schools and self-actualization of students”, Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 24-31.

5. Edmonds, R. (1979), “Some schools work, more can”, Social Policy, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 28-32. 6. Forsyth, P. A., Adams, C. & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective Trust: Why Schools Cannot Improve Without It.

New York: Columbia TC Press.7. Goddard, R.G., Hoy, W.K. and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000), “Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure,

and impact on student achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 479-508.

8. Goddard, R.G. (2001), “Collective efficacy: a neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 467-76.

9. Goddard, R.G. (2002), “A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measure of collective efficacy: the development of the short form”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 97-110.

10.Hartley, M.C. and Hoy, W.K. (1972), “Openness of school climate and alienation of high school students”, California Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 17-24.

References

35 © Hoy, 2014

12. Hoy, W.K. (2001), “The pupil control studies: a historical, theoretical, and empirical analysis”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 424-41.

13. Hoy, W.K. (1972a), “Dimensions of student alienation and characteristics of public high schools”, Interchange, Vol. 3 Nos. 4/5, pp. 38-51.14. Hoy, W. K. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A

40-year academic odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol., 51, 176-193.11. Hoy, W.K. and Appleberry, J.B. (1970), “Teacher principal relationships in ‘humanistic’ and ‘custodial’

elementary schools”, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 27-31.15. Hoy, W.K. and Kupersmith, W.J. (1984), “Principal authenticity and faculty trust”, Planning and Changing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 81-8. 16. Hoy, W.K. and Kupersmith, W.J. (1985), “The meaning and measure of faculty trust”, Educational and

Psychological Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-10. 17. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425-446.18. Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999), “Five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in urban

elementary schools”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 184-208. 19. Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003), “The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust

in schools”, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (Eds), Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 181-207. 20. McGuigan, L. & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal Leadership: Creating a Culture of Academic Optimism to

Improve Achievement for All Students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.21. Rafalides, M. and Hoy, W.K. (1971), “Student sense of alienation and pupil control orientation of high

schools”, High School Journal, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 101-11.

References

36 © Hoy, 2014

22. Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), “A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 547-93.

23. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

24. Wu, H. C., Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2013). Enabling school structure, collective responsibility, and a culture of academic optimism: Toward a robust model of school performance in Taiwan. Journal

of Educational Administration, 51, 176-193.

Suggested Readings

Hoy, W. K. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40-year academic odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 176-193.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425-446.

Forsyth, P. A., Adams, C. & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective Trust: Why Schools Cannot Improve Without It. New York: Columbia TC Press.

Wu, H. C., Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2013). Enabling school structure, collective responsibility, and a culture of academic optimism: Toward a robust model of school performance in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 176-193.

Wu, J. H. (2013). Academic optimism and collective responsibility: An organizational model of the dynamics of student achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 419–433.

References

37 © Hoy, 2014

searching for school characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: a...

Documents

humanistic school climate

open school climate

school characteristics

new jersey school climate

open healthy climates

teacher teacher relations

custodial perspective

schools academic emphasis