THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONALIZATION EFFORTS IN HIGH SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE

Karl Pilar and Ronald Williamson

(Click here for a print friendly version.)

(A photo from our 2007 Summer Leadership Institute.)

    The American high school is in the midst of one of the most significant reform efforts in modern history. In 1996 the National Association of Secondary School Principals issued Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. This report included several recommendations for changing high schools including several to create a more personal environment, one where faculty better knew students.

    The Breaking Ranks recommendations were similar to those made by Sizer (1984), the Coalition of Essential schools, and a Nation at Risk (1983). The specific Breaking Ranks recommendations were:

• High schools will create small units in which anonymity is banished.
• Each high school teacher involved in the instructional program on a full time basis will be responsible for no more than 90 students during a given term;
• Each student will have a Personal Plan for Progress that will be reviewed often to ensure that the school takes individual needs into consideration;
• Every high school student will have a personal adult advocate to help him or her personalize the educational experience;
• Teachers will convey a sense of caring to their students so that their students feel that their teachers share a stake in their learning;
• High schools will develop flexible scheduling and student grouping patterns that allow better use of time in order to meet the individual needs of students;
• The high school will engage students’ families as partners in the student’s education;
• The high school community, which cannot be value-neutral, will advocate and model a set of core values essential in the democratic and civil society; and
• High schools, in conjunction with agencies in the community, will help coordinate the delivery of physical and mental health and social services for youth.

    Over the past 25 years criticism of high schools centered on three things: (a) a socially differentiating, generally undemanding and overly broad curriculum; (b) a bureaucratic organizational structure that is unresponsive to students; and (c) a social environment where student are not well known by adults in the school (Lee, Ready and Johnson, 2001).

     As schools grow, they often become more bureaucratic, offer more specialized instructional programs and exhibit more formalized human relationships. Smaller schools typically “are organized more communally and teachers take more personal responsibility for student learning (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Lee & Loeb, 2000).

     Although many things contribute to students’ academic achievement, a positive, supportive school environment is perhaps the most basic and fundamental necessity. Principals maintain that providing a school environment conducive to student learning is one of their highest, if not the highest priority.

Personalization

     The term personalization found in Breaking Ranks refers to a learning environment where students are given opportunities to participate in the educative process. With adult guidance, students are encouraged to explore options, engage in teamwork, and make choices that are personally challenging and ultimately fulfilling (Clarke, 2003).

     Research shows that principals play a key role in the development of their school’s culture and the academic performance of students (Day, Harris & Hadfield, 2001). A school’s climate has also been associated with student achievement (White, 1993). Research also shows that positive school climate can significantly affect the degree of student success and reduce antisocial behavior in all demographic settings (Haynes & Comer, 1993; McEvoy & Welker, 2001).

Personalization Efforts and School Climate

     Many high schools have launched efforts to personalize their environment. Despite these initiatives, little research has been done to identify the relationship of these programs and other factors like school climate.

     In order to understand the impact of personalization efforts a study was conducted to examine the relationship of personalization efforts in high schools and school climate. The study gathered data from Class B high schools with an enrollment between 507 and 1054. All 23 of the schools were located in two counties near a major metropolitan area in western Michigan.

     Information about the climate in each school was gathered from teacher leaders in each school using the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Secondary Schools (Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991). A survey of principals provided data about the implementation of Breaking Ranks recommendations to personalize schools.

Implementation of Breaking Ranks
Personalization Recommendations

      Principals of schools in this study reported the level of implementation at their school of each of the Breaking Ranks recommendations on personalization. Most principals reported that their schools were just beginning to implement some of the strategies. Recommendations to modify the structure of the school by creating small units to reduce anonymity, adopting flexible scheduling, advocating and modeling a set of core values, and working with community agencies to coordinate physical, social service and mental health services to students were the most frequently cited initiatives.

     Some programs reported by principals included strategies long used in high schools. For example, freshman orientation was reported as in place at nearly all of the schools. On the other hand, relatively few principals indicated that personal adult advocates, peer groups that stayed together for multiple years, or varying parent meeting schedules were in place. Reluctance to implement less traditional strategies may be due in part to resistance from staff, including administration, or resistance from the community.

Relationship Between Personalization Initiatives
and School Climate

     Four of the Breaking Ranks recommendations relating to personalization showed a statistically significant relationship to a positive school climate. These recommendations showed a moderately strong, positive relationship with three school climate indicators---principal qualities, principal-teacher relationships, and teacher-student relationships. None of the recommendations showed a “very strong” relationship to school climate.

     The Breaking Ranks recommendation suggesting a Personal Plan of Progress for each student (Recommendation 12) showed a moderately strong relationship with the school climate indicator teacher-student relationships. The study found that when teachers were friendly with students it supported students’ efforts to become more actively involved in their educational plan, to make adjustments to educational goals and to begin the post-secondary transition.

     Not surprisingly, the Breaking Ranks recommendation about teachers conveying a sense of caring to their students (Recommendation 14) had a moderately strong positive relationship to the behavior of the principal. When principals were not autocratic and not “iron fisted,” teachers were more likely to convey a sense of caring toward students. When adults were more collaborative, teachers were shown to be more caring. This supported prior research that found principals in successful schools to be inclusive and flexible.

     Breaking Ranks recommendation 15 about developing flexible scheduling and student groping patterns was related to school climate at a moderately strong level. When flexible scheduling and grouping patterns were implemented with the goal of meeting student needs, school climate improved. Specific indicators were that the principal complimented teachers more frequently, looked out for the welfare of the faculty, and was available after school to help teachers. There was also a moderately strong relationship with teachers being friendlier toward students.

     The fourth relationship identified by this study found that there was a moderately strong, positive relationship between Breaking Ranks recommendation18 about working in conjunction with community agencies to coordinate delivery of physical, mental health, and social services to students. The school climate data found that when the principal was less autocratic and not “iron fisted” there was a positive relationship to the recommendation.

     Other Breaking Ranks recommendations were positively related to other attributes of school climate as identified by Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp (1991). The relationships involved issues of teacher workload, student qualities and teacher qualities. These factors were not the focus of this study.

Implications for Principals

     Elmore (2002) warned “changing structures does not change practice” (p. 1). Many of the Breaking Ranks recommendations regarding personalization involve significant change in both structure and practice. Achieving the benefits of the recommendations requires more than simply changing the schedule or creating small learning communities. It necessitates a comprehensive approach to changing practice.

• The personal characteristics of the principal are critical to implementation of the personalization recommendations. Principals who were more democratic and more collaborative are more likely to lead schools where faculty are committed to creating a supportive and caring environment for students, one of the keys to personalization. The September 2006 Feature Article on the website of The Principals’ Partnership discussed the relationship between principal qualities, school climate and student learning (www.principalspartnership.com/feature906.html).

• Principals exercise a key role in influencing school culture and climate. Research on school effectiveness and school improvement continues to show the significance of school climate in educational reform. Schools with an open climate tend to be healthy and school health has been “strongly related to student achievement” (Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991, p. 137). Thus principals may want to focus their energies on the human aspects of schools by creating an environment that nurtures and sustains both teachers and students.

• When changing the school schedule or organizational pattern principals must commit resources to help faculty build the capacity to effectively use the new schedule or organization. It cannot be assumed that every teacher will have the skill to change instructional practice. Professional development to build skills for success must accompany any personalization initiative.

• Principals need to remain aware of the long embedded isolationist practices, emphasis on content, and resistance to reform that exist in many high schools. They will want to cultivate support for personalization initiatives both within the school and with parents and the community. At some schools, reforms proceed slowly, beginning with volunteers or segments of the staff. At others, emphasis is placed on providing a supportive transition for incoming ninth graders. Regardless of the approach, principals must be prepared to deal with resistance to changes in both structure and practice.

Summary

     Breaking Ranks (1996) changed the conversation about high school reform. Among the recommendations were several that focused on creating a more personal environment for students. The recommendations included changes in structure, instructional practice, individualized educational planning and strengthened relationships with parents and the community.

    The study described in this article found a moderately strong relationship between personalization efforts and school climate. Because of the important role school climate has on the educational experience of students it suggests that principals work collaboratively with faculty and community to create a more caring and personalized environment in their school.

References:

     Bryk, A. & Driscoll, M. (1998). The school as community: Theoretical foundations, contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers. Chicago: University of Chicago, Benton Center for Curriculum and Instruction.

  Clarke, J. (2003). Changing systems to personalize learning. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.

  Day, C., Harris, A. & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school leadership. International Journal in Education, 4(1), 39-56.

   Elmore, R. (2002). The limits of change. Principal’s Center at Harvard University: Harvard Education Letter.

    Haynes, N. & Comer, J. (1993). The Yale School Development Program process, outcomes and policy implications. Urban Education, 28(2), 166-199.

    Hoy,W., Tarter, J. & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/Healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Lee, V. & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teacher’s attitudes and student achievement. American Research Journal, 37(1), 3-31.

    Lee, V., Ready, D. & Johnson, D. (2001). The difficulty of identifying rare samples to study: The case of high schools divided into schools-within-schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23(4), 365-380.

    McEvoy, A. & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 130-140.

    National Association of Secondary School Principals (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: Author.

    National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    White, W. F. (1993). From S-R to S-O-R: What every teacher should know. Education, 113(4), 620-630.

•   •   •   •   •

Authors:

Karl Pilar is the former principal of Cedar Springs High School in Cedar Springs, MI. He may be reached at k_pilar@yahoo.com.

Ronald Williamson is currently Professor of Leadership and Counseling at Eastern Michigan University. He is the assessment consultant for The Principals’ Partnership, sponsored by the Union Pacific Foundation. A former principal, he works with current principals and superintendents on school improvement initiatives. He may be contacted at rwilliams1@emich.edu.

See our Feature Article Archives for past articles!