The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource:

Document Title: Development of a Standard Model for 

School Climate and Safety Assessment

Author(s): Dewey G. Cornell, Francis L. Huang, 

Timothy R. Konold, Kathan Shukla, Marisa 

Malone, Pooja Datta, Yuane Jia, Shelby 

Stohlman, Anna Grace Burnette, J. Patrick 

Meyer III

Document Number: 251102

Date Received: August 2017

Award Number: 2012-JF-FX-0062

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 1

Development of a Standard Model for 

School Climate and Safety Assessment:

Final Report 

Report prepared for Grant #2012-JF-FX-0062 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. Updated 5-10-17
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 2

CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

ABSTRACT 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM 8

School Climate 8

Conceptual Problems 9

Authoritative School Climate Theory 9

Measurement Problems 10

STUDY METHODS 14

Study Goals 14

The Virginia School Safety Audit Program 14

Procedure 15

School Sample 15

Student Sample 17

Student Survey Completion Time and Validity Screening 20

Student Characteristics 23

Teacher and Staff Sample 24

Survey Measures 25

FINDINGS 25

Reliability and Validity 25

Published Research Findings 33

Statewide Descriptive Results – Students 39

Statewide Descriptive Results – Teachers and School Staff 41

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 43

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE 49

REFERENCES 51

APPENDICES 59

A. Abstracts of Publications 60

B. Conference Presentations 72

C. Student Survey 76

D. Teacher/Staff Survey 86

E. Principal Survey of Participation 92

F. Student Statewide and Regional Breakdown for 2016 95

G. Teacher/staff Statewide and Regional Breakdown for 2016 105

H. Validity Screening for 2016 High School Survey 114

I. Sample School Report for 2016 High School Survey 118
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is the product of collaboration among the Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety in the Department of 

Criminal Justice Services, the Virginia Department of Education, and the Virginia Youth Violence Project in the Curry 

School of Education, University of Virginia. Survey design, data analyses, and preparation of this report were conducted 

at the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. Dewey Cornell was the principal investigator for this project. 

Timothy Konold, Francis Huang, and Patrick Meyer were quantitative methodologists. 

We thank Donna Michaelis and Jessica Smith of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services for managing 

survey data collection. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the Virginia Department of Education, represented 

first by Cynthia Cave and subsequently Joann Burkholder. We thank our research advisory board, which included 

Catherine Bradshaw, Jonathan Cohen, Michael Furlong, Matthew Mayer, David Osher, and Russ Skiba. We also thank 

former research team members Juliette Berg, Anna Heilbrun Catizone, Anna Lacey, Sara Millspaugh, and Erin Nekvasil.

This project was supported by Grant #2012-JF-FX-0062 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or 

recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department 

of Justice.

Recommended citation: Cornell, D., Huang, F., Konold, T., Shukla, K., Malone, M., Datta, P., Jia, Y., Stohlman, S., 

Burnette, A., & Meyer, J. P. (2016). Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final 

Report. Charlottesville, VA: Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 4

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this project was to develop a standard model for the assessment of school climate and safety 

guided by authoritative school climate theory. We devised and tested student and school staff versions of the Authoritative 

School Climate Survey in a series of statewide surveys over a four-year period (2013-2016). In collaboration with the 

Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and Department of Education, the project collected data from more than 

700 secondary schools including 200,501 student surveys and 45,793 staff surveys. Participation rates were 98% for 

schools, 85% for students in grades 7-12, and 61% for teachers and other school staff invited to participate.

A series of multi-level factor analytic studies established strong evidence of factor structure, reliability, and 

convergent validity for key scales measuring disciplinary structure, academic expectations, student support, student 

engagement, and prevalence of teasing and bullying. Scales were developed for both student and staff versions of the 

survey at both individual (student or staff) and school levels of analysis. Secondary scales to measure student aggressive 

attitudes, positive values, bullying victimization, and bullying by teachers were also developed. Project findings have been 

reported in 27 refereed journal articles to date, with additional articles in progress. An authoritative school was 

characterized by high expectations for students, as reflected in high disciplinary structure (strict but fair discipline) and 

high academic expectations for students, and high support for students (adults are respectful and caring toward students). 

The primary project findings were that characteristics of an authoritative school climate were associated with positive 

academic and behavioral outcomes at individual and/or school levels. The academic outcomes included higher student 

engagement, higher grades, higher standardized test passing rates, and lower dropout rates. The behavioral outcomes 

included lower student aggression toward both peers and teachers as well as less student involvement in risk behaviors of

self-reported alcohol and marijuana use, bullying, fighting, weapon-carrying at school, interest in gang membership, and 

suicidal thoughts and behavior.

All of the published studies included racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status variables in their analyses as studentor school-level measures. These analyses generally demonstrated that the primary findings of the study were not 

confounded by race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status. Additional analyses showed comparable criterion validity on key 

measures for Black, Hispanic, and White student groups. Furthermore, schools with authoritative characteristics had lower 

overall suspension rates and a lower gap between Black and White suspension rates.

The results of this study will help move the field toward consensus on a theoretically-grounded and more 

psychometrically sound model for school climate and safety assessment. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this project was to develop a standard model for the assessment of school climate and safety 

guided by authoritative school climate theory. Authoritative school climate theory is derived from child development 

research which has found that effective parenting is characterized by a combination of high parental expectations and 

responsive emotional support for their children. A substantial body of educational research has found that effective 

schools have a climate of high disciplinary and academic expectations for students, as well as supportive teacher-student 

relationships. This project built upon previous educational research by developing and testing survey instruments that 

specifically measure an authoritative school climate, and by demonstrating its linkages to multiple positive student 

outcomes. 

Student and school staff versions of the Authoritative School Climate Survey were tested in a series of statewide 

surveys over a four-year period (2013-2016). Schools with grades 7-8 were surveyed in 2013 and 2015, and schools with 

grades 9-12 were surveyed in 2014 and 2016. In collaboration with the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services 

and Department of Education, the project collected data from more than 700 secondary schools, cumulatively including

200,501 student surveys and 45,793 staff surveys. Participation rates were 98% for schools, 85% for students, and 61% 

for teachers and other school staff invited to participate. The surveys were administered anonymously online at passwordprotected websites. Student surveys of approximately 100 items had median completion times of approximately 12 

minutes for grades 9-12 and 17 minutes for grades 7-8. Staff surveys of approximately 70 items were completed in a 

median of 9 minutes. Each school received a 28-page report of its survey results with comparisons to regional and state 

norms.

The project set high standards for the psychometric properties of survey scales, and used some innovative 

statistical methods, including multi-level multivariate structural modeling in order to demonstrate that scales measured 

school-level as well as individual-level (student or staff) characteristics. Separate analyses were conducted for student and 

staff surveys and for middle school and high school grades. All analyses also investigated the influence of student and 

school demographic variables. For both student and staff surveys, there was strong evidence of factor structure, reliability, 

and convergent validity for key scales measuring disciplinary structure, academic expectations, student support, student 

engagement, and prevalence of teasing and bullying. Scales were developed for both student and staff versions of the 

survey at both individual (student or staff) and school levels of analysis. Secondary scales to measure student aggressive 

attitudes, positive values, bullying victimization, and bullying by teachers were also developed. 

Project findings have been reported in 27 refereed journal articles to date, with additional articles in progress. 

Seven papers established the factor structure and convergent validity of the key scales in the authoritative school climate 

model in statewide samples (Huang & Cornell, 2016; Huang et al., 2014; Konold, in press; Konold & Cornell, 2015a, 

2015b; Konold et al., 2014; Konold & Shukla, in press). Notably, these studies examined both student-level and schoollevel properties of these scales, using both student and teacher survey data. After demonstrating evidence of reliability and 

validity of the authoritative school climate scales in grades 7-8, a separate set of studies found comparable support for 

grades 9-12.

An authoritative school was characterized by high expectations and support for students. High expectations were 

indicated by high disciplinary structure (strict but fair discipline) and high academic expectations for students. High

support for students was indicated by the teachers and other adults at school demonstrating respect and concern for 

students. Three studies investigated the theory that an authoritative school climate is conducive to positive academic 

adjustment. Among the findings from these studies were that higher disciplinary structure and student support were 

associated with higher student engagement in school, higher course grades, and higher educational aspirations in both 

middle school and high school samples (Cornell, Shukla, & Konold, 2016). In addition, academic expectations and 

student support were most highly associated with grades for students not living with their parents (Huang, Eklund, & 

Cornell, 2016). A third study found that when students perceive their teachers as supportive, high academic expectations 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 6

are associated with lower high school dropout rates (Jia, Konold, & Cornell, 2015). These results were not attributable to 

school demographics of school enrollment size, percentage of low-income students, percentage of minority students, or

urban location. 

Another series of three studies found that an authoritative school climate was associated with positive student 

behavioral adjustment. A middle school study found that higher disciplinary structure was associated with lower levels of 

the prevalence of teasing and bullying (PTB), as well as fewer self-reports of being bullied and victimized in general

(Cornell, Shukla, & Konold, 2015). Higher support was associated with lower PTB and general victimization. Among the 

contributions of this study were to show that the association between authoritative school climate and student aggression 

was present at both student and school levels of analysis, that it extended across varied forms of peer aggression, and that 

it was found for self-reports of victimization as well as perceptions of others being victimized. A second study of high 

school students found that schools with an authoritative school climate had lower levels of student-reported alcohol and 

marijuana use; bullying, fighting, and weapon carrying at school; interest in gang membership; and suicidal thoughts and 

behavior (Cornell & Huang, 2016). These results controlled for demographic variables of student gender, race, grade, and 

parent education level as well as school size, percentage of minority students, and percentage of low income students.

Finally, a third study reported that, in schools with high structure and support, teachers felt safer, reported lower levels of 

student aggression toward themselves, and had less distress in reaction to those experiences (Berg & Cornell, 2016).

Three studies examined the prevalence of student attitudes that supported aggressive behavior, such as the belief 

that bullying and fighting were sources of peer status. Although the majority of students in a school tend to reject these 

attitudes, these studies found that a relatively small proportion of students with aggressive attitudes is associated with 

more dangerous school conditions. One study found that schools with more prevalent aggressive attitudes had higher rates 

of bullying, peer aggression, gang activity, and disciplinary infractions for aggressive behavior (Huang, Cornell, & 

Konold, 2015). A second study found that schools with more prevalent aggressive attitudes had fewer students who were 

willing to stand up against bullying (Datta, Cornell, & Huang, 2016). A third study found that students in schools with 

more prevalent aggressive attitudes were generally less likely to report that student had brought a gun to school or talked 

about killing someone (Millspaugh, Cornell, Huang, & Datta, 2015). These studies supported the importance of efforts to 

change attitudes among students that aggressive behavior is a source of popularity and status. 

All of the published studies included racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status variables in their analyses as studentor school-level measures. These analyses generally demonstrated that the primary findings of the study were not 

confounded by race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status. Additional analyses showed comparable criterion validity on key 

measures for Black, Hispanic, and White student groups (Konold, Cornell, Shukla, & Huang, 2016). In other words, 

although Black, Hispanic, and White students have some differences in their perceptions of school climate, their

perceptions were equally valid as predictors of student outcomes such as student engagement in school. Huang and 

Cornell (in press) found Black students were three times as likely as White students to receive an out-of-school 

suspension in Virginia high schools. Their analyses found that the Black-White suspension gap could not be explained by 

racial differences in student risk behaviors, aggressive attitudes, or student characteristics such as family socioeconomic 

status and student grade point average. Another study found that schools with high levels of student- and teacher-reported 

disciplinary structure had lower overall suspension rates and a lower gap between Black and White suspension rates 

(Heilbrun, Cornell, & Konold, under review). 

Limitations and Future Directions. Large-scale surveys provide a wealth of cross-sectional data for 

correlational analyses, but cannot establish causal effects. Within the framework of a cross-sectional design, it was

possible in this project to demonstrate the strength and consistency of correlational relationships across samples, to control 

for potentially confounding variables, and to show similarity of findings across measures and informants. However, a 

cross-sectional design cannot establish causal effects. Future studies using a longitudinal design would provide stronger

evidence of causal effects. Repeated assessments of schools would allow researchers to track changes over time and show 

how school climate changes are associated with student outcomes. The most effective way to demonstrate causal effects is 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 7

to undertake a randomized control trial with an intervention designed to enhance school climate and thereby improve 

student outcomes. Other limitations and directions for future study are described in the report. 

School climate has emerged as an essential factor in school effectiveness. A safe, orderly, and supportive school 

climate facilitates student engagement in learning and healthy social development. Although educators cannot change the 

risk factors of poverty, stressful events, or family problems that affect their students, they can create a positive school 

climate that engages students and gives them opportunities to be successful. Consistent with this view, the 2015 Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, Public Law 114-95) has made it a national priority to measure school climate and safety as 

an indicator of school quality.

Despite the promise of school climate research, the field has been limited by a multitude of measures that do not 

clearly define school climate and lack strong evidence of validity as school-level measures. In order to improve their 

school climate, educators need practical and efficient tools to examine school conditions and assess the impact of their 

interventions. Researchers need reliable and valid measures to gain greater understanding of school functioning and 

develop more effective educational strategies and practices. 

This project demonstrated that the Authoritative School Climate Survey is an efficient way to gather statewide 

information from students and school staff that meets high standards of reliability and validity. The developing theoretical 

model of authoritative school climate has the potential to bring greater clarity and coherence to school climate research.

Overall, the results of this project will help move the field toward consensus on a theoretically-grounded and more 

psychometrically sound model for school climate and safety assessment. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 8

OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this project was to develop a standard model for the assessment of school climate and safety. A 

conceptual model guided by authoritative school climate theory was used to construct surveys of students and school staff 

that were tested and refined in a series of statewide surveys of more than 700 Virginia public secondary schools (grades 7-

12) over a four year period (2013-2016). A series of studies (abstracts in Appendix A) reported on the development and 

validation of key survey scales, their psychometric properties across demographic groups, and their relations to important 

academic and behavioral outcomes. 

School Climate

There is abundant evidence that students have better social, behavioral, and emotional adjustment in schools with 

a positive school climate (Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009; Gage, Larson, Sugai, & Chafouleas, 2016; 

Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). Students 

attending schools with a more positive climate engage in less bullying and other forms of peer aggression (Gregory, 

Cornell, Fan, Sheras, Shih, & Huang, 2010; Wilson, 2004), are less likely to participate in problem behaviors such as 

substance use and fighting (Fletcher, Bonell, & Hargreaves, 2008; Gottfredson et al., 2005; Loukas & Murphy, 2007; 

Wang & Dishion, 2011), and experience fewer internalizing and externalizing problems (Hawkins, Oesterle, Brown, 

Abbott, & Catalano, 2014; Henrich, Brookmeyer, & Shahar, 2005; Huang, Luebbe, & Flaspohler, 2015; Kuperminc, 

Leadbeater, & Blatt, 2001). Although most studies are correlational and cross-sectional, there are longitudinal studies and 

intervention studies that provide stronger evidence of a causal link between school climate and student adjustment 

(Bradshaw et al., 2009; Kidger, Araya, Donovan, & Gunnell, 2011; Sznitman & Romer, 2014). 

There is also extensive evidence that students attending schools with a positive school climate have higher 

academic achievement (Goddard et al., 2000; Lacey, Cornell, & Konold, 2015; Pellerin, 2005; Wang & Holcomb, 2010; 

Wang & Huguley, 2012; but see also a skeptical view by Benbenishty, Astor, Roziner, & Wrabel, 2016). There is 

considerable research contending that a positive climate can mitigate the adverse effects of poverty on achievement, 

although again a caveat is that most of this research is correlational (Berkowitz, Moore, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2016; 

Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003; Schagen & Hutchison, 2003). 

The voluminous research on the benefits of a positive school climate has made it a national priority to assess 

school climate and find ways to improve it. The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, Public Law 114-95) 

encourages schools to measure “school climate and safety” as a non-academic indicator of school quality or student 

success. The indicator must be “valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide” (p. 35). The current project preceded the 

ESSA, but contributes to the effort to develop reliable and valid measures that can be used for statewide comparisons of 

schools. 

Under Section 4108, Activities to Support Safe and Healthy Students, ESSA directs schools to “develop, 

implement, and evaluate comprehensive programs and activities that...foster safe, healthy, supportive, and drug-free 

environments that support student academic achievement” (p. 177). ESSA specifically refers to “school-based violence 

prevention strategies” and “bullying and harassment prevention.” Violence prevention is defined as “the promotion of 

school safety, such that students and school personnel are free from violence and disruptive acts, including sexual 

harassment and abuse, and victimization associated with prejudice and intolerance, on school premises, going to and from 

school, and at school-sponsored activities, through the creation and maintenance of a school environment that is free of 

weapons and fosters individual responsibility and respect for the rights of others” (pp. 168-169). The current project 

included the creation of scales to measure bullying, harassment, and other forms student aggression and to examine their 

associations with school climate measures. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 9

Conceptual Problems

The nationwide efforts to improve school climate make it essential to define the construct clearly so that it can be 

measured accurately. School climate has been broadly defined by many different authorities. Three prominent examples 

illustrate its conceptual breadth and complexity. First, an influential review article concluded that “School climate refers 

to the quality and character of school life” and is “based on patterns of people’s experiences of school life and reflects 

norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (Cohen, 

McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009, p. 182). Second, a review of school climate research found that definitions of school 

climate “encompass just about every feature of the school environment that impacts cognitive, behavioral, and 

psychological development” (Wang & Degol, 2016, p. 3). Finally, the U.S. Department of Education (2013, p. 2) 

described school climate as “a multi-faceted concept that describes the extent to which a school community creates and 

maintains a safe school campus, a supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environment, and respectful, trusting, 

and caring relationships throughout the school community.” 

The broad definitions of school climate have the virtue of being comprehensive, but may risk over-inclusiveness 

and lose meaningfulness. If every aspect of a school is part of its climate, then it is not clear what the concept means and 

how it can be related to other important school characteristics. Reviews of school climate measures have lamented the 

amorphous nature of the construct, the absence of guiding theory, and the need for rigorous validity research (Johnson, 

2009; Ramelow, Currie, & Felder-Puig, 2015; Wang & Degol, 2016).

School climate is a metaphorical term that needs a clearer conceptual foundation (Cornell & Huang, in press). By 

comparison, the meteorological climate of Washington, DC refers to the patterns of weather that characterize the region 

and distinguish it from other regions. The buildings and streets of the capitol are not part of its climate but one can study

how climate affects them. Analogously, the concept of school climate refers to the patterns of daily social interactions in 

the school that distinguish it from other schools. The school’s climate should be distinguishable from other elements of 

the school environment, such as the condition of the building, the quality of its teachers, its curriculum, and the 

demographics of its students. Otherwise, the term “school climate” means little more than “the school.”

Furthermore, climate is not a single entity, but a system with interacting components. A meteorological climate 

has features such as temperature, humidity, and precipitation that interact with one another, e.g., a sufficiently cold 

temperature turns precipitation from rain to snow. Similarly, it should be possible to distinguish components of a school 

climate that interact with one another in a predictable manner. This perspective reflects the approach taken by the current 

project to conceptualize school climate as a complex system of interacting components that are distinguishable from other 

features of a school. 

Authoritative School Climate Theory 

Authoritative school climate theory provides a conceptual framework for school climate that can help to identify 

key features of school climate and their association with positive student outcomes. This developing theory is derived 

from work by Baumrind (1968) on authoritative parenting that stimulated a large body of child development research 

(Larzelere, Morris, & Harrist, 2013). Parenting research has found that authoritative parents provide a combination of 

high expectations (also called “demandingness”) and emotional support (also called “responsiveness”) for their children. 

High expectations are often measured as strict discipline but can refer to high expectations in other domains such as 

school achievement. Parents are less effective when they have high expectations but are not supportive (authoritarian), 

emotionally supportive but lacking high expectations (permissive), or lacking in both expectations and support 

(disengaged or neglectful). Although there is no expectation that an authoritative school climate is conceptually 

concordant with authoritative parenting in all respects, there are some parallels that help to organize research on school 

climate. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 10

The authoritative school climate theory posits a model for school climate that centers around two key domains1 of 

school climate that promote a safe and supportive environment conducive to learning (Gill, Ashton, & Algina, 2004; 

Gregory & Cornell 2009; Lee, 2012; Pellerin, 2005). The first domain concerns high disciplinary and academic 

expectations for students, which has been referred to as the demandingness or structure of the school climate. Do teachers 

and other school staff members enforce discipline in a strict but fair manner, and do they have high academic expectations 

for all students to learn and achieve? The second domain concerns the responsiveness or supportiveness of teacher-student 

relationships. Do teachers and other school staff members interact with students in a respectful, caring, and helpful 

manner? Although these two domains do not encompass all aspects of school climate, there is considerable evidence that 

they deserve a central role in research on school climate and can provide an assessment of school conditions that is related 

to student engagement, academic achievement, and positive behavior. 

Many studies support the idea that school structure and support deserve a central role in research on school 

climate. For example, Johnson’s (2009) review of 25 studies concluded that “schools with less violence tend to have 

students who are aware of school rules and believe they are fair” and “have positive relationships with their teachers” (p. 

451). Several school climate surveys measure these two domains in some capacity (Bear, Gaskins, Blank, & Chen, 2011; 

Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003), but authoritative school climate theory gives them special prominence. 

Pellerin (2005) found that high schools using authoritative practices had less truancy and fewer dropouts than 

schools using an authoritarian approach. An analysis of NELS data found that authoritative schools, characterized as both 

demanding and responsive, had higher levels of student engagement (Gill, Ashton, & Algina, 2004). Lee (2012) found 

that an authoritative school climate was associated with higher student engagement and reading achievement. 

Other studies have used different conceptual frameworks that nevertheless reflect the role of authoritative 

characteristics. For example, Wang and Eccles (2013) investigated how school climate characteristics were associated 

with different types of student engagement in a sample of 1,157 middle school students. Most notably, “school structure 

support” (defined as the clarity and consistency of teacher expectations) and “teacher emotional support” (defined as level 

of care and support from teachers) were associated with behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. 

Prior to the current project, our research group at the University of Virginia began work to develop scales to 

measure authoritative school climate. This effort was undertaken in a statewide survey of 7,318 ninth grade students and 

2,922 teachers in 290 Virginia high schools conducted in the spring of 2007. Confirmatory factor analyses identified two 

factors consistent with the authoritative model (Gregory et al., 2010). Student survey measures of disciplinary structure 

and student support were associated with less peer victimization (Gregory et al., 2010), lower levels of student aggression 

toward teachers (Gregory et al., 2012), and lower suspension rates (Gregory et al., 2011). These studies demonstrated 

positive associations between school climate and student outcomes across a large and diverse group of schools, 

controlling for school demographics of enrollment size, ethnic and racial composition, and percentage of students 

receiving a free or reduced price meal (a commonly used proxy for school-level socioeconomic status). 

Measurement Problems

Many reviewers have noted the lack of sufficient evidence for the validity of school climate scores (Cornell & 

Huang, in press; Ramelow, Currie, & Felder-Puig, 2015; Wang & Degol, 2016). This is a multi-faceted problem. An overarching weakness is that the lack of a well-defined theoretical framework for the concept of school climate undermines its 

construct validity. There are few criterion-related validity studies that show how school climate is related to other school 

qualities or student outcomes. An underlying measurement problem, however, is that school climate scales are often 

constructed as individual-level measures rather than school-level measures. The concept of school climate implies 

qualities that are properties of the school and not of any single individual reporter (Griffith, 1997; van Horn, 2003). Based 

 1 Authoritative school climate theory uses terms such as disciplinary structure and academic expectations to refer to constructs that 

parallel what parenting researchers have labeled demandingness or control. The school climate terms student support or positive 

teacher-student relationships refer to constructs that parallel what parenting researchers have labeled warmth or responsiveness. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 11

on research on organizational climate decades ago, Sirotnik (1980) concluded that the unit of analysis should be the 

organization (i.e., the school) and not the individual (e.g., the student). However, a majority of school climate instruments

have examined their psychometric properties solely at the individual level (Ramelow et al., 2015; Wang & Degol, 2016). 

Raudenbush and Sampson (1999, p. 3) called for research on ecometric measures or the “psychometric properties of 

ecological measures.” 

Factor analysis. Factor analytic techniques are widely used to provide an empirical basis for combining 

individual survey items to form school climate scales. However, most studies conduct factor analyses on responses from 

individuals, ignoring that individuals are nested within schools. Surveys collected within the same school have shared 

properties of the school that distinguish them from surveys collected in different schools. This is both inherent in the 

concept of school climate and a critical measurement problem. Analytic techniques that do not account for the nested 

nature of the data fail to recognize that individual surveys within the same school are not independent observations. As a 

result, analyses that ignore nesting can have biased parameter estimates, deflated standard errors, and generally distorted 

results (Kaplan & Elliott, 1997; Muthen & Satorra, 1995). Julian (2001, p. 342) concluded that “the application of 

covariance models to multilevel data without accounting for the dependencies among observations is a potentially 

dangerous practice.” Equally important is the fact that multilevel latent variable modeling techniques allow for 

investigation of the degree to which reports obtained by individuals within a school are useful for measuring their 

intended school level constructs. 

Few studies have examined psychometric properties of school climate scales at both the school and individual 

level using a multilevel framework (see Huang et al., 2015; Konold et al., 2014). Indeed, the evaluation criteria for 

reliable and valid school climate scales used by the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments 

(NCSSLE, 2016) make no reference to this problem. The NCSSLE evaluation criteria set a lower standard. The criteria 

state that the “minimum evidence requirements” for a survey include that it must be evaluated in at least one of four ways: 

construct validity (through convergent validity or factor analysis), scale/item reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), 

dimensionality (factor analysis, IRT), or measurement equivalence across subgroups. All four of these criteria are 

valuable qualities, but they are not interchangeable and none of them alone are sufficient in demonstrating an instrument’s 

psychometric quality. Higher standards are needed. 

When factor analyses are appropriately conducted on multiple levels (e.g., student and school levels),2 there is an 

additional concern that student-level constructs can differ from school-level constructs, both statistically and conceptually. 

The factor structure at the student level may not be same at the school level and conceptually might not be equivalent. For 

example, personality traits measured at the student level have no comparable meaning at the school level. Conversely, 

school-level characteristics such as the racial diversity of the student body are emergent properties of the race of each 

individual student. Other constructs may be more readily translated across levels; for example, individual student feelings 

of safety at school might be aggregated into an overall school safety scale. A construct may have different interpretations 

depending on the level of analysis (Bliese, 2000) and the relations among variables within schools may not be the same as 

the relations among variables between schools (Huang & Cornell, 2016b; Huang, Cornell, & Konold, 2014). From a 

statistical perspective, factor structures can differ across levels (i.e., have invariant cross-level factor structures) and 

constructs formulated on the student level can lead to erroneously formed school climate composites (Schweig, 2013). 

Reliability. Another measurement problem for school climate surveys is the lack of appropriate reliability 

measures. Cronbach’s alphas are widely used as a reliability measure and these are readily calculated at the student level. 

However, the reliability of a scale score based on an individual unit of analysis (e.g., student or teacher responses) does 

not represent its ecometric properties at the school level. Scores may be reliable at the individual level but not at the 

school level or vice versa (Zyphur, Kaplan, & Christian, 2008). Geldhof, Preacher, and Zyphur (2014, p. 72) asserted that 

“reliability estimates are only as trustworthy as the information used to estimate them, however, and estimating reliability 

 2 These observations are concerned with student and school levels of analysis, but could be applied to classroom, grade cohort, or 

other groupings of students. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 12

from data collected from multistage sampling [e.g., surveying students within schools] necessarily confounds the withinand between-cluster item variance...single-level reliability estimates therefore do not necessarily reflect true scale 

reliability at any single level of analysis.” 

There are several possible multilevel reliability measures that can be calculated. Geldhof et al. (2014) 

recommended the use of multilevel α or composite reliability ω, depending on the size of the clusters. Others recommend 

the use of the Spearman-Brown formula to measure the reliability of an aggregate score (Bliese, 2000; Dedrick & 

Greenbaum, 2011). Properly constructed, group-level reliabilities tend to be higher than individual-level reliabilities as a 

result of the scale being constructed from multiple informants (Byrne, 2012; Zyphur et al., 2008). 

Even when calculated on the school level, Cronbach’s alpha is a limited measure of reliability (see Sijtsma, 2009) 

because it assesses the internal consistency of a scale and does not encompass other forms for reliability such as its testretest stability. In some cases internal consistency is not a necessary or desirable quality, and the pursuit of high internal 

consistency can damage a scale’s validity (Streiner, 2003). Although high reliability estimates are desirable in general, 

alpha should not be too high (e.g., > .90) because this may reflect unnecessary duplication of items to the point of 

redundancy (Streiner, 2003).

Streiner (2003) distinguishes between scales, which should have some degree of internal consistency, and indices, 

which are composed of items that need not have internal consistency. For example, an index of life stress may contain an 

assortment of stressful life experiences (e.g., illness, accidents, divorce, loss, unemployment) that are not correlated with

one another and would not be expected to demonstrate high internal consistency. Similarly, a measure such as Student 

Aggression Toward Teachers is more properly regarded as an index than a scale because the various kinds of aggression 

that students might direct toward teachers (ranging from disrespectful language to property damage to physical assault) 

are not highly correlated with one another (e.g., most instances of disrespectful language are not associated with a 

physical assault). Another example is that a physical school safety index may be comprised of a list of safety features 

present at the school (e.g., surveillance system, metal detectors, door locks, bullet-proof glass) that are not necessarily 

correlated with each other. 

Shared method variance. Because school climate surveys usually are administered on an anonymous basis, 

researchers are unable to link student responses with non-survey criteria. Instead, researchers chiefly rely on intercorrelations among scales contained within a single survey, which lack independence and may be inflated by shared 

method variance (Chan, 2009). This approach is convenient, but less rigorous than comparing scores with independent 

criteria derived from other sources of information. This is a common weakness in many school climate studies (Cornell & 

Huang, in press). 

When surveys are aggregated to the school level and used to measure school characteristics, it is possible to 

compare them to independent sources of information. For example student or teacher reports of school climate can be 

correlated with school dropout rates, schoolwide test scores, suspension rates, or other indicators of school outcomes. It is 

also possible to compare informants (e.g., students and teachers) within schools to assess the relative contributions of 

method or informant effects versus trait effects (Konold & Cornell, 2015b). In conclusion, school-level scores can be used 

for more rigorous tests of survey validity than individual (e.g., student, teacher) informant-level scores.

Validity screening. An important but often neglected aspect of school climate research is the use of validity 

screening. Adolescents who do not take school climate surveys seriously may answer carelessly or dishonestly and 

compromise study results (Fan et al., 2006; Furlong et al., 2004). A small percentage of invalid responders can produce 

erroneous findings with serious policy implications. For example, the finding that adopted adolescents have high rates of 

maladjustment was found to be an artifact of a small group of adolescents who falsely claimed to be adopted (Fan et al., 

2002). Adolescents identified as invalid responders tend to provide exaggerated reports of risk behaviors and consistently 

more negative views of school climate compared to other students (Cornell, Lovegrove, & Baly, 2014). 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 13

Inclusion of surveys completed by invalid responders can also affect reliability and validity in unexpected ways. 

If invalid responders provide more exaggerated responses, score variability increases and can inflate reliability estimates 

(Streiner, 2003). The resulting extreme scores can produce higher factor loadings and the appearance of a stronger factor 

structure (Cornell, Klein, Konold, & Huang, 2012). 

Determining the honesty or accuracy of a student’s responses with certainty is rarely possible, but several 

techniques have been used to improve the general quality of survey data. One method is to ask directly whether the 

respondent is telling the truth (e.g., “I am telling the truth on this survey” and/or “How many items on this survey did you 

answer truthfully?”; Cornell et al., 2012). This approach will not detect students who purposely conceal whether they 

were answering inappropriately, but a sizeable number of students can still be identified. When these kind of validity 

screening items were used with middle and high school students in two studies, invalid responders ranged from 

approximately 4 to 12% (Cornell et al., 2012). Another simple method to improve data quality is to identify surveys 

completed so quickly that a participant could not have read the questions (Jia, Konold, Cornell, & Huang, 2016; Meade & 

Bartholomew, 2012). This approach eliminates a small percentage of surveys that also contribute error to the dataset. 

When used together, these two approaches can improve the reliability and validity of survey results.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 14

STUDY METHODS

Study Goals

The current study had three over-arching goals: 

Goal 1: Develop improved measures of school climate and safety.

Goal 2: Investigate the associations between authoritative school climate and safety using the improved measures.

Goal 3: Identify school climate features that are associated with lower rates of school exclusion and dropout, 

especially among disproportionately punished minority students.

Study goals were achieved by administering a statewide school climate survey each spring for four years starting 

in 2013. Each year, survey scales were tested and refined in order to develop high quality measures of school climate and 

safety. Research on the reliability and validity of the measures is summarized in a series of tables below. Consistent with 

Goal 2, scale development was guided by authoritative school climate theory, which allowed us to test hypotheses about 

authoritative school climate and a variety of positive student outcomes including measures of bullying and peer 

aggression, aggression toward teachers, and student risk behaviors. In addition, authoritative school climate was linked to 

academic outcomes such as school engagement and grades. Goal 3 was investigated by examining student suspension and 

dropout rates across racial/ethnic groups in a series of studies. Findings in support of all three goals are summarized in this 

report and elaborated in a series of published journal articles (see Appendix A).

The Virginia School Safety Audit program

Surveys were conducted under the auspices of the Virginia School Safety Audit program. This program was 

established in 1997 for the purpose of assessing the safety conditions of Virginia public schools, including both physical 

safety and student safety concerns (§ 22.1-279.8). In 2005, responsibility for the development, standardization, and 

analysis of the safety audit was assigned to the Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety (VCSCS) in the 

Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). All Virginia public schools are required by state law to participate in the 

annual school safety audit in order to assess school safety conditions. The first on-line Virginia School Safety Survey was 

conducted by the VCSCS in 2005 using information obtained from school principals. However, it was judged that the 

safety audit should include a broader assessment of school safety conditions from students and school staff. 

In 2007, the School Safety Audit included an online survey of 9th grade students and teachers. This project 

supported by grant 2006-MU-FX-0066 awarded from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the 

U.S. Department of Justice to the University of Virginia. Ninth grade was selected as a critical year for high school 

success. The results of the 9th grade survey demonstrated the value of obtaining a more comprehensive assessment of 

safety conditions and student safety concerns. This survey found that student and teacher perceptions of school climate 

could be reliably measured and were strongly related to safety conditions, including levels of bullying, violence, and 

serious disciplinary infractions. School climate and safety conditions were further predictive of student academic 

engagement, school performance on Virginia’s state-mandated Standards of Learning (SOL) examinations, and high 

school graduation rates. These findings are elaborated in a series of papers prepared by the Virginia Youth Violence 

Project of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia (see list in appendix A). 

The current study began by instituting surveys of secondary school students and staff in 2013. Again, VCSCS 

used completion of the Virginia Secondary School Safety Surveys as one component of the audit. The Virginia 

Department of Education (VDOE) and DCJS worked in collaboration to encourage school participation. 

To limit the burden on schools, the surveys were administered on a biannual basis. Schools with grades 7-8 were 

surveyed in 2013 and 2015, and schools with grades 9-12 were surveyed in 2014 and 2016. Participating schools received 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 15

a report comparing individual school results to state and regional averages to help them identify strengths as well as areas 

in need of improvement.

The surveys were labeled “Virginia Secondary School Climate Survey” (VSSCS) because it was administered to 

Virginia public schools as part of the state’s safety audit program. However, the core of this survey is the Authoritative 

School Climate Survey. The VSSCS survey included the Authoritative School Climate Survey and some additional items, 

such as risk behavior items from the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey and 

questions requested by the VDOE or DCJS. Each spring, items and scales that seemed less useful were dropped from the 

survey and new items were tested. Copies of the surveys used each year are found in the annual technical reports, 

available here: http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/virginia-secondary-school-climate-study. Unless indicated 

otherwise, all references to surveys in this report refer to the Authoritative School Climate Survey

Survey planning was undertaken by representatives from the University of Virginia, VDOE, and DCJS. Survey 

instructions and administration procedures were revised each year in response to principal feedback. A primary concern 

was to minimize the burden on school personnel and loss of instructional time for students. In response to feedback from 

principals, the spring survey was announced in the fall and instructions were made available in December. 

Procedure

The surveys were administered online through a secure Qualtrics platform. Schools were asked to administer all 

surveys during a 2 to 3-week period of their choice from February 1 to April 1. This flexibility allowed schools to choose 

a time period suitable for their school schedule. However, each year the survey window was extended for several more 

weeks in response to requests from school divisions and VDOE. The majority of schools chose to administer the survey in 

March. The distributions of survey completion times for each year are presented in the four technical reports. 

Correlational analyses indicated little or no difference in survey results associated with taking the survey earlier or later in 

the survey time period. 

Individual reports were prepared for each school. For the first two years, reports were generated using software 

developed by the Ann Bevans Collective. During the final two years, the reports were generated using software developed 

by Professor J. Patrick Meyer of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. The reports were placed on a 

password protected website of the DCJS. Schools were notified and given the password for their reports. 

Only surveys with all items completed were used for data analysis. This eliminated surveys that were opened by a 

school administrator for inspection as well as surveys that were abandoned without completion, surveys where the Internet 

connection was interrupted, etc. In order to assure complete surveys, the Qualtrics system required participants to 

complete each item before advancing to the next page. 

School Sample

All Virginia public schools serving general education students in the targeted grade levels (grades 7-8 in 2013 and 2015, 

grades 9-12 in 2014 and 2016) were eligible for the survey. Although most of the schools were traditional middle schools 

with grades 6-7-8 and high schools with grades 9-12, there were a wide variety of schools with other grade configurations 

(e.g., K-8, 7-12) that were included. The survey did not include schools located in juvenile detention and correctional 

facilities, centers providing part-time or temporary services such as suspension centers, facilities exclusively serving 

students with disabilities, or programs specifically for adults. Nearly all eligible schools (98%) participated in the survey 

by asking their students and teachers/staff to complete the survey. However, individual student and staff participation was

voluntary. See Table 1 for school-level demographics for the participating schools.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 16

Table 1. School Demographic Characteristics

School Characteristics 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Number of eligible schools 430 schools 324 schools 420 schools 322 schools

Number of participating 

schools 423 schools 323 schools 415 schools 320 schools

Participation rate 98.4% 99.7% 98.8% 99.3%

Average enrollment 708 students 1,178 students 733 students 1,221 students

School regions

 Urban 21.9% 20.7% 18.1% 20.3%

 Suburban 29.3% 31.6% 31.6% 32.2%

 Town 6.9% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7%

 Rural 41.9% 43.0% 45.8% 42.8%

FRPM (percentage of 

students eligible for free or 

reduced-price meals)

45.2% 38.0% 46.4% 39.7%

Race/Ethnicity

White/Caucasian 61.1% 60.5% 60.1% 59.2%

Black/African-American 22.6% 23.0% 22.0% 22.7%

Hispanic 8.6% 8.7% 9.7% 9.7%

Asian 3.6% 4.1% 4.0% 4.2%

Other minority group 4.1% 3.8% 4.5% 4.1%

Note. School regions refer to U.S. census classification for school attendance zone. FRPM and race/ethnic percentages 

refer to the total school enrollment. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 17

Student Sample

Schools were given two options for sampling students: (1) invite all eligible students in the target grades (grades 

7-8 or 9-12) to take the survey, with a goal of surveying at least 70% of all eligible students (whole grade option); (2) use 

a random number list to select at least 25 students from each target grade to take the survey (random sample option). 

Schools were given these options in order to give administrators the flexibility to choose a more or less comprehensive 

assessment of their students. Schools choosing the random sample option were provided with a random number list along 

with instructions for selecting students (see Appendix D). The random numbers were tailored to the enrollment size of 

each target grade. Principals were advised to invite up to 50 students in each grade to take the survey in order to have a 

pool of alternates in the event that any of the first 25 selected students were unable or unwilling to participate. 

All students were eligible to participate except those unable to complete the survey because of limited English 

proficiency or an intellectual or physical disability. The principal sent an information letter to the parents of each student 

invited to participate in the survey. The letter explained the purpose of the survey and offered them the option to decline 

participation. 

Student participation. Student participation rate was defined as the total number of students across all schools 

who participated in the survey divided by the total number invited to take the survey. To assist in estimating participation 

rates, principals were asked to complete an online Participation Survey reporting how many students (and teachers) they 

invited to participate and how many of those invited to participate declined or did not participate for some other reason. 

Principals were also asked to identify the reasons for nonparticipation from a checklist of possible reasons (e.g., the 

student was sick at the time of the survey). Some of the school principals did not complete the Participation Survey 

despite repeated requests from DCJS (Table 2). Consequently, participation rates were extrapolated from the available 

sample of principals. In addition, we estimated the participation rates for other schools based on known information (such 

as school enrollment records and whether the school used a random or whole sample option). Across the four years, the 

average student participation rate was 85.0% (Table 3). 

Table 2. Principal Completion of the Participation Survey

Principal Participation Survey 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Participating schools 430 324 420 322

Number of principals completing survey 335 299 387 250

Principal completion rate 77.9% 92.3% 92.1% 77.6%

Note. Principals were asked to complete a brief survey that tabulated the participation rate for their students and staff.

Table 3. Student Survey Participation Rates Across All Schools

Student Participation Rates 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Participating schools 430 324 420 322

Number of students invited to participate 51,638 58,613 61,683 63,990

Number of students completing survey 43,805 52,012 49,695 54,989

Student participation rate 85.3% 88.7% 80.5% 85.9%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 18

Whole grade participation rate. Approximately 27% of the participating schools used the whole grade sampling 

method in which they invited all eligible students in each target grade to complete the survey. Table 4 presents whole 

grade student participation rates and reasons for non-participation across all four years. 

Table 4. Student Survey Participation Rates for Schools Using Whole Grade Sampling

Participation Rates 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Number of schools using whole grade 149 45 169 44

Number of students surveyed 28,582 21,530 37,072 32,583

 Student participation rate 85.3% 82.9% 80.9% 82.0%

Number who did not participate 4,912 4,453 8,717 7,130

Reasons for non-participation

 Student absence 41% 64% 58% 71%

 Student declined 5% 4% 3% 9%

 Schedule conflict 8% 11% 7% 6%

 Student disability 5% 4% 6% 4%

 Language barrier NA* 5% 2% 6%

 Parents declined 28% 3% 15% 1%

 Student was suspended 3% 5% 4% 1%

Other (e.g. computer problem, student 

moved)

10% 5% 4% 2%

Note. Percentages refer to the total number who did not participate. *Language barrier was combined with “other” in 

2013.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 19

Random sample participation rate. Most schools used the random sampling option. In these schools, principals 

were advised to recruit more than 25 students in each grade so that alternates could be used in the event some of the first 

25 selected students declined to participate or were unable to participate for some other reason. Participation rates for 

these schools are based the number of students who completed the survey divided by the sum of the number of students 

who completed and did not complete the survey. Table 5 presents random sample participation rates and reasons for nonparticipation among selected students across all four years. 

Table 5. Student Survey Participation Rates for Schools Using Random Sampling

Participation Rates 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Number of schools using random sample 274 254 218 206

Number of students surveyed 15,223 30,482 12,623 22,406

 Student participation rate 83.9% 93.8% 79.4% 92.2%

Number who did not participate 2,921 2,149 3,271 1,871

Reasons for non-participation

 Student absence 20% 35% 21% 43%

 Student declined 9% 19% 32% 13%

 Schedule conflict 10% 19% 27% 16%

 Student disability NA* 4% 4% 3%

 Language barrier NA* 2% 2% 2%

 Parents declined 12% 4% 5% 6%

 Student was suspended 2% 3% 2% 2%

 Other (e.g. computer problem; student 

moved)

47% 11% 4% 10%

Note. Percentages refer to the total number who did not participate. * In 2013 principals choosing the random sample 

option excluded students with a disability (n = 107) or language barrier (n = 44) before inviting them to participate.

Each year, survey results for schools that used the random sampling option were compared with those for schools 

that used whole grade sampling. These results are reported in each of the annual technical reports. As might be expected, 

schools choosing to use whole grade sampling tended to be smaller than those choosing the random sample option. For 

schools with fewer than 50 students per grade, there is little to be gained from using the random sample option. However, 

there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups of schools in percentage of students receiving 

free or reduced-priced meals (FRPM) or urbanicity (population density obtained from the U.S. census). 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 20

Student Survey Completion Time and Validity Screening

The length of time that students spent completing the survey varied widely. In a few extreme cases the survey was 

started and left incomplete for many hours, possibly because the student failed to click the submit button and left the 

computer. At the other extreme, some students completed the survey so quickly that it would have been impossible to 

have read and answered all of the questions. 

Based on experience with the prior surveys and an examination of the distribution of completion times, we found 

that approximately 6 minutes was a reasonable threshold between participants who read the survey and completed it 

quickly and those who probably did not read the survey and simply checked off answers very rapidly. As described in the 

2014 technical report, the empirical basis for using a threshold of approximately 6 minutes was determined by a twocomponent finite normal mixture model that was applied to the log response time distribution.

Removing extremely short and long completion times gives a more realistic picture of how long it takes for 

students to complete the survey. For example, of the 62,679 students in 2016 who completed the survey in more than 6 

minutes and less than 60 minutes, the median completion time was 11.8 minutes. Approximately 80% of the surveys were 

completed between 7.8 and 21.8 minutes. See Table 6 for detailed completion time for each year.

Table 6. Student Survey Completion Times 

Completion Time 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Excluded because completion judged to be 

too fast( < ~6 minutes) 301 649 482 1,626

Median completion time in minutes 18.5 14.4 17.1 11.8 

Range for 80% of surveys in minutes 12.1 to 35.2 9.4 to 27.6 11.2 to 32.8 7.8 to 21.8 

Number of items in survey* 101 113 110 94

Note. *Students who reported no victimization experiences were asked fewer questions because they were not asked about 

their response to victimization. 

Validity screening items. The survey included two validity-screening items to identify students who admitted 

that they were not answering truthfully. The first item, “I am telling the truth on this survey,” had four response options: 

Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. Students answering Strongly Disagree or Disagree were omitted 

from the sample. At the end of the survey, the second item was “How many of the questions on this survey did you 

answer truthfully?” This item had five response options: All of them, All but 1 or 2 of them, Most of them, Some of them,

and Only a few or none of them. Students answering Some of them or Only a few or none of them were omitted from the 

sample. Our previous research found that the use of validity screening items can identify students who tend to give 

exaggerated reports of risk behavior and hold more negative views of school conditions than other students (Cornell et al., 

2012; Cornell, Lovegrove, & Baly, 2014).

Each year the preliminary sample was screened on two criteria: (1) the time it took students to complete the 

survey and (2) responses to the two validity screening questions. For example, in 2016, 1,626 students (2.4% of the 

sample) were excluded because it was judged that they would not have been able to read and carefully answer each 

question so quickly. An additional 4,646 students (6.7% of the sample) responded to the validity questions that they were 

not telling the truth on the survey and also were excluded. This reduced the sample from 68,951 to 62,679 cases that were 

used for survey reporting purposes. See Table 7 for information on each year. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 21

Table 7. Student Survey Validity Screening

Validity Screening 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Preliminary sample of all completed 

surveys 42,480 52,012 60,695 68,951

Excluded for completing the survey too 

quickly 301 (0.7%) 649 (1.3%) 482 (0.8%) 1,626 (2.4%)

Excluded based on validity screening items 2,796 (6.6%) 3,336 (6.4%) 3,705 (6.1%) 4,646 (6.7%)

Screened analytic sample 39,364 48,027 56,508 62,679

Note. In 2013, 19 8th grade students were dropped because they were identified by their password as attending a school 

with no 8th grade. However, it was subsequently learned that the school had given them the password for the wrong 

school. 

Each year, a comparison of valid and invalid responders revealed statistically significant differences on most 

survey items. Using conventional standards for interpreting effect size measures (e.g., 0.20 = small, 0.50 = moderate, 0.80 

= large), the differences between valid and invalid responders for a large majority of item responses were practically 

meaningful. For example, in 2016, compared to valid responders, invalid responders were consistently less engaged (d = 

0.46), had consistently higher overall levels of aggressive attitudes (d = 0.68), reported lower levels of the prevalence of 

teasing and bullying by students (d = 0.21), and higher incidents of bullying others (d = 0.43). Detailed findings are 

reported in each year’s technical report. A more extensive evaluation of these comparisons can be found in Jia et al. 

(2016).

Overall, invalid responders generally gave less favorable appraisals of school climate and safety conditions than 

valid responders. For example, in 2016, invalid responders were more likely than valid responders to report: 

● Less school engagement (Not liking school, not being proud of school, feeling school is boring, getting good 

grades not important, not wanting to learn as much as can, not feeling like belong at this school);

● Less satisfaction with school discipline (less likely to report that school rules are fair, that punishment for 

breaking rules is the same for all, that students are only punished when they deserve it, that accused students 

get a chance to explain, that students are treated fairly regardless of race or ethnicity; more likely to report 

that adults at school are too strict, and that students can get suspended without good reason);

● Less perception of support by adults at school (less likely to agree that most teachers care about all students, 

want all students to do well, listen to what students have to say, and treat students with respect);

● Less willingness to seek help from teachers (less likely to agree that there are adults to talk with about a 

personal problem, a teacher will do something to help with bullying, would tell a teacher about another 

student who brought a gun to school or talked about killing someone, feel comfortable asking for help with 

school work, at least one teacher wants them to do well);

● Lower academic expectations from teachers (less likely to report that teachers expect them to work hard, want 

them to learn a lot and attend college, more likely to report that teachers do not really care how much they 

learn).

Invalid responders reported observing less bullying than valid responders, perhaps because they identified with 

these activities and did not want to convey that they were a problem to authorities. Compared to valid responders, invalid 

responders reported less teasing at school because of clothing or physical appearance or sexual topics. They were less 

likely to report that bullying was a problem at school. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 22

When asked about gangs at school, invalid responders were less likely than valid responders to say that there were 

gangs at school or that gangs were involved in fights or drug sales. In response to questions about peer aggression, invalid 

responders were more likely than valid responders to endorse aggressive attitudes, including:

● If someone threatens you, it is okay to hit that person;

● Bullying is sometimes fun to do;

● It feels good when I hit someone;

● If you fight a lot, everyone will look up to you;

● If you are afraid to fight, you won't have many friends;

● Students who are bullied or teased mostly deserve it.

Invalid responders were more likely than valid responders to report being physically attacked and being 

threatened, but less likely to report being bullied and someone saying mean or insulting things to them. They reported 

more physical, social, and cyber bullying but less verbal bullying. This pattern appears contradictory with their responses 

to items about the prevalence of teasing and bullying they observed among their peers. Invalid responders were less likely 

than valid responders to report that they observed bullying and teasing at school and had been a victim of bullying, but 

more likely than valid responders to claim that they had engaged in bullying. Invalid responders were also more likely to 

report bullying by teachers.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 23

Student Characteristics

Because the surveys were anonymous, all individual student demographic information was based on student selfreport. Students were asked to provide their gender, grade, and best description of their race/ethnicity. Students also 

provided information about the education level for their parent or guardian with the highest education and if they speak a 

language other than English at home. Student sample demographics are displayed in Table 8. 

Table 8. Student Sample Demographics 

Student Sample 2013 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey of 

Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Gender

Female 51.7% 51.4% 51.1% 49.8%

Male 48.3% 48.6% 48.9% 50.2%

Grade

7th Grade 52.1% -- 52.1% --

8th Grade 47.9% -- 47.9% --

9th Grade -- 26.1% -- 26.9%

10th Grade -- 26.0% -- 26.0%

11th Grade -- 24.9% -- 24.7%

12th Grade -- 23.1% -- 22.4%

Race/ethnicity

White/Caucasian 52.4% 56.7% 51.8% 59.2%

Black/African American 18.2% 17.9% 15.1% 22.7%

Hispanic 12.8% 10.5% 13.7% 9.7%

Asian 3.4% 3.8% 5.2% 4.2%

American Indian 1.6% 1.2% 1.8% 0.3%

Hawaiian 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.1%

Mixed Race 15.6% 9.3% 13.7% 3.7%

Respondents speak language 

other than English at home

21.6% 18.9% 25.0% 23.9%

Parent education

Post-graduate studies 24.5% 19.9% 26.0% 24.8%

4-year college degree 23.7% 24.1% 26.4% 26.3%

2-year college degree 14.3% 16.0% 13.9% 14.5%

High school diploma 28.8% 31.2% 26.2% 26.8%

No diploma 8.7% 8.8% 7.5% 7.6%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 24

Teacher and Staff Sample

In 2013 and 2014, teachers in each school were invited to participate in the study by a letter from the school 

principal. Starting in 2015, other school staff members were also invited to participate. The survey was voluntary for 

teachers and other staff members. The estimated teacher and staff participation rate was 60.5% among the participating 

schools across all four years. One reason for the lower rates is that a few school principals chose not to encourage their 

teachers and staff to complete the survey. On the principal completion survey, these principals reported that their teachers 

felt overworked and that they did not have the time to take a survey. Some principals pointed out that their school had 

completed multiple surveys during the school year. See Table 9 for the breakdown of teacher/staff participation rates and 

teacher/staff demographics.

Table 9. Teacher/Staff Sample Demographics

Teacher/Staff Sample 2013 Survey 

of Grades 7-8

2014 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

2015 Survey 

of Grades 7-8

2016 Survey of 

Grades 9-12

Participation 389 310 319 303

Participating schools with teacher/staff 389 (92.0%) 310 (96.0%) 319 (78.0%) 303 (95.0%)

Teacher participation rate 9,134 (79.0%) 13,455 (57.0%) 8,585 (53.0%) 14,619 (53.0%)

Gender

Female 75.1% 66.8% 76.4% 68.9%

Male 24.9% 33.2% 23.6% 31.1%

Years of Experience

 1-2 years 10.7% 8.7% 9.4% 8.8%

 3-5 years 13.2% 11.7% 13.8% 12.2%

 6-10 years 23.2% 22.0% 20.4% 18.4%

 > 10 years 53.0% 57.6% 56.5% 60.6%

Teacher/Staff position1

 Teacher 100.0% 100.0% 82.2% 83.8%

 Counselor - - 4.0% 4.0%

 Administrator - - 3.0% 2.5%

 Nurse - - 0.6% 0.6%

 Psychologist - - 0.6% 0.2%

 School resource officer - - 0.5% 0.5%

 Social worker - - 0.5% 0.3%

 Other - - 8.1% 8.2%

Note. 1Only teachers were asked to participate in 2013 and 2014. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 25

The teacher/staff survey was shortened each year based on evaluations of the usefulness of the questions. In 2016 

the survey was reduced to approximately 71 items. The median completion time was 8.5 minutes and the mean was 10.8 

minutes. Approximately 80% of participants completed the survey in 5.4 to 18.5 minutes. 

Survey Measures

The survey was revised each year based on results of statistical analyses of its psychometric properties. New 

content areas were tested based on input from DCJS, VDOE, and our advisory board. Both the student and teacher 

surveys covered two domains: school climate and safety conditions. The school climate measures included perceptions of 

the school’s disciplinary practices, student support efforts, and the degree of student engagement in school. The safety 

conditions covered reports of bullying, teasing, and other forms of peer aggression, including threats of violence, physical 

assault, and gang activity. Students were also asked about attitudes and values related to safe and appropriate behavior and 

whether they expected to graduate from high school and pursue higher education. Teachers were asked to evaluate a series 

of student support efforts and to report any experiences of aggressive behavior by students, parents, or colleagues. 

Complete copies of the 2016 surveys are found in the appendix and earlier versions are found in the annual technical 

reports. 

FINDINGS

Reliability and Validity

As explained in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research 

Association et al., 2014), reliability and validity are not fixed properties of a test and cannot be reduced to a single set of 

reliability or validity coefficients. An instrument that is reliable and valid for a specific purpose in a particular population 

may not have the same reliability and validity when used for a different purpose or in a different population. The 

information in the tables below provide substantial evidence of the reliability and validity of the scales found on the 

Authoritative School Climate Survey, but test properties should be reconsidered when any measure is used in new 

populations and for new purposes. These tables present results of multilevel (student and school) factor analyses to assess 

the degree to which survey items are useful for measuring constructs at different levels, and whether the measurement of 

these constructs is consistent across levels. Examination of school climate constructs on both student and school levels is 

an important advantage of the Authoritative School Climate survey that distinguishes it from many other instruments.

There is additional evidence in the published articles summarized later in this report. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 26

Table 10. Reliability for the Secondary School Student Version of Authoritative School Climate Survey

Scale (number of items) Cronbach’s 

Alpha:

Individual Level

Spearman-Brown 

Reliability:

School Level

Construct Validity 

Coefficients:

Pattern Loadings

Samples Source

Disciplinary Structure (7)

.77 .70 .47 to .72 student level

.77 to .95 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

.78 .95 .36 to .75 student level

.74 to .93 school level

48,027 students (grades 9-12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 2015

Academic Expectations (5) .72 .86 .48 to .93 student level

.65 to .99 school level

48,027 students (grades 9-12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 2015

Student Support (8) .85 .78 .51 to .86 student level

.64 to .98 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

Student Support subscale –

Respect for Students (4)

.87 .72 .81 to .87 student level

.95 to .98 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

.87 .90 .85 to .87 student level

.95 to .98 school level

48,027 students (grades 9-12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 2015

Student Support subscale - 

Willingness to Seek Help (4)

.69 .61 .58 to .77 student level

.67 to .91 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

.73 .80 .63 to .81 student level

.67 to 1.0 school level

48,027 students (grades 9-12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 2015

Student Engagement (6) .77 .87 .40 to .89 student level

.02 to 1.0 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

Student Engagement subscale 

– Affective (3)

.85 .87 .77 to .90 student level

.97 to 1.0 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

.89 .95 .84 to .93 student level

.97 to 1.0 school level

48,027 students (grades 9-12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 2015

Student Engagement subscale 

– Cognitive (3)

.66 .96 .54 to .83 student level

.05 to 1.6 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

.71 .73 .68 to .81 student level

.35 to .83 school level

48,027 students (grades 9-12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 2015

Prevalence of Teasing and 

Bullying (PTB) (5)

.79 .88 .69 to .77 student level

.81 to .97 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al., 2014

.85 .93 .74 to .79 student level

.87 to .95 school level

48,027 students (grades 9-12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 2015

Bullying Victimization (5) .85 - .75 to .94 student level adjusted 

for nested data

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold, 2015

General Victimization (5) .76 - .61 to .94 student level adjusted 

for nested data

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold, 2015

Aggressive Attitudes (6) .79 - .58 to .78 student level

.82 to .99 school level

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Huang, Cornell, & 

Konold, 2015

Positive Values (9) -- .92 .62 to 1.00

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Huang & Cornell, 2015

Positive Values subscale –

Personal Conviction (3) .81 -- .62 to .80

Positive Values subscale –

Concern for Others (5) .86 -- .40 to .90
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 27

Table 11. Reliability for the Secondary School Teacher/Staff Version of Authoritative School Climate Survey 

Scale (number of items) Cronbach’s 

Alpha: 

Individual 

Level

Spearman-Brown 

Reliability:

School Level

k*ICC/(k-1)*ICC+1

Construct Validity 

Coefficients:

Pattern Loadings

Samples Source

Disciplinary Structure (9) - - No one-factor scale for 

teachers

Disciplinary Structure subscale –

Fairness (5)

.85 .90 .52 to .89 teacher level

.92 to 1 school level

9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools Huang et al. (2015)

.83 .92 .63 to .82 teacher level

.88 to 1.0 school level

12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Disciplinary Structure subscale –

Justness (4)

.63 .53 .48 to .79 teacher level

.12 to .97 school level

9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

.65 .70 .66 to .74 teacher level

.61 to 1.0 school level

12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Student Support (10)

- .74 .54 to .98 school level 9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

- .79 .60 to .96 school level 12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Student Support subscale –

Respect for Students (4)

.91 - .90 to .93 teacher level 9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

.91 - .92 to .92 teacher level

.92 to .94 school level

12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Student Support subscale - 

Willingness to Seek Help (6)

.78 - .49 to .76 teacher level 9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

.81 - .54 to .80 teacher level

.60 to .96 school level

12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Student Engagement (6)

- .94 .92 to .99 school level 9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

- .94 .76 to 1.00 school level 12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Student Engagement subscale –

Affective (3)

.82 - .48 to .93 teacher level 9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

.74 - .54 to .93 teacher level

.97 to 1.0 school level

12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Student Engagement subscale –

Cognitive (3) 

.83 - .53 to .91 teacher level 9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

.81 - .58 to .89 teacher level

.76 to .90 school level

12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying 

(PTB) (6)

.82 .79 .69 to .77 teacher level

.69 to .96 school level

9,099 teachers from 366 middle 

schools

Huang et al. (2015)

.89 .84 .78 to .82 teacher level

.81 to 1.0 school level

12,808 teachers from 302 high 

schools Huang & Cornell (2016a) 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report

Table 12. Test-Retest Reliability for the Secondary School Teacher/Staff Version of Authoritative School Climate 

Survey 

Factor Test-retest

School Disciplinary Structure scale- Fairness .80

School Disciplinary Structure scale- Justness .70

Student Support scale- Respect for Students .76

Student Support scale- Willingness to Seek Help .74

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying scale .82

Student Engagement scale- Affective .84

Student Engagement scale- Cognitive a

Note. N = 95 teachers. Test-retest reliabilities estimated using Pearson correlation coefficients. aTest-retest not computed as a result of 

missing retest data on one item. For more information, see Huang and Cornell (2016a)

Table 13. Validity for the Secondary School Student Version of Authoritative School Climate Survey

Scale Criterion-related Validity:

Path Coefficients, Latent Factor Correlations, or 

Change in R2

Samples Source

Disciplinary Structure

-.44 student level and -.41 school level with 

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

.35 student level and .79 school level with Affective 

Engagement

.20 student level with Cognitive Engagement

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Konold et al. 

(2014)

-.48 school level with Prevalence of Teasing and 

Bullying

-.46 school level with Bullying Victimization

-.41 school level with General Victimization

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold (2015)

.23 student level and .46 school level with 

Engagement

.09 student level with Self-reported Grades

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

.23 student level and .26 school level with Konold (2016)

Engagement

.06 student level with Self-reported Grades

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools

-.45 student level and -.77 school level with 

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

.60 student level and .87 school level with Affective 

Engagement

.45 student level and .44 school level with Cognitive 

Engagement

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell

(2015)

Academic Expectations 

-.20 student level and -.74 school level with 

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

.48 student level and .73 school level with Affective 

Engagement

.53 student level and .77 school level with Cognitive 

Engagement 

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell 

(2015)

Table continues on next page.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report

Student Support 

-.27 school level with Prevalence of Teasing and 

Bullying

-.23 school level with General Victimization

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold (2015)

.42 student level and .44 school level with 

Engagement

.08 student level and .18 school level with Selfreported Grades

.07 student level with Academic Aspirations

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

.42 student level and .63 school level with Konold (2016)

Engagement

.14 student level and .30 school level with Selfreported Grades

.12 student level with Academic Aspirations

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools

Student Support 

subscale –

Respect for Students

.04 student level and -.60 school level with 

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

.09 student level and .23 school level with Affective 

Engagement

-.08 student level with Cognitive Engagement

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Konold et al., 2014

-.37 student level and -.80 school level with 

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

.54 student level and .88 school level with Affective 

Engagement

.41 student level and .53 school level with Cognitive 

Engagement

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 

2015

Student Support 

subscale - Willingness 

to Seek Help

-.04 student level with Prevalence of Teasing and 

Bullying

.31 student level with Affective Engagement

.47 student level and .66 school level with Cognitive 

engagement

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Konold et al., 2014

-.27 student level and -.69 school level with 

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

.55 student level and .80 school level with Affective 

Engagement

.52 student level and .73 school level with Cognitive 

Engagement

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools Konold & Cornell, 

2015

Student Engagement

Student level Structure and Support predicted 

Engagement with R2Δ = .36

School level Structure and Support predicted 

Engagement with R2Δ = .69

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold (2016) Student level Structure and Support predicted 

Engagement with R2Δ = .34

School level Structure and Support predicted 

Engagement with R2Δ = .72

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools

Student Engagement 

subscale – Affective

.35 student level and .79 school level with 

Disciplinary Structure

.09 student level and .23 school level with Respect 

for Students

.31 student level with Willingness to Seek Help

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Konold et al., 2014

.60 student level and .87 school level with 

Disciplinary Structure 

.54 student level and .88 school level with Respect 

for Students

.55 student level and .80 school level with 

Willingness to Seek Help

.48 student level and .73 school level with Academic 

Expectations

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools

Konold & Cornell, 

2015

Table continues on next page.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report

Student Engagement 

subscale - Cognitive

.20 student level with Disciplinary Structure

-.08 student level and .47 school level with Respect 

for Students

.47 student level and .66 school level with 

Willingness to Seek Help

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Konold et al., 2014

.45 student level and .44 school level with 

Disciplinary Structure

.41 student level and .53 school level with Respect 

for Students

.53 student level and .77 school level with Academic 

Expectations

.52 student level and .73 school level with 

Willingness to Seek Help

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools

Konold & Cornell, 

2015

Prevalence of Teasing 

and Bullying (PTB)

-.44 student level and -.41 school level with 

Disciplinary Structure

.04 student level and -.60 school level with Respect 

for Students

-.04 student level with Willingness to Seek Help

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Konold et al., 2014

-.45 student level and -.77 school level with 

Disciplinary Structure

-.20 student level and -.74 school level with 

Academic Expectation

-.37 student level and -.80 school level with Respect 

for Students

-.27 student level and -.69 school level with 

Willingness to Seek Help

48,027 students (grades 9-

12), 

323 high schools

Konold & Cornell, 

2015

Student-reported PTB predicted 4 year dropout 

counts with 1.23 Incident Rate Ratio

Teacher-reported PTB predicted 4-year dropout 

counts with 1.07 Incident Rate Ratio 

7082 9th grade students and 

2,764 teachers

276 high schools Cornell et al., 2013

School level PTB correlated .352 with bullying 

victimization, and two measures of student 

engagement: -.27 with commitment to school, 

and -.18 with school involvement

HLM found PTB associated with commitment to 

school -.22 at student level and -.18 at school 

level; school involvement -.06 at school level

7,058 9th graders in 289 high 

schools

Mehta, Cornell, 

Fan, & Gregory, 

2013

School level PTB correlated with short-term 

suspensions r = .25, teacher reports of gang 

violence .25, teacher reports of bullying and 

teasing .30, teacher reports of student helpseeking -.26 

7,318 9th grade students in 

291 high schools Bandyopadhyay, 

Cornell, & Konold, 

2009

School level Structure and Support predicted PTB 

with R2Δ = .54

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold, 2015

Bullying Victimization 

(BV)

School level Structure and Support predicted BV 

with R2Δ = .34

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold, 2015

General Victimization 

(GV)

School level Structure and Support predicted GV 

with R2Δ = .32

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Cornell, Shukla, & 

Konold, 2015

Aggressive Attitudes

School level odds ratio = 1.23 for bullying others

School level R2Δ = .08 for bully victimization

School level R2Δ = .20 for gang activity

School level R2Δ = .18 for PTB (student report)

School level R2Δ = .07 for PTB (teacher report)

School level R2Δ = .09 for school safety (teacher)

School level R2Δ = .05 for school suspensions

School level R2Δ = .03 for aggressive infractions

39,364 students (grades 7-8)

423 schools

Huang, Cornell, & 

Konold, 2015
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 31

Table 14. Validity for the Secondary School Teacher/Staff Version of Authoritative School Climate 

Survey in Middle School Grades 

Correlations Among Factors Within Schools as Reported by Middle School Teachers (N = 4677)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Structure (Justness factor)

2 Structure (Fairness factor) .29

3 Support (Willingness to Seek Help) .55 .51

4 Support (Teacher respect for students) .46 .40 61

5 Student aggression toward teachers -.01 -.40 -.18 -.11

6 PTB -.26 -.43 -.44 -.35 -.36

7 Engagement (Affective) .26 .52 .43 .38 -.38 -.44

8 Engagement (Cognitive) .03 .52 .31 .27 -.37 -.32 .62

Correlations Among Factors Between Schools (N = 183 Middle schools)

1 2 3 4 5

1 Structure (Justness factor)

2 Structure (Fairness factor) .36

3 Support .84 .63

4 Student aggression toward teachers -.33 -.74 -.67

5 PTB -.58 -.75 -.81 .85

6 Engagement .54 .58 .69 -.88 -.76

Note. See Huang et al. (2015).
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 32

Table 15. Validity for the Secondary School Teacher/Staff Version of Authoritative School Climate 

Survey in High School Grades 

Correlations Among Factors Within Schools as Reported by High School Teachers (N = 12,808)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Structure (Justness factor)

2 Structure (Fairness factor) .36

3 Support (Willingness to Seek Help) .49 .54

4 Support (Teacher respect for students) .49 .42 .59

5 PTB -.30 -.39 -.44 -.33

6 Engagement (Affective) .29 .54 .49 .42 -.41

7 Engagement (Cognitive) .10 .52 .42 .31 -.31 .67

Correlations Among Factors Between Schools (N = 302 high schools)

1 2 3 4

1 Structure (Justness factor)

2 Structure (Fairness factor) .42

3 Support .67 .79

4 PTB .79 -.49 -.78

5 Engagement .53 .58 .85 -.66

Note. See Huang and Cornell (2016a).
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 33

Published Research Findings

This section provides an overview of our research findings by summarizing our publications in 

peer-reviewed journals (see citations and abstracts in Appendix A). 

Multi-level Factor Analytic Studies of Authoritative School Climate. The first series of seven 

papers established the factor structure and convergent validity of the key scales in the authoritative school 

climate model in statewide samples. Notably, these studies examined both student-level and school-level 

properties of these scales, using both student and teacher survey data. After demonstrating evidence of 

reliability and validity of authoritative school climate scales in grades 7-8, a separate set of studies found 

comparable support for grades 9-12. 

Middle school analyses. The first paper from this project (Konold et al., 2014) examined the 

multi-level factor structure of the student version of the Authoritative School Climate Survey for grades 

7-8. Consistent with authoritative school climate theory, we hypothesized that two key characteristics of 

school climate, disciplinary structure and student support, would be associated with two important school 

climate outcomes, student engagement and prevalence of teasing and bullying in school. Exploratory and 

confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in a statewide sample of 39,364 students in grades 7-8 who 

attended 423 schools. These analyses used a multi-level approach to model the nesting of students in 

schools and demonstrated a stable factor structure on both student and school levels for the four scales. 

The results also supported the convergent and concurrent validity of the scales and demonstrated 

structural invariance of the concurrent validity coefficients between gender groups. 

The second paper from this project (Huang et al., 2014) conducted a similar study using the 

teacher version of the Authoritative School Climate Survey, using a sample of 9,099 7th and 8th grade 

teachers from 366 schools. Consistent with authoritative school climate theory, this study hypothesized 

that teacher reports of disciplinary structure and student support would be associated with higher student 

engagement and less teasing and bullying. In addition, it was hypothesized that an authoritative school 

climate would be associated with lower student aggression toward teachers, a scale not included on the 

student survey. The study used exploratory and multilevel confirmatory factor analyses (MCFA) that 

accounted for the nested data structure and allowed for the modeling of the factor structures at teacher and 

school levels. The results supported the factor structures of all five scales and showed that schools with 

greater levels of disciplinary structure and student support had higher student engagement, less teasing 

and bullying, and lower student aggression toward teachers

After the first two papers using the student and teacher surveys separately, a natural next step was 

to examine them together. This study (Konold & Cornell, 2015b) was limited to three scales that had 

identical items for students and teachers, using a multilevel, multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) design 

involving students (N = 35,565) and teachers (N = 9,112) associated with 340 schools. Results from a 

multilevel correlated trait – correlated method latent variable analysis indicated that ratings of school 

climate obtained by students and teachers demonstrated high levels of convergent validity, and that 

school-level ratings obtained by students and teachers were comparable in the assessment of the 

prevalence of teasing and bullying. Student ratings of support and structure yielded somewhat stronger 

evidence of convergent validity than ratings obtained by teachers, perhaps because teachers showed 

higher levels of common method effects than students.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 34

High school analyses. Whereas the first three papers examined 7-8 grade students and teachers, 

the next set of papers used the high school sample collected in 2014. A paper by Konold and Cornell 

(2015) conducted multilevel, multivariate structural modeling in a statewide sample of 48,027 students in 

323 public high schools. This study added academic expectations as a measure of structure in addition to 

disciplinary structure. It also separated student support into correlated sub-factors of respect for students 

and willingness to seek help. As hypothesized, the two measures of structure and two measures of support 

were associated with higher student engagement (affective engagement and cognitive engagement) and 

lower reports of teasing and bullying. These findings were obtained on both student and school levels of 

analysis. Moreover, these analyses controlled for the effects of school demographics, including school 

size, percentage of minority students, and percentage of low income students.

A paper by Huang & Cornell (2016) conducted a similar study using the high school teacher 

sample. Multilevel confirmatory factor analyses based on surveys completed by 12,808 high school 

teachers from 302 schools found that disciplinary structure and student support were associated with 

student engagement and the prevalence of student teasing and bullying. (A measure of academic 

expectations was not constructed for teachers, largely because the teachers reported such consistently high 

levels of academic expectations for their students that there was little variation across teachers.) 

After the two high school papers supported the reliability and validity of student and teacher 

survey scores, a third paper (Konold, in press) combined data from the two surveys again to distinguish 

informant or method effects from trait effects. The study examined measures of disciplinary structure, 

student support, student engagement, and prevalence of teasing and bullying in a sample of 45,641 

students and 12,808 teachers in 302 high schools. As with the middle school studies, the analyses 

demonstrated convergent validity at both individual (student and teacher) and school levels of analysis.

Also, these results indicated that the percent of students receiving FRPM in schools was associated with 

both school climate traits and informant-based method factors. School size and the percentage of minority 

students in schools were associated with some traits, and school size was associated with student method 

effects. These findings support the need to control for school level contextual factors in school climate 

research.

Building on the previous multilevel MTMM study, Konold and Shukla (in press) demonstrated 

the usefulness of a latent variable multilevel MTMM measurement model for extracting trait factors from 

reports of school climate. This paper demonstrated how this framework could be extended to include 

assessments of linkages between the resulting trait factors and potential outcomes. The approach was 

illustrated with data obtained from student and teacher reports of two dimensions of school climate, 

student engagement, and the prevalence of teasing and bullying in their schools. The resulting models 

demonstrated that the multi-informant based trait factor of engagement could serve as a mediating 

variable between trait factors of structure and support, and the prevalence of teasing and bullying. 

Finally, we recognized that school climate is not a homogenous experience for all students in a 

school and that there might be meaningful within-school heterogeneity. Shukla, Konold, and Cornell 

(2016) used multilevel latent class modeling to identify subgroups of students who share distinctive 

perceptions of their school climate. Nine school climate scales from the survey of 47,631 high school 

students in 323 schools were examined. The analyses identified four meaningfully different student 

profile types labeled positive climate, medium climate-low bullying, medium climate-high bullying, and 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 35

negative climate. These profile types were associated with external criteria of race, grade level, parent 

education level, educational aspirations, and frequency of risk behaviors. For example, students reporting 

a negative climate were more likely to report carrying a weapon to school, fighting, attempting suicide, 

and using alcohol and marijuana than students reporting a positive climate within the same schools. 

Authoritative School Climate and Student Behavioral Adjustment. Three studies examined 

the association between characteristics of an authoritative school climate and various indicators of student 

behavioral adjustment. The first study used multilevel multivariate modeling in a statewide sample of 

39,364 7th and 8th grade students attending 423 schools (Cornell, Shukla, & Konold, 2015). This study 

found that higher disciplinary structure was associated with lower levels of the prevalence of teasing and 

bullying (PTB), as well as fewer self-reports of being bullied and victimized in general. Higher support 

was associated with lower PTB and general victimization. Among the contributions of this study were to 

show that the association between authoritative school climate and student aggression was present at both 

student and school levels of analysis, that it extended across varied forms of peer aggression, and that it 

was found for self-reports of victimization as well as perceptions of others being victimized. This study 

supported and extended a prior study of 9th grade students (Gregory et al., 2010). 

A study by Cornell and Huang (2016) tested the hypothesis that an authoritative school climate is 

conducive to lower risk behavior for high school students. Multilevel regression at student and school 

levels was conducted using school surveys completed by a statewide sample of 48,027 grade 9-12 

students in 323 high schools. Schools with an authoritative school climate had lower levels of studentreported alcohol and marijuana use; bullying, fighting, and weapon carrying at school; interest in gang 

membership; and suicidal thoughts and behavior. These results controlled for demographic variables of 

student gender, race, grade, and parent education level as well as school size, percentage of minority 

students, and percentage of low income students. Overall, these findings show that an authoritative school 

climate is associated with a variety of indicators of behavioral adjustment.

Berg and Cornell (2016) found that, in schools with high structure and support, teachers felt safer, 

reported lower levels of student aggression toward themselves, and had less distress in reaction to those 

experiences. This study was conducted in a sample of 9,134 teachers in 389 middle schools, and is 

consistent with a prior study of student aggression experienced by 9th grade teachers (Gregory, Cornell, & 

Fan, 2012). 

Authoritative School Climate and Student Academic Adjustment. Three studies investigated

the theory that an authoritative school climate characterized by disciplinary structure and student support 

is conducive to positive academic adjustment. In the first study, academic adjustment was measured with 

three indicators: student engagement in school, course grades, and educational aspirations, such grading 

from high school, obtaining a college degree. Hypotheses were tested independently in two statewide 

samples: 39,364 grade 7-8 students in 423 middle schools and 48,027 grade 9-12 students in 323 high 

schools (Cornell, Shukla, & Konold, 2016). The same pattern of findings was found in both samples, 

controlling for student and school demographics. Both higher disciplinary structure and student support 

were associated with higher student engagement in school, higher course grades, and higher educational 

aspirations at the student level in both samples. At the school level, higher disciplinary structure was 

associated with higher engagement, and higher student support was associated with higher engagement 

and grades in both samples. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 36

A second study tested the hypothesis that an authoritative school climate could serve as a 

protective factor for students living with one or no parents at home (Huang, Eklund, & Cornell, 2016). In 

a statewide sample of 56,508 middle school students from 415 public schools, student perceptions of 

disciplinary structure, academic demandingness, and student support all had positive associations with 

student self-reported grades. In addition, academic expectations and student support were more highly 

associated with grades for students not living with any parent, which suggested a positive school climate 

might be especially important for students living without their parents. These studies replicate a prior 

California study (O’Malley, Voight, Renshaw, & Eklund, 2015). 

A third study by Jia, Konold, and Cornell (2015) used both student and teacher perceptions of 

school climate to predict dropout rates in 315 high schools. Consistent with authoritative school climate 

theory, moderation analyses found that when students perceive their teachers as supportive, high 

academic expectations are associated with lower dropout rates. Notably, these analyses controlled for 

school demographics of school enrollment size, percentage of low-income students, percentage of 

minority students, and urbanicity. 

Authoritative School Climate and Racial/Ethnic Background. All of the published studies

included racial/ethnic variables in their analyses as student- or school-level measures. These analyses 

generally demonstrated that the primary findings of the study were not confounded by race/ethnicity and 

removed the variance attributable to either individual student race/ethnicity or the racial/ethnic 

composition of the school. At the individual level, students were classified by two self-report questions.

The first question asked whether the student was Hispanic/Latino and the second question asked the 

student to select his or her race as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African-American, 

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, or two or more races. In most analyses, these questions were 

combined to classify students in Black, Hispanic, White, and other groups, because there were too few 

students in the other groups to conduct meaningful comparisons. At the school level, the analyses could 

use schoolwide enrollment data to calculate the percentage of minority/non-white students in the school 

or provide a breakdown of racial/ethnic groups. 

A critical issue in developing a school climate measure is whether the instrument functions 

equally well across racial/ethnic groups. Similarly, it is essential to assess whether findings that support 

authoritative school climate theory are consistent across racial/ethnic groups. To investigate these issues 

directly, a study tested first, whether Black, Hispanic, and White students attending the same schools had 

similar perceptions of school climate and second, whether the associations between school climate and 

two important outcomes, student engagement and peer aggression, were similar across those racial/ethnic 

groups (Konold, Cornell, Shukla, & Huang, 2016). These analyses were carried out in a sample of 48,027 

students in grades 9–12 (51.4% female; 17.9% Black, 10.5%, Hispanic, 56.7% White, and 14.9% other) 

attending 323 high schools. Regression models contrasted racial/ethnic groups while controlling for the 

nesting of students within schools and using student covariates of parent education, student gender, and 

percentage of schoolmates sharing the same race/ethnicity. In addition, the model controlled for school 

covariates of school size and percentage of students eligible for FRPM. There were no statistically 

significant differences between White and Hispanic students in their perceptions of school climate, but 

Black students reported less favorable perceptions of school climate than White students. Despite these 

differences, race/ethnicity did not moderate the associations between school climate and either

engagement or peer aggression. These results indicate comparable criterion validity for the authoritative 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 37

school climate survey across Black, Hispanic, and White groups for student engagement and peer 

aggression. 

A study by Heilbrun, Cornell, and Konold (under review) examined the association between 

teacher and student perceptions of school climate and suspension rates for Black and White students in 

369 middle schools. This study used schoolwide suspension rates obtained from VDOE records. In these 

schools the mean suspension rate was 6.9% for White students and 14.2% for Black students. Hierarchical 

regression analyses were conducted on overall suspension rates, White suspension rates, and Black 

suspension rates. The first block of analyses entered school size and percentage of low-income students in 

each school, followed by teacher perceptions of disciplinary structure and student support in the second 

block and then student perceptions of disciplinary structure and student support in the third block. 

Schools with high levels of student- and teacher-reported structure had lower overall suspension rates and 

a lower gap between Black and White suspension rates.

Finally, a study (Huang & Cornell, in press) investigated possible reasons for the high suspension 

rate for Black students compared to White students. The differential involvement hypothesis suggests that 

disproportionate sanctioning may be a function of racial differences in student misbehavior or 

characteristics that predispose them to misbehavior. To test this hypothesis, our study used student selfreport of being suspended so that suspension rates could be correlated with other student characteristics. 

A series of school fixed-effect logistic and linear regression models found that racial differences in selfreported suspension could not be explained by different reasons for suspension (such as fighting, 

threatening others, and substance possession), by socioeconomic status, by aggressive attitudes, or by 

involvement in high risk behaviors of fighting, bullying, carrying a weapon, consuming alcohol, or using 

marijuana. Overall, these findings do not support the differential involvement hypothesis and strengthen 

the concern that racial disparities are likely the result of differential decisions by school authorities. 

Aggressive Attitudes Scale. Three studies examined a scale used to measure the prevalence of 

aggressive attitudes among students. Students’ normative beliefs about the social desirability of 

aggressive behavior are important because they could influence levels of bullying, fighting, and other 

aggressive behaviors in schools. The first study (Huang, Cornell, & Konold, 2015) established the multilevel factor structure of the aggressive attitudes scale in a sample of 39,364 7th and 8th grade students in 

423 schools. The scale showed measurement invariance across gender, grade, and racial/ethnic groups. It 

also showed good criterion-related validity through associations with bullying, victimization, gang 

activity, disciplinary infractions for aggressive behavior, and short term-suspensions. 

A second study (Millspaugh, Cornell, Huang, & Datta, 2015) found that the prevalence of 

aggressive attitudes was associated with student willingness to seek help if a student brought a gun to 

school or talked about killing someone. These effects were observed at both student and school levels, 

suggesting that efforts to modify aggressive attitudes could be a viable strategy to increase student threat 

reporting. 

A third study (Datta, Cornell, & Huang, 2016) investigated the association between aggressive 

attitudes and student responses to a peer being bullied. As hypothesized, students were less willing to 

stand up against bullying in schools where aggressive attitudes were more common. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 38

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying. Our work prior to this project has found that asking 

students to report how much teasing and bullying they observe at school is a more useful indicator of 

school safety conditions than asking them whether they have been bullied themselves. For example, the 

prevalence of teasing and bullying is associated with school-wide discipline problems (Bandyopadhyay et 

al., 2009), student engagement in schools (Mehta et al. 2013), and high school dropout rates (Cornell et 

al., 2013). In the current project we found examined the association between the prevalence of teasing and 

bullying and schoolwide performance on state-mandated achievement testing (Lacey, Cornell, & Konold, 

2015). In a sample of 271 middle schools, this study found that both teacher and student perceptions of 

schoolwide teasing and bullying were negatively associated with the school’s passing rates on 

standardized testing. This relationship was partially mediated by student engagement. 

Positive Values Scale. A positive youth development approach maintains that school climate 

should facilitate development of prosocial values (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; 

Domino, 2013). Accordingly, one component of the project was to construct a scale to measure student 

endorsement of prosocial values consistent with Virginia’s curriculum requirement for character 

education (VDOE, no date). Using a statewide sample of 39,364 middle school students from 423 

schools, the study found support for a two-factor model of positive values on the student level and a onefactor model on the school level (Huang & Cornell, 2016b). In the two-factor model, the first factor was 

labeled personal conviction and measured the student’s endorsement of telling the truth, admitting one’s 

mistakes, and doing the right thing. The second factor was labeled concern for others and measured the 

student’s endorsement of values such as treating others with respect, helping others, and being kind to 

others. 

Measurement of Bullying. There has been much debate in the field about how bullying should 

be defined for students before they are asked to report whether they have been bullied. Our large sample 

of schools enabled us to conduct randomized experiments that systematically varied how students within 

schools were asked about bullying. In one study (Huang & Cornell, 2015a), we examined the effect of 

presenting a standard definition of bullying to students versus using no definition before asking students 

to report whether they had been bullied. This study, conducted with a sample of 17,301 students in 119 

high schools, found that use of a definition had no effect on school prevalence rates of being bullied. 

However, in the same study, the order of questions about being bullied was randomized. The study found 

that asking specific bullying-victimization questions (e.g., "I have been verbally bullied at school") prior 

to general bullying-victimization questions (e.g., "I have been bullied at school") resulted in a 29-76% 

increase in victimization-prevalence rates. These findings suggest that surveys that asked general-tospecific bullying-victimization questions, such as those found in national and international surveys, may 

be underreporting bullying victimization.

A second study in a middle school sample (5,951 students) found a similar question order effect 

(Huang & Cornell, 2016c). These studies suggest that bullying prevalence studies as well as studies 

examining the impact of anti-bullying interventions, may produce discrepant results because of seemingly 

minor differences in survey questions. 

Validity Screening. A recurrent concern in survey research is whether a small group of

adolescents could compromise survey results by intentionally answering questions in a dishonest or 

careless manner. Our previous studies demonstrated that a small percentage of adolescents will admit that 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 39

they were not truthful in answering survey questions and that their results could skew study findings 

(Cornell et al., 2012; Cornell, Lovegrove et al., 2014). In addition, some adolescents complete the survey 

so quickly that it would not have been possible for them to read and answer all of the questions. As a 

result of these findings, we incorporated validity screening items in the Authoritative School Climate 

Survey and set a minimum completion time (approximately 6 minutes, depending survey length and 

student grade level). A study by Jia, Konold, Cornell, and Huang (2016) demonstrated that a relatively 

small proportion (< 8%) of invalid respondents had a significant impact on survey estimates of the 

prevalence of risk behavior and student adjustment measures. For example, the prevalence rate for 

physical fighting increased from 8% in the valid responder group to 10% when the invalid responders 

were included, producing an inflation of 25%. Another important finding was that the inclusion of invalid 

responders in the sample affected the associations between bullying victimization (self-reports of being 

bullied) and student adjustment measures, including negative correlations with GPA and affective 

engagement in school, and positive correlations with weapon carrying, fighting, alcohol use, and 

marijuana use. 

A second validity study by Shukla and Konold (in press) introduced a new method of validity 

screening by generating a response inconsistency (RI) score for each participant for each scale (similar to 

a Cronbach’s alpha with the participant removed from the sample). RI scores can be used to identify 

participants whose response patterns are extremely discrepant because they either marked all responses in 

the same way or marked them in a highly inconsistent manner. The study showed that latent profile 

analysis can identify a small group with extreme RI profiles. This initial study will be followed by other 

studies to investigate the value of this novel and innovative approach. 

Statewide Descriptive Results - Students

Some readers may be interested in a descriptive summary of how students perceived their schools 

using the Authoritative School Climate Survey. The results in this section are statewide averages derived 

from 62,679 student surveys obtained from 320 public high schools in 2016. In order to determine norms 

that more closely approximate the state population of 9th - 12th grade students, student responses were 

weighted by the size of their school and the proportion of students in each school. These results are 

presented to give an overall description of student perceptions of school climate and safety using the most 

recent survey year (2016) as an example. Results for prior years are available in the annual technical 

reports. A sample report can be found in Appendix I.

School climate. The majority of students described positive and supportive relationships with 

their teachers and other adults at school. Students endorsed the view that most teachers (and other adults 

at school) want all students to do well (86%), care about all students (75%), and treat students with 

respect (74%). The vast majority of students (95%) reported that there was at least one teacher or other 

adult at their school who really wants them to do well and 72% said there was an adult at school they 

could talk with if they had a personal problem. 

Students held widely different views of their school climate, but the majority of students had 

favorable perceptions of their school’s rules and disciplinary procedures. Students reported that their 

school rules are fair (65%), that the punishment for breaking school rules is the same for all students 

(60%), and that students are treated fairly regardless of their race or ethnicity (76%). Most students (63%) 

agreed that students get a chance to explain when they are accused of doing something wrong. A small 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 40

but noteworthy group of students felt that adults at their school were too strict (39%) and that students 

were suspended without good reason (32%). 

Strong student engagement in school was reflected in the high percentages of students who said 

they liked school (83%), were proud to be a student at their school (81%), and felt like they belong at 

their school (76%). Students overwhelmingly endorsed the idea that getting grades is important to them 

(95%) and that they wanted to learn as much as they can (93%). When asked about their educational 

aspirations, 98% of students expected to graduate from high school. The overwhelming majority (87%) 

expected to obtain some form of post-secondary education, including two-year college (9%), four-year 

college (38%) and post-graduate studies after graduating from a four-year college (40%). 

Overall, students reported high academic expectations from their teachers. A large majority of 

students said, “teachers expect me to work hard” (96%), “teachers want me to learn a lot” (91%), and 

“expect me to attend college” (87%). A smaller proportion of students reported that teachers do not really 

care how much they learn (24%). 

Safety conditions. Most students (82%) reported that they feel safe in their school, but this 

appears to be an area for improvement. One reason why some students might not feel safe is that 36% of 

all students reported that bullying is a problem at their school and 35% reported being bullied once or 

more per week at school during the current school year. A number of students reported that another 

student stole something from them (33%), physically attacked, pushed, or hit them (18%), or threatened 

to hurt them (23%) at school. Students were asked how they reacted to the worst time that they were 

bullied or harmed at school. Only 28% of students told a teacher or another adult at school what 

happened. 

Another set of questions asked students about the prevalence of teasing and bullying in their 

school. A number of the population reported that students “get teased or put down about their sexual 

orientation” (38%), and “get teased or put down because of their race or ethnicity” (36%). Comparatively, 

larger numbers of students also agreed that students “often get teased about their clothing or physical 

appearance” (64%) and that there is “a lot of teasing about sexual topics” (52%).

Students were asked about their experience of sexual harassment at school. Many students 

reported experiencing unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, and gestures (27%) that made them feel 

uncomfortable. A smaller percentage reported sexual rumors being spread about them (17%). Students 

also reported being physically touched or cornered in an unwelcome way (13%). Finally, a group of 

students were bothered by repeatedly being asked to go out or do something they did not want to do

(16%).

A set of questions measured students’ perceptions of bullying by teachers and staff in their 

school. Many students agreed that, “Some teachers or other adults at this school say things that make 

students feel badly” (43%) or “pick on certain students” (44%). Additionally, a number of students 

reported that there are adults at their school who “make fun of other students” (31%) and “bully students” 

(23%).

Students were also asked to reflect on the prevalence of dating aggression. When students 

considered their dating partners within the past 12 months, a small proportion reported being physically 

hurt on purpose (6%) or threatened with being hurt by their partner (6%). A number of students reported 

their partner called them names and put them down (15%), tried to kiss or touch them against their will 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 41

(8%), pressured them to drink alcohol or use drugs against their will (5%), or continued harassment after 

their relationship had ended (11%). 

Student attitudes toward aggressive behavior were also assessed. Although the overwhelming 

majority of students did not endorse attitudes that support peer aggression, a substantial number agreed

that, “If someone threatens you, it is okay to hit that person” (38%) and “It feels good when I hit 

someone” (19%). A few students said that students who are bullied or teased mostly deserve it (5%), and 

bullying is sometimes fun to do (5%). When asked about gangs, 15% of students reported gangs at their 

school and only 3% said that they had considered joining a gang. 

In order to understand potential negative outcomes of school bullying and aggression, the survey 

included a standard set of questions on health-risk behavior. About 3% of students stated that they carried 

a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property in the past 30 days. A small number of students 

reported that they were in a physical fight on school property at least once (6%), and had seriously 

considered attempting suicide (15%) in the past 12 months. Some students reported drinking alcohol 

(21%) and using marijuana (13%) in the past 30 days.

Statewide Descriptive Results - Teachers and Staff

The results in this section are statewide averages from the sample of 14,619 teachers and staff in 

320 public high schools who completed the survey in 2016. All eligible teachers and staff were invited to 

participate in the survey, so no weighting procedure was used. The degree to which this sample represents 

the state population of teachers and staff cannot be determined, so some caution is warranted in 

interpreting these results. Results for other school years are found in the annual technical reports. 

School climate. The majority (70%) of teachers and staff reported that the students know rules 

for conduct, but only 35% agreed or strongly agreed that “the punishment for breaking school rules is the 

same for all students.” Teachers generally did not view rules to be as strictly enforced, as did students. 

Fewer than half (37%) said they feel that “the disciplinary practices at this school are effective” or agreed 

that, “students can get away with breaking the rules at this school pretty easily” (22%).

Teachers and staff overwhelmingly characterized the relationships of students with teachers and 

other adults in their school as supportive. The vast majority said that the teachers and other adults at their 

school want all students to do well (90%), care about all students (87%), and treat students with respect 

(80%). Teachers also agreed that students know who to go to for help if they have been treated badly by 

another student (72%) and that students are encouraged to report bullying and aggression (76%). 

Teachers and staff were asked to rate their professional relationships with colleagues at their 

school. The majority of teachers and staff reported that the teachers at this school “work well with one 

another” (69%) and with other school staff members (60%). Many teachers and staff also reported that 

“this school is a collegial environment for teachers and other school staff” (60%) and that faculty 

members “trust one another” (56%). 

In 2013, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation mandating that public schools 

establish threat assessment teams. The establishment of these teams is confirmed in the annual safety 

audit survey of school principals. The teacher and staff survey inquired whether teachers and staff are 

aware that their school uses a “formal threat assessment process to respond to student threats of violence.” 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 42

Only 51% of participants were aware that their school uses threat assessment, 3% did not think their 

school did so, and 47% responded, “I don’t know.”

Teachers described their students as highly engaged, reporting that students generally liked 

school (71%) and were proud to be at their school (60%). They were somewhat less likely to agree that 

getting grades is very important to most students (79%) or that most students at their school finish their 

homework (58%). 

Safety conditions. A large majority of teachers and staff reported that they feel physically safe at 

their school (92%) and that there is adequate safety and security at their school (80%). 

Teachers and staff were asked about the prevalence of teasing and bullying in their school. Nearly 

28% of faculty members reported that bullying is a problem at their school. Teachers and staff reported 

that students “often get teased about their clothing or physical appearance” (38%) and that there is “a lot 

of teasing about sexual topics” (32%). Teachers and staff also reported that students “get teased or put 

down because of their race or ethnicity” (23%) and “get teased or put down about their sexual 

orientation” (26%). 

Approximately 87% of teachers and staff reported that they are treated with respect by their 

students. Like students, some faculty members (23%) reported the presence of gangs at their school. 

Teachers and staff were asked about their perceptions of bullying by faculty members in their 

school. Teacher ratings were somewhat lower than student ratings for the same questions. For instance, 

“Some teachers or other adults at this school say things that make students feel badly” (26%) or “pick on 

certain students” (19%). Additionally, some teachers and staff reported that there are adults at their 

school who “make fun of other students” (17%) and “bully students” (14%). 

Teachers and staff were asked about their own experiences of aggressive behavior in their 

interactions with students, parents, and colleagues. Faculty members reported that a student engaged in 

the following actions at least once during the school year: 

● Said mean or insulting things to them (48%) 

● Stole personal property (14%) 

● Threatened to harm them (10%) 

● Physically attacked, pushed, or hit them (4%) 

● Threatened them with a weapon (1%). 

Teachers and staff reported that a parent engaged in the following actions at least once during the 

school year: 

● Said rude or insulting things to them (37%)

● Threatened to complain about them to the administration (28%)

● Threatened to harm them (2%)

Some teachers and staff also reported that a colleague said rude or insulting things to them (22%) and 

a small number (1%) reported that a colleague threatened to harm them. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 43

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There are limitations to this study in design and methodology that indicate directions for future 

research. 

Cross-sectional and Correlational Design

Large-scale surveys provide a wealth of useful data, but most of the analyses in this project were 

cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Within the framework of a cross-sectional design, it is possible to 

demonstrate the strength and consistency of correlational relationships across samples, to control for other 

potentially confounding variables, and to show similarity of findings across measures and informants. 

However, a cross-sectional design cannot establish causal effects. For example, our analyses show 

consistent evidence that a positive school climate is associated with a wide range of favorable student 

outcomes, such as higher school engagement, higher grades, and less involvement in high-risk behavior. 

However, there may be bidirectional or reciprocal causal effects between school climate and these 

outcomes. For example, students who are less engaged in school could report more negative perceptions 

of their school climate. Their behavior in school also may negatively affect school climate conditions. 

There are many more complex models that could be hypothesized. One plausible scenario might be that a 

student’s emotional difficulties lead to substance abuse, which impairs academic work and generates 

negative interactions with teachers. Negative relationships with teachers could exacerbate a student’s 

disengagement from school and lead to academic failure or dropout. 

A longitudinal design would provide stronger, albeit not conclusive, evidence of causal effects. 

Repeated assessments of schools would allow researchers to track changes over time and show how 

school climate changes are associated with student outcomes. Regression discontinuity analyses and 

cross-lagged panel models could be helpful in demonstrating the effects of school climate on student 

outcomes (as well as other effects). Longitudinal assessment of individual students would also be 

valuable, but is less feasible because surveys are anonymous. The most effective way to demonstrate 

causal effects is to undertake a randomized control trial with an intervention designed to enhance school 

climate and thereby improve student outcomes. 

Informant Self-Report

Self-report surveys have well-known limitations. Surveys are retrospective and dependent on the 

memory of participants. In addition to memory difficulties, informants may have incomplete or inaccurate 

knowledge, and their reports may be skewed by personal biases, social desirability, or other motives. 

Adolescent reporters may be especially prone to mischievous, careless, or intentionally dishonest 

reporting. This project made concerted efforts to address the limitations of self-report in several ways. 

First, surveys were aggregated at the school level, so that errors due to individual differences in 

perceptions of school climate and safety could be diminished. The aggregation of multiple perceptions of 

school conditions has the general effect of producing more reliable and valid scores. These scores were

examined for the effects of student characteristics such as gender, race, and grade level, and these effects 

were statistically controlled (e.g., see Konold et al., 2014). Second, student surveys were supplemented 

with teacher/staff surveys. We conducted a series of analyses comparing student and teacher/staff survey 

results aggregated at the school level and distinguished informant effects from trait effects on key school 

climate scales (Konold, in press; Konold & Cornell, 2015b). Third, we used validity screening to identify 

a small percentage of students who answered carelessly, too quickly, or with admitted dishonesty (Jia et 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 44

al, 2016; Shukla & Konold, in press). Finally, it should be noted that the subjectivity of student 

perceptions of school climate cannot be regarded as merely a source of error. Whether or not a student’s 

perception is objectively accurate, his/her belief that teachers are unfair or unsupportive can have an 

effect on the student’s academic performance and behavior in school. From this perspective, the student’s 

perception of school climate has validity even if it differs from some other more objective standard. 

Future studies can continue to improve the use of student self-reports along the lines identified in 

this project, including the aggregation of surveys within schools, the collection of data from other 

informants, and the development of validity screening.

Survey Anonymity

Surveys are administered on an anonymous basis in order to encourage broader participation and 

more truthful responses. However, a consequence of survey anonymity is that it is not possible to link 

survey results to non-survey data, such as student academic records and staff employment information. 

Research questions at the individual level of analysis must rely on independent and dependent variables 

drawn from the same source, and thus there is a potential for correlations to be inflated by shared method 

variance. Only research questions at an aggregate level, such as the performance of whole schools or 

demographic subgroups (e.g., racial/ethnic groups and gender differences), can be conducted without this 

limitation. 

One option for future research is to ask survey questions that allow students to create selfgenerated identification codes (Yurek, Vasey, & Havens, 2008). Identification codes have the potential to 

allow researchers to link surveys from the same student while protecting the student’s identity. This 

would permit longitudinal analyses that, as noted above, would produce stronger evidence of 

developmental changes and school climate effects. 

Another option is to use confidential rather than anonymous surveys. Students could be required 

to provide their name or a school identification number that links to their academic records. This would 

greatly facilitate research on survey validity and linkages between school climate and student outcomes 

that currently can be examined only at aggregate levels, such as the performance of whole schools or 

demographic subgroups (e.g., racial/ethnic groups and gender differences). However, use of nonanonymous surveys would almost certainly require affirmative parental permission, which requires much 

more administrative work by the schools. A requirement for affirmative parent permission would likely 

reduce participation rates and render the sample less representative. 

Survey Administration

The use of online administration has made it much more efficient and practical to collect largescale surveys. However, there are many extraneous and circumstantial factors that could affect survey 

participation and results. Many of these factors cannot be readily measured or controlled and represent 

sources of measurement error. 

One potential source of measurement error is that persons not authorized to take the survey could 

complete it if they obtained the special school password and url. Because participation is anonymous, 

participants could choose to complete the survey multiple times. There was no indication in the data or 

report from schools of these problems taking place, but the development of more secure procedures could 

be considered in future studies. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 45

Online surveys provide a convenient and standardized presentation of questions, and participants 

can be reminded when they have skipped a question. In this project, participants were required to answer 

each question on a page before moving to the next page. This requirement eliminated the problem of 

missing data in otherwise complete surveys, but there may have been some participants who abandoned 

the survey rather than continue. Incomplete surveys were not analyzed because the reasons for their 

incomplete status could not be determined. The participant could have lost Internet connection or had 

some reason to leave the survey that was unrelated to the content of the question (e.g., a fire drill). Some 

surveys may have been opened by school administrators simply to review the survey process; a question 

was included at the outset to ask whether the reader was reviewing the survey or taking the survey as a 

participant.

Schools were given instructions for supervising student administration of the survey, including a 

description of what to tell students and permission to answer questions about the survey. In a statewide 

survey involving hundreds of schools, it was not possible to supervise or monitor survey administration.

However, a future study could examine whether the classroom climate and supervision provided by the 

survey administrator has an impact on student responses. 

Some principals reported that they were reluctant to ask teachers and other staff members to 

complete the survey because they had so many other responsibilities or had already been asked to 

complete other school surveys. The way in which school administrators communicated to their staff about 

the survey could have affected their participation and attitudes toward the survey.

Teachers and staff were allowed to self-administer the survey at a time and location of their 

choice. This introduces some uncontrolled variance in survey conditions, but seemed necessary in order to 

make the survey more convenient and secure their participation. The self-administration option was not 

extended to students, but might be considered as a way to ease the burden on schools in scheduling group 

administration. However, self-administration for students could affect participation rates and it would be 

difficult for schools to verify student participation. 

Generalizability

This study was conducted entirely in public schools in the state of Virginia. Virginia is the 12th

largest state in population with approximately 8.4 million residents (Joint Legislative Audit and Review 

Commission, 2016). The state ranks 10th in per capita personal income ($50,345) and 44th in percentage of 

the population in poverty (11.5%). Virginia’s school funding ranks in the middle for per pupil funding 

(23rd in state and local funding and 39th in state funding), and average teacher salary (28th at $49,826). 

Future research could examine the generalizability of study findings to private schools and to 

schools in other states. Private schools enroll approximately 9% of all elementary and secondary school 

students in the U.S. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016a). There may be a number of 

differences between public and private schools that influence school climate. For example, the 

pupil/teacher ratio is approximately 16 in public schools compared to 12.5 in private schools. The 

majority (approximately 77%) of private schools have a religious affiliation, which promotes a shared 

values orientation (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016b). Private schools have a higher 

proportion of White students than public schools (72% versus 52%, respectively; Southern Education 

Foundation, 2016). 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 46

Limitations in Student Samples

The assessment of school climate in this study was limited to grades 7-12 and conducted in 

schools on a biannual basis. Furthermore, schools could choose to survey a random sample of 25 students 

per grade rather than all students in each grade. These limitations were based on practical decisions to 

minimize the burden on schools, but the demonstrated value of the survey process justifies a more 

comprehensive approach. Schools should assess their school climate on an annual basis (and perhaps 

more frequently when there are goals for mid-year improvement). The survey should be offered to all 

students rather than a sample and should include all grades with adequate reading level. The survey used 

with grades 7-8 could be readily extended to grade 6. Briefer and simpler surveys could be used for 

younger grades. 

School authorities were given detailed instructions for random sampling and asked to confirm in a 

follow-up survey that they adhered to the process, but there was no active monitoring to assure that all 

schools followed the procedures correctly. However, comparisons of schools with random sampling and 

whole-grade sampling produced similar participation rates and showed similar demographics and school 

climate results. 

Another limitation in the student samples is that some groups were excluded from participation. 

Students without adequate English language skills could not take the survey, and one improvement would 

be the use of a Spanish translation. Another omitted group was students with severe handicapping 

conditions that prevented them from taking the online survey. There were other reasons why students did 

not participate, such as scheduling conflicts and absence from school. The omission of students who were 

suspended or truant from school might have biased the sample toward students with more positive 

perceptions of school climate. Although schools were permitted to let absent students take the survey 

when they returned to school, there was no requirement to do so. It was judged that such requirements 

would have placed too great a burden on schools. 

Limitations in Adult Samples

The project began with the assessment of teachers, but after two years expanded to include other 

professional school staff, such as administrators, counselors, nurses, psychologists, school resource 

officers, and social workers. The participation rates for these groups have been low, despite requests for 

school principals to encourage their participation. There should be additional concerted efforts to recruit 

higher participation among these groups. In addition, the survey could be expanded to include other 

school staff members such as bus drivers, custodians, and volunteers. Research is needed to assess how 

school climate perceptions differ across staff positions and as a function of experience level, gender, and 

race/ethnicity.

Many school climate authorities recommend the use of parent surveys (Schueler et al., 2014). 

There is good reason to seek parental input and encourage their involvement, but limited evidence for the 

validity of parental perceptions of school climate, and parental participation rates tend to be low. More 

research is needed to determine how parent surveys can be used to construct a more comprehensive 

assessment of school climate and safety conditions. 

Impact of High Stakes Assessment

Assessment of school climate is becoming increasingly important in the evaluation of school 

quality. In response to the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95) states may adopt school 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 47

climate and safety as a non-academic indicator of school quality. One impact could be increased pressure 

on schools to present evidence of a positive school climate. As a result, some survey participants may be 

inclined to give overly positive evaluations of their school (and conceivably, unhappy participants may be 

motivated to give overly negative evaluations). In addition, recruitment of survey participants could 

become biased to produce more favorable reports. 

Several strategies might be considered to mitigate these potential problems. One strategy is to 

place greater weight on the consistency of reports across informants (teachers, staff, students, and perhaps 

parents) as an indicator of the integrity of findings. Second, survey reports might need corroboration with 

other sources, such as independent observers. Finally, sample selection procedures might need greater 

oversight so that stakeholders can be assured that survey participants are representative of the school and 

provide results that can be compared fairly with other schools or expected standards.

Scope of School Climate Assessment

This project used an authoritative school climate model that focused on the central role of high 

structure or demandingness (high disciplinary and academic expectations) and high responsiveness or 

support (student perceptions that teachers and other school staff are supportive and willing to help them). 

These key factors were linked to important student outcomes such as student engagement, risk behaviors, 

and academic achievement. Future work might consider other school climate characteristics. For example, 

the U.S. Department of Education devised a Safe and Supportive Schools model of school climate model 

with 13 components organized into domains of engagement, safety, and environment (Bradshaw, 

Waasdorp, Debnam, & Johnson, 2014). A longer and more comprehensive survey might include assess 

additional factors; however, a central problem for future research is to develop a clear and compelling 

conceptual model of school climate that has good construct validity. Two conceptual challenges are to 

explain the relationships among school climate characteristics and how they are related to student or 

school outcomes. As noted earlier in this report, broad definitions of school climate have the virtue of 

being comprehensive, but may risk over-inclusiveness and lose meaningfulness. Many aspects of the 

school, such as the training of its teachers, the quality of its curriculum, or the physical features of the 

school building, might affect school climate but are not a component or dimension of school climate. 

The authoritative school climate model is derived from work on authoritative parenting (Larzelere

et al., 2013), but there is no expectation that an authoritative school climate will map neatly onto concepts 

of authoritative parenting. A teacher’s relationship with students has some similarities with parental 

relationships but important differences as well. The high expectations and support that a teacher or other 

school staff member convey to a student remain in an educational context and are obviously more limited 

in time, intensity, and scope than parental expectations and support. The authoritative school climate 

model will likely continue to evolve into a more differentiated theory that has domain-specific qualities.

This project has encountered some limitations in the assessment of authoritative school climate 

that need further research and measurement development. One concern is that low scores on the scales to 

assess authoritative school discipline do not adequately measure an authoritarian approach to school 

discipline. High scores on disciplinary structure indicate that the informant views school discipline as fair 

and appropriate, but low scores do not necessarily indicate an authoritarian approach. An open question is 

how to best assess school discipline practices that are not authoritative. In school settings, authoritarian 

discipline would be regarded as excessively strict, rigid, and harsh. It might be characterized by frequent 

use of school suspension with a zero tolerance philosophy. Another aspect of school discipline that is 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 48

important to measure is the extent to which it reflects racial/ethnic or socioeconomic bias. Measures of 

these aspects of school discipline are needed. 

A second concern is that the measures of disciplinary structure and student support are highly 

correlated. In some statistical analyses it was preferable to combine the scales into a single index of 

authoritativeness. Conceptually, the two measures can be distinguished, but students might well perceive 

them as related to one another and in practice, schools which strive to be supportive of their students 

might also be less harsh in their disciplinary approach. There are both empirical and conceptual aspects of 

this problem that need further research. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 49

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

Effective schools are critical to the prevention of juvenile delinquency. Schools provide society’s 

youth with the knowledge, skills, and opportunities for healthy social development to be successful 

citizens. Students who fail in school are at high risk for dropout, delinquent behavior, and involvement in 

the criminal justice system.

School climate has emerged as an essential factor in school effectiveness. A safe, orderly, and 

supportive school climate facilitates student engagement in learning and healthy social development. 

Although educators cannot change the risk factors of poverty, stressful events, or family problems that 

affect their students, they can create a positive school climate that engages students and gives them 

opportunities to be successful. 

Research on school climate has been limited by a multitude of measures that do not clearly define 

school climate and lack strong evidence of validity as school-level measures. In order to improve their 

school climate, educators need practical and efficient tools to examine school conditions and assess the 

impact of their interventions. Researchers need reliable and valid measures to gain greater understanding

of school functioning and develop more effective educational strategies and practices. Both educators and 

researchers need a meaningful conceptual model of school climate that identifies the critical features of 

school climate, how they interact with one another, and how they influence student outcomes. This 

project aimed to equip educators and researchers with measures of school climate that meet these

assessment needs. 

The Authoritative School Climate Survey (ASCS) is an efficient way to gather information from 

students and school staff that meets high standards of reliability and validity. Developed through four 

years of statewide assessments involving more than 700 schools, 200,501 student surveys and 45,793

staff surveys, ASCS scales have demonstrated utility at both student and school levels of analysis. At the 

student level, the ASCS has been tested across grade (7-12), gender, socioeconomic, and racial-ethnic 

groups. At the school level, the ASCS has been applied in large and small schools in urban, suburban, and 

rural settings with widely varying student demographics. 

The developing theoretical model of authoritative school climate has the potential to bring greater 

clarity and coherence to school climate research. An authoritative school climate can be characterized by 

two key domains. One domain, structure (or demandingness), is the degree to which teachers and other 

school authorities have high expectations for their students. In an authoritative school climate, students 

are held to high standards for both their behavior and academic performance. Disciplinary structure refers 

to the presence of strict but fair discipline, while academic expectations refers to the idea that teachers 

want their students to excel in their studies. The second domain, support (or responsiveness), is the degree 

to which students perceive that their teachers and other school authorities respect and care for them, and 

want them to do well. As another indicator of feeling supported, students are willing to turn to their 

teachers for help or assistance. This conceptualization has the potential to guide school climate 

intervention efforts. The impact of a school climate improvement effort can be gauged by the extent to 

which it improves the structure and support of a school. 

The published studies conducted in this project have found that an authoritative school climate 

characterized by high structure and support is associated with higher student engagement and lower rates 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 50

of student aggression. These relations were found in middle and high school samples at both student and 

school levels of analysis, and using both student and teacher/staff perceptions. 

A series of studies reported that authoritative school climate is associated with lower levels of 

student aggression whether directed toward peers or teachers. Another study found that an authoritative 

school climate is also associated with lower risk behavior in high school students, including lower levels 

of student-reported alcohol and marijuana use; bullying, fighting, and weapon carrying at school; interest 

in gang membership; and suicidal thoughts and behavior. An authoritative school climate is also 

associated with positive academic outcomes. Students in schools with an authoritative school climate 

make higher grades and are less likely to drop out. 

The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, Public Law 114-95) has made it a national priority 

to measure school climate and safety as an indicator of school quality. This project has demonstrated 

strong evidence that the ASCS produces reliable and valid scores on a statewide basis as the federal law 

requires (see p. 35). There are some important next steps for the use of the ASCS or other school climate 

measures to establish state standards for school quality. Future research must address how school climate 

scores should be used for evaluation purposes. Some of the important questions are:

• Should scores be based on the perceptions of students, teachers and school staff, and/or others, 

such as parents? 

• Should school climate be reduced to a single composite score or a series of scores measuring 

different aspects of school climate and safety?

• Should scores be adjusted for differences in school demographics such as student poverty level?

• Should scores be norm or criterion referenced? 

• What scoring ranges indicate exemplary, acceptable, and deficient levels of school climate?

Finally, as school climate assessment becomes a regular practice, it will be important to examine 

how school authorities make use of school climate results. What school climate information should be 

conveyed to school authorities and how should this information be shared with stakeholders (school staff, 

students, parents, etc.)? Gaining greater awareness of school climate and safety conditions is itself an 

intervention that could have beneficial effects, but the feedback process has not been studied. Ultimately, 

the field needs the development of best practices to guide schools in making school climate assessment a 

central component of their annual school improvement process.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 51

REFERENCES

Bandyopadhyay, S., Cornell, D. G., & Konold, T. R. (2009). Validity of three school climate scales to 

assess bullying, aggressive attitudes, and help seeking. School Psychology Review, 38, 338–355.

Bear, G. G., Gaskins, C., Blank, J., & Chen, F. F. (2011). Delaware School Climate Survey—Student: Its 

factor structure, concurrent validity, and reliability. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 157-174. 

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.01.001

Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., Roziner, I., & Wrabel, S. L. (2016). Testing the causal links between 

school climate, school violence, and school academic performance: A cross-lagged panel 

autoregressive model. Educational Researcher, 45, 197-206. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16644603

Berg, J., & Cornell, D. (2016). Middle school aggression toward teachers, authoritative school climate, 

and teacher distress. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1037/spq0000132

Berkowitz, R. Moore H., Astor R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2016). A research synthesis of the associations 

between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. 

Review of Educational Research. doi: 10.3102/0034654316669821

Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data 

aggregation and analysis. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods 

in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass.

Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through 

school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a group-randomized 

effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100-115.

Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school improvement and 

reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, 

and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 570-588.

Byrne, B. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and 

programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth 

development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth 

development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 591, 98-124. doi:10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.515a

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). Youth risk behavior surveillance system. Retrieved 

from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.htm

Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. Lance & R. Vandenberg 

(Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 309-336). New York, NY: 

Routledge.

Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, 

and teacher education. The Teachers College Record, 111, 180-213.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 52

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of bullying and teasing 

predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 138-149. 

doi:10.1037/a0030416

Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (in press). Collecting and analyzing local school safety and climate data. In 

Mayer, M., & Jimerson, S. (Eds.) School safety and violence prevention: Science, practice, and 

policy driving change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (in press). Collecting and analyzing local school safety and climate data. In 

Mayer, M., & Jimerson, S. (Eds.) School safety and violence prevention: Science, practice, and 

policy driving change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high school student risk behavior: A 

cross-sectional multi-level analysis of student self-reports. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 

Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0424-3

Cornell, D., Huang, F., Konold, T., Meyer, P., Shukla, K., Lacey, A., . . . Datta, P. (2014). Technical 

Report of the Virginia Secondary School Climate Survey: 2014 Results for 9th - 12th Grade 

Students and Teachers. Charlottesville, VA: Curry School of Education, University of Virginia.

Cornell, D., Klein, J., Konold, T., & Huang, F. (2012). Effects of validity screening items on adolescent 

survey data. Psychological Assessment 24, 21-33. doi: 10.1037/a0024824

Cornell, D., Lovegrove, P., & Baly, M. (2014). Invalid survey response patterns among middle school 

students. Psychological Assessment. 26, 277-287. doi 10.1037/a0034808

Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (2015). Peer victimization and authoritative school climate: A 

multilevel multivariate approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1186-1201. doi: 

10.1037/edu0000038

Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (2016). Authoritative school climate and student academic 

engagement, grades, and aspirations in middle and high schools. AERA Open, 2, 1-18, doi: 

10.1177/2332858416633184.

Datta, P., Cornell, D. & Huang, F. (2016). The toxicity of bullying by teachers. Unpublished manuscript 

under review, University of Virginia.

Dedrick, R. F., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2011). Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis of a scale measuring 

interagency collaboration of children’s mental health agencies. Journal of Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders, 19, 27-40. doi: 10.1177/1063426610365879

Domino, M. (2013). Measuring the impact of an alternative approach to school bullying. Journal of 

School Health, 83, 430–437. doi:10.1111/josh.12047

Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J., (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis 

techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1802, codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 

6301.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 53

Fan, X., Miller, B., Christensen, M., Bayley, B., Park, K., Grotevant, H., . . . Dunbar, N. (2002). 

Questionnaire and interview inconsistencies exaggerated differences between adopted and nonadopted adolescents in a national sample. Adoption Quarterly, 6, 7-27. doi: 

10.1300/J145v06n02_02

Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K.E., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & Tai, R. H. 

(2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-report surveys. 

Field Methods, 18, 223-244. doi: 10.1177/152822X06289161

Fletcher, A., Bonell, C., & Hargreaves, J. (2008). School effects on young people’s drug use: A

systematic review of intervention and observational studies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42,

209-220.

Furlong, M., Sharkey, J. D., Bates, M. P., & Smith, D. C. (2004). An examination of the reliability, data 

screening procedures, and extreme response patterns for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance 

Survey. Journal of School Violence, 3, 109–130. doi: 10.1300/J202v03n02_07

Gage, N. A., Larson, A., Sugai, G., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). Student perceptions of school climate as 

predictors of office discipline referrals. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online 

publication. doi: 10.3102/0002831216637349. 

Geldhof, J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory 

factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72–91. doi: 10.1037/a0032138

Gill, M. G., Ashton, P., & Algina, J. (2004). Authoritative schools: A test of a model to resolve the school 

effectiveness debate. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 389-409. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.10.002

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, 

and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-507. 

Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School climate 

predictors of school disorder: Results from the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in 

Schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412-444.

Gregory, A., & Cornell, D. (2009). “Tolerating” adolescent needs: Moving beyond zero tolerance policies 

in high school. Theory into Practice, 48, 106-113. doi: 10.1080/00405840902776327

Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2011). The relationship of school structure and support to suspension 

rates for Black and White high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 

904-934. doi: 10.3102/0002831211398531

Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2012). Teacher safety and authoritative school climate in high 

schools. American Journal of Education, 118, 401-425. doi: 10.1086/666362

Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school 

discipline: High school practices associated with lower student bullying and victimization. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483-496. doi: 10.1037/a0018562
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 54

Griffith, J. (1997). Student and parent perceptions of school social environment: Are they group based? 

The Elementary School Journal, 98, 135–150. doi: 10.1086/461888

Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2014). Youth problem 

behaviors 8 years after implementing the Communities That Care prevention system: A 

community-randomized trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 122-129.

Heilbrun, A., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (under review). Authoritative school climate and suspension rates 

in middle schools: Implications for reducing the racial disparity in school discipline.

Henrich, C. C., Brookmeyer, K. A., & Shahar, G. (2005). Weapon violence in adolescence: Parent and 

school connectedness as protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 306-312.

Huang, F. & Cornell, D. (2015). The impact of definition and question order on the prevalence of bullying 

victimization using student self-reports. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1484-1493. doi:

10.1037/pas0000149

Huang, F. L., & Cornell, D. G. (2016a). Multilevel factor structure, concurrent validity, and test-retest 

reliability of the high school teacher version of the Authoritative School Climate Survey. Journal 

of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 536–549. doi: 10.1177/0734282915621439

Huang, F., & Cornell, D. G. (2016b). Using multilevel factor analysis with clustered data: Investigating 

the factor structure of the Positive Values scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 3-

14. doi: 10.1177/0734282915570278

Huang, F., & Cornell, D. (2016c). Question order affects the measurement of bullying victimization.

Educational and Psychological Measurement. 34, 3-14. doi: 10.1177/0734282915570278

Huang, F., & Cornell, D. (in press). Student attitudes and behaviors as explanations for the Black-White 

suspension gap. Children and Youth Services Review.

Huang, F., Cornell, D. G., & Konold, T. R. (2015). Aggressive attitudes in middle schools: A factor 

structure and criterion-related validity study. Assessment. doi: 10.1177/1073191114551016

Huang, F., Cornell, D., Konold, T., Meyer, P., Lacey, A., Nekvasil, E., . . . Shukla, K. (2015). Multilevel 

factor structure and concurrent validity of the teacher version of the Authoritative School Climate 

survey. Journal of School Health, 85, 843-851 doi: 10.1037/spq0000062

Huang, F., Eklund, K., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate, number of parents at home, 

and academic achievement. School Psychology Review. Advance online publication. doi: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000182

Hung, A. H., Luebbe, A. M., & Flaspohler, P. D. (2015). Measuring school climate: Factor analysis and 

relations to emotional problems, conduct problems, and victimization in middle school students. 

School Mental Health, 7, 105-119.

Jia, Y., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2015). Authoritative school climate and high school dropout rates. 

School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/spq0000139
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 55

Jia, Y., Konold, T., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). The impact of validity screening on associations 

between self-reports of bullying victimization and student outcomes. Educational and 

Psychological Measurement, 45, 2246-2259. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0424-3

Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (2016). National rankings on taxes, budgetary 

components, and other indicators. Retrieved from: 

http://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt481.pdf

Johnson, S. L. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school violence: A review of the 

literature. Journal of School Health, 79, 451-465. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00435.x

Julian, M. W. (2001). The consequences of ignoring multilevel data structures in nonhierarchical 

covariance modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 325-352. doi: 

10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_1

Kaplan, D., & Elliott, P. R. (1997). A didactic example of multilevel structural equation modeling 

applicable to the study of organizations. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary 

Journal, 4, 1-24. doi: 10.1080/10705519709540056

Kidger, J., Araya, R., Donovan, J., & Gunnell, D. (2011). The effect of school environment on the 

emotional health of adolescents: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 129, 925-949.

doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2248

Konold, T.R. (in press). A multilevel MTMM approach to estimating the influences of contextual factors 

on trait and informant based method effects in assessments of school climate. Journal of 

Psychoeducational Assessment.

Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2015). Measurement and structural relations of an Authoritative School 

Climate model: A multi-level latent variable investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 

447-461. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.001

Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2015b). Multilevel multitrait–multimethod latent analysis of structurally 

different and interchangeable raters of school climate. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1097-1109.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000098

Konold, T., Cornell, D., Huang, F., Meyer, P., Lacey, A., Nekvasil, E., . . . Shukla, K. (2014). Multi-level 

multi-informant structure of the Authoritative School Climate Survey. School Psychology 

Quarterly, 29, 238-255. doi: 10.1037/spq0000062

Konold, T., Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Huang, F. (2016). Racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of 

school climate and its association with student engagement and peer aggression. Journal of Youth 

and Adolescence. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0576-1

Konold, T.R., & Shukla, K. (2016). Estimating school climate traits across multiple informants: An 

illustration of a multi-trait multi-method validation through latent variable modeling. Educational 

Assessment. Online advanced publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2016.1271705
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 56

Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and individual 

differences in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle school students. Journal of School 

Psychology, 39, 141–159.

Lacey, A., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2015). The relations between teasing and bullying and middle 

school standardized exam performance. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 

doi:10.1177/0272431615596428

Larzelere, R. E., Morris, A. S., & Harrist, A. W. (2013). Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance 

and discipline for optimal child development. Washington, DC: American Psychological 

Association.

Lee, J. S. (2012). The effects of the teacher-student relationship and academic press on student 

engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 330-

340. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.04.006

Loukas, A., & Murphy, J. L. (2007). Middle school student perceptions of school climate: Examining 

protective functions on subsequent adjustment problems. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 293-

309.

Meade, A. W., & Bartholomew, S. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological 

Methods, 17, 437-455. doi:10.1037/a0028085

Mehta, S. B., Cornell, D., Fan, X., & Gregory, A. (2013). Bullying climate and school engagement in 

ninth-grade students. Journal of School Health, 83, 45-52. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2012.00746.x

Millspaugh, S. B., Cornell, D. G., Huang, F. L., & Datta, P. (2015). Prevalence of aggressive attitudes and 

willingness to report threats in middle school. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 2,

11-22.

Muthen, B. O. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. Journal of 

Educational Measurement, 28, 338-354. 

Muthen, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological 

Methodology, 25, 267-316. doi:10.2307/271070

National Center for Education Statistics (2016a). Public and private school comparison. Retrieved from: 

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55

National Center for Education Statistics (2016a). Public and private school comparison. Retrieved from: 

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55

National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. (2016). Table 205.30 Percentage distribution 

of students enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools, by school orientation and 

selected characteristics: Fall 2011 and fall 2013. Retrieved from:

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_205.30.asp

O’Malley, M., Voight, A., Renshaw, T. L., & Eklund, K. (2015). School climate, family structure, and 

academic achievement: A study of moderation effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 142-

157. doi:10.1037/spq0000076
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 57

Pellerin, L. A. (2005). Applying Baumrind’s parenting typology to high schools: Toward a middle-range 

theory of authoritative socialization. Social Science Research, 34, 283-303. doi: 

10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.02.003

Ramelow, D., Currie, D., & Felder-Puig, R. (2015). The assessment of school climate: Review and 

appraisal of published student-report measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 

731-743. doi: 10.1177/0734282915584852

Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological 

settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological 

Methodology, 29, 1-41. doi:10.1111/0081-1750.00059

Schagen, I., & Hutchison, D. (2003). Adding value in educational research—the marriage of data and 

analytical power. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 749-765. doi: 

10.1080/0141192032000133659

Schueler, B. E., Capotosto, L., Bahena, S., McIntyre, J., & Gehlbach, H. (2014). Measuring parent 

perceptions of school climate. Psychological Assessment, 26, 314-320.

Schweig, J. (2013). Cross-level measurement invariance in school and classroom environment surveys: 

Implications for policy and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 259-280. 

doi: 10.3102/0162373713509880

Shukla, K., & Konold, T.R. (under review). Identifying invalid respondents in self-reports through latent 

profile analysis. 

Shukla, K., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2016). Student perception profiles of school climate: Relations 

with risk behaviors and academics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 291-307. 

doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12044

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. 

Psychometrika, 74, 107-120. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0

Sirotnik, K. A. (1980). Psychometric implications of the unit-of-analysis problem (with examples from 

the measurement of organizational climate). Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 245-282. 

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1980.tb00831.x

Southern Education Foundation (2016). Race and ethnicity in a new era of public funding of private 

schools: Private school enrollment in the south and the nation. Retrieved from:

http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/be785c57-6ce7-4682-b80d04d89994a0b6/Race-and-Ethnicity-in-a-New-Era-of-Public-Funding.aspx

Streiner, D.L. (2003a). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn't 

matter. Journal of Personality Assessment 80, 217-222.

Streiner, D. L. (2003b). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal 

consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99-103. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 58

Sznitman, S. R., & Romer, D. (2014). Student drug testing and positive school climates: Testing the 

relation between two school characteristics and drug use behavior in a longitudinal study. Journal 

of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 65-73.

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate 

research. Review of Educational Research, online first version, April 19, 2013. doi; 

10.3102/0034654313483907

U.S. Census Bureau (2016). 2010 Population Finder. Available from http://www.census.gov/popfinder/

U.S. Department of Education (2013). Directory of Federal School Climate and Discipline Resources, 

Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: 

https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/3_Appendix%201_Directory%20of%20F

ederal%20School%20Climate%20and%20Discipline%20Resources.pdf

Van Horn, M. L. (2003). Assessing the unit of measurement for school climate through psychometric and 

outcome analyses of the School Climate Survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 

63, 1002-1019. doi:10.1177/0013164403251317

Virginia Department of Education (no date). Character education. Retrieved from 

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/character_ed/

Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact 

on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315-352. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-

9319-1

Wang, M. T., & Dishion, T. J. (2011). The trajectories of adolescents’ perceptions of school climate, 

deviant peer affiliation, and behavioral problems during the middle school years. Journal of 

Research on Adolescence, 22, 40-53.

Wang, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A 

longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and 

Instruction, 28, 12-23. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002

Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and 

academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633-662.

Wang, M. T., & Huguley, J. P. (2012). Parental racial socialization as a moderator of the effects of racial 

discrimination on educational success among African American adolescents. Child Development, 

83, 1716-1731.

Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness and relationships with 

aggression and victimization. Journal of School Health, 74, 293-299.

Yurek, L. A., Vasey, J., & Havens, D. S. (2008). The use of subject-generated identification codes in 

longitudinal research. Evaluation Review, 32, 435-452.

Zyphur M.J., Kaplan, S. & Christian M. S. (2008). Assumptions of cross-level measurement and

structural invariance in analysis of multilevel data: Problems and solutions. Group Dynamics 

Theory Research and Practice, 12, 127-140. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.12.2.127
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 59

APPENDICES

A. Abstracts of Publications

B. Conference Presentations

C. Student Survey

D. Teacher/Staff Survey

E. Principal Participation Survey

F. Student Statewide and Regional Results for 2016

G. Teacher/Staff Statewide and Regional Results for 2016

H. Comparisons of Valid and Invalid Survey Responders for 2016

I. Sample Survey Report

J. Dates of Survey Completion 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 60

APPENDIX A

List of grant-funded publications

1. Konold, T., Cornell, D., Huang, F., Meyer, P., Lacey, A., Nekvasil, E., Heilbrun, A., & 

Shukla, K. (2014). Multi-level multi-informant structure of the Authoritative School Climate 

Survey. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 238-255. doi: 10.1037/spq0000062

The Authoritative School Climate Survey was designed to provide schools with a brief 

assessment of 2 key characteristics of school climate—disciplinary structure and student 

support—that are hypothesized to influence 2 important school climate out- comes—student 

engagement and prevalence of teasing and bullying in school. The factor structure of these 4 

constructs was examined with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in a statewide 

sample of 39,364 students (Grades 7 and 8) attending 423 schools. Notably, the analyses 

used a multilevel structural approach to model the nesting of students in schools for purposes 

of evaluating factor structure, demonstrating convergent and concurrent validity and gauging 

the structural invariance of concurrent validity coefficients across gender. These findings 

provide schools with a core group of school climate measures guided by authoritative 

discipline theory. 

2. Huang, F., Cornell, D., Konold, T., Meyer, P., Lacey, A., Nekvasil, E., Heilbrun, A., & 

Shukla, K. (2014). Multilevel factor structure and concurrent validity of the teacher version 

of the Authoritative School Climate Survey. Journal of School Health, 85, 843-859.

School climate is well recognized as an important influence on student behavior and 

adjustment to school, but there is a need for theory-guided measures that make use of teacher 

perspectives. Authoritative school climate theory hypothesizes that a positive school climate 

is characterized by high levels of disciplinary structure and student support. A teacher 

version of the Authoritative School Climate Survey (ASCS) was administered to a statewide 

sample of 9099 7th- and 8th-grade teachers from 366 schools. The study used exploratory 

and multilevel confirmatory factor analyses (MCFA) that accounted for the nested data 

structure and allowed for the modeling of the factor structures at 2 levels. Multilevel 

confirmatory factor analyses conducted on both an exploratory (N = 4422) and a 

confirmatory sample (N = 4677) showed good support for the factor structures investigated. 

Factor correlations at 2 levels indicated that schools with greater levels of disciplinary 

structure and student support had higher student engagement, less teasing and bullying, and 

lower student aggression toward teachers. The teacher version of the ASCS can be used to 

assess 2 key domains of school climate and associated measures of student engagement and 

aggression toward peers and teachers. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 61

3. Huang, F., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2014). Aggressive attitudes in middle schools: A 

factor structure and criterion-related validity study. Assessment, 22, 497-512. 

1073191114551016

Student attitudes toward aggression have been linked to individual aggressive behavior, but 

the relationship between school-wide normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive 

behavior poses some important measurement challenges that have not been adequately 

examined. The current study investigated the factor structure, measurement invariance, and

criterion-related validity of a six-item Aggressive Attitudes scale using a large sample of 

seventh- and eighth-grade students (n = 39,364) from 423 schools. Analytic procedures 

accounted for the frequently ignored modeling problems of clustered and ordinal data to 

provide more reliable and accurate model estimates and standard errors. The resulting 

second-order factor structure of the Aggressive Attitudes scale demonstrated measurement 

invariance across gender, grade, and race/ethnicity groups. Criterion-related validity was 

supported with eight student- and school-level indices of aggressive behavior. 

4. Lacey, A., & Cornell, D. (2014). School administrator assessments of bullying and statemandated testing. Journal of School Violence. Advance online publication: doi: 

10.1080/15388220.2014.971362

Bully victimization is associated with lower academic performance for individual students; 

however, less is known about the impact of bullying on the academic performance of the 

school as a whole. This study examined how retrospective administrator reports of both the 

prevalence of teasing and bullying (PTB) and the use of evidence-based bullying prevention 

efforts might be associated with schoolwide performance on 11 state-mandated achievement 

tests. Hierarchical regression analyses conducted at the school level with 301 Virginia high 

schools found that principal reports of both PTB and bullying prevention efforts were 

associated with the proportion of students that passed achievement testing. Findings could 

not be attributed to the proportion of White students in the school, student poverty, school 

size, or urban location, which were statistically controlled.

5. Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (2015). Peer victimization and authoritative school 

climate: A multilevel approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1186-1201. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000038 

School climate is widely recognized as an important influence on peer victimization in 

schools. The purpose of this study is to examine how authoritative school climate theory 

provides a framework for conceptualizing 2 key features of school climate—disciplinary 

structure and student support—that are associated with 3 measures of peer victimization. 

Multilevel multivariate modeling in a statewide sample of 39,364 7th- and 8th-grade students 

attending 423 schools revealed meaningful associations at both the student and school levels 

of analysis. Higher disciplinary structure was associated with lower levels of prevalence of 

teasing and bullying, bullying victimization, and general victimization. Higher student 

support was associated with lower prevalence of teasing and bullying and general 

victimization. Overall, these findings add new evidence to the theory that an authoritative 

school climate is conducive to lower peer victimization.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 62

6. Huang, F., & Cornell, D. (2015). Multilevel factor structure, concurrent validity, and testretest reliability of the high school teacher version of the Authoritative School Climate 

Survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 536-549. doi: 

10.1177/0734282915621439

Although school climate has long been recognized as an important factor in the school 

improvement process, there are few psychometrically supported measures based on teacher 

perspectives. The current study replicated and extended the factor structure, concurrent 

validity, and test–retest reliability of the teacher version of the Authoritative School Climate 

Survey (ASCS) using a statewide sample of high school teachers. Multilevel confirmatory 

factor analyses based on surveys completed by 12,808 high school teachers from 302 schools 

found that factors of disciplinary structure and student support were associated to varying 

degrees with the teacher reports of the prevalence of student teasing and bullying and student 

engagement. These findings provide some empirical support for the use of the teacher 

version of the ASCS in high schools. 

7. Huang, F., & Cornell, D. (2015). Using multilevel factor analysis with clustered data: 

Investigating the factor structure of the Positive Values Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational 

Assessment, 34, 3-14. doi: 10.1177/0734282915570278

Advances in multilevel modeling techniques now make it possible to investigate the 

psychometric properties of instruments using clustered data. Factor models that overlook the 

clustering effect can lead to underestimated standard errors, incorrect parameter estimates, 

and model fit indices. In addition, factor structures may differ depending on the level of 

analysis. The current study illustrates the application of multilevel factor analytic techniques 

using a large statewide sample of middle school students (n = 39,364) from 423 schools. 

Both multilevel exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to investigate the 

factor structure of the Positive Values Scale (PVS) as part of a school climate survey. Results 

showed that for the PVS, a two-correlated factor model at Level 1 and a one-factor model at 

Level 2 best fit the data. Implications and guidance for applied researchers are discussed. 

8. Jia, Y., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2015). Authoritative school climate and high school 

dropout rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 289-303. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000139

This study tested the association between school-wide measures of an authoritative school 

climate and high school dropout rates in a statewide sample of 315 high schools. Regression 

models at the school level of analysis used teacher and student measures of disciplinary 

structure, student support, and academic expectations to predict overall high school dropout 

rates. Analyses controlled for school demographics of school enrollment size, percentage of 

low-income students, percentage of minority students, and urbanicity. Consistent with 

authoritative school climate theory, moderation anal- yses found that when students perceive

their teachers as supportive, high academic expectations are associated with lower dropout 

rates.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 63

9. Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2015). Measurement and structural relations of an Authoritative 

School Climate model: A multi-level latent variable investigation. Journal of School 

Psychology, 53, 447-461. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.001

This study tested a conceptual model of school climate in which two key elements of an 

authoritative school, structure and support variables, are associated with student engagement 

in school and lower levels of peer aggression. Multilevel multivariate structural modeling 

was conducted in a statewide sample of 48,027 students in 323 public high schools who 

completed the Authoritative School Climate Survey. As hypothesized, two measures of 

structure (Disciplinary Structure and Academic Expectations) and two measures of support 

(Respect for Students and Willingness to Seek Help) were associated with higher student 

engagement (Affective Engagement and Cognitive Engagement) and lower peer aggression 

(Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying) on both student and school levels of analysis, 

controlling for the effects of school demographics (school size, percentage of minority 

students, and percentage of low income students). These results support the extension of 

authoritative school climate model to high school and guide further research on the 

conditions for a positive school climate.

10. Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2015). Multilevel, multitrait - multimethod latent analysis of 

structurally different and interchangeable raters of school climate. Psychological Assessment, 

27, 1097-1109. doi: 10.1037/pas0000098

Informant-based systems of assessment are common platforms for measuring a variety of 

educational and psychological constructs where the use of multiple informants is considered 

best practice. In many instances, structurally different informant types (e.g., students and 

teachers) are solicited on the basis of their unique roles with the target of measurement. The 

use of multiple informants provides an opportunity to evaluate the degree to which the 

obtained ratings are influenced by the trait of focus and extraneous sources that can be 

attributed to the rater. Data from a multilevel multitrait–multimethod design in which 

students (N 35,565) and teachers (N 9,112), from 340 middle schools, responded to items 

measuring 3 dimensions of school climate were evaluated through a multilevel correlated 

trait– correlated method latent variable model. Results indicated that ratings of school 

climate obtained by students and teachers demonstrated high levels of convergent validity, 

and that school-level ratings obtained by students and teachers were equitable in the 

assessment of teasing and bullying. Student ratings of support and structure yielded 

somewhat stronger evidence of convergent validity than ratings obtained by teachers as 

revealed by their respective trait factor loadings. This was explained in part by the higher 

levels of common method effects that were observed for teachers.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 64

11. Lacey, A., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2015). The relations between teasing and bullying and 

middle school standardized exam performance. The Journal of Early Adolescence. Advance 

online publication. doi: 10.1177/0272431615596428

This study examined the relations between the schoolwide prevalence of teasing and bullying 

(PTB) and schoolwide academic performance in a sample of 271 Virginia middle schools. In 

addition, the study examined the mediating effects of student engagement. A three-step 

sequence of path models investigated associations between schoolwide PTB and statemandated Standards of Learning test pass rates, with effects examined both directly and 

indirectly through student engagement while controlling for important school-level 

characteristics. Separate models were examined for two 7th-grade and four 8th-grade tests. 

Results indicated that higher levels of both teacher and student perceptions of schoolwide 

teasing and bullying were significantly associated with lower achievement pass rates and 

student engagement. The relationship between perceptions of schoolwide teasing and 

bullying and achievement was partially mediated by student engagement. These findings 

bring new support for the need for schoolwide interventions to reduce teasing and bullying 

among middle school students. 

12. Millspaugh, S. B., Cornell, D. G., Huang, F. L., & Datta, P. (2015). Prevalence of aggressive 

attitudes and willingness to report threats in middle school. Journal of Threat Assessment and 

Management, 2, 11-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tam0000031

Violence prevention strategies such as threat assessment rely on information from students; 

however, students are often unwilling to report threats of violence to school authorities. The 

current study investigated the hypothesis that middle school students are less likely to report 

threats of violence when they perceive aggressive behavior as a source of status and 

popularity among their peers. Our statewide sample consisted of 39,364 7th and 8th graders 

who completed school climate surveys in 423 schools. Students completed a measure of 

aggressive attitudes and were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with 2 statements 

concerning threats of violence: (a) “If another student brought a gun to school, I would tell 

one of the teachers or staff at school,” and (b) “If another student talked about killing 

someone, I would tell one of the teachers or staff at school.” Multilevel logistic regression 

analyses, which controlled for student and school demographics, found that higher levels of 

aggressive attitudes at both the school and student level were associated with a lower 

likelihood of reporting threat behavior. 

13. Berg, J., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate, aggression toward teachers, and 

teacher distress in middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 122-139.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000132

Aggression toward teachers is linked to burnout and disengagement from teaching, but a 

positive school climate may reduce aggression and associated teacher distress. Using 

authoritative school climate theory, the study examined whether schools with high 

disciplinary structure and student support were associated with less aggression and less 

distress. The sample of 9,134 teachers in 389 middle schools came from the Virginia 

Secondary School Climate Survey, a statewide survey administered to all public schools with 

7th and 8th grade enrollment. The majority of teachers (75%) were female. More than half 

(53%) reported that they had more than 10 years of teaching experience; 23% reported 6 to 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 65

10 years; 24% reported 1 to 5 years. Students reported on the degree to which their schools 

were structured and supportive. Teachers reported on their experiences of aggression by 

students, their level of distress, and their feelings of safety. Staff-related infractions 

computed from Department of Education records were also used. Multilevel modeling 

revealed that teachers in authoritative schools experienced less aggression and felt safer and 

less distressed. Lower aggression by students mediated the association between more 

authoritative schools and lower dis- tress such that more structured and supportive schools 

had greater teacher safety and, in turn, less distress. The findings support the idea that more 

structured and supportive schools relate to greater safety for teachers and, in turn, less 

distress. Research limitations and implications for practice are discussed. 

14. Shukla, K., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2016). Profiles of student perceptions of school 

climate: Relations with risk behaviors and academic outcomes. American Journal of 

Community Psychology, 57, 291-307. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12044

School climate has been linked to a variety of positive student outcomes, but there may be 

important within- school differences among students in their experiences of school climate. 

This study examined within-school heterogeneity among 47,631 high school student ratings 

of their school climate through multilevel latent class modeling. Student profiles across 323 

schools were generated on the basis of multiple indicators of school climate: disciplinary 

structure, academic expectations, student willingness to seek help, respect for students, 

affective and cognitive engagement, prevalence of teasing and bullying, general 

victimization, bullying victimization, and bullying perpetration. Analyses identified four 

meaningfully different student profile types that were labeled positive climate, medium 

climate-low bullying, medium climate-high bullying, and negative climate. Contrasts among 

these profile types on external criteria revealed meaningful differences for race, grade-level, 

parent education level, educational aspirations, and frequency of risk behaviors. 

15. Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (2016). Authoritative school climate and student 

academic engagement, grades, and aspirations in middle and high schools. AERA Open, 2, 1-

18, doi: 10.1177/2332858416633184

This study tested the theory that an authoritative school climate characterized by disciplinary 

structure and student support is conducive to positive academic outcomes for middle and 

high school students. Multilevel multivariate modeling at student and school levels was 

conducted using school surveys completed by statewide samples of 39,364 students in 

Grades 7 and 8 in 423 middle schools and 48,027 students in Grades 9 through 12 in 323 

high schools. Consistent with authoritative school climate theory, both higher disciplinary 

structure and student support were associated with higher student engagement in school, 

higher course grades, and higher educational aspirations at the student level in both samples. 

At the school level, higher disciplinary structure was associated with higher engagement, and 

higher student support was associated with higher engagement and grades in both samples. 

Overall, these findings add new evidence that an authoritative school climate is conducive to 

student academic success in middle and high schools. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 66

16. Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high school student risk 

behavior. A cross-sectional multi-level analysis of student self-reports. Journal of Youth and 

Adolescence, 45, 2246-2259, doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0424-3

Many adolescents engage in risk behaviors such as substance use and aggression that 

jeopardize their healthy development. This study tested the hypothesis that an authoritative 

school climate characterized by strict but fair discipline and supportive teacher-student 

relationships is conducive to lower risk behavior for high school students. Multilevel logistic 

regression models were used to analyze cross-sectional, student-report survey data from a 

statewide sample of 47,888 students (50.6% female) in 319 high schools. The students 

included ninth (26.6%), tenth (25.5%), eleventh (24.1%) and twelfth (23.8%) grade with a 

racial/ethnic breakdown of 52.2% White, 18.0% Black, 13.1% Hispanic, 5.9% Asian, and 

10.8% reporting another or two or more race/ethnicities. Schools with an authoritative school 

climate had lower levels of student-reported alcohol and marijuana use; bullying, fighting, 

and weapon carrying at school; interest in gang membership; and suicidal thoughts and 

behavior. These results controlled for demographic variables of student gender, race, grade, 

and parent education level as well as school size, percentage of minority students, and 

percentage of low income students. Overall, these findings add new evidence that an 

authoritative school climate is associated with positive student outcomes.

17. Huang, F. & Cornell, D. (2015). The impact of definition and question order on the 

prevalence of bullying victimization using student self-reports. Psychological Assessment, 

27, 1484-1493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000149

Accurate measurement is essential to determining the prevalence of bullying and evaluating 

the effectiveness of intervention efforts. The most common measurement approach is through 

anonymous self-report surveys, but previous studies have suggested that students do not 

adhere to standard definitions of bullying and may be influenced by the order of questions 

about types of victimization. In the current study, we have presented findings from 2 

randomized experiments designed to determine (a) the impact of using or not using a 

definition of bullying and (b) asking about general versus specific types of bullying 

victimization and how the order of these questions affects victimization-prevalence rates. The 

study was conducted using a sample of 17,301 students attending 119 high schools. Findings 

indicate that the use of a definition had no impact on prevalence rates, but asking specific 

bullying-victimization questions (e.g., “I have been verbally bullied at school”) prior to 

general bullying-victimization questions (e.g., “I have been bullied at school”), resulted in a 

29–76% increase in victimization-prevalence rates. Results suggest that surveys that ask 

general-to-specific bullying-victimization questions, such as those found in national and 

international surveys, may be underreporting bullying victimization. 

18. Nekvasil, E., & Cornell, D. (2015). Student threat assessment associated with positive school 

climate in middle schools. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management 2, 98-113. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tam0000038

Authorities in law enforcement and education have recommended the use of threat 

assessment to prevent violence, but few studies have examined its usefulness in middle 

schools. This retrospective, quasi-experimental study compared middle schools that use the 

Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines (Cornell & Sheras, 2006; N = 166) to 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 67

schools that either do not use threat assessment (N = 119) or use an alternative model of 

threat assessment (school- or district-developed; N = 47). Based on school records, schools 

using the Virginia Guidelines reported lower short-term suspension rates than both groups of 

schools. According to a statewide school climate survey, schools using the guidelines also 

had fairer discipline and lower levels of student aggressive behaviors, as reported by 

students. Finally, teachers reported feeling safer in schools using the Virginia Guidelines, as 

opposed to both groups of schools. Additional analyses of school records found that the 

number of years a school used the Virginia Guidelines was associated with lower long-term 

suspension rates, student reports of fairer discipline, and lower levels of student aggressive 

behaviors. All analyses controlled for school size, minority composition, and socioeconomic 

status of the student body. These findings suggest that use of a threat assessment approach to 

violence prevention is associated with lower levels of student aggression and a more positive 

school climate.

19. Huang, F., & Cornell, D. (2015). Question order affects the measurement of bullying 

victimization. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76, 724-740, doi:

10.1177/0013164415622664

Bullying among youth is recognized as a serious student problem, especially in middle 

school. The most common approach to measuring bullying is through student self- report 

surveys that ask questions about different types of bullying victimization. Although prior 

studies have shown that question-order effects may influence participant responses, no study 

has examined these effects with middle school students. A randomized experiment (n = 5,951 

middle school students) testing the question- order effect found that changing the sequence of 

questions can result in 45% higher prevalence rates. These findings raise questions about the 

accuracy of several widely used bullying surveys. 

20. Datta, P., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Aggressive attitudes and prevalence of bullying 

bystander behaviors in middle schools. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 804-816. doi: 

10.1002/pits.21944

Separate lines of research find that proaggressive attitudes promote peer aggression and that 

bystanders play a pivotal role in deterring or facilitating bullying behavior. The current study 

hypothesized that proaggressive attitudes in middle school would deter students from 

standing up to bullying and encourage them to reinforce bullying behavior. Middle school 

students (n = 28,765) in 423 schools completed a statewide school climate survey that 

included an aggressive attitudes scale and their bystander response to a recent episode of 

bullying, which was categorized as upstanding, reinforcing, or passive. Multilevel logistic 

regressions indicated that higher aggressive attitudes were associated with less upstanding 

behavior at the school level and less upstanding behavior and more reinforcing behavior at 

the individual level, while controlling for other school and student demographic variables. 

These findings suggest that antibullying programs might address student attitudes toward 

aggression as a means of boosting positive bystander intervention. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 68

21. Jia Y., Konold R. T., Cornell D., & Huang F. (2016) The impact of validity screening on 

associations between self-reports of bullying victimization and student outcomes. 

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 0, 1-23, doi: 10.1177/0013164416671767

Self-report surveys are widely used to measure adolescent risk behavior and academic 

adjustment, with results having an impact on national policy, assessment of school quality, 

and evaluation of school interventions. However, data obtained from self-reports can be 

distorted when adolescents intentionally provide inaccurate or careless responses. The 

current study illustrates the problem of invalid respondents in a sample (N = 52,012) from 

323 high schools that responded to a statewide assessment of school climate. Two 

approaches for identifying invalid respondents were applied, and contrasts between the valid 

and invalid responses revealed differences in means, prevalence rates of student adjustment, 

and associations among reports of bullying victimization and student adjustment outcomes. 

The results lend additional support for the need to screen for invalid responders in adolescent 

samples. 

22. Konold, T., Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Huang, F. (2016). Racial/ethnic differences in 

perceptions of school climate and its association with student engagement and peer 

aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Advance online publication. doi: 

10.1007/s10964-016-0576-1

Research indicates that a positive school climate is associated with higher levels of student 

engagement and lower rates of peer aggression. However, less attention has been given to 

whether such findings are consistent across racial/ethnic groups. The current study examined 

whether Black, Hispanic, and White high school students differed in their perceptions of 

school climate, student engagement, and peer aggression as measured by the Authoritative 

School Climate survey. In addition, the study tested whether the associations between school 

climate and both student engagement and peer aggression varied as a function of racial/ethnic 

group. The sample consisted of 48,027 students in grades 9–12 (51.4 % female; 17.9 % 

Black, 10.5 % Hispanic, 56.7 % White, and 14.9 % other) attending 323 high schools. 

Regression models that contrasted racial/ethnic groups controlled for the nesting of students 

within schools and used student covariates of parent education, student gender, and 

percentage of schoolmates sharing the same race/ethnicity, as well as school covariates of 

school size and school percentage of students eligible for free- or reduced-price meals. 

Perceptions of school climate differed between Black and White groups, but not between 

Hispanic and White groups. However, race/ethnicity did not moderate the associations 

between school climate and either engagement or peer aggression. Although correlational 

and cross-sectional in nature, these results are consistent with the conclusion that a positive 

school climate holds similar benefits of promoting student engagement and reducing 

victimization experiences across Black, Hispanic, and White groups.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 69

23. Malone, M., Cornell, D., & Shukla, K. (2016). Association of grade configuration with 

school climate for 7th and 8th grade students. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online 

publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000174 

Educational authorities have questioned whether middle schools provide the best school 

climate for 7th and 8th grade students, and proposed that other grade configurations such as 

K–8th grade schools may provide a better learning environment. The purpose of this study 

was to compare 7th and 8th grade students’ perceptions of 4 key features of school climate 

(disciplinary structure, student support, student engagement, and prevalence of teasing and 

bullying) in middle schools versus elementary or high schools. Multilevel multivariate 

modeling in a statewide sample of 39,036 7th and 8th grade students attending 418 schools 

revealed that students attending middle schools had a more negative perception of school 

climate than students in schools with other grade configurations. Seventh grade students 

placed in middle schools reported lower disciplinary structure and a higher prevalence of 

teasing and bullying in comparison to those in elementary schools. Eighth grade students in 

middle schools reported poorer disciplinary structure, lower student engagement, and a 

higher prevalence of teasing and bullying compared to those in high schools. These findings 

can guide school psychologists in identifying aspects of school climate that may be 

troublesome for 7th and 8th grade students in schools with different grade configurations.

24. Huang, F., Eklund, K., & Cornell, D. (in press). Authoritative school climate, number of 

parents at home, and academic achievement. School Psychology Quarterly. Advance online 

publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000182

School climate is widely recognized as an important factor in promoting student academic 

achievement. The current study investigated the hypothesis that a demanding and supportive 

school climate, based on authoritative school climate theory, would serve as a protective 

factor for students living with one or no parents at home. Using a statewide sample of 56,508 

middle school students from 415 public schools in one state, results indicated that student 

perceptions of disciplinary structure, academic demandingness, and student support all had 

positive associations with student self-reported grade point average (GPA). In addition, 

findings showed that academic expectations and student support were more highly associated 

with GPA for students not living with any parent. Implications for policy and practice are 

discussed. 

25. Konold, T.R. (in press). A multilevel MTMM approach to estimating the influences of 

contextual factors on trait and informant based method effects in assessments of school 

climate. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.

School level contextual factors have been found to influence reports of school climate. The 

purpose of the current study was to evaluate the extent to which these associations are related 

to the school climate traits being measured or the methods (i.e., informants) used to obtain 

them. Data from a multilevel MTMM design in which structurally different and 

interchangeable students (N = 45,641) and teachers (N = 12,808), residing within 302 high 

schools, responded to items measuring four dimensions of school climate were evaluated 

through a multilevel CT - CM latent analysis that allowed for the estimation of both school 

level trait and informant based method factors. The resulting trait and method factors were 

regressed on several school level contextual variables. Results indicated that the percent of 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 70

students receiving FRPM in schools was associated with both school climate traits and 

informant based method factors, school size and the percentage of minority students in 

schools were associated with some traits, and school size was associated with student method 

effects. Findings support the use of controlling for school level contextual factors in school 

climate research. 

26. Konold, T.R., & Shukla, K. (2016). Estimating school climate traits across multiple 

informants: An illustration of a multi-trait multi-method validation through latent variable 

modeling. Educational Assessment. Online advanced publication. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2016.1271705

The use of multiple informants is common in assessments that rely on the judgments of 

others. However, ratings obtained from different informants often vary as a function of their 

perspectives and roles in relation to the target of measurement, and causes unrelated to the 

trait being measured. We illustrate the usefulness of a latent variable multilevel MTMM 

measurement model for extracting trait factors from reports of school climate obtained by 

students (N = 45,641) and teachers (N = 12,808) residing within 302 high schools. We then 

extend this framework to include assessments of linkages between the resulting trait factors 

and potential outcomes that might be used for addressing questions of substantive interest or 

providing evidence of concurrent validity. The approach is illustrated with data obtained 

from student and teacher reports of two dimensions of school climate, student engagement, 

and the prevalence of teasing and bullying in their schools.

27. Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (in press). Collecting and analyzing local school safety and climate 

data. In Mayer, M., & Jimerson, S. (Eds.) School safety and violence prevention: Science, 

practice, and policy driving change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

This chapter describes key issues in the collection and analysis of data measuring school 

safety and climate. It begins with an analysis of the multidimensional nature of school safety 

and the different sources of data used to measure it. Next, the chapter critically examines the 

concept of school climate and how authoritative school climate theory can help clarify 

research findings and guide future research. Finally, the chapter reviews the limitations of 

current psychometric standards for the assessment of school climate and safety and makes 

recommendations for improvement. 

28. Heilbrun, A., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (under review). Linkages between authoritative 

school climate and suspension rates in middle schools. 

The over-use of school suspensions has been linked to a host of negative outcomes, including 

racial disparities in discipline. School climate initiatives have shown promise in reducing 

these disparities. The present study used the Authoritative School Climate Survey—which 

measures disciplinary structure and student support as key measures of school climate—to 

investigate an association between teacher and student perceptions of school climate and 

suspension rates in a statewide sample of middle schools. Regression analyses controlling for 

school-level poverty and school size found that elements of authoritative climate, particularly 

structure, distinguish high-and-low suspending schools. Schools with high levels of studentand teacher-reported structure had lower overall suspension rates and a lower gap between 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 71

Black and White suspension rates. These findings can be used to guide school climate 

initiatives to reduce racial disparities in school discipline.

29. Huang, F. & Cornell D. (in press). Student attitudes and behaviors as explanations for the 

Black-White suspension gap. Children and Youth Services Review.

Purpose: Although studies have documented that Black students receive out-of-school 

suspensions (OSS) at much higher rates than White students, few studies have investigated 

possible explanations for this disparity. The differential involvement hypothesis suggests that 

disproportionate sanctioning may be a function of racial differences in student misbehavior 

or characteristics that predispose them to misbehavior.

Method: Suspension data, risk behaviors, and aggressive attitudes from self-report surveys 

were collected from a statewide sample of 38,398 students attending 236 racially-diverse 

high schools. A series of school fixed-effect logistic and linear regression models were used 

to test behavioral and attitudinal forms of the differential involvement hypothesis.

Results: Racial differences in self-reported suspension could not be explained by different 

behavioral reasons for suspension (such as fighting, threatening others, and substance 

possession), by involvement in high risk behaviors of fighting, bullying, carrying a weapon, 

consuming alcohol, or using marijuana, or by aggressive attitudes that lead to hostile 

behavior. Conclusions: Overall, these findings do not support the differential involvement 

hypothesis and although they do not establish the presence of bias, they strengthen concern 

that racial disparities are likely the result of differential decisions by school authorities. 

30. Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (in press). A two-step latent profile method for identifying invalid 

respondents in self-reported survey data. The Journal of Experimental Education.

Insincere respondents can have an adverse impact on the validity of substantive inferences 

arising from self-administered questionnaires (SAQs). The current study introduces a new 

method for identifying potentially invalid respondents with response patterns that are 

typically associated with a lack of cognitive engagement. The two-step procedure involves 

generating a response inconsistency (RI) score for each participant and scale on the SAQ, 

and subjecting the resulting scores to latent profile analysis to identify latent classes of 

respondents with atypical RI profiles. In contrast to other popular approaches for identifying 

invalid respondents, the proposed procedure can be applied post-data collection without built 

in validity items or other design features (e.g., recording of response time). The procedure is 

illustrated through a survey of school climate that was administered to N = 52,102 high 

school students. Results of this screening procedure revealed high levels of specificity and 

expected levels of sensitivity when contrasted with results that would be obtained through the 

use of screening items or response time. Contrasts between valid and invalid respondents 

revealed similar patterns of differences across the three screening procedures when compared 

across external measures of academics and risk behaviors. The proposed procedure is 

advocated as a supplement to other available forms of screening for invalid respondents.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 72

APPENDIX B

Conference Presentations

1. Konold, T.R., Klein, J., & Cornell, D. (2013, April). The psychometric temperature of the 

School Climate and Bullying Survey and linkages to risk behavior. American Education 

Research Association (Division D). San Francisco, CA.

2. Cornell, D. (2013, June). Bullying and school climate. Invited presentation for Bullying and 

sexual harassment: Managing both effectively in schools. Virginia Department of Education.

Charlottesville, VA.

3. Cornell, D. (2013, August). School climate and safety in Virginia schools. School and 

Campus Safety Training Forum, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. Hampton, 

VA.

4. Cornell, D. (2013, November). Threat assessment, bullying, and school climate. Workshop 

for Norfolk Public Schools. Norfolk, VA.

5. Cornell, D. (2014, February). Key characteristics of a safe and welcoming school climate. 

Keynote address for Third Annual Safe and Welcoming Schools Conference. College of 

Education, University of Georgia. Athens, GA.

6. Cornell, D. (2014, April). School climate research and student aggression. Invited 

presentation for Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety Threat Assessment 

Conference. Richmond, VA.

7. Konold, T.R., Cornell, D., Huang, F., & Shukla, K. (2014, April). Dimensions of school 

climate: A unified student and school level measurement framework. American Education 

Research Association (Division D). Philadelphia, PA.

8. Shukla, K., & Konold, T.R. (2014, April). Fondness of math and science as measured by the 

TIMMS student questionnaire: Invariance across U.S. ethnic groups. American Education 

Research Association (Division D). Philadelphia, PA. 

9. Cornell, D. (2014, April). School climate characteristics associated with lower levels of 

bullying. American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.

10. Cornell, D. (2014, May). Good schools are like good parents: Demanding, but supportive. 

Presentation for the Progressive Schools Association of Gurgaon. Delhi, India. 

11. Cornell, D. (2014, May). Virginia School Climate Survey: Findings on the Prevention of 

Bullying. Invited presentation for the Annual Virginia Prevention Conference. Richmond, 

VA. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 73

12. Berg, J., Huang, F., & Cornell, D. (2014, July). The influence of ethnicity in context on 

middle school students’ perceptions of teasing and bullying. Paper presented at the World 

Meeting of the International Association of Research on Aggression. Atlanta, GA.

13. Cornell, D. (2014, July). School climate and bullying research in the USA. International 

Congress of Applied Psychology. Paris, France. 

14. Cornell, D., Shukla, K., Konold, T., Huang, F. (2014, July). Authoritative school climate and 

peer victimization. Paper presented at the World Meeting of the International Association of 

Research on Aggression. Atlanta, GA.

15. Datta, P., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2014, July). Aggressive attitudes and prevalence of 

bullying bystander behaviors in middle schools. Poster presented at the World Meeting of the 

International Association of Research on Aggression. Atlanta, GA.

16. Millspaugh, S., Cornell, D., Datta, P., Heilbrun A., & Huang, F. (2014, July). Prevalence of 

aggressive attitudes in middle schools and student willingness to report threats of violence.

Poster presented at the 21st World Meeting of the International Society for Research on 

Aggression. Atlanta, GA.

17. Cornell, D. (2014, September). School climate data collection, reporting, and use. National 

Leadership Summit on School Discipline and Climate. U.S. Department of Education and 

Department of Justice. Washington, DC. 

18. Cornell, D. (2014, December). School climate and safety in Virginia high schools: 

Perceptions of students and teachers. Keynote presentation for Strengthening Connections 

Climate Forum. Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety. Midlothian, VA. 

19. Shukla, K., & Konold, T.R. (2015, March). Identifying non-reliable respondents in selfreports: A novel application of latent profile analysis. Curry Research Conference.

Charlottesville, VA.

20. Huang, F., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2015, April). Multilevel factor structure and 

concurrent validity of a teacher-based school climate survey. Paper presented at the 

American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL. 

21. Shukla, K., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2015, April). School climate and student engagement: 

A concurrent validity investigation through a multilevel multivariate approach. Paper 

presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL. 

22. Cornell, D., Konold, T.R., & Maeng, J. (2015, May). Statewide implementation of student 

threat assessment in Virginia public schools. Society for Prevention Research. U.S. Capital 

Building. Washington, DC.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 74

23. Cornell, D. (2015, June). School climate and bullying. Keynote address at Bullying in 

Diverse School Settings: Data Driven Approaches to Prevention and Intervention sponsored 

by Boston University. Boston, MA.

24. Cornell, D. (2015, July). School climate and safety. Presentation for School Safety Institute. 

Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety. Mechanicsville, VA.

25. Cornell, D. (2015, August). School climate and safety in Virginia schools. Keynote 

presentation for the Virginia School Safety Conference. Hampton Roads, VA.

26. Cornell, D. (2015, August). School climate and safety in Virginia secondary schools. 

Workshop for the Virginia School Safety Conference. Hampton Roads, VA.

27. Cornell, D. (2015, August). What kind of climate does your school have? Invited 

presentation for Back to school safety and security workshop. Richmond, VA. 

28. Malone, M., Cornell, D., & Shukla, K. (2015, August). Grade configuration is associated 

with school climate for 7th and 8th grade students. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of 

the American Psychological Association. Toronto, Canada.

29. Cornell, D. (2015, November). School climate and safety. Presentation for School Safety 

Institute. Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety. Richmond, VA.

30. Cornell, D. (2015, December). School climate and safety in Virginia schools. Presentation at 

the Strengthening connections conference. Richmond VA.

31. Huang, F., & Cornell, D. (2016, April). Investigating question order effects on the prevalence 

of bullying victimization of middle school students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 

the American Education Research Association. Washington, DC. 

32. Jia, Y., Konold, T.R., & Cornell, D. (2016, April). The role of informants on associations 

among school climate, dropout rates, and academic expectations. American Education 

Research Association (Division D). Washington, DC.

33. Konold, T.R., & Shukla, K. (2016, April). Multilevel multitrait-multimethod latent analysis 

of structurally different and interchangeable raters of school climate. In New Developments 

in Psychometrics, Measurement, and Assessment. American Education Research Association 

(Division D). Washington, DC.

34. Malone, M., Cornell, D., & Shukla, K. (2016, August). Grade configuration is associated 

with standardized test pass rates for 7th and 8th grade students. Poster presentation at the 

American Psychological Association annual convention. Denver, Colorado.

35. Shukla, K., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2016, August). Profiles of student perceptions of 

school climate: Relations with risk behaviors and academics. American Psychological 

Association annual convention. Denver, Colorado.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 75

36. Jia, Y., Konold, T.R., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2017). The impact of validity screening on 

associations between self-reports of bullying victimization and student outcomes. American 

Education Research Association. San Antonio, TX.

37. Konold, T.R. (2017). A Multilevel MT-MM Approach for estimating contextual influences

on informant effects. National Council for Measurement in Education (NCME). San Antonio, 

TX.

38. Konold, T.R., Shukla, K., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2017). Racial differences in perceptions 

of school climate and their associations with student outcomes. American Education 

Research Association. San Antonio, TX.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 76

APPENDIX C

Student Survey

This is a review copy, not for circulation or use. The actual survey is online with formatting for easier reading. Names of scales and 

the scoring weights in each cell are not used when the survey is administered. This survey includes core scales and some optional 

supplementary scales. Users can choose the scales that best suit their purposes.

Student Version

Instructions for students:

This survey is being given to students in grades 7-12. The questions will ask how you feel about your school and how 

students get along with one another and their teachers. We want to know your opinion in order to learn ways to improve 

your school.

Your individual answers to the survey are anonymous, which means that no one will know how you answered. Student 

answers will be summarized in a report to the school that will not include anyone's name.

It should take about 15-25 minutes to complete the survey.

What is your code number for taking this survey? Your teacher should have this number for you. Many 

students will have the same number, so you will not be identified by this number.

_______________

1. Are you a student taking this survey? 

Yes 

No (someone just looking over the survey) 

2. What is the name of your school?

Student Engagement Scale 

How do you feel about going to this school? Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

3. I like this school. 1 2 3 4

4. I am proud to be a student at this school. 1 2 3 4

5. I feel like I belong at this school. 1 2 3 4

6. I usually finish my homework. 1 2 3 4

7. I want to learn as much as I can at school. 1 2 3 4

8. Getting good grades is very important to me. 1 2 3 4

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 3-8 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 77

School Disciplinary Structure Scale

Thinking about your school, would you agree or 

disagree with the statements below? Pick the answer 

that is closest to how you feel.

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

9. The school rules are fair. 1 2 3 4

10. The punishment for breaking school rules is the 

same for all students.

1 2 3 4

11. Students at this school are only punished when 

they deserve it. 

1 2 3 4

12. Students are suspended without a good reason. 1 2 3 4

13. When students are accused of doing something 

wrong, they get a chance to explain. 

1 2 3 4

14. Students are treated fairly regardless of their 

race or ethnicity. 

1 2 3 4

15. The adults at this school are too strict. 1 2 3 4

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 9-15 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above.

Student Support Scale – Respect for Students subscale

Most teachers and other adults at this school ... Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

16. ...care about all students. 1 2 3 4

17. ...want all students to do well. 1 2 3 4

18. ...listen to what students have to say. 1 2 3 4

19. ...treat students with respect. 1 2 3 4

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 16-19 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above.

Student Support Scale – Willingness to Seek Help subscale

How much do you agree or disagree with these 

statements?

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

20. There are adults at this school I could talk with if 

I had a personal problem.

1 2 3 4

21. If I tell a teacher that someone is bullying me, 

the teacher will do something to help.

1 2 3 4

22. I am comfortable asking my teachers for help 

with my schoolwork. 

1 2 3 4

23. There is at least one teacher or other adult at this 

school who really wants me to do well. 

1 2 3 4

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 20-23 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above. A total Student Support score is obtained 

by summing the two subscales. 
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 78

Additional items not included in Support scale

How much do you agree or disagree with these 

statements?

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

24. If another student talked about killing someone, I 

would tell one of the teachers or staff at school. 1 2 3 4

25. If another student brought a gun to school, I would 

tell one of the teachers or staff at school. 1 2 3 4

26. I feel safe in this school. 1 2 3 4

*These items do not load high enough onto the Support scale but they have important content and are used on an individual basis. 

Academic Expectations scale

How much do you agree or disagree with these 

statements?

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

27. My teachers expect me to work hard. 1 2 3 4

28. My teachers really want me to learn a lot. 1 2 3 4

29. My teachers expect a lot from students. 1 2 3 4

30. My teachers do not really care how much I learn. 1 2 3 4

31. My teachers expect me to attend college. 1 2 3 4

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 27-31 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above.

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying scale

These questions are about teasing and bullying you 

see at your school. Do not include friendly teasing 

that does not hurt anyone's feelings.

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

32. Students in this school are teased about their 

clothing or physical appearance. 

1 2 3 4

33. Students in this school are teased or put down 

because of their race or ethnicity. 

1 2 3 4

34. There is a lot of teasing about sexual topics at 

this school.

1 2 3 4

35. Bullying is a problem at this school. 1 2 3 4

36. Students in this school are teased or put down 

about their sexual orientation.

1 2 3 4

Validity screening item 1 2 3 4

37. I am telling the truth on this survey. 1 2 3 4

*The score for PTB is the sum of items 32-36 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above. Item 37 is used to screen the surveys for invalid 

responders. Students are omitted from the sample if they answer 1 or 2 to item 37.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 79

Bullying by Teachers

A teacher or other adult at school bullies a student 

by repeatedly punishing or criticizing a student 

unfairly. This goes beyond what is normal 

discipline in the school. Use this definition in 

answering the next set of questions. 

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

38. There are teachers or other adults at this school 

who bully students. 1 2 3 4

39. There are teachers or other adults at this school 

who make fun of students. 1 2 3 4

40. Some teachers or other adults at this school say 

things that make students feel badly. 1 2 3 4

41. Some teachers or other adults at this school 

pick on certain students. 1 2 3 4

*The score for Bullying by Teachers is the sum of items 38-41 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above. Research supporting this scale 

is under way.

Gang Activity 

Now, we'd like to know about gangs at your school this year. You may know these 

as street gangs, fighting gangs, crews, or something else. Gangs may use common 

names, signs, symbols, or colors. For this survey we are interested in all gangs.

Yes No I don’t 

know

42. Are there gangs at your school this year? 1 0 0

43. Have gangs been involved in fights or other violence at your school this year? 1 0 0

44. Have gangs been involved in the sale of drugs at your school this year? 1 0 0

45. Have you considered joining a gang? 1 0 0

Questions 42-44 are from School Crime Supplement to the 2013 National Crime Victimization Survey.

Aggressive Attitudes scale

Do you agree or disagree with these statements? Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

46. If someone threatens you, it is okay to hit that person. 1 2 3 4

47. It feels good when I hit someone. 1 2 3 4

48. If you fight a lot, everyone will look up to you. 1 2 3 4

49. If you are afraid to fight, you won't have many 

friends. 1 2 3 4

50. It is your own fault if you let someone bully you. 1 2 3 4

51. Bullying is sometimes fun to do. 1 2 3 4

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 46-51 using the weights 1-4 in the cells above.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 80

Victim Experiences scale

Have any of the following happened to you personally at school 

this year? This includes while you are going to or from school. 

This also includes school events like field trips, school dances, 

and sports events.

No One time More than 

once

52. A student stole my personal property. 1 2 3

53. A student physically attacked, pushed, or hit me. 1 2 3

54. A student threatened to hurt me. 1 2 3

55. A student threatened me with a weapon. 1 2 3

56. A student said mean or insulting things to me. 1 2 3

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 52-56 using the weights 1-3 in the cells above.

Bullying Experiences scale

Use this definition of bullying to answer the questions below:

• Bullying is the repeated use of one’s strength or 

popularity to injure, threaten, or embarrass another 

person on purpose.

• Bullying can be physical, verbal, or social.

• It is not bullying when two students who are about the 

same in strength or popularity have a fight or argument.

Never Once or 

twice

About 

once per 

week

More 

than once 

per week

57. I have been bullied at school this year (since school 

started last fall). 

1 2 3 4

58. I have bullied others at school this year. 1 2 3 4

Physical bullying involves repeatedly hitting, kicking, or 

shoving someone weaker on purpose. 

59. I have been physically bullied or threatened with physical 

bullying at school this year.

1 2 3 4

Verbal bullying involves repeatedly teasing, putting down, or 

insulting someone on purpose. 

60. I have been verbally bullied at school this year. 1 2 3 4

Social bullying involves getting others repeatedly to ignore or 

leave someone out on purpose. 

61. I have been socially bullied at school this year. 1 2 3 4

Cyber bullying involves using technology (cell phone, email, 

Internet, etc.) to tease or put down someone. 

62. I have been cyberbullied at school this year. 1 2 3 4

A teacher or another adult at school bullies a teacher by 

repeatedly punishing or criticizing a student unfairly. This 

goes beyond what is normal discipline in the school.

63. I have been bullied by teachers or other adults at school 

this year. 

1 2 3 4

The score for Bullying Victimization is the sum of items 57, 59, 60, 61, and 62. Research on item 63 is under way.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 81

(If answered positively to one of questions above:) You have just answered some questions about being 

teased or bullied in some way. 

64. Did you tell a teacher or another adult at school what happened?

Yes

No

65. (If answer above is yes:) One extra question: Did it help to tell the teacher or another adult at school 

what happened?

It seemed to help the situation get better.

It seemed to make the situation worse.

It made no difference.

Dating Aggression index

During the past 12 months how many times has someone 

you dated or went out with ... Never Once Twice Three times

Four 

or 

more 

times

66. ...physically hurt you on purpose?

(for example, hit, pushed, or shook you) 1 2 3 4 5

67. ...threaten to hurt you? 1 2 3 4 5

68. ...call you names or put you down? 1 2 3 4 5

69. ...try to kiss you or touch you against your will? 1 2 3 4 5

70. ...try to make you drink alcohol or use drugs? 1 2 3 4 5

71. ...continue to bother you or harass you after you 

stopped going out? 1 2 3 4 5

72. ...I have dated or gone out with someone in the past 12 

months. 1 2 3 4 5

*Research on the new Dating Aggression index is under way.

Sexual Harassment index

During the past 12 months, how often did another student... Never Once Twice Three 

times

Four or 

more 

times

73. ....make unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or 

gestures that made you feel uncomfortable. 1 2 3 4 5

74. ...spread sexual rumors about you. 1 2 3 4 5

75. ...touch, brush up against you, grab, or pull your 

clothing, or corner you in a sexual and unwelcome way. 1 2 3 4 5

76. ....bother you by repeatedly asking you to go out or do 

something with him/her that you did not want to do. 1 2 3 4 5

*Research on the new Sexual Harassment index is under way. These questions not used in grades 7-8.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 82

Demographic and School Attendance questions

These next questions are used to count how many males and females took the survey, what grades they were in, and their 

different backgrounds. These questions are necessary so that we can show that students from many different backgrounds 

took this survey.

77. Are you male or female?

Male 

Female

78. What grade level are you in?

6th (Use of this survey with 6th grade is under investigation.)

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

79. What grades did you make on your last report card?

Mostly A's

Mostly A's and B's

Mostly B's

Mostly B's and C's

Mostly C's

Mostly C's and D's

Mostly D's and F's

80. Do you receive a free or reduced-price meal at school?

Yes

No

81. How many days have you been suspended out of school this year?

0 I have not been suspended from school this year.

1 I have been suspended for one day. 

2 I have been suspended for two days.

3 I have been suspended for three days.

4 I have been suspended four days.

5 I have been suspended five or more days.

Ethnicity and Race Demographic questions

82. Does your family speak a language other than English at home?

Yes

No

83. Is your ethnic background Hispanic or Latino?

Yes

No

84. What is the best description of your race? (All students can answer this question.)

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 83

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

White

2 or more races

Educational Aspirations 

85. How far do you expect to go in school?

0 I do not expect to graduate from high school.

1 I might or might not graduate from high school.

2 I expect to graduate from high school.

3 I expect to graduate from a two-year college or technical school.

4 I expect to graduate from a four-year college.

5 I expect to complete post-graduate studies (such as a master's degree or doctoral degree) after 

graduating from a four-year college.

Parent Educational Attainment

86. How far did your mother, father, or other guardian go in school? (Pick the one who went furthest.)

0 Did not graduate from high school.

1 Graduated from high school.

2 Graduated from a two-year college or technical school.

3 Graduated from a four-year college.

4 Completed post-graduate studies (such as a master's degree or doctoral degree) after graduating from 

a four-year college.

Number of Parents in Home

87. How many of your parents live with you? Include biological parents and adoptive parents. 

2 Two parents 

1 One parent

0 No parents

88. How many of the questions on this survey did you answer truthfully?

A All of them

B All but 1 or 2 of them

C Most of them

D Some of them

E Only a few or none of them

*Students are omitted from the sample if they answer D or E to item 88.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 84

Supplementary Scales

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey questions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015)

These items were used for grades 9-12.

76. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on 

school property? 

0 days

1 day

2 or 3 days

4 or 5 days

6 or more days

77. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property?

0 times

1 time

2 or 3 times

4 or 5 times

6 or 7 times

8 or 9 times

10 or 11 times

12 or more times

78. During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide?

Yes 

No

79. During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide?

0 times

1 time

2 or 3 times

4 or 5 times

6 or more times

80. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of alcohol?

0 days

1 or 2 days

3 to 5 days

6 to 9 days

10 to 19 days

20 to 29 days

All 30 days

81. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana?

0 times

1 to 2 times

3 or 9 times

10 to 19 times

20 to 39 times

40 or more times
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 85

Positive Values scale

How important are these values to you?

Not

Important

Slightly

Important

Somewhat

Important

Definitely

Important

Highly

Important

Extremely

Important

Telling the truth, even when it is 

difficult. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Treating others with respect and being 

considerate of their feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Doing what is right, even if my friends 

disagree. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Admitting my mistakes when I do 

something wrong. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Respecting the views of people of a 

different race or culture. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Helping others who are less fortunate 

than me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Being kind to others. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Doing my part to make the world a 

better place. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Obeying the law. 1 2 3 4 5 6

*The score for this scale is the sum of all items using the cell weights. For additional information, see Huang and Cornell 

(2016b).
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 86

APPENDIX D

Teacher/Staff Survey

This is a review copy, not for circulation or use. The actual survey is online with formatting for easier reading. Names of 

scales are not used when the survey is administered. This version has been shortened from the previous version. 

Instructions for teachers:

This survey is being given statewide to teachers and other school staff in grades 6-12. The purpose of the survey is to help 

schools maintain a positive school climate that is conducive to learning. 

Teacher and staff answers will be summarized in a report to the school that will not include anyone's name. Your 

individual answers to the survey are anonymous, which means that no one will know how you answered.

The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete.

What is your code number for taking this survey? Your principal should have this number for you. Many teachers and 

staff members will have the same number, so you will not be identified by this number. The researchers for this survey are 

obligated to protect your identity and will not share individual surveys with anyone. Only group data will be reported. 

1. Are you taking this survey as part of the school safety audit or simply looking it over?

(This question for online administration only)

Yes, taking this survey for my school. 

No, just reviewing the survey.

2. What is your staff position in this school? In order to protect your anonymity, reports concerning an 

individual school will combine all staff members into a single group. Your individual answers will not be 

released to anyone. For statewide reports, however, we want to compare different school roles. 

Administrator (e.g., principal or assistant principal) 

Counselor

Nurse

Psychologist

School resource officer or security officer

Social worker

Teacher

None of above

3. What is the name of your school?
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 87

Student Engagement in School scale

How do students feel about going to this 

school? Although there will be 

differences among students, how do most 

students generally feel?

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree Agree Strongly 

Agree

4. Students generally like this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. Students are proud to be at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. Students hate going to school. (reverse 

coded) 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. Students finish their homework at this 

school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. Getting good grades is very important 

to most students here. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Most students want to learn as much 

as they can at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 4-9 using the weights 1-6 in the cells above.

School Disciplinary Structure scale

Thinking about your school, would you agree 

or disagree with the statements below? Pick the 

answer that is closest to your view.

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree Agree Strongly Agree

10. The punishment for breaking school rules is 

the same for all students. 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. Students at this school only get punished 

when they deserve it. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. Students here know the school rules for 

student conduct. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. If a student does something wrong, he or she 

will definitely be punished. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. Students can get away with breaking the 

rules at this school pretty easily. (reverse 

coded)

6 5 4 3 2 1

15. Students get suspended without good reason. 

(reverse coded) 6 5 4 3 2 1

16. Students get suspended for minor things. 

(reverse coded) 6 5 4 3 2 1

17. When students are accused of doing 

something wrong, they get a chance to 

explain.

1 2 3 4 5 6

18. The adults at this school are too strict. 

(reverse coded) 6 5 4 3 2 1

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 10-17 using the weights 1-6 in the cells above.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 88

Teacher Respect for Students subscale

Most teachers and other adults at 

this school ...

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree Agree Strongly Agree

19. ...care about all students. 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. ...want all students to do well. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21. ...listen to what students have 

to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6

22. ...treat students with respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6

*The score for this scale is the sum of items 19-22 using the weights 1-6 in the cells above.

Student Willingness to Seek Help from Teachers scale

Do you agree or disagree with the 

following statements about your school?

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree Agree Strongly Agree

23. Students know who to go to for help 

if they have been treated badly by 

another student. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

24. Students feel comfortable asking for 

help from teachers if there is a 

problem with a student. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

25. Students report it when one student 

hits another. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. Students are encouraged to report 

bullying and aggression. 1 2 3 4 5 6

27. Teachers take action to solve the 

problem when students report 

bullying. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

28. Teachers know when students are 

being picked on or being bullied. 1 2 3 4 5 6

*The score for this subscale is the sum of items 23-28 using the weights 1-6 in the cells above. The total for Student 

Support is the sum of items for both subscales, 19-28.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 89

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

These questions are about teasing and bullying you see at your 

school. Do not include friendly teasing that does not hurt 

anyone's feelings.

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

29. Students in this school are teased about their clothing or 

physical appearance. 1 2 3 4

30. Students in this school are teased or put down because of 

their race or ethnicity. 1 2 3 4

31. There is a lot of teasing about sexual topics at this school. 1 2 3 4

32. Bullying is a problem at this school. 1 2 3 4

33. Students in this school are teased or put down about their 

sexual orientation. 1 2 3 4

A teacher or other adult at school bullies a student by 

repeatedly punishing or criticizing a student unfairly. This 

goes beyond what is normal discipline in the school. Use this 

definition in answering the next set of questions. 

34. There are teachers or other adults at this school who bully 

students. 1 2 3 4

35. There are teachers or other adults at this school who make 

fun of students. 1 2 3 4

36. Some teachers or other adults at this school say things that 

make students feel badly. 1 2 3 4

37. Some teachers or other adults at this school pick on certain 

students. 1 2 3 4

*The score for Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying (PTB) is the sum of items 29-33 using the weights 1-4 in each cell. The score for 

the Bullying by Teachers scale is the sum of items 34-37 also using the weights 1-4 in each cell.

Teacher/Staff Concerns about Safety and Discipline 

How much do you agree or disagree 

with these statements? Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree Agree Strongly 

Agree

38. I am treated with respect by 

students at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

39. I feel physically safe at this 

school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

40. I feel that there is adequate safety 

and security in this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

41. The disciplinary practices at this 

school are effective. 1 2 3 4 5 6

42. Disciplinary policies are clear to 

school staff members. 1 2 3 4 5 6

*Research on these items is under way.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 90

Student Aggression toward Teachers/Staff

Have any of the following happened to you personally 

at school this year? This includes school events like 

field trips, school dances, and sports events.

No One time More than 

once

Many 

times

43. A student stole my personal property. 0 1 2 3

44. A student said mean or insulting things to me. 0 1 2 3

45. A student threatened to hurt me. 0 1 2 3

46. A student threatened me with a weapon. 0 1 2 3

47. A student physically attacked, pushed, or hit me. 0 1 2 3

*The total for this scale is the sum for items 48-52 using the cell weights.

Parent or Staff Conflict

Have any of the following happened to you personally 

at school this year? This includes school events like 

field trips, school dances, and sports events.

No One time More than 

once

Many 

times

48. A parent said rude or insulting things to me. 0 1 2 3

49. A parent threatened to complain about me to the 

administration.

0 1 2 3

50. A parent threatened to harm me. 0 1 2 3

51. A colleague said rude or insulting things to me. 0 1 2 3

52. A colleague threatened to harm me. 0 1 2 3

*The total for this scale is the sum for items 48-52 using the cell weights.

Teacher Reactions to Aggression scale

(If any of the above occurred: ) You have just answered 

some questions about being insulted, threatened, or 

harmed in some way at school. Think about the overall 

impact of these experiences. How did they affect you?

Not true A little 

true

Somewhat 

true

Definitely 

true

53. They bothered me a lot. 1 2 3 4

54. I felt frustrated. 1 2 3 4

55. I felt sad. 1 2 3 4

56. I felt angry. 1 2 3 4

57. I felt burned out about my job. 1 2 3 4

58. It made me think about whether to continue my 

work in the schools.

1 2 3 4

*The total for this scale is the sum of items 53-58 using the cell weights.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 91

Teacher /Staff Collegiality

How much do you agree or disagree 

with these statements? Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree Agree Strongly 

Agree

59. Teachers and other school staff 

work well with one another at this 

school.

1 2 3 4 5 6

60. There is a strong sense of mutual 

support among the teachers and 

other staff at this school. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

61. Teachers and other school staff 

members trust one another at this 

school. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

62. This school is a collegial 

environment for teachers and 

other school staff members.

1 2 3 4 5 6

*Research on this scale is under way. 

Demographic items

These final questions are used for demographic purposes to identify any trends associated with gender, race, and years of 

experience. Reports concerning an individual school will not include gender, race, or experience breakdowns in order to 

protect anonymity. 

63. Are you male or female?

Male

Female

64. How many years have you been working in the school as a teacher or in another professional capacity?

1-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

More than 10 years

The new government standard is to ask a separate question about Hispanic or Latino ethnic background 

because ethnic background is not the same as race. 

65. Is your ethnic background Hispanic or Latino?

Yes

No

66. What is the best description of your race? 

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

White

2 or more races 

Thank you for taking this survey.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 92

APPENDIX E

Principal Survey of Participation

The principal survey on the following pages was completed after the student and teacher surveys in order to obtain 

information about participation rates. 

Participation Survey 2016 (Some of the questions on this survey are being simplified for future use). 

1. For confirmation purposes, please write your school division and school name in the spaces below.

• School division

• School name

2. Please write your name.

3. Please enter your email address.

4. Enter the date when the first student took the survey. Use the format mm/dd/yyyy. 

5. Enter the date when the last student took the survey. Use the format mm/dd/yyyy 

6. Did you use the Whole Grade Option or the Random Sample Option to survey students?

 Whole Grade Option (invited all students in each grade)

 Random Sample Option (selected 25 students per grade)

7. For schools using the Whole Grade Option: The following questions are used to determine the student 

participation rate for your school. Keep in mind that Rows 2 + 3 must equal Row 1.

9th 

Grade

10th 

Grade

11th 

Grade

12th 

Grade

Row 1. How many students in this grade were in your school when the 

survey began? • • • •

Row 2. How many students in this grade completed the survey? (Should 

be at least 80% of Row 1) • • • •

Row 3. How many students in this grade were asked to complete the 

survey but did not complete it? (Students who declined or were absent or 

for some other reason did not complete the survey.) Note that Rows 2 + 3 

must equal Row 1.

• • • •
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 93

8. All of the remaining survey questions are on this page. For schools using the Random Sample Option: The 

following questions are used to determine the student participation rate for your school. Keep in mind that 

Rows 3 + 4 + 5 must equal Row 2.

9th 

Grade

10th 

Grade

11th 

Grade

12th 

Grade

Row 1. How many students in this grade were in your school when the 

survey began? • • • •

Row 2. How many students in this grade were asked to take the survey? 

(Could be as many as 50.) NOTE: Do not include students who were not 

eligible to begin with (e.g., because of a disability, no longer enrolled, or 

could not complete the survey in English)

• • • •

Row 3. How many students in this grade were asked to take the survey 

but were not needed to reach your school quota (typically 25) and so did 

not take the survey?

• • • •

Row 4. How many students in this grade completed the survey? (Should 

be approximately 25)? • • • •

Row 5. How many students in this grade were asked to complete the 

survey but did not complete it? (Students who declined or were absent 

or for some other reason did not complete the survey.)

• • • •

9. The following questions are used to determine the reasons why students did not participate in the 

survey. Use the student record form from the instructions materials you downloaded from the survey 

website to answer these questions. (These questions are being simplified for future use.)

9th 

Grade

10th 

Grade

11th 

Grade

12th 

Grade

Number of students in this grade who were asked to complete the survey 

but did not complete it. Just to make these instructions clear, this is the 

same number used in the final row of the question above. The numbers in 

the rows below must sum to equal this number.

• • • •

Parent declined to permit the student to participate in the survey. • • • •

Student declined to participate in the survey. • • • •

Student absent from school when the survey was administered. • • • •

Student suspended from school when the survey was administered. • • • •

Schedule conflict prevented student from completing the survey. • • • •

Student moved or transferred to another school. • • • •

Disability or handicapping condition prevented student from completing 

the survey. • • • •

Language barrier prevented student from completing the survey. • • • •

Some other reason prevented student from completing the survey. • • • •
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 94

10. If you had students who did not complete the survey for "some other reason" above, please describe here 1-2 

of the most common other reasons. Do not include any of the reasons already listed in the question above.

11. These questions are used to determine the participation rate for teachers and certain designated staff 

members in your school. In addition to all teachers, the designated staff members are all who hold one of the 

following positions (including part-time positions): school administrator (principal or assistant principal), 

school counselor, school nurse, school psychologist, school resource officer, school security officer, and 

school social worker. How many of the following positions were invited to take the survey?

Number invited to 

take the survey:

Were there any teachers 

or staff members who 

were not invited to take 

the survey? Put numbers 

below:

Administrator (such as principal or assistant principal) • •

School counselor • •

School nurse • •

School psychologist • •

School resource officer • •

School security officer • •

School social worker • •

School teacher • •

12. What other staff positions were invited to take the survey in your school?

13. If some of your teachers or designated staff members were not asked to participate in the survey, please 

explain the circumstances.

14. Please provide any positive or negative feedback you have about the survey process. Suggestions for 

improvement are welcome.

Thank you for your efforts to assure the quality of the survey process. Your school climate report will be 

made available to you online. Look for an email notification before the end of the school year.
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 95

APPENDIX F

Student Statewide and Regional Breakdown for 2016

Student Engagement and Educational Expectations

Student attachment to school

Percent Agree or Strongly Agree

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I like this school. 80% 78% 78% 86% 83% 83% 84% 63% 83%

I am proud to be a student at this 

school. 78% 75% 76% 83% 80% 81% 83% 62% 81%

I feel like I belong at this school. 72% 69% 71% 79% 74% 76% 78% 58% 76%

Academic commitment

Getting good grades is very 

important to me. 96% 96% 95% 95% 94% 95% 95% 96% 95%

I want to learn as much as I can at 

school. 92% 93% 91% 92% 91% 91% 93% 92% 93%

I usually finish my homework. 81% 78% 80% 80% 80% 80% 86% 80% 80%

Academic expectations (Teacher 

expectations)

My teachers expect me to work 

hard. 95% 96% 96% 97% 96% 96% 96% 94% 96%

My teachers really want me to learn 

a lot. 90% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 87% 91%

My teachers expect a lot from 

students. 90% 90% 90% 92% 89% 90% 90% 87% 91%

My teachers do not really care how 

much I learn. 27% 25% 25% 25% 23% 25% 22% 31% 24%

My teachers expect me to attend 

college. 86% 85% 84% 89% 82% 87% 86% 85% 87%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 96

Educational expectations

How far do you expect to go in school?

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I do not expect to graduate from high 

school. <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% 1% 1% <1%

I might or might not graduate from high 

school. 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%

I expect to graduate from high school. 10% 13% 13% 8% 13% 11% 12% 15% 11%

I expect to graduate from a two-year 

college or technical school. 9% 9% 12% 6% 13% 11% 14% 13% 9%

I expect to graduate from a four-year 

college. 39% 38% 39% 39% 39% 39% 34% 35% 38%

I expect to complete post-graduate 

studies after graduating from a four-year 

college.

40% 38% 33% 44% 33% 37% 37% 35% 40%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 97

Student Perceptions of School Discipline

Support items

Percent Agree or Strongly Agree

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Most teachers and other adults at this school...Care 

about all students. 71% 70% 74% 77% 75% 74% 77% 61% 75%

Most teachers and other adults at this school...Want 

all students to do well. 83% 83% 85% 85% 85% 84% 87% 80% 86%

Most teachers and other adults at this school...Listen 

to what students have to say. 58% 57% 60% 66% 61% 63% 67% 49% 62%

Most teachers and other adults at this school...Treat 

students with respect. 69% 69% 71% 77% 72% 74% 74% 60% 74%

I am comfortable asking my teachers for help with 

my schoolwork. 81% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 84% 81% 84%

There are adults at this school I could talk with if I 

had a personal problem. 70% 71% 72% 71% 72% 74% 79% 70% 72%

There is at least one teacher or other adult at this 

school who really wants me to do well. 94% 95% 95% 94% 95% 95% 96% 95% 95%

If I tell a teacher that someone is bullying me, the 

teacher will do something to help. 78% 77% 78% 84% 80% 79% 79% 70% 81%

If another student brought a gun to school, I would 

tell one of the teachers or staff at school. 85% 84% 87% 91% 89% 91% 92% 80% 88%

If another student talked about killing someone, I 

would tell one of the teachers or staff at school. 78% 77% 79% 83% 82% 83% 85% 73% 81%

Disciplinary structure items

The school rules are fair. 57% 57% 59% 73% 63% 62% 63% 42% 65%

The punishment for breaking school rules is the same 

for all students. 55% 55% 54% 67% 53% 54% 51% 43% 60%

Students are treated fairly regardless of their race or 

ethnicity. 73% 73% 73% 77% 75% 80% 81% 60% 76%

When students are accused of doing something 

wrong, they get a chance to explain. 56% 56% 61% 67% 64% 64% 71% 52% 63%

The adults at this school are too strict. 44% 43% 39% 38% 36% 36% 33% 49% 39%

Students are suspended without a good reason. 36% 36% 56% 28% 32% 31% 29% 43% 32%

Students at this school are only punished when they 

deserve it. 56% 56% 56% 66% 58% 59% 62% 48% 61%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 98

Student Responses to Aggression and Attitudes towards Aggressive Behavior

You have just answered some 

questions about being teased or bullied 

in some way. Did you tell a teacher or 

another adult at school what 

happened?

Percent True or “Yes”

Region

State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Did you tell a teacher or another adult at 

school what happened? 27% 28% 28% 27% 28% 28% 33% 33% 28%

Did it help to tell the teacher or 

another adult at school what 

happened?

It seemed to help the situation get better. 60% 59% 57% 64% 57% 59% 63% 51% 62%

It seemed to make the situation worse. 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 10% 5%

It made no difference. 34% 35% 37% 31% 36% 35% 31% 38% 33%

Attitudes about aggressive behavior Percent Agree or Strongly Agree

If someone threatens you, it is okay to hit 

that person. 42% 45% 42% 37% 43% 43% 44% 54% 38%

It feels good when I hit someone. 24% 24% 23% 18% 22% 22% 21% 32% 19%

If you fight a lot, everyone will look up 

to you. 11% 12% 11% 9% 10% 9% 9% 17% 10%

If you are afraid to fight, you won’t have 

many friends. 14% 15% 14% 11% 12% 13% 12% 19% 12%

Students who are bullied or teased 

mostly deserve it. 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 9% 5%

Bullying is sometimes fun to do. 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 8% 5%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 99

Student Reports of Bullying, Aggression, and Perceived Safety

Perceived prevalence of teasing 

and bullying

Percent Agree or Strongly Agree

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Bullying is a problem at this 

school. 39% 40% 39% 29% 39% 66% 45% 56% 36%

Students in this school are teased 

about their clothing or physical 

appearance. 

67% 70% 68% 56% 65% 35% 65% 80% 64%

Students in this school are teased 

or put down because of their race 

or ethnicity.

39% 36% 36% 35% 38% 58% 34% 47% 36%

There is a lot of teasing about 

sexual topics at this school. 54% 54% 54% 48% 55% 60% 60% 61% 52%

Students in this school are teased 

or put down about their sexual 

orientation. 

42% 41% 39% 32% 44% 43% 50% 52% 38%

Personal experiences of 

bullying Percent reporting once or more per week

I have been bullied at school this 

year. 

7% 6% 8% 5% 7% 7% 8% 8% 6%

I have bullied others at school 

this year. 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 2%

I have been physically bullied or 

threatened with physical bullying 

at school this year. 

2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 2%

I have been verbally bullied at 

school this year. 9% 9% 10% 8% 10% 10% 11% 12% 8%

I have been socially bullied at 

school this year. 7% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 8% 9% 6%

I have been cyberbullied at 

school this year. 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 3%

I have been bullied by teachers 

or other adults at school this 

year.

5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6% 4%

Feeling safe at school Percent Agree or Strongly Agree

I feel safe in my school. 80% 74% 79% 86% 83% 81% 82% 64% 82%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 100

Student experience of teacher 

bullying

Percent Agree or Strongly Agree

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

There are teachers or other adults 

at this school who bully students. 25% 25% 24% 24% 24% 25% 23% 31% 23%

There are teachers or other adults 

at this school who make fun of 

students.

33% 34% 32% 32% 30% 32% 29% 38% 31%

Some teachers or other adults at 

this school say things that make 

students feel badly.

44% 45% 43% 43% 44% 43% 40% 49% 43%

Some teachers or other adults at 

this school pick on certain 

students.

45% 45% 44% 44% 43% 42% 42% 47% 44%

Peer aggression (at school this 

year)

Percent reporting at least one time

A student stole my personal 

property. 32% 34% 34% 33% 32% 34% 31% 44% 33%

A student physically attacked, 

pushed, or hit me. 19% 19% 18% 17% 18% 19% 19% 24% 18%

A student threatened to hurt me. 24% 24% 26% 19% 25% 26% 28% 30% 23%

A student threatened me with a 

weapon. 

6% 7% 8% 5% 6% 7% 7% 9% 6%

A student said mean or insulting 

things to me. 50% 49% 52% 50% 54% 53% 54% 52% 51%

Gangs at school Percent reporting “Yes”

Are there gangs at your school 

this year? 19% 20% 13% 13% 14% 12% 8% 18% 15%

Have gangs been involved in 

fights or other violence at your 

school this year? 

15% 14% 8% 8% 12% 8% 5% 12% 11%

Have gangs been involved in the 

sale of drugs at your school this 

year? 

16% 14% 11% 13% 12% 11% 8% 16% 12%

Have you considered joining a 

gang? 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 3%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 101

Sexual Aggression and Harassment

During the past 12 months how 

many times did someone you 

dated or went out with ...

Percent Reporting One Time or More than Once

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

...physically hurt you on 

purpose? 7% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 7% 9% 6%

...threaten to hurt you? 7% 7% 7% 5% 7% 7% 8% 10% 6%

 ...called you names or put you 

down? 16% 16% 17% 12% 17% 17% 20% 20% 15%

 ...tried to kiss you or touch you 

against your will? 9% 8% 9% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 8%

 ...tried to make you drink 

alcohol or use drugs? 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 7% 5%

 ...continued to bother you or 

harass you after you stopped 

going out?

12% 12% 11% 8% 11% 11% 14% 14% 11%

I have dated or gone out with 

someone in the past 12 months. 51% 54% 56% 42% 56% 55% 62% 60% 51%

During the past 12 months, how 

often did another student ...

... make unwelcome sexual 

comments, jokes, or gestures that 

made you feel uncomfortable?

27% 27% 27% 26% 28% 28% 28% 27% 27%

... spread sexual rumors about 

you? 17% 17% 21% 14% 19% 20% 23% 23% 17%

... touch, brush up against you, 

grab or pull your clothing, or 

corner you in a sexual and 

unwelcome way?

14% 15% 14% 12% 12% 13% 13% 16% 13%

... bother you by repeatedly 

asking you to go out or do 

something with him/her that you 

did not want to do?

17% 18% 17% 14% 16% 16% 18% 21% 16%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 102

Disciplinary Experiences and Youth Risk Behaviors

Have you been suspended from school 

this year? Percentage

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I have not been suspended from school 

this year. 94% 93% 94% 97% 95% 94% 95% 88% 94%

I have been suspended for one day. 1% 2% 1% <1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1%

I have been suspended for two days. <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 2% 1%

I have been suspended for three days. <1% 2% 1% <1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1%

I have been suspended for four days. <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

I have been suspended for five or more 

days. 3% 3% 2% <1% 2% 2% 1% 4% 2%

Risk Behavior Percent Once or More

During the past 30 days, on how many 

days did you carry a weapon such as a 

gun, knife, or club on school property?

3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 6% 7% 6% 3%

During the past 12 months, how many 

times were you in a physical fight on 

school property?

7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 7% 8% 11% 6%

Percent Yes

During the past 12 months, did you ever 

seriously consider attempting suicide? 15% 16% 17% 15% 15% 16% 16% 18% 15%

Percent Once or More

During the past 12 months, how many 

times did you actually attempt suicide? 7% 8% 8% 6% 7% 7% 7% 10% 6%

During the past 30 days, on how many 

days did you have at least one drink of 

alcohol?

20% 21% 24% 19% 25% 26% 21% 26% 21%

During the past 30 days, how many times 

did you use marijuana? 13% 15% 14% 11% 13% 15% 10% 17% 13%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 103

Demographic Information for Student Participants 

Demographics Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 State

Number of schools 42 57 25 79 35 30 39 13 320

Number of student participants 12,643 10,199 4,087 15,575 7,287 6,528 4,405 1,955 62,679

9th grade 3,337 2,751 1,182 4,383 1,971 1,680 1,278 501 17,083

10th grade 3,372 2,516 1,110 4,081 1,882 1,863 1,074 518 16,416

11th grade 3,171 2,672 878 3,891 1,844 1,485 1,043 484 15,468

12th grade 2,763 2,260 917 3,220 1,590 1,500 1,010 452 13,712

Percentage male 49% 48% 48% 50% 49% 49% 47% 46% 49%

Percentage Hispanic or Latino 10% 11% 11% 20% 8% 7% 6% 8% 14%

What is the best description of 

your race?

American Indian or Alaska Native 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%

Asian 4% 4% 2% 15% 2% 3% <1% 1% 7%

Black or African American 28% 33% 18% 10% 12% 11% 2% 35% 20%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific 

Islander <1% 1% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1%

White 51% 43% 60% 52% 71% 73% 87% 46% 53%

2 or more races 15% 19% 17% 20% 13% 11% 7% 16% 18%

Percentage speak another 

language at home

Percentage 19% 19% 16% 42% 16% 14% 10% 17% 27%

How far did your mother, 

father, or other guardian go in 

school?

Did not graduate high school. 6% 6% 9% 9% 8% 6% 8% 12% 8%

Graduated from high school. 25% 28% 34% 20% 30% 27% 36% 39% 26%

Graduated from a two-year 

college or technical school. 14% 18% 17% 9% 15% 16% 19% 19% 14%

Graduated from a 4-year college. 30% 26% 24% 28% 25% 26% 22% 18% 26%

Completed post-graduate studies 25% 21% 17% 35% 22% 25% 15% 12% 26%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 104

Number of Biological or 

Adoptive Parents in the Home

Percentage

Region

State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Two parents. 67% 63% 68% 76% 69% 69% 68% 57% 69%

One parent. 31% 35% 30% 22% 28% 28% 27% 38% 29%

No parents. 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 2%

Free/Reduced Price Meal Percent Yes

Do you receive a free or reducedprice meal at school? 27% 34% 32% 24% 29% 29% 41% 51% 31%

What grades did you make on 

your last report card? Percentage

Mostly A’s 19% 17% 18% 24% 23% 24% 27% 18% 21%

Mostly A’s and B’s 42% 40% 41% 42% 40% 42% 43% 41% 41%

Mostly B’s 7% 8% 6% 8% 6% 6% 5% 6% 7%

Mostly B’s and C’s 21% 23% 21% 16% 19% 18% 15% 23% 19%

Mostly C’s 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4%

Mostly C’s and D’s 5% 6% 6% 4% 6% 5% 5% 7% 5%

Mostly D’s and F’s 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 105

APPENDIX G

Teacher/Staff Statewide and Regional Breakdown for 2016

Teacher Perceptions of Student Engagement

How do students feel about 

going to this school?

Percent Somewhat Agree, Agree, or Strongly Agree

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Students generally like this 

school. 91% 91% 88% 95% 92% 91% 94% 81% 92%

Students are proud to be at this 

school. 87% 87% 87% 92% 86% 86% 92% 75% 88%

Students finish their 

homework at this school. 59% 52% 59% 61% 52% 56% 68% 51% 58%

Students hate going to this 

school. 23% 21% 25% 17% 23% 26% 25% 32% 21%

Getting good grades is very 

important to most students 

here. 

78% 74% 77% 84% 74% 74% 82% 68% 79%

Most students want to learn as 

much as they can at this 

school.

72% 68% 69% 75% 65% 68% 76% 60% 71%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 106

Teacher Perceptions of School Discipline

School Disciplinary 

Structure

Percent Somewhat Agree, Agree, or Strongly Agree

Region State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The punishment for breaking 

school rules is the same for all 

students.

54% 51% 52% 56% 52% 56% 63% 53% 55%

Students at this school are only 

punished when they deserve it. 76% 75% 78% 79% 77% 78% 89% 79% 78%

Students know the school rules 

for student conduct. 87% 88% 87% 88% 86% 88% 94% 91% 88%

If a student does something 

wrong, he or she will 

definitely be punished.

50% 48% 50% 48% 46% 53% 72% 54% 50%

Students can get away with 

breaking the rules at this 

school pretty easily.

50% 48% 46% 50% 52% 47% 32% 48% 48%

Students are suspended 

without a good reason. 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 6% 6% 8% 95%

The adults at this school are 

too strict. 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 6% 4%

When students are accused of 

doing something wrong, they 

get a chance to explain.

96% 96% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96%

Students are suspended for 

minor things. 6% 8% 10% 5% 6% 6% 6% 8% 6%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 107

Student Willingness to Seek Help

Student willingness to seek 

help from teachers

Percent Somewhat Agree, Agree, or Strongly Agree

Region State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Students know whom to go to 

for help if they have been 

treated badly by another 

student.

95% 95% 94% 95% 95% 95% 97% 96% 95%

Students feel comfortable 

asking for help from teachers 

if there is a problem with a 

student.

90% 89% 87% 90% 88% 89% 94% 85% 90%

Students report it when one 

student hits another. 69% 66% 66% 73% 67% 71% 80% 56% 70%

Students are encouraged to 

report bullying and aggression. 94% 93% 91% 95% 94% 92% 97% 91% 94%

Teachers/staff take action to 

solve the problem when 

students report bullying.

94% 94% 94% 94% 92% 92% 98% 93% 94%

Teachers/staff know when 

students are being picked on or 

being bullied.

77% 75% 73% 75% 70% 74% 84% 73% 75%

Most teachers and other 

adults at this school...

Care about all students. 97% 96% 96% 98% 97% 98% 98% 97% 98%

Want all students to do well. 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% >99% 98% 99%

Listen to what students have to 

say.

96% 95% 93% 95% 95% 96% 98% 95% 96%

Treat students with respect. 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 98% 95% 96%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 108

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying

These are questions about 

teasing and bullying you see 

at your school. Do not 

include friendly teasing that

does not hurt anyone’s 

feelings.

Percent Somewhat Agree, Agree, or Strongly Agree

Region

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Students in this school are 

teased about their clothing or 

physical appearance.

41% 41% 40% 32% 46% 41% 38% 52% 38%

Students in this school are 

teased or put down because of 

their race or ethnicity.

23% 20% 25% 23% 30% 27% 18% 26% 23%

There is a lot of teasing about 

sexual topics at this school. 34% 31% 35% 29% 37% 35% 32% 40% 32%

Bullying is a problem at this 

school. 30% 27% 28% 25% 36% 31% 24% 43% 28%

Students here get teased or put 

down about their perceived 

sexual orientation.

27% 24% 26% 22% 33% 31% 30% 38% 26%

Perceptions of Bullying by Teachers/Staff

A teacher or other adult at 

school bullies a student by 

repeatedly punishing or 

criticizing a student unfairly, 

going beyond what is normal 

discipline in the school.

Percent Somewhat Agree, Agree, or Strongly Agree

Region

State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

There are teachers or other 

adults at this school who bully 

students.

13% 13% 16% 15% 14% 14% 11% 14% 14%

There are teachers or other 

adults at this school who make 

fun of students.

16% 17% 20% 18% 16% 16% 12% 18% 17%

Some teachers or other adults 

at this school say things that 

make students feel badly.

25% 26% 29% 26% 29% 25% 18% 29% 26%

Some teachers or other adults 

at this school pick on certain 

students.

18% 20% 24% 19% 21% 19% 15% 22% 20%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 109

Aggression toward Teachers/Staff

Student aggression Have any of the following 

happened to you personally at school this year? 

This includes school events like field trips, school 

dances, and sports events.

Percent reporting that this has NOT happened.

Region State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A student stole or damaged my personal 

property. 84% 84% 87% 88% 86% 85% 88% 80% 86%

A student said rude or insulting things to me. 48% 49% 49% 58% 47% 47% 63% 44% 52%

A student threatened to harm me. 88% 88% 90% 94% 90% 88% 94% 85% 90%

A student threatened me with a weapon. 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

A student physically attacked, pushed, or hit 

me.

95% 95% 98% 97% 96% 97% 98% 94% 99%

Parent or staff conflict Have any of the 

following happened to you personally at school 

this year? This includes school events like field 

trips, school dances, and sports events.

A parent said rude or insulting things to me. 58% 60% 60% 65% 63% 65% 70% 63% 63%

A parent threatened to complain about me to 

the administration. 71% 68% 67% 74% 73% 73% 75% 69% 72%

A parent threatened to harm me. 98% 98% 97% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 98%

A colleague said rude or insulting things to me. 80% 78% 75% 77% 79% 81% 83% 81% 78%

A colleague threatened to harm me. 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 110

Teacher Reactions to Aggression

You have just answered some 

questions about being insulted, 

threatened, or harmed in some 

way at school. Think about the 

overall impact of these 

experiences. How did they affect 

you?

Region

State

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

They bothered me a 

lot.

Not true 34% 34% 34% 34% 31% 34% 39% 35% 34%

A little 

true 25% 26% 26% 27% 28% 26% 30% 23% 26%

Somewhat 

true 22% 20% 18% 19% 20% 20% 18% 26% 20%

Definitely 

true 19% 20% 22% 21% 20% 20% 12% 15% 20%

I felt frustrated.

Not true 22% 23% 21% 24% 18% 22% 27% 25% 23%

A little 

true 24% 24% 26% 25% 24% 24% 27% 21% 24%

Somewhat 

true 24% 21% 21% 22% 23% 22% 22% 26% 22%

Definitely 

true 30% 32% 32% 30% 34% 32% 23% 27% 31%

I felt sad.

Not true 44% 45% 44% 44% 39% 42% 49% 47% 44%

A little 

true 22% 22% 24% 23% 23% 22% 24% 19% 22%

Somewhat 

true 17% 15% 15% 16% 18% 18% 15% 20% 16%

Definitely 

true 17% 18% 18% 17% 20% 17% 12% 14% 17%

I felt angry.

Not true 34% 36% 32% 36% 31% 36% 34% 36% 35%

A little 

true 25% 25% 25% 25% 27% 24% 30% 23% 25%

Somewhat 

true 21% 18% 21% 18% 21% 20% 19% 25% 19%

Definitely 

true 20% 22% 19% 21% 21% 20% 17% 16% 21%

I felt burned out 

about my job.

Not true 37% 37% 36% 38% 34% 38% 46% 35% 37%

A little 

true 21% 21% 19% 21% 22% 20% 23% 21% 21%

Somewhat 

true 19% 18% 19% 18% 17% 18% 17% 21% 18%

Definitely 

true 24% 25% 29% 23% 27% 23% 15% 23% 24%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 111

It made me think 

about whether to 

continue teaching.

Not true 47% 46% 44% 49% 43% 49% 57% 44% 47%

A little 

true 18% 16% 18% 17% 16% 16% 18% 17% 17%

Somewhat 

true 15% 14% 15% 13% 18% 13% 12% 17% 14%

Definitely 

true 20% 24% 23% 20% 23% 22% 13% 22% 21%

Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Collegiality 

Percent Somewhat Agree, Agree, or Strongly Agree

Region State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The teachers at this school 

work well with one another. 94% 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% 94% 90% 92%

There is a strong sense of 

mutual support among the 

teachers and other staff at this 

school.

88% 83% 81% 85% 83% 84% 90% 84% 85%

Teachers and other school staff 

members trust one another at 

this school.

87% 80% 80% 84% 81% 82% 89% 83% 83%

The school is a collegial 

environment for teachers and 

other school staff members.

87% 82% 84% 85% 83% 83% 90% 82% 85%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 112

Concerns about Discipline and Safety

Concerns about discipline 

and safety

Percent Somewhat Agree, Agree, or Strongly Agree

Region State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I am treated with respect by 

students at this school. 85% 85% 86% 90% 84% 83% 93% 82% 87%

I feel physically safe at this 

school. 90% 90% 92% 94% 91% 89% 97% 88% 92%

I feel that there is adequate 

safety and security in this 

school.

81% 73% 77% 82% 78% 79% 88% 75% 80%

The disciplinary practices at 

this school are effective. 63% 60% 63% 65% 54% 62% 80% 60% 63%

Disciplinary policies are clear 

to school staff members. 72% 71% 71% 70% 63% 71% 87% 76% 71%

Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Gang Activity

Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 State

Are there gangs at 

your school this 

year?

I don’t 

know 52% 48% 55% 52% 45% 39% 28% 53% 49%

No 23% 18% 27% 26% 31% 46% 69% 21% 28%

Yes 26% 34% 28% 22% 24% 15% 3% 26% 23%

Have gangs been 

involved in fights or 

other violence at 

your school this 

year?

I don’t 

know 51% 53% 53% 54% 43% 38% 22% 57% 49%

No 34% 28% 39% 38% 42% 55% 76% 34% 39%

Yes 15% 19% 8% 8% 15% 7% 1% 9% 11%

Have gangs been 

involved in the sale 

of drugs at your 

school this year?

I don’t 

know 64% 65% 63% 65% 57% 46% 31% 66% 61%

No 25% 21% 28% 26% 31% 44% 67% 22% 29%

Yes 11% 14% 10% 9% 12% 10% 2% 12% 10%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 113

Teacher/Staff Awareness of Threat Assessment

Region

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 State

Does your school use a formal threat 

assessment process to respond to 

student threats of violence?

I don’t 

know 41% 53% 43% 49% 50% 42% 34% 50% 47%

No 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 3%

Yes 57% 44% 54% 49% 46% 55% 63% 46% 51%

For your formal threat assessment 

process, does your school follow the 

guidelines developed by the 

University of Virginia, Guidelines for 

Responding to Student Threats of 

Violence?

I don’t 

know 70% 68% 76% 67% 76% 71% 65% 66% 69%

No <1% 1% <1% 1% 1% <1% 1% 2% 1%

Yes 29% 31% 24% 31% 23% 28% 33% 32% 30%

Demographic information for Teacher/Staff Participants

Demographics Region State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of schools 42 57 25 79 35 30 39 13 320

Number of teacher participants 1,940 2,179 925 4,221 1,076 778 772 359 12,250

Number of staff participants 382 416 193 857 169 197 104 51 2,369

Percentage female 68% 73% 69% 68% 65% 67% 67% 71% 69%

Percentage Hispanic or Latino 2.7% 4.4% 2.0% 4.9% 2.3% 1.8% 0.6% 1.7% 3.5%

How many years have you 

been working as a teacher or 

in another professional 

capacity in schools?

1-2 Years (%) 9% 8% 11% 9% 8% 10% 7% 12% 9%

3-5 Years (%) 13% 10% 12% 14% 12% 11% 10% 12% 12%

6-10 Years (%) 18% 17% 18% 20% 17% 17% 18% 21% 18%

More than 10 Years (%) 60% 65% 59% 58% 63% 62% 65% 56% 61%

What is the best description 

of your race?

American Indian or Alaska 

Native 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

Asian 1.2% 0.8% 0.3% 2.3% 0.4% .6% 0.3% 2.2% 1.3%

Black or African American 14.1% 17.5% 7.9% 5.1% 3.4% 5.5% 0.5% 21.1% 9.0%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific 

Islander 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2%

White 78.5% 74.8% 86.7% 86.5% 93.7% 91.3% 97.7% 72.8% 83.9%

Two or more races 4.7% 5.5% 4.0% 5.5% 2.4% 2.6% 1.3% 3.7% 4.5%
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 114

APPENDIX H

Validity Screening for 2016 High School Survey

Our previous research found that the use of validity screening items can identity students who tend to give exaggerated 

reports of risk behavior and more negative views of school conditions than other students (Cornell, Klein, Konold, & 

Huang, 2012; Cornell, Lovegrove, & Baly, 2014). The preliminary sample was screened on two criteria: (1) the time it 

took students to complete the survey and (2) responses to two validity screening questions. As described below, 1,626 

students (2.4% of the sample) who completed the survey in less than 6 minutes were excluded because it was judged that 

they would not have been able to read and carefully answer each question so quickly. An additional 4,646 students (6.7% 

of the sample) responded to the validity questions that they were not telling the truth on the survey and also were 

excluded. 

The survey included two validity-screening items to identify students who admitted that they were not answering 

truthfully. The first item, “I am telling the truth on this survey,” had four response options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, 

Agree, and Strongly Agree. Students answering Strongly Disagree or Disagree were omitted from the sample. At the end 

of the survey, the second item was “How many of the questions on this survey did you answer truthfully?” This item had 

five response options: All of them, All but 1 or 2 of them, Most of them, Some of them, and Only a few or none of them.

Students answering Some of them or Only a few or none of them were omitted from the sample. The following table 

displays a comparison of valid and invalid responders, students who both took the survey too fast and did not pass the 

screening items, and reveals statistically significant differences on most survey items for the 2016 survey. Additional 

information and comparisons of valid and invalid responders for each survey year are located in the respective technical 

reports.

Question Valid Invalid d

How do you feel about going to this school?

I like this school. 2.97 2.70 *** -0.35

I am proud to be a student at this school. 2.97 2.71 *** -0.33

I feel like I belong at this school. 2.86 2.67 *** -0.23

I usually finish my homework. 3.06 2.79 *** -0.33

I want to learn as much as I can at school. 3.30 2.98 *** -0.47

Getting good grades is very important to me. 3.54 3.19 *** -0.55

Thinking about your school, would you agree or disagree with the statements 

below?

The school rules are fair. 2.62 2.44 *** -0.23

The punishment for breaking school rules is the same for all students. 2.56 2.45 *** -0.12

Students at this school are only punished when they deserve it. 2.61 2.49 *** -0.14

Students are suspended without a good reason. 2.22 2.44 *** 0.27
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 115

When students are accused of doing something wrong, they get a chance to 

explain. 2.60 2.47 *** -0.16

Students are treated fairly regardless of their race or ethnicity. 2.91 2.64 *** -0.31

The adults at this school are too strict. 2.43 2.57 *** 0.17

Most teachers and other adults at this school.... 

...care about all students. 2.83 2.60 *** -0.31

...want all students to do well. 3.03 2.74 *** -0.42

...listen to what students have to say. 2.64 2.53 *** -0.13

...treat students with respect. 2.80 2.61 *** -0.25

How much do you agree or disagree with these statements?

There are adults at this school I could talk with if I had a personal problem. 2.88 2.64 *** -0.27

If I tell a teacher that someone is bullying me, the teacher will do something to 

help. 2.93 2.68 *** -0.34

I am comfortable asking my teachers for help with my schoolwork. 3.04 2.78 *** -0.36

There is at least one teacher or other adult at this school who really wants me 

to do well. 3.41 2.92 *** -0.72

If another student talked about killing someone, I would tell one of the teachers 

or staff at school. 3.15 2.73 *** -0.49

If another student brought a gun to school, I would tell one of the teachers or 

staff at school. 3.37 2.80 *** -0.69

I feel safe in this school. 2.94 2.68 *** -0.34

How much do you agree or disagree with these statements?

My teachers expect me to work hard. 3.32 2.93 *** -0.64

My teachers really want me to learn a lot. 3.20 2.88 *** -0.49

My teachers expect a lot from students. 3.24 2.88 *** -0.52

My teachers do not really care how much I learn. 2.11 2.45 *** 0.43

My teachers expect me to attend college. 3.12 2.84 *** -0.39

Prevalence of teasing and bullying

Students in this school are teased about their clothing or physical appearance. 2.81 2.46 *** -0.41

Students in this school are teased or put down because of their race or 

ethnicity. 2.33 2.30 * -0.03

There is a lot of teasing about sexual topics at this school. 2.64 2.42 *** -0.24
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 116

Bullying is a problem at this school. 2.37 2.29 *** -0.09

Students in this school are teased or put down about their sexual orientation. 2.40 2.33 *** -0.08

A teacher or other adult at school bullies a student by repeatedly punishing or 

criticizing a student unfairly.

There are teachers or other adults at this school who bully students. 2.04 2.20 *** 0.20

There are teachers or other adults at this school who make fun of students. 2.16 2.27 *** 0.13

Some teachers or other adults at this school say things that make students feel 

badly. 2.35 2.31 *** -0.04

Some teachers or other adults at this school pick on certain students. 2.36 2.33 ** -0.03

Now, we'd like to know about gangs at your school this year (since school 

began last fall).

Are there gangs at your school this year? 2.42 2.20 *** -0.30

Have gangs been involved in fights or other violence at your school this year? 2.39 2.22 *** -0.24

Have gangs been involved in the sale of drugs at your school this year? 2.42 2.22 *** -0.27

Have you considered joining a gang? 2.06 2.08 * 0.06

Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

If someone threatens you, it is okay to hit that person. 2.46 2.63 *** 0.19

Bullying is sometimes fun to do. 1.44 1.99 *** 0.80

It feels good when I hit someone. 2.00 2.36 *** 0.43

If you fight a lot, everyone will look up to you. 1.71 2.17 *** 0.61

If you are afraid to fight, you won't have many friends. 1.78 2.16 *** 0.49

Students who are bullied or teased mostly deserve it 1.51 2.06 *** 0.78

Have any of the following happened to you personally at school this year?

A student stole my personal property. 1.43 1.51 *** 0.13

A student physically attacked, pushed, or hit me. 1.25 1.41 *** 0.27

A student threatened to hurt me. 1.35 1.45 *** 0.15

A student threatened me with a weapon. 1.09 1.32 *** 0.55

A student said mean or insulting things to me. 1.84 1.65 *** -0.21

Please answer these questions: 

I have been bullied at school this year (since school started last fall). 1.55 1.52 *** -0.10

I have bullied others at school this year. 1.21 1.48 *** 0.45
Development of a Standard Model for School Climate and Safety Assessment: Final Report 117

I have been physically bullied or threatened with physical bullying at school 

this year. 1.21 1.42 *** 0.51

I have been verbally bullied at school this year. 1.61 1.54 *** -0.04

I have been socially bullied at school this year. 1.41 1.47 *** 0.18

I have been cyberbullied at school this year. 1.25 1.43 *** 0.32

I have been bullied by teachers or other adults at school this year. 1.20 1.46 *** 0.31

During the past 12 months how many times did someone you dated or went out 

with:

Physically hurt you on purpose? 1.13 1.41 *** 0.42

Threatened to hurt you? 1.15 1.43 *** 0.41

Called you names or put you down? 1.37 1.53 *** 0.16

Tried to kiss you or touch you against your will? 1.19 1.48 *** 0.38

Tried to make you drink alcohol or use drugs? 1.13 1.45 *** 0.47

Continued to bother you or harass you after you stopped going out? 1.27 1.48 *** 0.24

I have dated or gone out with someone in the past 12 months. 1.96 1.85 *** -0.09

During the past 12 months, how often did another student ...

Make unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures that made you feel 

uncomfortable 1.65 1.61 * -0.04

Spread sexual rumors about you? 1.37 1.53 *** 0.16

Touch, brush up against you, grab or pull your clothing in a sexual or 

unwelcome way? 1.29 1.52 *** 0.25

Bother you by repeatedly asking you to go out or do something with him/her 

that you did not want to do? 1.38 1.54 *** 0.16
APPENDIX I

Sample School Report for 2016 High School Survey

The report on the following pages is an example of the individual school survey reports that were distributed to each high 

school. These reports allow schools to identify their strengths and weaknesses in comparison to other schools in their 

region or the state as a whole. 
Student and Teacher/Staff Perceptions of School Climate

Anonymous High School

Grades 9-12, Spring 2016

The Virginia Secondary School Climate Survey provides schools with a biennial assessment of school climate and safety 

conditions from the perspective of students and teachers/staff. The purpose of this report is to help schools identify 

strengths and weaknesses that can guide efforts to improve school safety and student learning.

This report is based on responses from XXX students and XX teachers/staff

in your school. State results are based on 62,679 students and 14,619

teachers/staff in 320 schools, with additional comparisons to schools in your 

region. A breakdown of student answers by grade and gender is found in a 

supplementary file available with this report. For more information, see 

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/vcss/audit/student/

Contents

Page

2 Key student perceptions

3 Student perceptions of disciplinary structure and student support

4 Student engagement and educational expectations

5 Academic expectations and aggressive attitudes

6 Student safety

7 Bullying and peer aggression

8 Student personal experiences of bullying

10 Disciplinary experiences reported by students

12 Demographic information for student participants

14 Key teacher/staff perceptions

15 Teacher/staff perceptions of school discipline

16 Teacher/staff perceptions of student support

18 Teacher/staff perceptions of collegiality 

19 Teacher/staff perceptions of student engagement

20 Teacher/staff perceptions of safety

22 Teacher/staff perceptions of teasing and bullying

24 Aggression toward teachers/staff

27 Demographic information for teacher/staff participants

28 Technical notes

Ways to use this report

o Compare 2016 survey results with your 2014 report.

o Share this report with faculty, students, and parents.

o Identify school improvement goals.

o How can you improve student safety at school?

o How can teachers and other staff members improve their relationships with students?

o How can the disciplinary system be improved?

o How can you engage students and raise their educational aspirations?

o Document funding needs for safety and support programs.

o Evaluate character education and bullying prevention efforts.
Key Student Perceptions

Four scales are used to summarize key aspects of school climate: 

o Disciplinary Structure – average of 7 items to assess whether school rules and discipline seem fair.

o Student Support – average of 8 items to assess whether students feel respected and are willing to seek help 

from adults at school.

o Student Engagement – average of 6 items to assess whether students like this school and want to learn.

o Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying (PTB) – average of 5 items to assess how much various forms of 

bullying and teasing are observed.

Each item was answered on a 4-point scale: 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, 4-Strongly Agree. The chart below 

presents averages for students in your school compared to the averages for all students in the state who took the survey. 

For example, an average score of 3.1 for Student Engagement means that students generally agreed with the 6 items for 

that scale. The items for each scale are found later in the report. Individual school results are not presented if fewer than 

10 students completed the survey.

According to the authoritative school climate model, schools should be both demanding and supportive in their 

relationships with students. Research in Virginia schools has found that a high level of both Disciplinary Structure and 

Student Support indicates a school climate that facilitates Student Engagement and diminishes the Prevalence of Teasing 

and Bullying. Authoritative school climate is also associated with fewer student discipline problems, more respectful 

behavior toward teachers, higher performance on SOL exams, and a higher graduation rate. 
Student Perceptions of Disciplinary Structure and Student Support

These questions assess the degree to which students perceive the school climate as both structured and supportive. The 

items were answered on a 4-point scale: 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, 4-Strongly Agree. Percentages for 

Agree + Strongly Agree are presented here. Averages are based on the sum of all items in the same scale. 

Disciplinary Structure scale

Thinking about your school, would you agree or disagree with the 

statements below? Pick the answer that is closest to how you feel.

Percent Agree or 

Strongly Agree

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

The school rules are fair. 87% 63% 65%

The punishment for breaking school rules is the same for all students. 69% 51% 60%

Students at this school are only punished when they deserve it. 85% 62% 61%

Students are suspended without a good reason. (reverse scored) 26% 29% 32%

When students are accused of doing something wrong, they get a chance to 

explain. 

90% 71% 63%

Students are treated fairly regardless of their race or ethnicity. 94% 81% 76%

The adults at this school are too strict. (reverse scored) 15% 33% 39%

Average for 7 items above 3.1 2.7 2.7

Student Support scale

Most teachers and other adults at this school ...

...care about all students. 89% 77% 75%

...want all students to do well. 95% 87% 86%

...listen to what students have to say. 84% 67% 62%

...treat students with respect. 89% 74% 74%

How much do you agree or disagree with these statements?

There are adults at this school I could talk with if I had a personal problem. 90% 79% 72%

If I tell a teacher that someone is bullying me, the teacher will do 

something to help.

92% 79% 81%

I am comfortable asking my teachers for help with my schoolwork. 92% 84% 84%

There is at least one teacher or other adult at this school who really wants 

me to do well. 

98% 96% 95%

Average for 8 items above 3.3 3 3

Additional items not included in overall scale, but relevant to safety.

If another student talked about killing someone, I would tell one of the 

teachers or staff at school.

96% 85% 81%

If another student brought a gun to school, I would tell one of the teachers

or staff at school.

95% 92% 88%

I feel safe in this school. 95% 82% 82%
Student Engagement and Educational Expectations

These questions assess different aspects of student engagement, which is defined as a student's sense of connectedness 

with his/her school and is intrinsic to student motivation and commitment to completing school. Research in Virginia 

schools has shown that higher student engagement is related to higher academic achievement and lower levels of bullying 

and peer aggression. The attachment and academic commitment items were answered on a 4-point scale: 1-Strongly 

Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, 4-Strongly Agree. Percentages for Agree + Strongly Agree are presented here. 

Involvement in school activities is the mean number of activities per student. 

Student Engagement in School

Affective engagement subscale

Percent Agree or 

Strongly Agree

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

I like this school 97% 84% 83%

I am proud to be a student at this school. 95% 83% 81%

I feel like I belong at this school. 94% 78% 76%

Academic engagement subscale

I usually finish my homework. 90% 86% 80%

I want to learn as much as I can at school. 95% 93% 93%

Getting good grades is very important to me. 96% 95% 95%

Average for 6 items above 3.5 3.2 3.1

Educational Expectations

How far do you expect to go in school?

I do not expect to graduate from high school. 0% 1% <1%

I might or might not graduate from high school. 0% 2% 1%

I expect to graduate from high school. 6% 12% 11%

I expect to graduate from a two-year college or technical school. 15% 14% 9%

I expect to graduate from a four-year college. 35% 34% 38%

I expect to complete post-graduate studies (such as a master’s degree or 

doctoral degree) after graduating from a four-year college. 43% 37% 40%
Academic Expectations

Students do best in a climate of high academic expectations.

Academic Expectations Scale

How much do you agree or disagree with these statements?

Percent Agree or 

Strongly Agree

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

My teachers expect me to work hard. 99% 96% 96%

My teachers really want me to learn a lot. 97% 91% 91%

My teachers expect a lot from students. 90% 90% 91%

My teachers do not really care how much I learn. (reverse scored) 11% 22% 24%

My teachers expect me to attend college. 95% 86% 87%

Average for 5 items above 3.1 3 3

Aggressive Attitudes

A small percentage of students with aggressive attitudes can negatively affect the school climate, generating more peer 

conflict and bullying.

Attitudes about Aggressive Behavior

If someone threatens you, it is okay to hit that person. 37% 44% 38%

It feels good when I hit someone. 25% 21% 19%

If you fight a lot, everyone will look up to you. 4% 9% 10%

If you are afraid to fight, you won’t have many friends. 8% 12% 12%

Students who are bullied or teased mostly deserve it. 1% 6% 5%

Bullying is sometimes fun to do. 2% 5% 5%

Average for 6 items above 1.7 1.8 1.8
Student Safety

Student safety is a fundamental condition for effective learning and achievement. Selected items in the chart below 

provide an overview of student perceptions of safety. More detailed questions and complete scales are on the following 

pages. 
Bullying and Peer Aggression

Previous research has found that a high prevalence of teasing and bullying is a consistent predictor of negative school 

outcomes, including lower student engagement, lower performance on SOL testing, and higher dropout rates.

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying Scale

These questions are about teasing and bullying you see at your school. Do 

not include friendly teasing that does not hurt anyone's feelings.

Percent Agree or 

Strongly Agree

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

Students in this school are teased about their clothing or physical 

appearance. 

51% 65% 64%

Students in this school are teased or put down because of their race or 

ethnicity. 19% 34% 36%

There is a lot of teasing about sexual topics at this school. 40% 60% 52%

Bullying is a problem at this school. 25% 45% 36%

Students in this school are teased or put down about their sexual 

orientation. 40% 50% 38%

Average for 5 items above 2.3 2.6 2.5

Perceptions of Bullying by Teachers/Staff

A teacher or other adult at school bullies a student by repeatedly punishing 

or criticizing a student unfairly. This goes beyond what is normal discipline 

in the school. Students were asked to keep this definition in mind when 

answering the next four questions:

There are teachers or other adults at this school who bully students. 11% 23% 23%

There are teachers or other adults at this school who make fun of students. 19% 29% 31%

Some teachers or other adults at this school say things that make students 

feel badly. 20% 40% 43%

Some teachers or other adults at this school pick on certain students. 23% 42% 44%

Many bullying prevention programs stress the need to change the peer culture at school so that bystanders do not reinforce 

bullying behavior. A good source of information is www.stopbullying.gov.

Our research shows that a Peer Nomination Survey is a safe and effective way to identify victims of bullying. A peer 

nomination survey sends a strong message to students that educators are concerned about bullying and, most importantly, 

allows school counselors to identify students who are in need of assistance. It is useful to explain the purpose of the peer

nomination survey so that students understand its importance. One option for explaining peer nominations to students is to 

show a short video before answering the peer nomination question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6lBeN8OmS4. 

After the survey is administered, school counselors can tabulate the names of nominated students and conduct follow-up 

interviews, as described in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCeV3qJL7IU&feature=youtube.
Personal Experiences of Bullying

Use this definition of bullying to answer the questions below:

 Bullying is the repeated use of one’s strength or popularity to injure, 

threaten, or embarrass another person on purpose.

 Bullying can be physical, verbal, or social.

 Cyber bullying involves repeatedly using technology (cell phone, 

email, Internet, etc.) to tease or put down someone.

 It is not bullying when two students who are about the same in strength 

or popularity have a fight or argument.

Percent Once or More 

per Week 

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

I have been bullied at school this year (since school started last fall). 6% 8% 6%

I have bullied others at school this year. 1% 2% 2%

I have been physically bullied or threatened with physical bullying at 

school this year.

1% 2% 2%

I have been verbally bullied at school this year. 7% 11% 8%

I have been socially bullied at school this year. 7% 8% 6%

I have been cyberbullied at school this year. 3% 5% 3%

I have been bullied by teachers or other adults at school this year. 1% 5% 4%

Peer Aggression

Percent Reporting One Time 

or More than Once

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

A student stole my personal property. 18% 31% 33%

A student physically attacked, pushed, or hit me. 13% 19% 18%

A student threatened to hurt me. 21% 28% 23%

A student threatened me with a weapon. 3% 7% 6%

A student said mean or insulting things to me. 38% 54% 51%

Gangs at School

Percent Reporting Yes

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

Are there gangs at your school this year? 4% 8% 15%

Have gangs been involved in fights or other violence at your school this 

year?

3% 5% 11%

Have gangs been involved in the sale of drugs at your school this year? 4% 8% 12%

Have you considered joining a gang? 4% 5% 3%
Reactions to Victimization 

You have just answered some questions about being teased or bullied in 

some way. Did you tell a teacher or another adult at school what happened?

Percent true

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

 Yes 40% 33% 28%

Did it help to tell the teacher or another adult at school what happened?

 It seemed to help the situation get better. 77% 63% 62%

 It seemed to make the situation worse. 0% 6% 5%

 It made no difference. 23% 31% 33%

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex 

in any federally-funded education program or activity. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has 

issued a series of Dear Colleague Letters to remind schools of their responsibilities to take immediate and effective steps 

to respond to sexual harassment and violence. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201104.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201504-title-ix-coordinators.pdf

Sexual Violence and Harassment

During the past 12 months how many times did someone you dated or went 

out with ...

Percent Reporting One Time 

or More than Once

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

 ...physically hurt you on purpose? 2% 7% 6%

 ...threatened to hurt you? 4% 8% 6%

 ...called you names or put you down? 13% 20% 15%

 ...tried to kiss you or touch you against your will? 8% 10% 8%

 ...tried to make you drink alcohol or use drugs? 4% 6% 5%

 ...continued to bother you or harass you after you stopped going out? 14% 14% 11%

I have dated or gone out with someone in the past 12 months. 63 % 62% 51%

During the past 12 months, how often did another student ...

Percent Reporting One Time 

or More than Once

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

... make unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures that made you 

feel uncomfortable?

20% 28% 27%

... spread sexual rumors about you? 19% 23% 17%

... touch, brush up against you, grab or pull your clothing, or corner you 

in a sexual and unwelcome way?

8% 13% 13%
Research Update. Research with the 2014 survey of high school students and teachers found that authoritative schools have lower 

levels of teasing and bullying than authoritarian, permissive, or disengaged schools. Schools scoring above the state median for 

structure and support were classified as authoritative, and these were compared to schools with high structure but low support 

(authoritarian), high support but low structure (negligent), or low structure and low support (permissive). Student and teacher reports 

of the prevalence of teasing and bullying within each school were used to generate school level means and percentiles. As show in the

figure, students (plotted in red) in authoritative schools reported a prevalence of teasing and bullying that ranked at the 19th percentile 

of all schools, in comparison to permissive schools at the 54th percentile, authoritarian schools at the 41st percentile, and disengaged 

schools at the 74th percentile. Teacher perceptions (plotted in blue) showed a similar pattern. These analyses controlled for differences 

in size, poverty level, and minority composition of the student enrollment. 

Disciplinary Experiences Reported by Students

How many days have you been suspended from school this year?

Percent Agree 

Your 

School

Your 

Region

State

I have not been suspended from school this year. 91% 95% 94%

One day 4% 1% 1%

Two days 1% <1% 1%

Three days 3% 1% 1%

Four days 0% <1% <1%

Five or more days 1% 1% 2%

74

41

54

19

62

57

45

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Low Str/ Low Supp

Negligent

Hi Str/ Low Supp

Authoritarian

Lo Str/Hi Supp

Permissive

Hi Str/Hi Supp

Authoritative

School Percentile in Teasing and 

Bullying

Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying across 4 Types of 

School Climate

Student Report

Teacher Report
 3 The Youth Risk Behavior items are used nationwide by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in their Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, 2013).

Youth Risk Behaviors3

During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such 

as a gun, knife, or club on school property?

Percent true

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

0 days 96% 93% 97%

1 day 1% 1% 1%

2 or 3 days 1% 1% <1%

4 or 5 days 1% <1% <1%

6 or more days 1% 4% 1%

During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight 

on school property?

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

0 times 93% 92% 94%

1 times 3% 5% 3%

2 or 3 times 2% 2% 2%

4 or 5 times 2% <1% <1%

6 or 7 times 0% <1% <1%

8 or 9 times 0% <1% <1%

10 or 11 times 0% <1% <1%

12 or more times 0% <1% <1%

During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting 

suicide? 

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

Yes 13% 16% 15%

No 87% 84% 85%

During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt 

suicide?

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

0 times 93% 93% 94%

1 times 4% 4% 3%

2 or 3 times 1% 2% 2%

4 or 5 times 1% <1% <1%

6 or more times 1% <1% <1%
During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink 

of alcohol?

Your 

School

Your 

Region State

0 days 74% 79% 79%

1 or 2 days 14% 10% 11%

3 to 5 days 4% 4% 5%

6 to 9 days 3% 3% 3%

10 to 19 days 3% 2% 1%

20 to 29 days 0% <1% <1%

All 30 days 1% 2% <1%

During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana? Your 

School

Your 

Region State

0 times 92% 90% 87%

1 to 2 times 5% 4% 5%

3 or 9 times 0% 2% 3%

10 to 19 times 1% 1% 2%

20 to 39 times 1% <1% <1%

40 or more times 1% 3% 3%

Demographic Information for Student Participants

School Demographics Your 

School

Your 

Region State

Number of schools 1 39 320

9th grade 27 1,278 17,083

10th grade 25 1,074 16,416

11th grade 23 1,043 15,468

12th grade 22 1,010 13,712

Total number of student participants 97 4,405 62,679

Percentage male 42% 47% 49%

Percentage Hispanic or Latino 1% 6% 14%

Race Percentages

American Indian/Alaska Native 2% 2% 1%

Asian 0% <1% 7%

Black or African-American 3% 2% 20%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1% <1% 1%

White 90% 87% 53%

2 or more races 4% 7% 18%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Percentage who speak another language at home 7% 10% 27%

Grades on Last Report Card

 Mostly A’s 30% 27% 21%

 Mostly A’s and B’s 46% 43% 41%

 Mostly B’s 7% 5% 7%

 Mostly B’s and C’s 12% 15% 19%

 Mostly C’s 0% 2% 4%

 Mostly C’s and D’s 4% 5% 5%

 Mostly D’s and F’s 0% 2% 2%
Parent Education (highest level parent)

Not graduated from high school3%8%8%

Graduated from high school 36% 36% 26%

Graduated from two-year college or technical school 26% 19% 14%

Graduated from four-year college 15% 22% 26%

Completed post-graduate studies (such as a master’s degree or 

doctoral degree) after graduating from a four-year college 20

% 15% 26%

Number of Biological or Adoptive Parents in Home

Two parents 72% 68% 69%

One parent 24% 27% 29%

No parents4%4%2%

Free/Reduced Price Meal

Do you receive a free or reduced-price meal at school? (% Yes) 28% 41% 31%
Key Teacher/Staff Perceptions

Four scales are used to summarize key aspects of school climate: 

o Disciplinary Structure – average of 9 items to assess whether school rules and discipline seem fair.

o Student Support – average of 10 items to assess whether students feel respected and are willing to seek help from 

adults at school.

o Student Engagement – average of 6 items to assess whether students like this school and want to learn.

o Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying (PTB) – average of 5 items to assess how often various forms of bullying and 

teasing are observed.

Each item was answered on a 6-point scale: 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Somewhat Disagree, 4-Somewhat Agree, 

5-Agree, 6-Strongly Agree. The chart below presents averages for all teachers and other staff members who took the 

survey in your school along with the averages for all teachers/staff in the state who took the survey. For example, an 

average score of 4 for Student Engagement means that teachers/staff generally agreed with the six items for that scale. 

The items for each scale are found later in the report. 

This report presents results for teachers and staff members in positions such as administrators, counselors, nurses, 

psychologists, school resource officers and security officers, and social workers. Individual school results are not 

presented if fewer than 20 teachers/staff completed the survey. Teacher and staff results are combined in this report in 

order to protect participant confidentiality. A separate report will compare teacher and staff perceptions on a statewide 

basis. 

According to the authoritative school climate model, schools should be both demanding (high structure) and supportive in 

their relationships with students. Research in Virginia schools has found that high levels of both Disciplinary Structure 

and Student Support indicate a school climate that facilitates Student Engagement and diminishes the Prevalence of 

Teasing and Bullying. Authoritative school climate is also associated with fewer student discipline problems, more 

respectful behavior toward teachers, higher performance on SOL exams, and higher graduation rates. 
Teacher/Staff Perceptions of School Discipline

These questions assess the degree to which teachers/staff perceive the school climate as structured. The items were 

answered on 6-point scales: 1-Strongly disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Somewhat Disagree, 4-Somewhat Agree, 5-Agree, 6-

Strongly Agree. 

School Disciplinary Structure Reference 

Group

Strongly 

Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or 

Strongly 

Agree

The punishment for breaking school rules is the 

same for all students.

School 4% 4% 91%

Region 27% 21% 51%

State 45% 21% 35%

Students at this school are only punished when they 

deserve it.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 11% 17% 72%

State 22% 22% 56%

Students know the school rules for student conduct.

School 0% 4% 96%

Region 6% 12% 82%

State 12% 18% 70%

If a student does something wrong, he or she will 

definitely be punished.

School 4% 22% 74%

Region 28% 29% 44%

State 50% 27% 23%

Students can get away with breaking the rules at this 

school pretty easily. (reverse scored)

School 100% 0% 0%

Region 68% 21% 11%

State 52% 26% 22%

Students are suspended without a good reason. 

(reverse scored)

School 91% 0% 9%

Region 94% 2% 4%

State 95% 2% 3%

The adults at this school are too strict. (reverse 

scored)

School 100% 0% 0%

Region 96% 3% 2%

State 96% 3% <1%

When students are accused of doing something 

wrong, they get a chance to explain.

School 9% 0% 91%

Region 4% 14% 83%

State 4% 17% 79%

Students are suspended for minor things. (reverse 

scored)

School 96% 4% 0%

Region 94% 2% 3%

State 94% 5% 2%

Average score across 9 items, 

Each item scored 1-6

Average score across 9 items above

School 5.4

Region 4.7

State 4.4
Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Student Support

These questions assess the degree to which teachers perceive the school climate as supportive using two subscales, 

Student Willingness to Seek Help from Teachers/Staff and Teacher/Staff Respect for Students. Items were answered on 6-

point scales: 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Somewhat Disagree, 4-Somewhat Agree, 5-Agree, 6-Strongly Agree. 

Student Willingness to Seek Help from 

Teachers/Staff

Reference 

Group

Strongly 

Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or 

Strongly 

Agree

Students know whom to go to for help if they have 

been treated badly by another student.

School 4% 0% 96%

Region 3% 17% 80%

State 5% 23% 72%

Students feel comfortable asking for help from 

teachers if there is a problem with a student.

School 4% 4% 91%

Region 6% 30% 64%

State 10% 34% 56%

Students report it when one student hits another.

School 17% 17% 65%

Region 20% 35% 46%

State 30% 32% 38%

Students are encouraged to report bullying and 

aggression.

School 0% 4% 96%

Region 3% 12% 85%

State 6% 18% 76%

Teachers/staff take action to solve the problem when 

students report bullying.

School 0% 4% 96%

Region 2% 13% 84%

State 6% 20% 75%

Teachers/staff know when students are being picked 

on or being bullied.

School 22% 13% 65%

Region 16% 44% 40%

State 25% 41% 34%

Average score across 6 items, 

Each item scored 1-6

Average score across 6 items above

School 5.3

Region 4.8

State 4.6
Teacher/Staff and Adult Respect for 

Students 

Reference 

Group

Strongly 

Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or 

Strongly 

Agree

Most teachers and other adults at this school care 

about all students.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 2% 7% 91%

State 3% 10% 87%

Most teachers and other adults at this school want all 

students to do well.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region <1% 7% 92%

State 2% 8% 90%

Most teachers and other adults at this school listen to 

what students have to say.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 2% 16% 82%

State 5% 20% 75%

Most teachers and other adults at this school treat 

students with respect.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 2% 12% 86%

State 4% 16% 80%

Average score across 4 items, 

Each item scored 1-6

Average score across 4 items above

School 5.8

Region 5.2

State 5.1

Student Support Average score across 10 items,

Each item scored 1-6

Average score across 6 items for Willingness to 

Seek Help and 4 items for Respect for Students

School 5.5

Region 5

State 4.8

Students who are behaviorally engaged in the classroom—who participate in classroom discussions, complete tasks, and 

attend and respond to teacher instruction—demonstrate higher levels of academic achievement (Gregory et al., 2014). 

Programs such as My Teaching Partner-Secondary (MTP-S) help to enhance student behavioral engagement and thereby 

promote higher levels of academic achievement. MTP-S provides teachers with individual coaching and standardized 

feedback based on observations of their classroom interactions. Research in Virginia schools found that MTP-S was 

associated with higher levels of student engagement across classrooms with diverse student and teacher characteristics. 

Specifically, teacher emphasis on analysis and problem solving, as well as use of diverse instructional learning formats, 

accounted for higher levels of student engagement.

Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Effects of a professional development program on 

behavioral engagement of students in middle and high school. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 143-163. doi: 10.1002/pits.21741
Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Collegiality Reference 

Group

Strongly 

Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or 

Strongly 

Agree

The teachers at this school work well with one 

another. 

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 6% 20% 73%

State 8% 23% 69%

There is a strong sense of mutual support among the 

teachers and other staff at this school. 

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 10% 23% 67%

State 15% 25% 60%

Teachers and other school staff members trust one 

another at this school.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 11% 26% 63%

State 17% 27% 56%

This school is a collegial environment for teachers 

and other school staff members.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 10% 24% 66%

State 15% 25% 60%

Average score across 4 items, 

Each item scored 1-6

Average score across 4 items above

School 5.8

Region 4.8

State 4.6
Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Student 

Engagement

How do students feel about going to this school?

Reference 

Group

Strongly 

Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or 

Strongly 

Agree

Students generally like this school.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 6% 18% 76%

State 8% 22% 71%

Students are proud to be at this school.

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 8% 26% 66%

State 12% 28% 60%

Students hate going to school. (reverse scored)

School 83% 4% 13%

Region 75% 18% 7%

State 79% 16% 6%

Students finish their homework at this school.

School 13% 30% 57%

Region 32% 44% 24%

State 42% 38% 20%

Getting good grades is very important to most 

students here.

School 0% 39% 61%

Region 18% 38% 44%

State 21% 35% 44%

Most students want to learn as much as they can at 

this school.

School 4% 43% 52%

Region 24% 40% 36%

State 29% 38% 33%

Average score across 6 items, 

Each item scored 1-6

Average score across 6 items above

School 5

Region 4.3

State 4.2

Resources for school climate improvement:

The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) is an organization dedicated to making social 

and emotional learning (SEL) an integral part of education. CASEL identifies evidence-based programs and practices for 

SEL. http://www.casel.org/

The National School Climate Center is an organization that develops programs for schools to develop a positive school 

climate that nurtures social and emotional, ethical, and academic skills. 

http://www.schoolclimate.org/

Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) is a school-wide disciplinary approach that emphases proactive 

strategies for defining, teaching, and supporting appropriate student behaviors to create positive school environments. 

https://www.pbis.org
Summary Chart for Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Safety

The total scores for each school on Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Safety, which are detailed in the table at the bottom of 

this page, are compared to state averages in the chart below. 
Teacher/Staff Perceptions of Gang 

Activity

Reference 

Group I don’t know No Yes

Are there gangs at your school this year?

School 4% 96% 0%

Region 28% 69% 3%

State 49% 28% 23%

Have gangs been involved in fights or other 

violence at your school this year?

School 4% 96% 0%

Region 22% 76% 1%

State 49% 39% 11%

Have gangs been involved in the sale of drugs at 

your school this year?

School 4% 96% 0%

Region 31% 67% 2%

State 61% 29% 10%

Resources on gang prevention:

Boys & Girls Clubs Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach 

http://www.bgca.org/whatwedo/SpecializedPrograms/Pages/DelinquencyandGangPreventionInitiative.aspx

Gang Resistance Education and Training

http://www.great-online.org/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/SPT/

Concerns about Discipline and Safety Reference 

Group

Strongly Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or 

Strongly Agree

I am treated with respect by students at this 

school.

School 4% 13% 83%

Region 7% 21% 72%

State 13% 21% 66%

I feel physically safe at this school. 

School 0% 0% 100%

Region 3% 12% 84%

State 8% 14% 78%

I feel there is adequate safety and security in this 

school. 

School 0% 4% 96%

Region 12% 20% 68%

State 20% 19% 61%

The disciplinary practices at this school are 

effective.

School 0% 9% 91%

Region 20% 27% 53%

State 37% 26% 37%

Disciplinary policies are clear to school staff 

members.

School 4% 0% 96%

Region 13% 21% 67%

State 29% 23% 49%
Prevalence of Teasing and Bullying Reference 

Group

Strongly Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or 

Strongly Agree

Students in this school are teased about their 

clothing or physical appearance. 

School 78% 17% 4%

Region 62% 28% 10%

State 62% 27% 11%

Students in this school are teased or put down 

because of their race or ethnicity.

School 87% 13% 0%

Region 82% 12% 6%

State 77% 16% 7%

There is a lot of teasing about sexual topics at 

this school.

School 87% 4% 9%

Region 68% 22% 10%

State 68% 21% 11%

Bullying is a problem at this school. 

School 100% 0% 0%

Region 76% 19% 5%

State 72% 21% 7%

Students in this school are teased or put down 

about their perceived sexual orientation.

School 83% 13% 4%

Region 70% 22% 8%

State 74% 19% 7%

Perceptions of Bullying by 

Teachers/Staff

A teacher or other adult at school bullies a 

student by repeatedly punishing or criticizing a 

student unfairly, going beyond what is normal 

discipline in the school. 

Reference 

Group

Strongly Disagree, 

Disagree, or 

Somewhat 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Agree

Agree or

Strongly Agree

There are teachers or other adults at this school 

who bully students. 

School 100% 0% 0%

Region 89% 8% 3%

State 86% 10% 4%

There are teachers or other adults at this school 

who make fun of students. 

School 100% 0% 0%

Region 88% 8% 5%

State 83% 12% 5%

Some teachers or other adults at this school say 

things that make students feel badly. 

School 96% 0% 4%

Region 82% 13% 5%

State 74% 20% 6%

Some teachers or other adults at this school pick 

on certain students.

School 100% 0% 0%

Region 85% 11% 4%

State 80% 14% 5%
In 2013, new Virginia legislation required that each division superintendent establish a threat assessment team for each 

school. The legislation also directed the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to provide schools with a model 

policy and procedures that they can use as a guide. In brief, threats are defined as any communication or behavior that 

suggests a person may intend to harm someone. When someone makes a threat, it should be reported to the school threat 

assessment team. Threat assessment is a violence prevention strategy that attempts to resolve conflicts and problems 

before they escalate into violence. Threat assessments typically begin by interviewing the student reported to have made a 

threat as well as other relevant witnesses, so that the circumstances and seriousness of the threat can be determined. Threat

assessment is not a zero tolerance approach that applies the same consequences for all incidents. Based on the seriousness 

of the threat, the team takes appropriate action that may involve a combination of counseling, discipline, parent 

notification, and safety precautions.

The Department of Criminal Justice Services has posted some model procedures for threat assessment on its website. 

There is no required model, but various models that are acceptable. One model that is used extensively in Virginia schools 

is "Guidelines for Responding to Student Threats of Violence" (also called the Virginia Student Threat Assessment 

Guidelines) developed at the University of Virginia. This model has been tested in controlled studies and is recognized in 

the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP). Studies have found that almost all threats can 

be resolved without removing the student from school.

For more information, see http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/threat-assessment.

Teacher/Staff Awareness of Threat 

Assessment 

Threat assessment is a process of identifying and 

resolving conflicts and problems before they escalate 

into violence. It is a form of prevention now mandated 

by the Virginia Code (§ 22.1-79.4)

Reference 

Group

I don’t 

know No Yes

Does your school use a formal threat assessment 

process to respond to student threats of violence?

School 9% 0% 91%

Region 34% 4% 63%

State 47% 3% 51%

For your formal threat assessment process, does your 

school follow the guidelines developed by the 

University of Virginia, Guidelines for Responding to 

Student Threats of Violence?

School 43% 0% 57%

Region 65% 1% 33%

State 69% 1% 30%
Aggression toward Teachers/Staff

Student Aggression

Have any of the following happened to you 

personally at school this year? This 

includes school events like field trips, 

school dances, and sports events. 

Reference 

Group No One Time More than Once

Many 

Times

A student stole my personal property.

School 91% 4% 4% 0%

Region 88% 8% 4% <1%

State 86% 9% 4% <1%

A student said mean or insulting things to 

me.

School 78% 9% 9% 4%

Region 63% 13% 19% 5%

State 52% 16% 23% 9%

A student threatened to hurt me.

School 100% 0% 0% 0%

Region 94% 4% 2% <1%

State 90% 6% 3% <1%

A student threatened me with a weapon.

School 100% 0% 0% 0%

Region 99% <1% 0% <1%

State 99% <1% <1% <1%

A student physically attacked, pushed, or 

hit me.

School 100% 0% 0% 0%

Region 98% 2% 0% <1%

State 96% 3% <1% <1%

Total score for school*

Total Student Aggression toward Teachers

School 0.1

Region 0.2

State 0.3

*Each item was scored as 0 No event, 1 One time, 2 More than once, or 3 Many times. A total Student Aggression score was 

calculated by adding the items for each teacher/staff member and averaging across all teachers/staff members in a school. 

Aggression toward teachers is linked to burnout and disengagement from teaching. A national survey found that 80% of K 

through 12 teachers reported at least one victimization experience in the current or past year, with 29% reporting being 

physically attacked and 43% reporting being verbally threatened by a student (McMahon et al., 2014). Research shows 

that a positive school climate may reduce aggression and associated teacher distress. Our research in Virginia schools 

found that more structured and supportive schools are safer and less distressing for teachers (Berg & Cornell, 2015).

Berg, J., & Cornell, D. (2015). Authoritative school climate, aggression toward teachers, and teacher distress in middle 

school. School Psychology Quarterly. 

McMahon, S. D., Martinez, A., Espelage, D., Rose, C., Reddy, L. A., Lane, K., ... Brown, V. (2014). Violence directed 

against teachers: Results from a national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 753–766. doi:10.1002/pits.21777
Parent or Staff Conflict

Have any of the following happened to you 

personally at school this year? This 

includes school events like field trips, 

school dances, and sports events. 

Reference 

Group No One time More than Once

Many 

Times

A parent said rude or insulting things to 

me.

School 87% 4% 9% 0%

Region 70% 15% 13% 2%

State 63% 17% 16% 4%

A parent threatened to complain about me 

to the administration.

School 87% 13% 0% 0%

Region 75% 14% 9% 1%

State 72% 16% 10% 3%

A parent threatened to harm me. 

School 100% 0% 0% 0%

Region 97% 2% <1% <1%

State 98% 1% <1% <1%

A colleague said rude or insulting things to 

me.

School 100% 0% 0% 0%

Region 83% 8% 8% 2%

State 78% 11% 9% 2%

A colleague threatened to harm me. 

School 96% 4% 0% 0%

Region 99% <1% <1% <1%

State 99% <1% <1% <1%

Total score for school*

Total Parent or Staff Conflict

School 0.1

Region 0.2

State 0.3

*Each item was scored as 0 No event, 1 One time, 2 More than once, or 3 Many times. A total Parent or Staff Conflict score was 

calculated by adding the items for each teacher/staff member and averaging across all teachers/staff members in a school. 
Teacher/Staff Reactions to 

Aggression

You have just answered some questions 

about being insulted, threatened, or harmed 

in some way at school. Think about the 

overall impact of these experiences. How 

did they affect you?

Reference 

Group Not true A little True

Somewhat 

True

Definitely 

True

They bothered me a lot.

School 62% 12% 12% 12%

Region 39% 30% 18% 12%

State 34% 26% 20% 20%

I felt frustrated.

School 38% 12% 38% 12%

Region 27% 27% 22% 23%

State 23% 24% 22% 31%

I felt sad.

School 50% 12% 25% 12%

Region 49% 24% 15% 12%

State 44% 22% 16% 17%

I felt angry.

School 75% 12% 12% 0%

Region 34% 30% 19% 17%

State 35% 25% 19% 21%

I felt burned out about my job.

School 62% 0% 25% 12%

Region 46% 23% 17% 15%

State 37% 21% 18% 24%

It made me think about whether to continue 

teaching/my work in school. 

School 75% 0% 12% 12%

Region 57% 18% 12% 13%

State 47% 17% 14% 21%

Total Score for School*

Total Teacher/Staff Reactions to 

Aggression

School 0.8

Region 1.1

State 1.3

*Each item was scored as 0 Not true, 1 A little true, 2 Somewhat true, or 3 Definitely true. A total Reactions to Aggression score was 

calculated by adding the items for each teacher and averaging across all teachers in a school. 
Summary Chart for Teacher/Staff Experiences of Aggression

The total scores for each school on Student Aggression toward Teachers/Staff, Parent or Staff Conflict, and Teacher/Staff 

Reactions to Aggression, which are presented on the previous pages, are compared to state averages in the chart below. 

These three scores are placed on the same chart for convenience, but should not be compared to one another. Only 

comparisons between school and state for each score are meaningful.

Demographic Information for Teacher/Staff Participants

Demographic information was limited in order to protect participant anonymity. 

Demographics Your 

School

Your 

Region State

Number of schools 1 39 320

Number of teacher participants 22 772 12,250

Number of staff participants 1 104 2,369

Percentage female 70% 67% 69%

How many years have you been working as a teacher or in 

another professional capacity in schools?

 1-2 years 0% 7% 9%

 3-5 years 4% 10% 12%

 6-10 years 13% 18% 18%

More than 10 years 83% 65% 61%
Technical Notes

Most questions for students were answered on a 4-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree), whereas 

most questions for teachers were answered on a 6-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat 

agree, agree, strongly agree). The 4-point scales permit students of different ages and reading levels to answer questions 

more quickly and easily. The 6-point scales are intended to give teachers the opportunity to make more differentiated 

judgments. There are some measures (such as disciplinary structure and student support) that are found on both student 

and teacher surveys, but students and teachers have different conceptions of school climate, so exact comparisons are not 

possible. 

The tables report the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed rather than average scores because the 

percentages are easier to interpret. More precise scores are available in digital file for schools that surveyed all students in 

each grade. These scores report overall gender and grade breakdowns for each school, but do not report responses by 

individual students or teachers.

State norms are weighted by number of participants and size of school enrollment. 

Student surveys were screened for validity with two questions: (1) “I am telling the truth on this survey” (response 

options: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) and (2) “How many of the questions on this survey did you 

answer truthfully” (response options: all of them, all but 1 or 2 of them, most of them, some of them, only a few or none 

of them). There were 4,646 students (6.74%) omitted from the sample because they answered “strongly disagree” or 

“disagree” to question (1) or “some of them” or “only a few or none of them” to question (2). Another 1,626 students 

(2.36%) were omitted due to completing the survey too quickly to have read the questions.

Differences between schools and state or regional norms must be interpreted with caution since they may be due to factors 

such as sampling error or measurement error. Additional reports and analyses of survey results at the state level will be 

released in the coming year. For more information, see http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu

Survey design, statistical analyses, and reports were prepared by the Virginia Youth Project of the Curry School of 

Education, University of Virginia, with support by grant 2012-JF-FX-0062 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions 

or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the 

Department of Justice. The Virginia Center for School and Campus Safety of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice 

Services and the Virginia Department of Education provided collaborative support for this project.