U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice FEBRUARY 2018

R

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

EPORT 

Creating and Sustaining a Positive 

and Communal School Climate: 

Contemporary Research, Present 

Obstacles, and Future Directions 

ALLISON ANN PAYNE, PH.D.

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY 

NCJ 250209 
NIJ’s Comprehensive School Safety Initiative 

The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI) is a research-focused initiative that brings together the nation’s best minds 

to increase the safety of schools nationwide. The initiative was a response to disturbing, high-profile incidents of school 

violence. Schools are mostly safe places — but when violence does occur, it can have far-reaching ramifications. CSSI is an 

investment in developing knowledge about the root causes of school violence, developing strategies for increasing school 

safety, and rigorously evaluating innovative school safety strategies through pilot programs. 

CSSI projects aim to: 

1) Identify and understand the potential root causes and consequences of school violence and its impact on school safety. 

2) Increase the safety of schools nationwide by developing a solid foundation of knowledge and best practices that can be 

sustainably implemented through individualized school safety programs, policies, and activities. 

3) Help identify matters internal and external to the school that may result in harm to students, teachers, staff, and schools. 

4) Implement programs, policies, and practices that improve school safety and climate, focus on the school environment, 

or enhance educational and other outcomes for students and schools. 

5) Identify effective strategies to respond to and resolve safety issues faced by schools and students. 

6) In collaboration with key partners from education, law enforcement, behavioral/mental health, and social work, develop 

and test a comprehensive framework for school safety. 

The initiative is focused on K-12 public schools, including public charter schools. CSSI projects require close collaborations 

between educators, researchers, and other stakeholders in the school community to ask the right questions, prioritize 

challenges, identify solutions, collect data, and make sense of the findings. 

Through projects funded under the CSSI, NIJ works to produce knowledge that can be applied to school safety across the 

nation and for years to come. For more detailed information on the initiative see NIJ.ojp.gov, keyword: CSSI. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D. 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products of the National Institute of Justice can be found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

Strengthen Science • Advance Justice 

NIJ.ojp.gov 

Office of Justice Programs 

Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice 

OJP.gov 

The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s 

mission is to advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. 

Opinions or conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate i 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 

What Is School Climate?.......................................................................................... 7 

How Is School Climate Assessed?............................................................................ 9 

What Are the Outcomes Associated With School Climate? ................................ 12 

How Does School Climate Lead to These Outcomes?......................................... 14 

What Influences School Climate? ......................................................................... 15 

How Can School Climate Be Improved? .............................................................. 16 

Recommendations ................................................................................................. 19 

Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 20 

References .............................................................................................................. 23 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 1 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

Executive Summary 

Although school-related deaths, violent victimizations, and overall school crime have declined 

over the past two decades, crime and victimization in schools are still a cause for concern 

(Robers et al., 2015). As attention to school safety has increased over the past two decades, 

research has highlighted a variety of school-related factors shown to influence school disorder. 

Among these is school climate, the importance of which has been recognized for over a 

century (Perry, 1908; Dewey, 1916). Interest in school climate continues to grow, particularly as 

recent federal initiatives reflect increased recognition of the importance of school climate for 

positive youth development (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, 2014). 

School climate has a clear impact on all members of the school community. Students in 

schools with a positive and communal climate demonstrate stronger academic achievement 

and engagement, better socio-emotional health, and lower levels of absenteeism, truancy, 

dropping out, and victimization (Cohen and Geier, 2010; Payne et al., 2003). They also 

display lower levels of substance use and aggression, are subjected to fewer suspensions and 

expulsions, and engage in fewer deviant and criminal acts (Payne, 2008; Thapa et al., 2013). 

Additionally, teachers in a school with a positive and communal climate experience higher 

levels of efficacy, morale, and satisfaction, and lower levels of absenteeism, turnover, and 

victimization (Cohen and Geier, 2010; Gottfredson et al., 2005; NSCC, 2007; Payne et al. 

2003). It is clear that this type of school climate has great influence on the safety and success 

of a school and the behavioral and academic outcomes of its students. 

Unfortunately, the benefits resulting from a positive and communal school climate have 

not been translated into effective educational practices. This “translation gap” — the gap 

between school climate research and policy — stems from several problems. One is the lack 

of an agreed-upon definition of school climate (NSCC, 2007). Researchers define school 

climate in countless ways and continue to debate the key components of a positive and 

communal school climate. While many focus on the relationships among school community 

members and the commonality of the school’s goals, norms, and values, there is no 

consensus on a universal definition. Without a clear definition that fully articulates exactly 

what constitutes school climate, school leaders are left without a roadmap for school climate 

improvement, and the translation gap continues to widen. 

A second matter that contributes to the gap between research and policy stems from this 

lack of a universal definition. Because there is disagreement on what constitutes school 

Allison Ann Payne, Ph.D., is associate professor in the Department of Sociology & Criminal Justice at Villanova University 

and associate director of their University Honors Program. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 2 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

climate, there is also disagreement on how 

it can best be assessed. This has led states, 

districts, and schools to use tools that have 

not been tested for reliability and validity 

or have come up short in this area, and 

that do not capture the comprehensive 

nature of school climate, either in terms 

of components or in terms of school 

community members (Cohen, 2013). It is 

imperative that school climate is assessed 

using reliable and valid instruments that 

capture all elements of school climate and 

recognize the voices of all school members. 

Results from such an assessment can 

provide useful and accurate data to inform 

the school improvement process. 

Another area that has not been fully 

explored is the process that links school 

climate to its beneficial outcomes. 

Some have proposed that a positive and 

communal school climate leads to a greater 

sense of belonging, which, in turn, leads 

to more prosocial behaviors: Schools with 

such climates meet the needs of both 

teachers and students, who therefore 

become more attached to other school 

community members, more committed 

to the school’s mission and goals, and 

more likely to internalize school norms 

and rules (Payne, 2008). This process is 

key for schools because students who are 

well integrated are not only more likely 

to have a positive learning experience but 

are also less likely to engage in deviance 

and crime. Although research has begun 

to document the relationship between 

positive and communal school climates 

and school bonding, more work is needed. 

Understanding the mechanisms that 

underlie this relationship is vital as school 

leaders work to develop successful school 

improvement plans. 

A lack of school climate leadership also 

plays a role in the gap between school 

climate research and policy. Having strong 

and defined leadership roles at the state, 

district, and school levels is integral for 

school climate policies and practices to 

be effectively developed and implemented 

(NSCC, 2007). In addition, many school 

climate improvement efforts are generally 

isolated within a narrower focus, such 

as student health or school safety, rather 

than holistically implemented into larger 

school-wide changes that include a focus 

on accountability, school community norms 

and beliefs, and other dimensions of school 

climate (NSCC, 2007). 

It is abundantly clear that creating and 

sustaining a positive and communal 

school climate would lead to beneficial 

improvements in students’ academic and 

behavioral success. By engaging in a school 

climate improvement process, education 

leaders at the state, district, and school 

levels can increase the safety and success of 

all members of the school community. To 

this end, the following policy and research 

recommendations are proposed: 

Recommendation One: Defining School 

Climate. Education researchers, policymakers, 

and leaders at all levels — federal, state, 

district, and school — should adopt a 

definition of school climate that focuses 

on relationships among school community 

members, the goals and norms of the school, 

and school member participation. A positive 

and communal school climate emphasizes 

trusting and supportive relationships 

among all members of the school 

community, a common set of goals and 

norms, and a sense of collaboration and 

involvement within the school community. 

This leads to a sense of safety and bonding 

and allows a focus on effective teaching and 

learning that, in turn, results in students’ 

academic and behavioral success. 

Recommendation Two: Assessing School 

Climate. Education researchers, with 

support from policymakers, should 

develop measurement instruments that 

comprehensively assess the climate of a 

school by surveying all members of the 

school community — students, teachers, 

administrators, additional staff, parents, and 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 3 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

members of the larger community — on 

all school climate dimensions, including 

relationships, norms and goals, and 

collaboration and involvement. Proper 

multilevel collection and analysis of data 

should be ensured by using measures 

of school climate that refer to school 

conditions external to the individual and 

measures of student bonding that refer to 

internal feelings and beliefs. The reliability 

and validity of all instruments should 

be certified by using previously tested 

measures from assessment tools such as the 

Comprehensive School Climate Inventory 

(CSCI; Cohen et al., 2009), the Effective 

School Battery (ESB; Gottfredson, 1999), 

and What About You (WAY; Gottfredson 

and Gottfredson, 1999). New measures 

that need to be developed to assess 

school climate elements or survey school 

community members and that are not 

included in previously tested measures 

should be pilot tested to ensure they are 

psychometrically sound. 

Recommendation Three: Exploring School 

Climate. Researchers, with support from 

policymakers, should further explore 

the process leading from a positive and 

communal school climate to its beneficial 

outcomes, as well as the factors that 

influence the creation of such a climate. 

This should be done through the collection 

and analysis of data from a nationally 

representative sample of schools. This 

sample should include public, private, and 

parochial schools and should be stratified 

by location and level. All members of the 

school community should be surveyed. In 

addition, onsite observations should be 

conducted by researchers to gather data 

supplementary to the survey responses. 

Recommendation Four: Improving 

School Climate. Every district and school 

should create a climate team, comprising 

representatives from all school community 

groups, including students, teachers, 

administrators, additional staff, parents, 

and members of the greater community. 

These teams should be supported by strong 

and clearly defined climate leadership at 

the federal, state, district, and school levels. 

The school climate teams should engage in 

the following activities: (1) participation in 

professional development opportunities to 

learn about school climate research and best 

practices; (2) evaluation of state, district, 

and school policies in light of this research 

and their own school’s goals; (3) regular 

assessment of the current school climate 

through surveys of all school community 

members; and (4) implementation of 

school climate improvement efforts at 

both the district and school levels that 

are incorporated into every facet of the 

school’s function — curricular choices, 

extracurricular activities, rules and 

policies, and the school’s goals and 

mission — and include every member 

of the school community. Further, these 

teams should use a data-driven decisionmaking process to guide the school 

climate improvement efforts. 

Although the school climate improvement 

process is complex and will likely 

involve different considerations for each 

district and school, following the policy 

recommendations outlined above will go 

far to help schools create and sustain a 

positive and communal climate. Doing so 

will increase the safety and success of the 

nation’s schools and the academic and 

behavioral success of the nation’s youth. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 4 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

Creating and Sustaining a Positive 

and Communal School Climate: 

Contemporary Research, Present 

Obstacles, and Future Directions 

Introduction 

Although school-related deaths, violent victimizations in school, and overall school crime 

have declined over the past two decades, delinquency and victimization rates in schools are 

still a cause for concern. In 2013, 37 per 1,000 students experienced violent victimizations at 

school, compared with 15 per 1,000 students away from school. During that same year, 

7 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun or 

knife at school, 5 percent of students reported carrying a weapon to school, and 8 percent 

of students reported being in a physical fight at school. In addition, 22 percent of students 

reported being bullied at school, with 33 percent of bullying victims reporting being bullied 

at least once or twice a month (Robers et al., 2015). Surveys of public school teachers and 

principals also indicate the continual presence of crime and disorder. Throughout the 

2011-2012 school year, 10 percent of public school teachers reported being threatened with 

injury by a student and 6 percent reported actually being physically attacked by a student. 

During the 2009-2010 school year, 85 percent of public school principals recorded one or 

more crime incidents and 60 percent reported these incidents to the police. In terms of 

seriousness, 74 percent of public school principals recorded one or more violent incidents 

and 16 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents. Throughout this same year, 

44 percent of public school principals recorded one or more thefts and 23 percent reported 

that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis. In response to these 

incidents, 39 percent of public schools took at least one serious disciplinary action against a 

student; of these, 74 percent were suspensions, 20 percent were transfers, and 6 percent were 

removals with no services provided (Robers et al., 2015). 

Aside from the obvious costs of school crime on personal injury and property damage and 

loss, school crime and disorder are costly because they reduce the ability of schools to carry 

out their educational mission. Teachers in disorderly schools spend a large proportion of 

their time coping with behavior problems rather than in academic instruction, resulting 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 5 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

in lower levels of student academic 

engagement, academic performance, and 

eventually graduation rates. Indeed, during 

the 2011-2012 school year, 38 percent of 

teachers agreed or strongly agreed that 

student misbehavior interfered with their 

ability to teach (Robers et al., 2015). Fear 

of victimization in schools also influences 

students’ attendance, such that students 

are more likely to avoid school activities or 

places, or even school itself, due to fear of 

attack or harm (Hutzell and Payne, 2016). 

As attention to school violence and safety 

has increased over the past two decades, 

research has highlighted a variety of 

school-related factors shown to influence 

school disorder. Among the factors that 

might be improved in efforts to reduce 

school crime and disorder is school 

climate, the importance of which has been 

recognized for over a century (Perry, 1908; 

Dewey, 1916). Systematic scientific study 

of school climate began in the 1950s, as 

organizational researchers investigated the 

effectiveness of different school practices 

and environments (Cohen and Geier, 2010). 

Recognition of schools as a primary agent 

of socialization grew; along with the family, 

schools provide an early introduction to and 

continual reminding of society’s norms and 

values to children and adolescents (Eccles 

and Roeser, 2011). 

Interest in school climate continues to 

increase, particularly as recent federal 

initiatives reflect growing recognition of the 

importance of school climate for positive 

youth development. In the foreword to a 

U.S. Department of Education (ED) report 

on school climate and discipline, former 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan set 

forth three guiding principles for school 

improvement. The first of these was for 

schools to “take deliberate steps to create 

the positive school climates that can 

help prevent and change inappropriate 

behaviors” (U.S. ED, 2014, p. ii). In 

addition, ED has created a program 

called Safe and Supportive Schools, which 

supports the development of statewide 

school climate assessment systems and the 

evaluation of school climate improvement 

processes. Schools that receive grants 

under the Successful, Safe, and Healthy 

Students Program — part of Safe and 

Supportive Schools — are required to use 

these funds to implement and maintain 

strategies created to improve school safety 

and promote students’ physical and mental 

health and prosocial behavior, in part by 

ensuring a healthy and supportive school 

climate (U.S. ED, 2010). Similarly, ED’s Safe 

and Drug-Free Schools Division examined 

how to use school climate as a data-driven 

concept and process to increase students’ 

prosocial behavior and improve students’ 

social and emotional health. As part of this 

focus, ED’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

Division allocated more than $155 million 

for the development of statewide school 

climate assessment and improvement 

systems to support schools in the creation 

and maintenance of positive and communal 

school climates (Cohen, 2013). 

Different definitions of school climate 

abound, including the “inner workings of 

the school” (Ma et al., 2001, p. 256), “shared 

beliefs, values, and attitudes that shape 

interactions between the students, teachers, 

and administrators” in which “tacit rules 

delineate parameters of acceptable behavior 

and norms for the school” (Mitchell et 

al., 2010, p. 272), and “the quality and 

character of school life, including norms, 

values, and expectations that a school 

accepts and promotes” which “in turn, 

create an environment that dictates whether 

the staff, students and parents feel safe 

(emotionally, socially, physically), welcome 

and respected” (Aldridge and Ala’l, 2013, p. 

47). The National School Climate Council 

(NSCC), a group of educational practice 

and policy leaders and researchers, defines 

school climate as “based on patterns of 

people’s experiences of school life and 

reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 6 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

relationships, teaching and learning 

practices, and organizational structures” 

(NSCC, 2007, p. 5). 

Ultimately, school climate is a broad 

concept with many components, for 

example: 

• The National School Climate Center 

details four essential areas of focus: 

Safety, Relationships, Teaching 

and Learning, and Institutional 

Environment (Cohen, 2013). 

• The U.S. ED’s Safe and Supportive 

Schools model presents three 

interrelated domains: Safety, Student 

Engagement, and School Environment 

(Bradshaw et al., 2014). 

As with the overall definition, there is no 

consensus surrounding what elements 

are essential to defining, measuring, and 

improving school climate. 

Although there is a lack of agreement, most 

definitions emphasize the importance of 

relationships among school community 

members as well as the importance of 

shared school goals, norms, and values. 

School climate experts agree that it is 

a group phenomenon reflecting the 

character of school life and patterns of 

school members’ experiences. School 

climate can be thought of as the “sum 

of the experiences, norms, values, 

relationships, practices, and structures of a 

school” (Peguero and Bracy, 2014, p. 412). 

Importantly, collective action is a necessary 

component: A positive and communal 

school climate must be actively created 

and sustained by all members of the school 

community (NSCC, 2007). 

Despite the lack of a universally agreedupon definition, research clearly 

demonstrates a relationship between 

school climate and a variety of outcomes. 

For instance, a common purpose and 

a set of shared values among school 

members have been highlighted as an 

important element in obtaining high levels 

of student achievement and low levels 

of school disorder (Gottfredson, 2001). 

Furthermore, school environments that 

promote supportive relationships between 

teachers and students can protect those 

students from high-risk behavior (Gregory 

et al., 2012). In addition, a collaborative 

school culture, in which teachers share 

responsibility and commitment to the 

students and the school, is more effective 

for both student achievement and prosocial 

behavior than the individualistic culture 

that characterizes many schools (Payne et 

al., 2003). 

In general, a positive and communal 

school climate demonstrates many 

beneficial outcomes for all members of 

the school community. Such schools have 

lower levels of school violence ( Johnson, 

2009; Steffgen et al., 2013). Students in 

these schools demonstrate better socioemotional adjustment, stronger academic 

achievement, and lower levels of dropping 

out and absenteeism (Bear et al., 2015; 

Klein et al., 2012; Peguero and Bracy, 

2014; Thapa et al., 2013). The students also 

engage in less substance use and delinquent 

behavior and experience less victimization 

and fewer suspensions and expulsions (Bear 

et al., 2015; Klein et al., 2012; Thapa et al., 

2013). Ultimately, the climate of a school 

affects that school’s ability to regulate its 

students’ behaviors, such that school crime 

and disorder will be lower when the climate 

is “more socially cohesive and has a shared 

sense of values and beliefs” (Zaykowski and 

Gunter, 2012, p. 435). 

Unfortunately, the benefits resulting from 

a positive and communal school climate 

have not been translated into effective 

educational processes. There is a large gap 

between the empirical research findings 

surrounding school climate and the policies 

and practices aimed at school improvement 

(Cohen et al., 2009). This “translation gap,” 

the gap between research and practice, 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 7 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

stems from several problems. The first, as 

presented above, is the lack of consensus 

regarding the definition of school climate 

(NSCC, 2007). The second problem derives 

from disagreement on the definition of 

school climate and on how it can best be 

assessed. This, in turn, has lead states, 

schools, and districts to use instruments 

that have rarely been tested for reliability 

and validity or have come up short in these 

areas (Cohen, 2014; Ramelow et al., 2015). 

They have also used instruments that do 

not adequately measure the comprehensive 

nature of school climate, either in terms 

of its components or in terms of school 

community members (Cohen, 2013). 

Similarly, many states, districts, and schools 

have not established standards for linking 

empirical data to improvement plans 

(NSCC, 2007); thus, it is unclear whether 

any improvement efforts are based on 

research findings and recommendations. 

Finally, these school climate reform efforts 

are generally isolated, with a narrower focus 

on student health or school safety rather 

than holistically implementing school 

culture reforms as part of larger schoolwide 

changes, such as accountability policies, 

school community norms and beliefs, and 

other elements of school climate (NSCC, 

2007). Indeed, a recent review of state 

education departments’ school policies 

“revealed significant shortcomings in how 

[school] climate is defined, measured, and 

incorporated into policies” (Cohen et al., 

2009, p. 187). 

It is clear that school leaders are invested 

in creating and sustaining positive and 

communal school climates and that 

governmental support for school climate 

improvement continues to increase. 

Unfortunately, it is also clear that school 

leaders are unsure of what school climate 

improvement looks like on a day-to-day 

basis. Because of the lack of consensus 

on how to define and measure school 

climate, there is also a lack of knowledge 

surrounding policies and practices that 

effectively create, support, and sustain a 

positive and communal school climate 

(Cohen, 2014). Additionally, there is a lack 

of knowledge regarding the link between 

a positive and communal school climate 

and the beneficial outcomes that result for 

students, teachers, and the entire school 

community (Payne et al., 2003; Payne, 

2008). 

This white paper will span and address 

these nuanced topics. The differing 

definitions of school climate will be 

presented and discussed first, followed 

by an examination of the problems 

surrounding the assessment of school 

climate. The beneficial outcomes associated 

with a positive and communal school 

climate will then be explored, as will the 

process through which these outcomes 

occur. School climate improvement issues 

will then be presented, and the report will 

conclude by offering specific school climate 

policy and research recommendations. 

What Is School Climate? 

As presented in the introduction, 

research has demonstrated a translation 

gap between findings on the beneficial 

outcomes from a positive, communal 

school climate and the actual policies 

and practices implemented in schools. 

One major reason for this gap is the lack 

of a national consensus on what exactly 

constitutes school climate. Researchers 

define school climate in countless ways and 

continue to debate the key components 

of a positive and communal school 

climate. A recent scan of state ED school 

policies showed that the school climate 

policy statements of 36 states provided 

definitions that were lacking in specificity 

and purpose, likely due to the perplexingly 

large span of definitions that abound in 

empirical work (Cohen et al., 2009). 

In a recent document on school climate 

and discipline, ED defined school climate 

as the “extent to which a school community 

creates and maintains a safe school campus; 

a supportive academic, disciplinary, and 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 8 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

physical environment; and respectful, 

trusting, and caring relationships 

throughout the school community” (U.S. 

ED, 2014, p. 5). The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention referred to a 

positive school climate as one with “caring 

and supportive interpersonal relationships; 

opportunities to participate in school 

activities and decision-making; and shared 

positive norms, goals, and values” (CDC, 

2009, p. 7). Others have defined school 

climate as the “quality and character of 

school life [that] involves social, emotional, 

and academic experiences of students, 

family members, and school personnel,” 

which “can be summarized as the collective 

beliefs, values, and attitudes that prevail 

at school” (Wang et al., 2014, p. 361) and 

“the quality and character of school life, 

including norms, values and expectations 

that a school accepts and promotes,” 

which “in turn, create an environment 

that dictates whether the staff, students 

and parents feel safe (emotionally, socially, 

physically), welcome and respected” 

(Aldridge and Ala’l, 2013, p. 47). 

Perhaps the most important element of 

school climate is the relationships between 

all members of the school community: “If 

there is a common thread to creating a 

positive school climate, it is the importance 

of relationships — student to student, 

teacher to student, teacher to family, 

administrator to staff, school to community. 

Perhaps it is simplistic to conclude that 

something as inherently comprehensive 

and complex as school climate boils down 

to such subjective considerations as people 

and relationships, but that may be closest 

to the truth” (Noonan, 2004, p. 56). After 

a decades-long study of Chicago schools, 

Bryk and colleagues (2010) concluded 

that trusting relationships are the “glue” 

that binds together an effective school 

climate. Thus, supportive and collaborative 

relationships are an essential part of a 

positive and communal school climate 

and lead to many beneficial academic and 

behavioral outcomes. 

In addition to relationships, many of the 

definitions make reference to the values, 

beliefs, and norms of a school community, 

which shape and are shaped by the nature 

of relationships and interactions in the 

school. Interactions among all members of 

the school community “set the parameters 

of acceptable behavior and norms for the 

school” (Koth et al., 2008, p. 96). Thus, 

school climate can be viewed as a “product 

of social interactions among students and 

teachers, [that] is influenced by educational 

and social values, and has been shown to 

relate to social situations within classrooms 

and to school as a whole” (Mitchell and 

Bradshaw, 2013, p. 600). 

Some researchers have provided more 

in-depth discussion regarding what 

constitutes school climate. The National 

School Climate Council (NSCC, 2007, p. 4), 

composed of researchers working to narrow 

the translation gap between research and 

policy, states: 

School climate 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. 

A sustainable, positive school climate 

fosters youth development and learning 

necessary for a productive, contributive, 

and satisfying life in a democratic 

society. This climate includes norms, 

values, and expectations that support 

people feeling socially, emotionally, 

and physically safe. People are engaged 

and respected. Students, families, and 

educators work together to develop, live, 

and contribute to a shared school vision. 

Educators model and nurture an attitude 

that emphasizes the benefits of, and 

satisfaction from, learning. Each person 

contributes to the operations of the 

school as well as the care of the physical 

environment. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 9 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

The NSCC continues by identifying what 

they consider to be the four essential 

spheres of focus: safety, relationships, 

teaching and learning, and the institutional 

environment (Cohen and Geier, 2010). 

Safety refers to the rules and norms of 

the school, and concerns physical as well 

as socio-emotional safety. The focus on 

relationships covers respect for diversity 

as well as student and adult social 

support. Teaching and learning refers 

to social, emotional, and civic learning, 

support for learning, and the professional 

relationships found in the school. Finally, 

the institutional environment deals with the 

actual physical surroundings. 

Others present a narrower definition, 

however, arguing that perceptions of safety 

and the culture surrounding teaching and 

learning are factors associated with school 

climate rather than components of school 

climate. Payne and colleagues (2003, 2008) 

define a positive and communal school 

climate as one with supportive relationships 

among all school community members, 

a common set of goals and norms, and a 

sense of collaboration and involvement. 

Such a climate has a strong sense of 

community, in which members care about 

and support one another; these members 

actively contribute to the school and feel 

personally committed to its mission, goals, 

and norms. This, in turn, leads to more 

positive perceptions of safety and a stronger 

focus on teaching and learning by all school 

community members, which then allows for 

greater student academic and behavioral 

success. 

Thus, it appears that the main reason there 

is no consensus regarding what school 

climate entails is a disagreement on the 

breadth of the definition. Virtually all 

scholars agree that school climate includes 

the quality of relationships among school 

community members and the degree to 

which a sense of common school norms and 

values exists. However, while some scholars 

additionally include safety, teaching and 

learning, and the physical environment 

as elements of school climate (Cohen 

and Geier, 2010), others argue that these 

constructs are, in fact, separate factors 

that both influence and are influenced 

by school climate (Payne, 2008). This 

difference must be reconciled before 

the field can coalesce around a common 

definition. 

Although there is no agreed-upon 

definition, most consider school climate 

to be a “group phenomenon that is larger 

than any one person’s experience” (Cohen 

et al., 2009, p. 182). It is the totality of all 

school community members’ experiences 

and incorporates the relationships in the 

school and the goals, norms, and values of 

the school community. This understanding, 

however, is not enough. Without clear 

definitions that fully articulate exactly 

what constitutes school climate, and what 

are the important elements to consider, 

school leaders are left without a roadmap 

for school climate improvement, and the 

translation gap continues to widen. 

How Is School Climate 

Assessed? 

Another concern that contributes to the 

translation gap between school climate 

research and policy stems from this lack 

of a universal definition: Because there is 

disagreement on what exactly constitutes 

school climate, there is also disagreement 

on how best to measure it. This, in turn, 

has caused school leaders to make 

“poor choices in terms of school climate 

measurement at the state level” (NSCC, 

2007, p. 7), including creating their own 

assessment tools that suffer from severe 

limitations. There is a strong need for 

sound and comprehensive measurement 

of school climate in order to inform 

the choices made by school leadership. 

Unfortunately, the current state of 

school climate assessment is lacking. Now 

that a series of recent federal initiatives 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 10 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

recognizes the importance of school 

climate and, further, calls for proper needs 

assessment data as a guide for school 

climate improvement (U.S. ED, 2010), these 

limitations must be addressed. 

An important aspect of solid needs 

assessment is the use of psychometrically 

sound measurement tools. This requires 

that a measurement instrument be high 

in both reliability (i.e., the extent to which 

the instrument produces similar results 

when used repeatedly) and validity (i.e., the 

extent to which an instrument measures 

what it is intended to measure). Many of the 

surveys used to measure school climate have 

not been tested for these qualities. Further, 

those that have been tested for reliability 

and validity have frequently come up 

short (Cohen, 2014; Ramelow et al., 2015). 

Indeed, a recent study concluded that only 

three of 102 school climate measures met 

the American Psychological Association’s 

reliability and validity standards (Cohen, 

2013). In addition, even when reliable and 

valid measurement tools are available, many 

schools use homemade surveys because 

other instruments are too long or too costly 

(Bear et al., 2015). Unfortunately, using 

unreliable and invalid tools can lead to 

inaccurate and useless information, waste 

time and money, and ultimately harm the 

school improvement process. 

In addition to being psychometrically 

unsound, school climate assessments often 

do not include the many different members 

who make up the school community: 

students, teachers, administrators, and 

additional staff — such as guidance 

counselors, administrative assistants, and 

custodians — along with parents and 

members of the greater community (Bear 

et al., 2015). The lack of a comprehensive 

survey of all school community members 

is problematic for two reasons. First, 

there is not always consensus about the 

nature of a school’s climate; that is, 

discrepant perceptions of school climate 

do occur between groups in a school. 

For instance, teachers and students can 

have different perceptions of the school 

climate, depending on characteristics of 

the individual, the classroom, and the 

school (Mitchell et al., 2010, Mitchell 

and Bradshaw, 2013). Others suggest that 

parent perceptions of school climate are 

also important to consider (Bear et al., 

2015). A second problem with the lack 

of a comprehensive assessment occurs if 

studies rely on data from only one group of 

respondents; that is, if a study’s measures of 

both school climate and potential outcomes 

are obtained by surveying only students 

or only teachers. This may cause the 

assessment to suffer from shared method 

variance, in which the relationship between 

these measures is inflated simply as a result 

of coming from the same respondent 

(Klein et al., 2012). Thus, it is important 

for data to be collected from different 

sources — from all members of the school 

community — to ensure that a variety 

of perspectives is attained, allowing 

for a comprehensive assessment to be 

conducted. 

Similarly, the majority of instruments 

neither accurately account for 

nor comprehensively assess the 

multidimensional nature of school climate 

(Bear et al., 2015; Ramelow et al., 2015). 

As discussed previously, researchers have 

suggested multiple elements of school 

climate, including relationships, rules 

and norms, and physical surroundings. 

However, few instruments assess more 

than one of these components at a time, 

let alone all of them (Klein et al., 2012). 

Most surveys focus on one specific element, 

such as relationships or rules and norms, 

despite clear evidence that school climate 

is multifaceted. As with the inclusion of 

all school members in the assessment, it 

is important to include all components 

of school climate as well. Failing to do so 

will result in inaccurate results that ignore 

the holistic nature of the school climate 

concept. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 11 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

 

Many school climate assessments also fall 

short when they fail to measure school 

climate at the appropriate level of analysis 

or fail to recognize the multilevel nature 

of the school itself. Because school climate 

is a group phenomenon that encompasses 

the character of the overall school 

community, it should be measured and 

analyzed at the school level (Payne et al., 

2003). Unfortunately, many studies assess 

school climate at the individual level (Wang 

et al., 2014). Indeed, given that many of 

the benefits resulting from a positive and 

communal school climate are individuallevel outcomes, such as student academic 

achievement or delinquent behavior, 

school climate should ideally be studied 

in a multilevel hierarchical framework. 

This would allow assessments to take into 

account characteristics of the individual, 

classroom, and school as a whole (Payne, 

2008; Ramelow et al., 2015). Unfortunately, 

most evaluations do not do this. 

Finally, most assessments of school climate 

do not take into account its dynamic nature. 

School climate is not a static condition but, 

rather, it changes over time (Thapa et al., 

2013). Further, as the nature of the school 

climate shifts, so too do the associated 

outcomes (Wang and Dishion, 2011). It is 

important that future work examine the 

dynamic nature of school climate, as this 

could be helpful when focusing on the 

school improvement process. 

Despite these problems, there are a few 

measures that have been developed 

in a psychometrically sound way and 

that comprehensively assess school 

climate. Perhaps the best of these is the 

Comprehensive School Climate Inventory 

(CSCI), which surveys students, parents, and 

school staff about the four dimensions of 

school climate put forth by the NSCC: safety, 

teaching and learning, relationships, and 

the institutional environment (Wang et al., 

2013). Helpfully, the report generated from 

this instrument provides recommendations 

and research-based guidelines that portray 

a clear path to school climate improvement 

(Cohen et al., 2009). In addition, ED 

has just released its own assessment 

tool (ED School Climate Survey), which 

measures three domains of school climate: 

engagement (cultural and linguistic 

competence, relationships, and school 

participation), safety (emotional safety, 

physical safety, bullying/cyberbullying, 

substance abuse, and emergency readiness/ 

management), and environment (physical 

environment, instructional environment, 

physical health, mental health, and 

discipline). 

This instrument is on the Safe 

Supportive Learning website at http:// 

safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls. 

It is important to also acknowledge that 

other ways of measuring school climate 

exist. These include observations and 

walk-throughs, audits and checklists, and 

official data such as academic grades 

and disciplinary records. Although these 

strategies have both advantages and 

disadvantages, they would aid in the 

creation of a holistic picture of school 

climate. Thus, using many methods to 

assess school climate would be the best 

approach (Kohl et al., 2013). 

As discussed, ED’s Safe and Supportive 

Schools program funds the development 

of statewide school climate assessment 

systems and the evaluation of school 

climate improvement processes (U.S. ED, 

2010). Given this and other recent federal 

initiatives, it is imperative that school 

climate is assessed using reliable and valid 

instruments that capture all dimensions 

of school climate and that recognize the 

voices of all school community members. 

Results from such an assessment can 

provide useful and accurate data to inform 

the school improvement process, which is 

the ultimate goal. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 12 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

What Are the Outcomes 

Associated With School 

Climate? 

Despite the lack of a universally agreedupon definition, research clearly 

demonstrates a beneficial relationship 

between school climate and a variety 

of outcomes. Unequivocally, the social 

relations in a school, the cultural system 

of values and norms, the management 

structure, and the interactions among 

school community members all have great 

influence on the success of a school. A 

strong body of work has examined the 

impact that the different elements of a 

positive and communal school climate have 

on a variety of outcomes. The majority 

of this research is of relatively high 

methodological quality, particularly with 

regard to the size and representativeness 

of samples and the analyses performed; 

the clearest weaknesses of some of this 

work are those surrounding school climate 

assessment, as discussed in the previous 

section. 

One essential element is the supportive 

relationships between teachers and 

students, which can lead to many 

educational benefits for those students, 

including higher academic achievement, 

school engagement, and graduation rates, 

along with decreased truancy and dropping 

out (Aldridge and Ala’l, 2013; Barile et al., 

2012; Cohen and Geier, 2010; Gregory et 

al., 2012; Hopson and Lee, 2011; McCoy et 

al., 2013; Peguero and Bracy, 2014). These 

trusting and supportive relationships 

can also protect students from high-risk 

behavior: Students who have healthy 

and respectful relationships with their 

teachers display fewer problem behaviors, 

fewer bullying behaviors, lower levels of 

victimization, less frequent fighting with 

other students, and decreased engagement 

in violent behaviors (Aldridge and Ala’l, 

2013; Cohen and Geier, 2010; Gregory et 

al., 2012; Hopson and Lee, 2011; Johnson, 

2009; Peguero and Bracy, 2014; Wang 

and Dishion, 2011). Clearly, positive 

relationships between teachers and students 

are essential to students’ academic and 

behavioral success. 

Supportive and cooperative relationships 

within the student body and among the 

faculty are also integral. When there are 

cohesive and trusting relationships between 

students, those students display better 

socio-emotional health and experience 

lower incidents of problem behaviors and 

victimization (Aldridge and Ala’l, 2013; 

Sapouna, 2009; Wang and Dishion, 2011). 

In addition, a collaborative faculty culture, 

in which teachers share responsibility 

and commitment to the students and the 

school, leads to higher levels of student 

achievement and prosocial behavior 

( Johnson, 2009). Thus, beyond the 

importance of healthy student-teacher 

relationships, establishing and sustaining 

supportive relationships among the students 

and within the faculty is a critical element 

of a positive and communal school climate. 

Other vital components of school climate 

are the rules and norms of the school. Clear 

rules, fair rule enforcement, a common 

purpose, and a set of shared values among 

school members have all been highlighted 

as important elements in obtaining low 

levels of school disorder (Aldridge and 

Ala’l, 2013; Gottfredson, 2001). The 

communication of clear behavioral norms 

in a school — that is, a clear picture of 

what types of behavior are acceptable and 

expected and what types of behavior are 

not — is associated with lower rates of 

victimization and violence ( Johnson, 2009). 

In addition, when adults in the school 

seek student input in the development of 

rules and policies, students in that school 

display fewer risky behaviors, including 

substance use and violence (Hopson and 

Lee, 2011). When students are clearly 

aware of these rules and believe that they 

are fairly enforced, schools have fewer 

instances of truancy and dropping out, 

lower suspension rates, and lower levels of 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 13 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

crime and victimization (Cohen and Geier, 

2010; Gottfredson et al., 2005; Gregory et 

al., 2012; Johnson, 2009; Thapa et al., 2013). 

As with relationships, the rules and norms 

of a school are vital components of school 

climate. 

Research has also illustrated the many 

beneficial outcomes of an overall positive 

and communal school climate for all 

members of the school community. 

Again, this research displays relatively 

high methodological quality, aside 

from the issues surrounding school 

climate assessment. Students in schools 

with a positive and communal climate 

demonstrate better socio-emotional health 

and stronger academic achievement and 

school engagement (Bear et al., 2015; 

Cohen and Geier, 2010; Hopson and Lee, 

2011; Klein et al., 2012; McCoy et al., 2013; 

Mitchell and Bradshaw, 2013; NSCC, 

2007; O’Malley et al., 2015; Thapa et al., 

2013; Wang, 2009; Wang et al., 2014). 

These students also display lower levels of 

absenteeism, truancy, and dropping out 

(Barile et al., 2012; Cohen and Geier, 2010; 

Mitchell and Bradshaw, 2013; NSCC, 2007; 

Peguero and Bracy, 2014; Thapa et al., 

2013). They are less likely to be victimized 

and are less afraid to attend school (Bear et 

al., 2015; Gottfredson et al., 2005; Johnson, 

2009; Payne et al., 2003; Phaneuf, 2006; 

Wang et al., 2013), and they demonstrate 

lower levels of substance use and aggression 

and are subjected to fewer suspensions 

and expulsions (Bear et al., 2015; Cohen 

and Geier, 2010; Klein et al., 2012; McCoy 

et al., 2013; Mitchell and Bradshaw, 2013; 

NSCC, 2007; Thapa et al., 2013). Finally, 

these students engage in fewer acts of 

deviance, delinquency, crime, and violence 

(Hopson and Lee, 2011; Klein et al., 2012; 

McCoy et al., 2013; Mitchell and Bradshaw, 

2013; Payne et al., 2003; Payne, 2008; 

Steffgen et al., 2013; Wang, 2009; Wang 

and Dishion, 2011). It is clear that a positive 

and communal school climate can act as a 

“protective factor for learning and positive 

life development of young people” (Thapa 

et al., 2013, p. 360). 

School climate also impacts the adults in 

the school community. Teachers in a school 

with a positive and communal climate 

display higher levels of efficacy, morale, 

and satisfaction (Cohen and Geier, 2010; 

NSCC, 2007). They also experience lower 

levels of absenteeism and victimization 

(Gottfredson et al., 2005; Payne et al., 

2003). Additionally, schools with positive 

and communal climates have greater levels 

of teacher retention and lower levels of 

teacher turnover (Cohen and Geier, 2010; 

NSCC, 2007). 

School climate can also moderate the 

relationships between other factors and 

students’ academic and behavioral success, 

such as student demographics and peer 

affiliations, family poverty and structure, 

and neighborhood poverty and crime. 

For example, although boys are more 

likely to engage in problem behaviors, 

school climate can moderate the effect 

of gender, such that boys are less likely 

to engage in these behaviors when they 

attend schools that have a positive and 

communal climate (Hopson and Lee, 

2011; Sapouna, 2009). Similarly, although 

schools that predominantly serve racial and 

ethnic minority students tend to have lower 

levels of academic achievement and higher 

levels of delinquency and victimization, 

school climate buffers the severity of this 

relationship, such that a positive and 

communal school climate has a stronger 

impact on academic and behavioral 

outcomes in these schools (Hopson and 

Lee, 2011; Payne, 2012; Stewart, 2008). 

Finally, the impact that deviant peers 

have on a student’s own delinquency can 

be counteracted by school climate: The 

positive correlation between deviant peer 

associations and a student’s level of problem 

behavior is weaker for students who attend a 

school with a positive and communal school 

climate (Wang and Dishion, 2011). 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 14 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

A moderating effect is also seen with regard 

to poverty, such that the beneficial impact 

of a positive and communal school climate 

on academic achievement and delinquency 

is greater for students who come from lower 

income households and students who attend 

high-poverty schools (Hopson and Lee, 

2011; Thapa et al., 2013). Similarly, school 

climate acts as a protective factor against 

the impact that high-risk family structures 

have on academic achievement: Students 

from homeless or single-parent families 

display academic grades that are similar 

to students from two-parent families when 

they attend schools with a positive and 

communal school climate (O’Malley et al., 

2015). Finally, school climate moderates 

the impact of neighborhood crime, in that 

students attending schools in high-crime 

neighborhoods are likely to display better 

academic achievement if the school is 

characterized by a positive and communal 

school climate (McCoy et al., 2013). Thus, 

beyond the direct beneficial impact on 

students’ academic and behavioral success, 

a positive and communal school climate 

may also serve as a moderating protective 

factor against the influences of certain 

individual, family, and neighborhood 

characteristics. 

How Does School Climate 

Lead to These Outcomes? 

Although the benefits of a positive and 

communal school climate are clear, the 

process that links school climate to these 

benefits has not been fully explored 

(Cohen and Geier, 2010; Payne, 2008). 

Why do schools with more positive and 

communal climates exhibit higher levels of 

student academic achievement and teacher 

effectiveness and lower levels of crime and 

victimization? Researchers are still learning 

why such a climate leads to these beneficial 

outcomes. Understanding the mechanisms 

that underlie this relationship is vital as 

school leaders work to develop successful 

school improvement plans. 

Many have proposed that a positive and 

communal school climate leads to a greater 

sense of belonging which, in turn, leads to 

more prosocial behaviors: Schools with such 

climates meet the needs of both teachers 

and students, who therefore become 

more attached to other school community 

members, more committed to the school’s 

mission and goals, and are more likely to 

internalize school norms and rules (Barile 

et al., 2012; Cohen et al., 2009; Payne et al., 

2003; Payne, 2008). Hirschi’s (1969) social 

control theory provides a possible link 

between school climate and school disorder: 

Students in a school with a positive and 

communal climate appear to be more 

bonded to the school, as shown by students’ 

attachment to prosocial school community 

members, commitment to educational 

investment, involvement in school activities, 

and belief in school rules and norms. As 

the members of the school create a positive 

and communal school community, the 

climate becomes warmer, more inclusive, 

and participatory. Students’ feelings of 

belonging and attachment increase, as does 

their commitment to school and their levels 

of belief in and internalization of school 

norms and rules. They feel as though they 

belong in the school, as though they are 

valued and accepted (Payne et al., 2003; 

Payne, 2008). 

A similar concept has been suggested — that 

the mechanism linking positive, communal 

school climates to beneficial outcomes is 

school connectedness, which is defined 

as student perceptions of belonging and 

closeness with others at school (CDC, 2009). 

School connectedness is a strong predictor 

of student behavior, influencing everything 

from academic achievement to violence 

and substance use (NSCC, 2007). Similar 

to Hirschi’s (1969) attachment element, 

when members of a school community 

feel connected to each other, students 

experience academic and behavioral 

success. As with school bonding, a limited 

amount of research has revealed that the 

relationship between school climate and 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 15 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

student aggression and victimization is 

dependent upon school connectedness 

(Wilson, 2004). 

This process is key for schools, whether 

looked at through a school bonding or a 

social connectedness lens. Students who 

are well integrated are not only more likely 

to have a positive learning experience but 

are also less likely to be deviant. Those who 

have prosocial attachments, who invest 

greater effort into school, who are involved 

in school activities, and who believe in the 

norms and rules of the school are less likely 

to engage in antisocial behavior. Indeed, 

much research supports the finding of low 

school bonding and school connectedness 

leading to student misbehavior (CDC, 2009; 

Gottfredson et al., 2005; Payne et al., 2003; 

Payne, 2008). 

Although some researchers consider school 

connectedness or bonding a component 

of school climate (NSCC, 2007), others 

argue that it is separate: School bonding 

represents the link between a positive 

and communal school climate and its 

beneficial outcomes (Payne et al., 2003; 

Payne, 2008). This is particularly evident 

when considering where each concept 

lies in relation to the individual. School 

climate refers to the existence of a 

social organization that is external to 

the individual; that is, the existence of 

trusting and supportive relationships, 

collaboration, and participation, and a 

set of shared norms and goals. School 

bonding or connectedness, however, 

refers to the internal processes that 

result from the existence of a positive 

and communal climate in the school: the 

personal attachment to the school, the 

individual commitment to education, and 

the internalized belief in school rules. 

Therefore, school climate is external to 

the individual, whereas student bonding is 

internal. From this point of view, a positive 

and communal school climate enhances 

the connectedness and bonding that 

students and adults feel toward the school, 

which, in turn, leads to positive and healthy 

behaviors. 

Although research has begun to document 

the relationship between a positive and 

communal school climate and school 

bonding or connectedness, more work is 

needed. It seems as though a caring and 

participatory school climate fosters greater 

connection, attachment, and commitment 

among school community members, 

which then provides a strong foundation 

for academic learning and prosocial 

behaviors. However, far more research is 

needed in order to truly understand these 

relationships and the processes that link 

these various concepts. 

What Influences School 

Climate? 

Some factors have been highlighted as 

influencing the nature of a school’s climate. 

Positive and communal school climates 

are more likely to occur in smaller schools 

with lower student-teacher ratios (Koth 

et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010; Payne, 

2012). In addition, schools with lower 

faculty and administrator turnover and 

lower student mobility are more likely to 

experience positive and communal school 

climates (Koth et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 

2010). Classroom factors also influence 

the larger school climate. Students report 

more communal school climates when their 

teachers use fewer exclusionary discipline 

strategies and more positive behavioral 

strategies; similarly, consistent enforcement 

of rules by the teacher is associated with 

a more positive school climate (Mitchell 

and Bradshaw, 2013). Finally, students in 

smaller classes also report more positive 

and communal school climates (Koth et al., 

2008). 

There is also a small but solid body of 

work showing discrepant perceptions of 

school climate that are dependent upon 

individual-level factors. Within the student 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 16 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

body, female and white students are more 

likely to report a positive and communal 

school climate (Koth et al., 2008; Mitchell 

et al., 2010; Mitchell and Bradshaw, 2013). 

Among the faculty, older teachers with 

more experience tend to report more 

positive and communal school climates, as 

do female and white teachers (Mitchell et 

al., 2010; Mitchell and Bradshaw, 2013). 

With these findings in mind, researchers 

and educational leaders can begin to 

identify what promotes the creation and 

maintenance of a positive and communal 

school climate. School improvement 

policies and practices can focus on reducing 

class size and the student-teacher ratio as 

well as stabilizing staff turnover (Koth et 

al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010). In addition, 

professional development surrounding 

classroom management could improve 

the school climate (Mitchell et al., 2010). 

Finally, given that gender and ethnicity are 

predictive of perceptions of school climate, 

it may be helpful to implement strategies 

aimed at enhancing the school experience 

of those with the most negative perceptions 

(Koth et al., 2008; Mitchell, 2010). 

How Can School Climate Be 

Improved? 

It is abundantly clear that creating and 

sustaining a positive and communal school 

climate would lead to improvements in 

school safety and success. Indeed, former 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 

stated that the first principle of school 

improvement should be for schools to “take 

deliberate steps to create the positive school 

climates that can help prevent and change 

inappropriate behaviors” (U.S. ED, 2014, 

p. ii), as schools that foster these climates 

can improve student learning and school 

safety. Unfortunately, this knowledge and 

support have yet to lead to successful school 

improvement policies and practices, mainly 

because school leaders do not know what 

this process should look like on a day-to-day 

basis (Cohen, 2014). Therefore, the solid 

research on the benefits of a positive and 

communal school climate is not reflected 

in current school policy and practice. This 

translation gap, the gap between school 

climate research and policy, exists for 

several reasons that can be addressed in 

order to improve school climate. 

Two factors that have led to the translation 

gap are the previously discussed lack of 

a universal definition of school climate 

and the many concerns surrounding 

assessment (NSCC, 2007). These limitations 

must be addressed, now that a series of 

recent federal initiatives recognizes the 

importance of school climate and calls for 

proper needs assessment data as a guide for 

improving school climate (U.S. ED, 2010). 

Educational researchers and leaders form 

a consensus regarding the definition and 

fundamental components of a positive and 

communal school climate. Additionally, it 

is imperative that school climate is assessed 

using reliable and valid measurement 

instruments that capture all dimensions of 

school climate while also recognizing the 

voices of all school community members. 

Results from such an assessment can 

provide useful and accurate data to inform 

the school improvement process. Another 

factor in the translation gap is a lack of 

school climate leadership among state 

policymakers (NSCC, 2007). Having strong 

and defined leaders at the state level who 

recognize the importance of school climate 

in the success of their state’s schools is vital 

for school climate policies and practices to 

be effectively developed and implemented. 

These leaders should discuss what options 

are available to ensure that school climate is 

an integral part of the school improvement 

process and work to integrate the strong 

body of empirical research into this process 

(NSCC, 2007). Along these lines, state 

policymakers should avail themselves of 

the resources that could be provided to 

them by academic and research institutions, 

relying on experts in the field of school 

climate who could guide them through 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 17 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

the maze of school climate definitions 

and assessment tools as they develop a 

successful improvement plan (Cohen et al., 

2009). Leadership at the district level is also 

important in the facilitation of a positive 

and communal school climate. These 

leaders should engage in a systematic review 

of their mission statements, accountability 

procedures, and other district policies and 

activities to ensure that these elements are 

supportive of the creation of such a climate 

(Pickeral et al., 2009). 

An additional area of concern in this 

research-to-policy gap is that school climate 

improvement efforts are generally isolated 

within a narrower focus on issues of student 

health or school safety, rather than being 

holistically implemented into schoolwide 

changes that include school community 

norms and beliefs, accountability policies, 

and other elements of school climate 

(NSCC, 2007). Evaluation research clearly 

shows that the most effective reforms are 

ones that are incorporated into every facet 

of the school’s educational function — 

curricular choices, extracurricular activities, 

rules and policies, even the school’s goals 

and ultimate mission — and that include 

the entire school community — students, 

teachers, administrators, families, and 

the larger community — in the school 

improvement process (Cohen, 2013; Cohen 

and Geier, 2010). 

The adults in the school form the backbone 

of this improvement process. Therefore, 

as called for by ED, schools should provide 

training and support to school personnel 

as they work to create a positive and 

communal school climate (U.S. ED, 2014). 

At the heart of this effort lies the principal, 

who has direct influence over school-level 

conditions. If principals engage teachers in 

decision-making processes and encourage 

faculty innovation and collaboration, they 

can create a professional culture of trust 

and support which, in turn, can increase 

teachers’ satisfaction and commitment. 

These positive attributes “ripple out” to the 

students, who then display greater academic 

and behavioral success (Price, 2012). Thus, 

principals are integral to the school climate 

improvement process. 

Equally important is a school’s faculty. If 

teachers invest time and effort to foster 

a positive and communal climate, both 

in their classrooms and in the school 

overall, they can directly influence their 

students’ academic and behavioral success. 

Thus, teacher education and professional 

development programs should highlight the 

importance of creating and sustaining such 

a climate (Bryk et al., 2010; Cohen et al., 

2009; Mitchell and Bradshaw, 2013). 

Of course, students are the ultimate 

beneficiaries of a positive and communal 

school climate and should be full 

participants in the school improvement 

process, particularly as these policies and 

practices directly impact them. As students 

become co-leaders in this reform, they are 

given opportunities to practice leadership 

skills and to have their voices heard (Cohen, 

2013). This would, ultimately, lead them 

to become more connected to the school 

community, thus creating anew the cycle 

between school climate, school bonding, 

and school safety and success. 

In response to the concerns previously 

discussed, some researchers and 

policymakers have developed frameworks 

under which standards to guide a school 

climate improvement process can be 

created. The National School Boards 

Association (NSBA) developed the Key 

Work of School Boards framework with 

eight focus areas to guide school boards 

(Pickeral et al., 2009): 

• Vision 

• Standards 

• Assessment 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 18 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

• Accountability 

• Alignment 

• Climate 

• Collaboration and Community 

Engagement 

• Continuous Improvement 

These broad action areas provide a 

beginning framework under which school 

leaders can create policies and practices to 

improve school climate. 

The NSBA also created the Iowa Lighthouse 

Project, which highlighted seven conditions 

that superintendents and other district 

and school leaders can focus on in order 

to create a positive and communal school 

climate. These are (Pickeral et al., 2009): 

• Shared Leadership 

• Continuous Improvement and Shared 

Decision-Making 

• Ability to Create and Sustain Initiatives 

• Supportive Workplace for Staff 

• Staff Development 

• Support for School Sites Through Data 

and Information 

• Community Involvement 

Based on these two frameworks, the Center 

for Social and Emotional Education (CSEE) 

developed a series of recommendations 

for district and school leaders working to 

create and sustain a positive and communal 

school climate (Pickeral et al., 2009). These 

include: 

• Creating district and school climate 

teams and allowing these teams to 

participate in professional development 

opportunities to learn about school 

climate research and practice. 

• Evaluating district and school policies 

and practices in light of school climate 

goals. 

• Regularly surveying all members of the 

school community to gather perceptions 

of the current school climate. 

• Ensuring that school climate 

improvement efforts happen at every 

level of the district and school and 

include every member of the school 

community. 

The NSCC (2009, p. 3) suggests five 

standards for effective school climate 

reform efforts: 

1. The school community has a shared 

vision and plan for promoting, 

enhancing, and sustaining a positive 

school climate. 

2. The school community sets policies 

specifically promoting (a) the 

development and sustainability of 

social, emotional, ethical, civic, 

and intellectual skills, knowledge, 

dispositions, and engagement; and 

(b) a comprehensive system to address 

barriers to learning and teaching and 

to re-engage students who have become 

disengaged. 

3. The school community’s practices are 

identified, prioritized, and supported 

(a) to promote learning and positive 

social, emotional, ethical, and civic 

development of students; (b) to enhance 

engagement in teaching, learning, and 

schoolwide activities; (c) to address 

barriers to learning and teaching and 

to re-engage those who have become 

disengaged; and (d) to develop and 

sustain an appropriate operational 

infrastructure and capacity-building 

mechanisms for meeting this standard. 

4. The school community creates an 

environment where all members 

are welcomed, supported, and feel 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 19 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

safe in school socially, emotionally, 

intellectually, and physically. 

5. The school community develops 

meaningful and engaging practices, 

activities, and norms that promote 

social and civic responsibility and a 

commitment to social justice. 

Each of these standards is supported by a 

series of indicators and sub-indicators that 

flesh out the details involved (NSCC, 2009). 

In addition, the NSCC provides a five-stage 

School Climate Improvement Roadmap — 

with tasks and challenges identified for 

each stage — to further support schools 

in creating and sustaining a positive and 

communal school climate (Cohen, 2013). 

The school climate improvement process 

should be “an intentional, strategic, 

collaborative, transparent, coordinated 

and democratically informed process 

of students, parents, school personnel 

and community members learning and 

working together to address three essential 

questions: (1) What kind of school do we 

want ours to be? (2) What are our current 

strengths and needs ...? and (3) Given this 

‘vision’ and our current reality, what are 

the most important ... goals that we can 

and need to work on together?” (Cohen, 

2014, p. 2). This process should be based 

on a problem-solving cycle that continually 

uses research on best practices and needs 

assessment data to inform improvement 

choices. By engaging in a school climate 

improvement process, education leaders 

at the state, district, and school levels 

are ensuring the safety and success of all 

members of the school community. 

Recommendations 

Based on the matters discussed, this report 

proposes the following policy and research 

recommendations: 

Recommendation One: Defining 

School Climate 

Education researchers, policymakers, and 

leaders at all levels — federal, state, district, 

and school — should adopt a definition of 

school climate that focuses on relationships 

among school community members, the 

goals and norms of the school, and school 

member participation. 

A positive and communal school climate 

emphasizes trusting and supportive 

relationships among all members of the 

school community, common goals and 

norms, and increasing collaboration and 

involvement within the school community. 

This leads to a sense of safety and bonding 

and allows a focus on effective teaching and 

learning which, in turn, leads to students’ 

academic and behavioral success. 

Recommendation Two: Assessing 

School Climate 

Education researchers, with support 

from policymakers, should develop 

measurement instruments that 

comprehensively assess the climate of a 

school by surveying all members of the 

school community — students, teachers, 

administrators, additional staff, parents, and 

members of the larger community — on 

all school climate components, including 

relationships, norms and goals, and 

collaboration and involvement. 

The survey instrument conducted with 

students should also include measures 

of school bonding — attachment, 

commitment, involvement, and belief — in 

order to fully assess the process leading 

from a positive and communal school 

climate to the beneficial outcomes (see 

Recommendation Three). Proper multilevel 

collection and analysis of data should 

be ensured by using measures of school 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 20 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

 

 

climate that refer to school conditions 

external to the individual and measures 

of student bonding that refer to internal 

feelings and beliefs. 

The reliability and validity of all instruments 

should also be certified by using previously 

tested measures from assessment tools, 

such as the Comprehensive School Climate 

Inventory (CSCI; Cohen et al., 2009), the 

Effective School Battery (ESB; Gottfredson, 

1999), and What About You (WAY; 

Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1999). New 

measures that need to be developed to 

assess school climate elements or survey 

school community members and that are 

not included in previously tested measures 

should be pilot tested to ensure they are 

psychometrically sound. 

Recommendation Three: Exploring 

School Climate 

Researchers, with support from 

policymakers, should further explore 

the process leading from a positive and 

communal school climate to its beneficial 

outcomes, as well as the factors that 

influence the creation of such a climate. 

This should be done through the collection 

and analysis of data from a nationally 

representative sample of schools. This 

sample should include public, private, and 

parochial schools and should be stratified 

by location and level. All members of the 

school community should be surveyed. In 

addition, onsite observations should be 

conducted by researchers to gather data 

that can supplement the survey responses. 

Recommendation Four: Improving 

School Climate 

Every district and school should create a 

climate team comprising representatives 

from all school community groups, 

including students, teachers, administrators, 

additional staff, parents, and members of 

the greater community. These teams should 

be supported by strong and clearly defined 

climate leadership at all levels — federal, 

state, district, and school — and should 

avail themselves of help from researchers 

and experts from academic and other 

institutions. 

The school climate teams should engage in 

the following activities: 

1. Participation in professional 

development opportunities to learn 

about school climate research and best 

practices. 

2. Evaluation of state, district, and school 

policies in light of this research and 

their own school’s goals. 

3. Regular assessment of the current 

school climate through surveys of all 

members of the school community. 

4. Implementation of school climate 

improvement efforts at both the 

district and school levels that are 

incorporated into every facet of the 

school’s function — curricular choices, 

extracurricular activities, rules and 

policies, and the school’s goals and 

mission — and that include every 

member of the school community. 

Further, these teams should use a datadriven decision-making process to guide 

their school climate improvement efforts. 

Conclusion 

Although school crime and violence have 

declined over the past two decades, crime 

and victimization are still a cause for 

concern (Robers et al., 2015). Among the 

factors shown to influence school disorder 

is school climate, which has a clear impact 

on all members of the school community. 

Students in schools with a positive and 

communal climate demonstrate stronger 

academic achievement and engagement, 

better socio-emotional health, and lower 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 21 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

levels of absenteeism, truancy, dropping 

out, and victimization (Cohen and Geier, 

2010; Payne et al., 2003). They also display 

lower levels of substance use and aggression, 

are subjected to fewer suspensions and 

expulsions, and engage in fewer deviant 

and criminal acts (Payne, 2008; Thapa 

et al., 2013). Additionally, teachers in a 

school with a positive and communal 

climate experience higher levels of efficacy, 

morale, and satisfaction, and lower levels 

of absenteeism, turnover, and victimization 

(Cohen and Geier, 2010; Gottfredson et al., 

2005; Payne et al., 2003). It is clear that this 

type of school climate has a great influence 

on the safety and success of a school and 

the behavioral and academic outcomes of 

its students. 

Unfortunately, the benefits resulting from 

a positive and communal school climate 

have not been translated into effective 

educational practices. This “translation 

gap,” the gap between school climate 

research and policy, stems from several 

problems. One is the lack of an agreedupon definition (NSCC, 2007). Researchers 

define school climate in countless ways and 

continue to debate the key components of 

a positive and communal school climate. 

Without a clear definition that fully 

articulates exactly what constitutes school 

climate, school leaders are left without a 

roadmap for school climate improvement 

and the translation gap continues to widen. 

A second matter that contributes to the gap 

between research and policy stems from 

this lack of a universal definition. Because 

there is disagreement on what constitutes 

school climate, there is also disagreement 

on how it can best be assessed. This has led 

states, districts, and schools to use tools that 

(1) have not been tested for reliability and 

validity or have come up short in this area 

and (2) do not capture the comprehensive 

nature of school climate, either in terms 

of components or in terms of school 

community members (Cohen, 2013). 

Another area that has not been fully 

explored is the process that links school 

climate to its beneficial outcomes (Payne, 

2008). Understanding the mechanisms that 

underlie this relationship is vital as school 

leaders work to develop successful school 

improvement plans. A lack of school climate 

leadership also plays a role in the gap 

between school climate research and policy. 

Having strong and defined leadership 

roles at the state, district, and school levels 

is integral for school climate policies and 

practices to be effectively developed and 

implemented (NSCC, 2007). In addition, 

many school climate improvement efforts 

are generally isolated, with a narrower 

focus on issues of student health or school 

safety rather than holistically implemented 

into larger schoolwide changes, such as 

focusing on accountability policies, school 

community norms and beliefs, and other 

dimensions of school climate (NSCC, 

2007). 

It is abundantly clear that a positive 

and communal school climate leads to 

beneficial outcomes for all members of 

the school community. Although the 

school climate improvement process is 

complex and will likely involve different 

considerations for each district and school, 

focusing on the issues that lead to the 

translation gap between school climate 

research and policy would go far in aiding 

schools in the creation and maintenance 

of a positive and communal climate. The 

following issues can be addressed by 

adhering to the policy recommendations 

outlined in this white paper: 

1. Adopting a definition of school climate 

that focuses on relationships among 

school community members, the goals 

and norms of the school, and school 

member participation. 

2. Developing psychometrically sound 

measurement instruments that 

comprehensively assess the climate of a 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 22 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

school by surveying all members of the 

school community on all school climate 

dimensions. 

3. Exploring the process leading from a 

positive and communal school climate 

to its beneficial outcomes as well as the 

factors that influence the creation of 

such a climate. 

4. Creating district and school climate 

teams comprising representatives 

from all school community groups, 

and supported by strong and clearly 

defined climate leadership, to engage 

in evidence-based school climate 

improvement activities. 

Accomplishing these steps will improve 

all school members’ perceptions of safety 

and allow a strong culture of learning 

and teaching to flourish. Creating and 

sustaining a positive and communal school 

climate guarantees the safety and success of 

the nation’s schools and the academic and 

behavioral success of the nation’s youth. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 23 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

References 

Aldridge, J., & Ala’l, K. (2013). Assessing students’ views of school climate: Developing and 

validating the What’s Happening In This School? (WHITS) questionnaire. Improving Schools, 

16, 1: 47-66. 

Barile, J.P., Donohue, D.K., Anthony, E.R., Baker, A.M., Weaver, S.R., & Henrich, C.C. (2012). 

Teacher-student relationship climate and school outcomes: Implications for educational 

policy initiatives. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 41: 256-267. 

Bear, G.G., Yang, C., & Pasipanodya, E. (2015). Assessing school climate: Validation of a brief 

measure of the perceptions of parents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 2: 115-129. 

Bradshaw, C.P., Waasdorp, T.E., Debnam, K.J., & Johnson, S.L. (2014). Measuring school 

climate in high schools: A focus on safety, engagement, and the environment. Journal of 

School Health, 84, 9: 593-604. 

Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J.Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing 

schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for 

increasing protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Cohen, J. (2013). Creating a positive school climate: A foundation for resilience. In 

Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R.B. (eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (411-423). New York, NY: 

Springer US. 

Cohen, J. (2014). School climate policy and practice trends: A paradox. A Commentary. 

Teachers College Record, February 21, 2014. 

Cohen, J., & Geier, V.K. (2010). School climate research summary: January 2010. School 

Climate Brief, 1: 1-6. 

Cohen, J., McCabe, E.M., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, 

policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Records, 111: 180-213. 

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New 

York, NY: Macmillan. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 24 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

Eccles, J.S., & Roeser, R.W. (2011). School and community influences on human 

development. In Bornstein, M.H., & Lamb, M.E. (eds.), Development science: An advanced 

textbook. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. 

Gottfredson, D.C. (2001). Delinquency and schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Gottfredson, G.D. (1999). User’s manual for the Effective School Battery. Ellicott City, MD: 

Gottfredson Associates. 

Gottfredson, G.D., & Gottfredson, D.C. (1999). Development and applications of theoretical 

measures for evaluating drug and delinquency prevention programs: Technical manual for research 

editions of What About You (WAY). Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates. 

Gottfredson, G.D., Gottfredson, D.C., Payne, A.A., & Gottfredson, N.C. (2005). School 

climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency 

prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 4: 412-444. 

Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2012). Teacher safety and authoritative school climate in 

high schools. American Journal of Education, 118, 4: 401-425. 

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Hopson, L.M., & Lee, E. (2011). Mitigating the effect of family poverty on academic and 

behavioral outcomes: The role of school climate in middle and high school. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 33: 2221-2229. 

Hutzell, K.L., & Payne, A.A. (2017). The relationship between bullying victimization 

and school avoidance: An examination of direct associations, protective influences, and 

aggravating factors. Journal of School Violence, 6: 1-17. 

Johnson, S.L. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school violence: A review 

of the literature. Journal of School Health, 79, 10: 451-465. 

Klein, J., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2012). Relationships between bullying, school climate, 

and student risk behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 3: 154-169. 

Kohl, D., Recchia, S., & Steffgen, G. (2013). Measuring school climate: An overview of 

measurement scales. Educational Research, 55, 4: 411-426. 

Koth, C.W., Bradshaw, C.P., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student 

perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Education 

Psychology, 1: 96-104. 

Ma, X., Stewin, L., & Mah, D.L. (2001). Bullying in school: Nature, effects, and remedies. 

Research Papers in Education, 16, 3: 247-270. 

McCoy, D.C., Roy, A.L., & Sirkman, G.M. (2013). Neighborhood crime and school climate 

as predictors of elementary school academic quality: A cross-lagged panel analysis. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 1-2: 128-140. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 25 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

Mitchell, M.M., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student 

perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary 

discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 5: 599-610. 

Mitchell, M.M, Bradshaw, C.P., & Leaf, P.J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of school 

climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School Health, 80, 6: 

271-279. 

National School Climate Council. (2007). The School Climate Challenge: Narrowing the gap 

between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and teacher education 

policy. New York, NY: National School Climate Center. 

National School Climate Council. (2009). National School Climate Standards: Benchmarks to 

promote effective teaching, learning and comprehensive school improvement. New York, NY: National 

School Climate Center. 

Noonan, J. (2004). School climate and the safe school: Seven contributing factors. 

Educational Horizons, 83, 1: 61-65. 

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, 1: 142-157. 

Payne, A.A. (2008). A multilevel analysis of the relationships among communal school 

organization, student bonding, and school disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency, 45, 4: 429-455. 

Payne, A.A. (2012). Communal school organization effects on school disorder: Interactions 

with school structure. Deviant Behavior, 33, 7: 507-524. 

Payne, A.A., Gottfredson, D.C., & Gottfredson, G.D. (2003). Schools as communities: The 

relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and school disorder. 

Criminology, 41, 3: 749-777. 

Peguero, A.A., & Bracy, N.L. (2014). School order, justice, and education: Climate, discipline 

practices, and dropping out. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 3: 412-426. 

Perry, A.C. (1908). The management of a city school. New York, NY: Macmillan. 

Phaneuf, S.W. (2006). School security practices: Investigating their consequences on student 

fear, bonding, and school climate. University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation. 

Pickeral, T., Evans, L., Hughes, W., & Hutchison, D. (2009). School climate guide for district 

policymakers and educational leaders. New York, NY: Center for Social and Emotional 

Education. 

Price, H.E. (2012). School principal-staff relationship effects on school climate. In Wubbels, 

T., den Brok, P., van Tartwijk, J., & Levy, J. (eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education (103-

118). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. 
Creating and Sustaining a Positive and Communal School Climate 26 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.ojp.gov

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, 8: 731-743. 

Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R.E., & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Indicators of School Crime and 

Safety: 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Sapouna, M. (2009). Collective efficacy in the school context: Does it help explain 

victimization and bullying among Greek primary and secondary school students? Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 25: 1912-1927. 

Steffgen, G., Recchia, S., & Viechtbauer, W. (2013). The link between school climate and 

violence in school: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18: 300-309. 

Stewart, E.B. (2008). School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and 

parental involvement: The influence of school- and individual-level factors on academic 

achievement. Education and Urban Society, 40, 2: 179-204. 

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school 

climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 3: 357-385. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). ESEA blueprint for reform. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide for improving school 

climate and discipline. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development. 

Wang, C., Berry, B., & Swearer, S.M. (2013). The critical role of school climate in effective 

bullying prevention. Theory into Practice, 52, 4: 296-302. 

Wang, M.T. (2009). School climate support for behavioral and psychological adjustment: 

Testing the mediating effect of social competence. School Psychology Quarterly, 24: 240-251. 

Wang, M.T., & Dishion, T.J. (2011). The trajectories of adolescents’ perceptions of school 

climate, deviant peer affiliation, and behavioral problems during middle school years. 

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 1: 40-53. 

Wang, W., Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H.L., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A., Smith, D., 

Cunningham, C.E., Haltigan, J.D., & Hymel, S. (2014). School climate, peer victimization, 

and academic achievement: Results from a multi-informant study. School Psychology Quarterly, 

29, 3: 360-377. 

Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness and 

relationships with aggression and victimization. Journal of School Health, 74, 7: 293-299. 

Zaykowski, H., & Gunter, W. (2012). Youth victimization: School climate or deviant lifestyles? 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3: 431-452.