Impact of School Culture on School Safety

¶ … School Culture on School Safety

Many studies have been done on safety in schools. Likewise, many studies have been done on the culture of various schools. Unfortunately, there has not been significant research on a link between the two. This is not to say that these kinds of studies have not been done, but rather that there has not been enough of them. Many of the studies that have been performed in this area show that there is a definite link between the type of culture that a school has and what kind of safety the occupants of the school can expect. As with any research, there are critics of this opinion, and there are studies that would appear to indicate that there is no link between the two.

It is in the spirit of debate and discovery that this study has been undertaken. Children are the future of this planet, and they deserve to attend school where they are free from hostility and danger. There will always be some issues with students that just don't like each other, and this study is not attempting to show that all violence can be removed from schools if only researchers would spend more time figuring out why its there in the first place.

Violence in schools, like violence in society and life itself, will always be with us (Back, 2001). This researcher hopes to show not how to remove the violence, but that the culture of the school affects if there is violence, and how much violence. In other words, that the culture of a school is directly linked to the safety and security of that school. If this can be shown to be valid, then that opens the door to others who can then study not only the validity of the statements made in these pages, but also work toward a goal of cultural adjustment and change for schools that seem to spend most of their time dealing with safety instead of instruction.

This is a quantitative research study on the impact of school culture on school safety. It is based on the responses of teachers and administrators to two surveys. The first is the Inviting School Safety Survey or ISSS (Lehr and Purkey, 1996) which focuses on issues of safety, and the second is the School Culture Survey or SCS (Gruenert & Valentine, 1997), which is self-explanatory by its title. Both of these surveys provide insight about the shared values and beliefs, the patterns of behavior, and the relationships in a school setting, and are therefore good indicators of the relationship between the culture of a school and the safety within its walls.

While it would be possible to use only one survey, and researchers in the past have done so in several studies, it would be difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the culture/safety link by using only a cultural survey or only a safety survey. Since the two surveys mentioned in the above paragraph are recognized and widely used, this researcher thought it prudent to use both surveys, thus obtaining a much more accurate picture of the perceptions between culture and safety and the proposed link between the two.

Greenbaum, et al. (1989) believes the principal of a school is a critical factor in developing a positive school culture and a safe school. Greenbaum (1989) also stresses that principals who have succeeded in creating safe and peaceful schools out of violence-ridden campuses emphasize the importance of maintaining a high profile. The principal has difficulty gaining ground from a safety perspective or maintaining ground that has been gained if he or she is not easily visible. Students quickly forget the rules when there is no one around to enforce them.

Many teachers and students share this opinion, and those schools that seem to have the highest safety ratings also have the most interaction between the principal and the students. This is not to say that the principal is always visible, or that there are formal assemblies and such where the principal interacts with the students, although this may be the case in some schools. Instead, this interaction comes from walking the halls and speaking to students while they change classes, or sitting in classrooms to see what the students are learning (Dewar, 1999). It may also come from attending field trips, knowing many students by name, and projecting a general attitude of caring and support that is recognized by many students (Chang, 1999).

Another important point that is stressed when looking at school culture and safety is the fact that strong leaders generally make an effort to express sincere feelings toward students and their lives, and have a real belief that the students have the potential to become successful and productive adults (Kenworthy & O'Driscoll, 2000). Effective leaders create effective schools that are resilient to violence and other risks and promote resiliency in students (School Violence, 1999, p. 4).

Principals, teachers, and other faculty members can work to do this by being active in the lives of the students and being open and friendly to parents and guardians when there are questions or problems. Being active in the lives of students is not the same thing as being nosy or prying into the private lives of students. Allowing students to share what they want to share, and not demanding more from them, is one of the ways that effective school leaders help to maintain a relationship with the students without making them uncomfortable or driving them away. Being an effective school leader requires a great deal of balance where student thoughts, dreams, and opinions are concerned (Anderman, 1998).

Principals and teachers can remain closer to students if they allow the students the space that they need to be themselves. Even though not all adults may see eye-to-eye with young people, room to find oneself must exist. Smothering this impulse can lead to safety and violence issues that the schools are already fighting against and trying to avoid. Effective leadership must be able to balance so many things that most people seldom get it right. That does not mean that they should stop trying to find this balance, however. The importance of continued work in this area is evidenced by the results that are seen when this balance is achieved, or at least when the balance is close to where it should be (Wigfield, et al., 1991).

A school is an organization, and although it is not the same as a business organization, some of the principles are the same (Aponik & Dembo, 1983). One of these principles is the need for leaders that can be objective as well as see the vision and commitment that comes with their job. This is especially important for schools, because commitment and vision are vitally important for the future of the country and its children. This is much more true with schools than it is with other businesses, but at the same time, people must be aware of the fact that some aspects of the school life must be ran and operated as a business for the school to survive (Deci & Chandler, 1986).

In Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal (1997) discuss the modern organization's need for transformational leaders who have an objective perspective as well as the vision and commitment that wise leadership provides. Without this commitment, and without a vision for the future, leaders have difficulty creating a better organization and making sure that the organization they do create continues to grow and change as the times require. Schools are especially in need of this growth, because the culture of society, as well as technology and a myriad of other things, are all changing so fast. Principals that do not keep up with changing times are doing their students a great disservice (Athappilly, Smidchens, & Kofel, 1983).

Bolman and Deal (1997) also believe that transformational leaders affect organizational performance and that they succeed not because of inspiration but because they have the right design for the times and are able to get their changes implemented. Being strong in this area is very important, as a leader who can come up with the ideas for good changes but cannot get those changes implemented will not be effective in transforming an organization, including a school.

This is where the value of a particular principal truly comes through. Many principals see things that need to be changed in their schools, including improving safety. While noticing these things is important, it is only half of the battle, and it is the easy half. From that point, the principal needs to know what to do and who to talk to in order to get things done. Sometimes, there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done, but resourceful principals will find a way to get the job done, and this is what helps to make a good principal dynamic and important in the culture of the school. It also shows the students that the principal cares about their needs, which can help build a more cohesive culture and create a higher level of safety throughout the school for both faculty and students (Ammons, 1999).

According to the National School Safety Center (1995) creating safe schools is about commitment. That does not mean only commitment from the principal, or from the teachers, or from the students. Accomplishing such a goal requires families, schools, and community leaders to talk about the quality of the educational environment they want to provide for youth and together develop the strategies that will produce the desired results.

This type of cohesive commitment is the only real way that schools can be made safer, as one person cannot do it alone, and communities must express the desire to make schools safer and therefore give the students a better school life and more hope for the future. The Center also suggests that achieving these goals requires leaders to assess where they are, plan where they want to be, implement a series of strategies to bridge the difference, and evaluate their progress.

Statement of the Problem

Clearly, the violence that is occurring in the nation's schools is a real problem, and one that should be dealt with in a timely manner. This cannot be accomplished by people who only try to fix the problem without having a real understanding of the problem and its roots. Before anyone can actually address the problem at hand, an understanding must be reached of the causes of the problem and the mitigating factors surrounding it. Only then can workable solutions actually be proposed and attempted to determine if they are viable (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).

The purpose of this study is to examine the existing and significant relationship between school culture and school safety. The Center for Effective Schools (2001) introduced the notion that no two schools are alike. Schools, they pointed out, just as the people within them, have different characteristics. These characteristics create what is known as the culture of the school. A school that is found in the inner part of a large and multicultural city will not have the same culture and safety issues as a school found in a rural environment (Eccles & Midgley, 1989).

These differences between schools make the problem particularly difficult to correct, because what works in one school may not work in another. However, when particular ties between culture and safety are identified and studied, correlations can be made between what culture causes what problems. With this information, researchers and school officials can move forward with ideas and suggestions for how to change or improve the culture of a school in other to avoid or minimize the safety problems associated with it (Eccles, et al., 1993).

The importance of school culture and its importance in creating effective schools is well documented in Edmonds (1979), Sizer (1984), Hersh (2000) and others. All of these studies indicate that the culture of a school is a significant factor in how much safety the school enjoys and whether the students in that particular school are being effectively taught what they need to know to make their way in the world once their schooling has been completed (Willen, 1994).

Research by Sizer (1984), Hersh (2000), and Hargreaves (1997) tie school culture to school safety. There are, however, two very important questions that need to be answered in order to explain exactly how school culture impacts school safety in effective schools and to uncover the type of culture which is found in these effective schools. It is possible that there is not one specific culture that makes a school safe, but rather several different cultures that are all effective in creating a safe school environment. It is likely, however, that there is a correlation between the types of schools that are safe, since culture and safety in schools seem to be inexorably tied together. While several different types of cultures may work well to promote safety, in other words, it is likely that these different cultures will all have certain things in common that will create the safe environment that these schools enjoy (Anderman & Midgley, 1997).

The most important questions that need to be addressed will hopefully be answered throughout the course of this study. These questions are: 1) keeping effective school research in mind, how do schools create proper environments that are conducive to safety and order; and 2) what behaviors of students and staff work to contribute to a school culture that produces an environment of safety and order where students can learn? When these questions have been answered, researchers and school officials will be that much closer to not only detailing what types of cultures are necessary for school safety, but also to determining how these cultures can be obtained in schools that are experiencing significant safety issues (Anderman & Young, 1994).

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to identify the relationship that exists between school culture and school safety. Since it has been suggested that this relationship definitely exists, it now becomes necessary to identify this relationship more specifically and provide details that have previously not been discussed or determined. Doing this will allow continued research and exploration into this topic, while also allowing schools to work toward creating safer environments.

While there is an abundance of research on providing school safety and its impact on student achievement, there is not enough research on the effect of the philosophy of the principal as a cultural leader, and how, if at all, this impacts school safety and student achievement (Leithwood, 1998). As the importance of school safety points to the fact that no learning can occur if this component is not in place, this study will be of interest to educators that are concerned with creating a culture of safety and order. It is assumed that all schools would be desirous of obtaining a safe and orderly learning environment for their students.

Those schools that are safe and secure provide the best learning environment for their students, and there are apparently some important characteristics that make these schools safer than the rest. Some of this is related to the location of the school and the ethnic makeup of the student body, but this is not always the case. There are also schools in areas where safety should be an issue that are providing safety and security for their students. How they are doing this becomes interesting, because there must be some formula that works for them (Berliner, 1993).

The interest then lies in finding out what these schools have that sets them apart from the rest. It is because of this interest that researchers are attempting to find the correlation between school culture and school safety. Whether this correlation lies with the principal, teachers, community, or students themselves remains to be determined. It is also a consideration that there could be a combination of things necessary to create the safe environment found in many of society's schools (Carnegie, 1989; Cone, et al., 1985).

In order to properly address this issue, research questions and hypotheses are a necessary part of the process, as they will be referred to throughout the study and used in the conclusion to review what has been learned by the research and whether the hypotheses proved valid and the research questions were answered. It will also help to determine whether any progress has been made toward determining a link between school culture and school safety. If this link can be determined, then the specifics are also worthy of note and attention, as they will provide the groundwork for future study and help school officials work towards the goal of safer schools (Foley & Epstein, 1982).

Research Questions

The following questions are the ones most likely to be of significance where culture and safety are concerned. They embody all that is important in this study and also take into account the perceptions of those that work in schools and are therefore more 'in tune' with the atmosphere and culture of a particular school. For these reasons, and undoubtedly for others as well, they are worthy of consideration and will be examined in this study. Appropriate questions are vital for the conduction of research. Without knowing what needs to be asked, whether it has been answered can not actually be determined. The following three questions will be asked and analyzed during this particular study:

Is there a relationship between school culture and school safety?

2. Are there identifiable behaviors within school culture that contribute to safety?

3. What are the perceptions of teachers and administrators about school culture and order?

Hypotheses

Hypotheses are an equally important part of the research into a topic such as this one. While some studies use only research questions and others use only hypotheses, it is necessary to use both hear to come to a clearer and more specific understanding of the significance of the research. These hypotheses will either be shown to be valid or invalid as a result of the literature reviewed and the study conducted, and will hopefully give more insight into the problem of school culture and safety. The following three hypotheses will be tested in this study:

H01 There were no statistically significant differences between school culture and safety.

H02 There were no identifiable behaviors within school culture that contribute to safety and orderliness.

H03 There were no identifiable perceptions of teachers and administrators about safety and order and school culture.

Assumptions

Just as there are rules and regulations for many things in life, several assumptions need to be made about this research. There are always variables that can skew the results, and these assumptions have the same effect. If the assumptions are highly incorrect, the results of the study could be very different from what would be generally expected and indicated by the literature review and the beliefs of the researcher. In general, the assumptions made here are relatively common and logical in their entirety, and will likely not cause any difficulty with the study or invalidate the data collected during the study in any way.

The unfortunate thing about assumptions is that there is no real way, in the course of the study or analysis of the data, to determine whether the assumptions made by the researcher were correct, or to what degree they were correct. They will remain assumptions, regardless of any other factual information that may be obtained throughout the course of the research and analysis. The following three assumptions relating to the study will be made:

Surveys and questionnaires filled out by subjects are completed honestly and accurately, yielding results indicative of actual teacher and administrator perceptions.

The teachers and administrators who respond to the surveys will be informed about issues of school safety in their school and will therefore be qualified to answer the surveys.

The teachers and administrators who respond to the surveys are representative of suburban teachers and administrators in the Southwestern United States, and the results of the study can therefore be generalized, at least where the Southwestern United States is concerned.

Limitations

Limitations are a necessary part of research. All studies will be limited in some way. Whether this is by the sample size, the time constraints, the funding available, or countless other factors, there is no way to plan for every eventuality and assure that the study is not limited by another. Fortunately for this type of research, there are few limitations that come with the study of school culture and school safety when done by the questionnaire method. Because of this, the degree of limitation in the study will be rather small and likely not overly significant. The following are limitations of the study:

Portions of this study were subject to the same limitations as other questionnaire type studies (i.e. much of the information was based upon the opinions and perceptions of the subjects involved).

There is a lack of control variables in the study, such as the identification of effective or ineffective schools, which may make it difficult to validate any opinion that would show unsafe schools as being ineffective schools and vice versa.

Definition of Terms

Climate - The study of the perception of the participants of factors in the organizational environment (including schools as organizations) that are likely to reflect the culture of the organization.

Collegial Support - Teachers working together effectively to achieve a common goal or end.

Collaborative Leadership - School leaders establishing and maintaining shared relationships with school staff as they work jointly, especially in intellectual efforts such as solving problems and setting goals.

Culture - The culture of an organization refers to the values, belief systems, norms, and ways of thinking that are characteristic of the people in the organization. It is the way things are done. These are the stories, myths, and legends that are the glue that holds organizations together.

Culture Leader - Leadership through the development of an organization's culture, such as building behavioral norms that exemplify the best that a school or other organization stands for.

Effective Schools - effective schools are those in which all students master priority objectives.

Effective School Research - Research that codifies and correlates the characteristics of effective schooling.

Leadership - Exercised when persons with certain purposes mobilize in competition or in conflict with institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse and satisfy the motives of followers.

Learning Partnership - Teachers, parents, and students working together for the common good of the student.

Professional Development - Teachers valuing continuous personal development and school-wide improvement.

School Safety - the process schools use to dedicate their attention to creating the safest and most secure environment for learning that is possible in any given situation.

School Reform - A generic term that includes all kinds of efforts to improve the apparent effectiveness of schools.

Teacher Collaboration - Teachers engaging in constructive dialogue that furthers the educational vision of the school and working together to achieve common goals and ideals.

Transformational Leadership - A style of leadership that is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation among leaders and subordinates, and that converts followers into leaders.

Unity of Purpose - Teachers working together toward a common mission for their school and for their students.

Organization of the Study

Chapter One included the background information and recognized the need for the study. Also provided during the first chapter was a statement of the purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, assumptions, limitations, and definitions of key terms of the study. These components make up all of the background information for the study and indicate why the study is important for the students and educators of today and the future. All of these components are vitally important in understanding not only what the study is about but why it has been undertaken and what significance it has for researchers and for schools, both now and in the future. It is the glue that holds all of the other chapters together.

Chapter Two will include a comprehensive review of the related research on school culture and a safe and orderly environment. This will be provided in order to show that this study is not the only study interested in whether the culture of a school affects the safety of that school, and also to indicate what other researchers have found. It is important to note whether individuals such as the principal and others have much to do with this, or whether it is a community effort involving many different people and factors that all come together. A comprehensive and thorough review of the literature will help to indicate not only what these factors may be, but how to utilize them to the greatest advantage in schools and in future research into the problems of school culture and safety.

Research and methodology will be addressed in Chapter Three, including specifics about population and sample, data collection and instrumentation, and data analysis. Without this information it would be difficult to get a comprehensive picture of the data and what it actually means to the researcher. An understanding of the subjects studied in the research and the surveys used to collect the data is necessary to validate the data and allow others in the field to build off of the research that has been done during this study.

Building off of the information provided in Chapter Three, the results and statistical analysis of the study will be presented in Chapter Four. Results are, obviously, the main goal of any research. Research that does not provide any kind of results would be pointless and a waste of time for both the researcher and the subjects. The results will allow other researchers to test the data provided, and will allow school officials to see what has been discovered that may help them in the future.

Chapter Five will contain a summary of the findings, a conclusion, some implications for the field, and also important recommendations for further study. A summary of the information will help others who are looking to see what the main results were and what new information, if any, the study has provided for research in this field. It is likely that this study will have some implications for other things that are related to this area of research, and these should be addressed so that researchers in other areas can determine whether there is information in this study that might be relevant to something that they are studying.

This final chapter will provide everything that the other chapters have been building up to, as well as a concise summary of the information and a discussion of how the data collected and analyzed fits in with the research questions asked, hypotheses suggested, and limitation discussed. The assumptions mentioned previously in the study will not be discussed again, as there is no way to determine whether they were appropriate and accurate.

CHAPTER II

Review of the Literature

As previously stated in Chapter One, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between school culture and school safety. This chapter deals with the review and analysis of the previously undertaken studies relevant to this topic. Without a determination of what has been done before, it becomes extremely difficult for current researchers to provide anything new.

The previous literature written on the subject must be analyzed and reviewed to determine whether the data and methods were valid, and to ensure that studies are not duplicated exactly. It is more desirable from a research standpoint for new research to analyze what has gone before and then build off of what has been learned through reviewing the literature.

There is quite a lot of literature written on subjects that are linked to the one under current study but are not exactly like it. There is also some research done on the exact subject in question. For purposes of developing a complete grasp of the available literature and importance of the current work, it is necessary to look at research on school culture, school safety, and the relationship between the two. This entails looking at several different bodies of research. For ease of understanding and to avoid confusion, the literature review has been divided into three sections.

The first section provides an overview of leadership theory with special attention paid to recent research on the leadership role in the culture of a school. Many still debate whether there is a direct correlation between effective and competent leadership and school safety, and this section will help to indicate that other researchers have found an important link between the two.

The second section will discuss the literature on safety in particular. This is important in and of itself because it gives a great deal of information into what makes a school safe and its occupants feel secure. There is information in this part of the literature review that can be used to look for correlations between safety and culture, although the literature does not specifically address culture as something that safety is involved with.

The third section provides a review of literature on school culture. Looking at culture separately is very important. While it does not provide much significant information into the issue of school safety, it does allow for thought and reflection on what makes up the culture in a school where things run smoothly, and what makes up the culture in a school where things are usually problematic. It could possibly be assumed that schools that have problems with cultural issues also have difficulty with other issues, such as safety, although the research in this section does not discuss safety as a function of school culture specifically.

These three sections provide some of the best and most comprehensive research done in this field in recent years. Also provided is some older literature because the researchers that performed the studies are well-known in the field or because the literature discusses something that has remained particularly significant throughout the years of research that have been performed on school culture and school safety. A review of this information will help facilitate an understanding of how safety and culture are interrelated, as well as provide future researchers with important insight into how the current study was arrived at and undertaken.

Leadership

Owens (2001) introduced the notion that "leadership is a group function - it occurs only in the processes of two or more people interacting. Leaders intentionally seek to influence the behavior of other people" (p. 234). Owens (2001) believes that any concept of leadership deals with exercising influence on others through social interaction, and that leaders are the ones that hold societal power over others.

Owens (2001) pointed out that although leaders exercise various kinds of power, leaders engage with followers in seeking to achieve not only the goals of the leader but also significant goals of the followers. The goals of the followers must be held in high regard by the leader or the followers will become disgruntled and upset, which would lead to problems for the leader.

Without a willingness to help the followers accomplish goals, the leader would not be seen as helpful or needed, and the followers would turn to someone else who would be willing to help them accomplish their tasks. Owens (2001) contends that "leadership over human beings...is exercised when persons with certain purposes mobilize in competition or in conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological and other resources so as to arouse and satisfy the motives of followers" (p. 237).

Howard Gardner (1995) views leadership as:

process that occurs within the minds of individuals who live in a culture -- "a process that entails the capacity to create stories, to understand and evaluate these stories and to appreciate the struggle among stories. Ultimately, certain kinds of stories will typically become predominant -- "in particular, stories that provide an adequate and timely sense of identity for individuals who live within a community or institutions (p. 22).

Thomas Sergiovanni (2000) believes that schools need special leadership because schools are special places. They are not like large corporations, and dealing with the teaching and shaping of young children and their minds and ideals is not the same as dealing with adults who have already decided for themselves. Schools have unique issues and problems that they must deal with, and leaders in schools must be aware of the difficulties of these issues and how to deal with them in the best and most responsible way.

Sergiovanni (2000) contends that schools must respond to unique political realities. He also contends that schools belong to parents and children and that they interact with the needs of local businesses, churches, and other community groups, and have a unique relationship with state governments. Sergiovanni (2000) argues that "these stake holders don't always agree, and it takes a high level of political skill for school leaders to bring about the necessary consensus and commitment to make schools work well for everyone" (p. 165-166).

James McGregor Burns (1978) was the first to develop the idea of transformational leadership and later Bernard Bass (1985) as well as others extended it. These authors did not study schools but based their work on political leaders, Army officers, or business executives. Even though they did not specifically address schools, their results are relevant in this research because the idea of transformational leadership expands outward to all areas of leadership and all kinds of organizations, including schools.

Studies by Leithwood (1992) point out that although there have been few studies of such leadership in schools, evidence shows there are similarities in transformational leadership whether it is in a school setting or a business environment. This is especially important because it reinforces the work done in previous studies and once again reminds school officials and educators of the kinds of leaders that they need to be and the ways that they need to work toward helping their students (Graham, 1984).

Sagor (1990) believes that finding a way to be successful in defining the essential purpose of teaching and learning and then empowering the entire school community to become energized and focused takes more than just making decisions. Leadership requires much more than decision-making, as no one who objects to a leader's decision is likely to follow it willingly. Leaders must have willing followers, or at the very least, the power to enforce their decisions. Without either one or both of these things, leaders will not be able to get their ideas turned into workable projects that will benefit themselves and others (Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992).

Evidence of the effects of transformational leadership, according to Leithwood (1992), is positive. Leithwood (1992) cites two findings from his own studies: (1) transformational leadership practices have a sizable influence on teacher collaboration, and (2) significant relationships exist between aspects of transformational leadership and teachers' own reports of changes in both attitudes toward school improvement and instructional behavior (pp. 8-12).

In Reframing Organizations (1991) Bolman and Deal discuss the modern organization's need for transformational leaders who have an objective perspective and also have the vision and commitment that wise leadership provides. This vision and commitment are vitally important to any organization, including schools, as they strive to grow and change as technology and society demands. Leaders also need to have the proper perspective, because they must learn when to be objective about issues, and when their own subjectivity is important, as they sometimes can do more by working with their 'gut instincts.'

How Leaders Influence the Culture of Schools

Leadership studies by Dinham et al. (1995) revealed that the principal's role is "complex, ambiguous, and that he or she must attempt to cope with long days punctuated with numerous interruptions, many short-term interpersonal contacts, not always of their instigation, many issues at various stages of resolution being juggled concurrently, and a general perception that he or she arrives late, leaves early, and wanders around the school in between times" (p. 36).

With this perception in mind, how is it that the principal is able to be an efficient and effective leader and incorporate safety issues into the everyday fabric of school life?

It would seem like the principal would need to be a multi-faceted individual that would be able to do many different things at once and not take everything personally. The principal would also need to juggle many different issues and deal with problems effectively. Principals must work very hard and diligently to ensure that the students and faculty of the school are treated fairly, and that problems that they may have are handled quickly and properly before they become worse (Jose-Kampfner, 1994).

In a study by Dinham (1995) the author examined student, teacher, and community expectations for education. The study was also concerned with the manner in which these expectations are communicated between the various parties involved in education. The study was undertaken in two stages. The first stage of the study consisted of a survey of teachers, students, parents, and businesses within a representative range of nine comprehensive high schools and communities.

Schools were then chosen to represent the socio-economic and cultural diversity evident in Western Sydney. Stage two consisted of in-depth study in three of these schools, which were selected both on the basis of their diversity, and because they were considered by students, parents, and teachers to display evidence of effective communication. It was the desire of the researchers to see why it was that these schools seemed to function more effectively than others. Apparently, they had something that other schools did not.

Data in stage one was collected using a single survey. This survey included a list of objectives that the literature suggested comprehensive high school were attempting to achieve with their students. The survey was tested at a single comprehensive high school with 82 students in years 7-10. With minor modifications, the surveys were subsequently administered to the nine schools during March and April 1991, in order to determine if these schools met the specific criteria for comprehensive high schools and what they were attempting to achieve.

Stage one provided 3,567 surveys for analysis, comprising 2,713 surveys from students, 232 from teachers, and 622 from parents. In addition, 100 surveys were sent to business groups with a return rate of 49%. The questionnaire was comprised of 60 questions organized into two sub-groupings. The majority of questions required subjects to use five-point rating scales to provide judgments on priorities for schooling (should) and their perceptions of what currently occurs in schools (does).

For all these questions, means and standard deviation were calculated. Subsequently, selected Spearman rank order correlations were calculated and quadrant and discrepancy scale analyses were conducted to determine the common matches and mismatches in perceptions and understandings of educational needs and priorities in these schools.

Conclusions from the study indicated that the aspects of the leadership of each school, particularly that of the principal, had influenced school climate, educational performance, and teacher, student, and community satisfaction. However, the authors concluded that leadership is also a two-way process and it was equally apparent that the behaviors of the leaders were also in part a product of the school environment and interactions with others.

The following are several important and worthy implications for school leadership effectiveness:

An open-door policy and principal accessibility and approachability are important, particularly to staff and students.

Hands on" leadership and attention to detail are also important, but need to be balanced with preparedness to delegate the importance of this against the interruptions and loss of time that being "open" necessarily results in.

Consultation and collaboration have important symbolic as well as practical benefits.

The principal needs to be a source, facilitator, and conduit for both formal and informal communication within and without the school and to utilize consciously a variety of communication measures.

It is important for the principal to espouse and encourage forward thinking, a sense of purpose, and a collective vision.

A balance needs to be struck between attention to detail, policies, and procedures, and the more symbolic and intangible aspects of school organization, culture, and reputation.

The importance of a school's physical environment with regard to school climate and staff as well as student and community perceptions of school effectiveness has been underestimated.

Public recognition of student, staff, and school achievement is important, but efforts also need to be made to ensure higher levels of student and staff participation in such "high profile" sporting, academic, and cultural activities which only involved a minority of students and staff at the schools studied.

Extra curricular activities are also important as symbolic "rallying points" in building the perception and reality of a "good" school.

The aim of true, representative, and meaningful student (and to some degree staff) involvement and empowerment in school decision-making processes remains seemingly unfulfilled.

Representative parent and community involvement is important yet was also lacking in those schools studied.

Many of the implications raised above hinge on the notion of "balance" in a school. It seems that the principal of a school needs to be capable of making professional judgments which involve finding a personal position between sometimes opposing ends, e.g. "hands on" verses delegation, attention to detail versus "big picture," procedural vs. symbolic action, and so on.

Can leadership training be provided to assist the principal, first to identify the most appropriate position on any continuum of the "essentials," and then to adopt this?

According to the authors, it is difficult to separate the principal from the organizational climate of the school, as there are cause and effect relationships at work, with the principal influencing and being influenced by the school and those involved within and without it (pp. 54-57). The principal often becomes so deeply integrated into the school environment that he or she is not seen as a separate entity with his or her own identity and values.

Overall, it was apparent that in this study students, parents, and teachers shared a common belief that it was a 'good' school. The principal had a strong influence in setting the general tone or "climate" of the school and had a marked "hands on," "open door," positive attitude, being at the center of much that was happening within and concerning the school. The principal despite the large size of the school appeared to deal effectively with the variety fragmentation and brevity of contacts with others that have been found to typify the lot of the principal. This is largely what made the school 'good,' as parents and others in the community believed that the principal displayed an atmosphere of caring and compassion that was necessary to show an interest in the student and faculty and their well being.

This study shows that there is some correlation, at least at the particular school studied, between the principal's beliefs and involvement, the culture of the school, and the safety of the school in question. Some of the opinions about safety and security can be evidenced by the fact that the parents and teachers, as well as the students, rated their school highly. Students and others that do not feel safe at school would not choose high marks for that particular establishment. This is significant as it works to display the suggested correlation between school culture and school safety and indicates that the principal may play a central role in this.

Safety

According to Rachi (2001) children are afraid to go to school for fear that someone else will shoot up the student body, and school administrators refuse to acknowledge that school security is their responsibility. This is especially true in schools where crime and violence is a problem, and where there have already been problems with guns and other terrifying issues. Schools such as Columbine High School are definitely schools where the student body feels unsafe, and will probably feel unsafe for quite some time to come.

Rachi (2001) also contends that parents ignore the fact that their children can access the Internet at the flick of a wrist to find out detailed instructions on bomb assembly, and TV movies and video games encourage violence. While there are arguments that video games and TV don't cause problems in children that are raised properly, there are many others that show even children who are taught right from wrong at an early age and are brought up properly still have a higher tendency to violent behavior if they watch too much violent television or spend a lot of time playing the more violent video games.

Rachi (2001) noted that The National Rifle Association (NRA) argues that guns are not the problem -- "people are. This has, of course, been a point of contention between many individuals for many years, as those who favor banning guns argue about how dangerous they are, and those that think guns should not be outlawed argue that it is people who kill people. If guns weren't available, these people argue, then people would just use some other means to kill or main others, such as knives or blunt instruments. Guns are not the only way to cause injury.

There is no reason that guns should make people violent, it is simply that guns are convenient where crimes are concerned. This is unfortunate, regardless of whether one takes the NRA's position or some other position. Students in schools around the country are being killed by guns, and while it doesn't happen often, many would say that even one death of this nature is one too many (Kavale & Reese, 1992).

In a United States government document (School Violence, 1994) it was reported that approximately 225,00 non-fatal, serious crimes occurred at schools, and about 671 away from schools. Reportedly, the tragic events at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado and its aftermath have focused our national attention on this pressing and puzzling issue. Many students and parents are frightened now, and teachers and principals are experiencing the same feelings of fear and frustration as they search their minds for things that they might have missed and that might have prevented the violence that shocked the country (Rimbach, 2000; Clayton & Gordon, 1999).

This report stresses that Congress has a responsibility to address school violence at all levels and to put a stop to as much of it as possible. There are many areas of the country where the crime rate is very high, and many of these crimes happen in schools. Even in areas that seem safe, school safety can still be an issue, and parents are becoming increasingly concerned about sending their children to schools that they feel may be dangerous.

Some of these parents can home school their children or put them in private schools, but many do not have this option or do not see it as a viable suggestion. For these parents, their days at work are overshadowed by the fear that something terrible will happen to their children while they are at school -- "a place where they should be able to feel secure, safe, and comfortable (Ackerman, Anhalt, & Dykman, 1986).

Sprague, Sugai, & Walker (1998) agree that, "violence and destructive behaviors are major concerns within our society. The ramifications of the widely publicized shootings have ignited great fear and concern for student safety in schools from community members, school staff and students." This is true of many individuals who research this subject today and it appears as though it has become a growing concern for members of the community as they see violence inserting itself into formerly quite and reserved neighborhoods.

In March of 1998 The Center for Education Statistics issued a report entitled, Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97. This report pointed out that about 100 crimes per 100,000 students were reported in public schools, 950 of these were not serious or violent. The ratio of serious violent crime is lowest in elementary schools, with 13 violent crimes reported per 100,000 students compared with 93 violent crimes per 100,000 students in middle schools and 103 violent crimes per 100,000 students in high schools.

In 1993 a national survey on violence in public schools found that 23% of students and 11% of teachers have been victims of violence in and around their schools (Kadel et al., 1999). This is indicative of the fact that students who do not get the proper guidance and leadership at a young age will become more violent as they grow older. It is also quite likely that the percentages have increased in the time that has passed since the survey was conducted in 1993.

A report by The National Center for Educational Statistics (1998) affirmed that one in ten schools in their sample reported at least one violent crime over the past year. To promote school safety, educators have used traditional law enforcement methods that rely heavily on surveillance, penalties, and punishment (Purkey, 1999).

Purkey (1999) believes that these methods applied to schools can be effective but they carry major negative side effects, including a large financial burden. The financial burden is not the only problem that comes with these various methods. Many students feel that the surveillance is too intrusive, and that students who haven't done anything wrong are being scrutinized too closely. There are also concerns that punishments are too harsh, too many things are banned from schools because they could be used as weapons, and there is too much of a reminder that the school is unsafe when guards are walking the halls (Seidman, et al., 1994).

Purkey (1999) presents an alternative approach for making schools more exciting, satisfying, and enriching. He calls it 'Invitational Educations' which centers around the four guiding principles of respect, trust, optimism, and intentionality. These principles are used to show that schools can be made into safe and enjoyable places without employing armed guards and requiring students to submit to searches and other intrusive penalties for minor infractions. There are also five 'P's involved in his alternative, and they are designed to make individuals think before they act.

The Five P's of Purkey's (1999) Invitational Education concept are people, places, policies, programs, and processes, which are used to provide the means to address the global nature and symbolic structure of schools. Purkey (1999) argues that it expands the education process by applying steady and continuous pressure from a number of points. Rather than relying on one program, one policy, or one process, Invitational Learning addresses the total spirit within a school. This total spirit is the culture of the school, and is therefore seemingly important where the safety and security of students is concerned.

It is concerned with more than grades, attendance, academic achievement, discipline, and test scores. It is concerned with the skills of becoming a decent and productive citizen in a democratic society such as the one that all students and children must learn to reside in as they grow older and leave school behind them. Many of these skills are not currently taught in schools, and the students suffer when they enter the 'real world' of jobs and families. The five Ps that are suggested will work to curb some of these problems if they are used properly.

According to Shoffner & Vacc (1999) school safety and student conduct cause greater concern among parents and educators than does mediocre or poor academic achievement. While academics are important for a student's future, whether the student goes on to accept employment or attend college, safety is something that is a concern for the present. Students who don't have a safe environment in their schools may not do nearly as well academically, and some of these students may choose to drop out of schools or may not continue their education beyond high school because of issues with safety. This is not only detrimental to the student, but also to the rest of society, as it has lost a productive member (Anderman & Kimweli, 1997).

Very few parents and educators are unconcerned with the safety of their schools, and most students are also concerned with safety, even if they give no outward indication of it. Morrissey (1998) also reports that most parents, teachers, administrators, and students want their schools to be safe. This only makes sense and it is a logical conclusion that those that are involved with schools would want those schools to be a safe place to work and learn.

Effective School Research (Levine & Lezotte, 1994) indicates that having a safe, orderly learning environment significantly influences a child's success in school. Children who are constantly being disrupted by violence, threats, and other problems have a more difficult time concentrating on their work and spend more time worrying about when another problem will arise and how significant that problem will be. Research from the effective schools movement of the last several decades has identified an emphasis on a safe school environment and its relationship to the school's culture, high achievement scores, and student performance. Schools with poor safety have lower achievement scores than schools where the students consider themselves to be safe and secure.

Research by the Center for the Prevention of School Violence (2001) lists some key issues, such as security, safety, and orderliness in schools, which cannot be assumed but must instead by explicitly addressed. This research views the establishment and maintenance of these conditions in schools as essential in efforts directed at creating effective schools. With these conditions present, students are given the opportunity to perform at their best academically, and teachers are provided with environments that allow them to perform at their highest level, thus helping their students to achieve even more.

People - Respect and Caring

Faculty and staff work as a school family. They often become close to each other and share their thoughts, dreams, and feelings. Many of these center around the students that they teach and how they can provide them with the best educational experience possible. Often this includes the issue of how to make the schools more safe and secure for themselves and their students. Activities include training in stress reduction and conflict management, long-term relationships between faculty and students, courteous staff, and respect for everyone. Special attention is given to personal grooming and professional dress, as this often helps to secure respect (Lindquist & Molnar, 1995).

Noguera (1995) believes the role of the teacher cannot be overlooked in the process of eliminating violence. Often, teachers notice much more about their students then a security guard or school resource officer would notice, so they are the most valuable commodity when it comes to stopping violence before it actually gets started. Many times, issues can be stopped before any actual violence occurs if teachers are aware of what is going on with their students. While many schools have police officers and security guards to enforce school rules and regulations, it is the teacher who still plays the most significant role, as the teacher is the person that is with the students for the greatest amount of time each day (Maehr & Midgley, 1996).

Noguera (1995) provided insight into the manner in which teachers handle situations in the classroom and halls, the influence teachers assert as they handle situations, and how this plays a significant role in the effectiveness and prevention of violence. The implication is that those teachers' attitudes and perceptions toward their students can lead to a situation in which violence is common. Perceptions made by teachers can greatly affect how students see themselves and others, and teachers must work toward being carefully neutral.

Teachers must be aware of how they treat their students, and they must make an effort to avoid showing obvious favoritism to some students, or openly disliking others. Obvious dislike by a teacher often becomes a reason for a student to act out, and often this can result in a violent act against the teacher or someone else. This is something that many teachers must really work on, because it is difficult for them to remain neutral if one student is obviously more likable in general than another. However, remaining neutral and not showing favoritism can often make a more problematic student feel more accepted, thus possibly averting the violence that could have occurred in the future of that student (Anderman & Maehr, 1994).

Places - Physical Aspect of the School

Careful attention is given to the physical environment of the school, including seeing that there is adequate lighting, well-maintained buildings and grounds, clean rest rooms, attractive classrooms and cafeterias, and displays celebrating student abilities and accomplishments. Ways are found to enhance the physical environment of the school and make the students more comfortable, no matter how old the building (Suarez, 1999).

This is very important because students that take pride in their schools are less likely to cause violence in that school. Even an old school building that needs some work can be made into a place of pride with a little bit of work (Pankratz, 1997). This work can be undertaken by the students to some degree, and this will also help to increase the safety and satisfaction that they feel in attending that school.

In their report, the Center for the Prevention of School violence (1999) concluded that if schools are to address the security of a school; attention should focus upon the school's physical features, layout, and policies and procedures that are in place to handle daily activities as well as problems that may arise. In addition, the buildings and grounds of the school should be assessed. Some school safety issues are directly related to the buildings, such as dark hallways, poor lighting, and areas that are easy to get to but are largely unmonitored. All of these issues should be examined to reduce the places in the school where violence could occur.

Access to the school should be reviewed, as well as policies and procedures to address intrusions that may threaten security because of what is brought to school; i.e., firearms and other weapons. It is often very easy for a student to bring a dangerous weapon to school because of the nature and design of schools and the open access that is necessary to allow all of the students to move about freely and get to their classrooms on time (Lee & Smith, 1990).

In a paper published for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Atlas (2002) summarized his findings:

Many school buildings in the United States have been constructed to achieve an inviting and open campus style, with multiple buildings, multiple entrances and exits, big windows, and many opportunities for privacy. These design configurations are not conducive to many current requirements that need to encompass security needs (p. 7).

Policies - Rules and Regulations

Attendance, grading, promotion, discipline, and other policies are developed and maintained within a circle of respect for everyone involved. Families are kept informed through newsletters, bulletins, phone calls, and meetings. Every school policy is democratically developed, easy to understand, and made available to everyone involved, so that no concerns arise about favoritism, and no misunderstandings arise about rules and other important concerns.

These rules and policies are vital. Many schools have student handbooks and other information that they give out to students. Some even require that students and parents sign a statement that says they have read the handbook and understand and agree to all of the rules that are in it. Schools that spell out the rules in this way and ensure that students and parents understand these rules often have less violence because they make sure the rules are clear. This helps to avoid safety issues.

Naturally, not all safety issues can be avoided by providing the students with rules. Some problems will always plague schools, and there is only so much that teachers and others can do about this. However, anything that can reasonably be done to prevent violence and ensure safety should be utilized by schools and teachers to ensure that the environment created in a particular school is the safest and best for learning that it can possibly be.

Programs - Preventive Programs

Plucker (2000) reports on the 1999 conference held at Indiana University on "Positive Approaches to Violence Prevention: Peace Building in Schools and Communities." The main focus of this conference according to Plucker (2000) was a discussion of the need for positive preventive strategies in order to help curb school violence and promote safety.

The main events featured nationally-known speakers from diverse perspectives, including Arun Gandhi, Kevin Dwyer from Columbia University, William Sessions, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Chief Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the US. District Court in Indianapolis, and His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. More than 2000 people from 16 states, Japan, and Australia attended and the conference was viewed live on the Internet. The outcome of the conference drew the following conclusions:

Students need to feel they belong

Students need opportunities to make real choices

Communication is the key hurdle to preventing violence

Students need to know the consequences of their choices

Solutions need not be complex

Some insights that came out of the conference were: (a) that among the many programs that help to create safe schools are community outreach, wellness, and enrichment opportunities for everyone in the school; (b) programs that involve parents are strongly encouraged; and - guidance counselors play a central role in arranging beneficial programs. Many of these things were already known or suspected by researchers and educators alike, but seeing these conclusions drawn at the conference only helped to reinforce the opinions and beliefs that many school officials already had about safety.

Processes - Values and Attitudes of School Staff

Process is the way in which things are done in the school. It relates to safety and security, but also to many other things that are done throughout the school. A democratic ethos is valued along with an academic orientation. Both are important for effective schools. All activities and procedures are designed to honor and include everyone, including teachers, staff, and all students.

In their study, Saft & Planta (2001) assessed the extent to which teacher perceptions of their relationships with students varied. This study was conducted in a large, demographically diverse population. The sample included 197 preschool and kindergarten teachers and 840 children.

Children were approximately evenly divided between boys and girls. Regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between teachers' perceptions of their relationships with students and their actual relationships. They were separated by (a) teacher ethnicity, (b) child age, ethnicity, and gender, and - the ethnic match between teacher and child.

This study suggests that child ethnic match was consistently related to teachers' perceptions, explaining up to 27% of the variance in perception of negative aspects of the teacher-child relationships, specifically teacher-child conflict. When child and teacher had the same ethnicity, teachers rated their relationships with children more positively. This is often the case with teacher-child relationships and also with relationships between adults. Many people seem to be more comfortable with people of similar ethnic makeup and background. This is often not due to any kind of prejudice, but rather due to the shared and common experiences that these people will have with each other.

The results are discussed in terms of classroom social processes related to children's adjustment and the measurement of teacher-child relationships. This study is important because it points out one area of teacher-child conflict. Valuing each child is important in creating safe schools and teachers need to be aware of some areas of conflict. Children who are not in the same ethnic category as their teacher are often treated differently, and even though many teachers do not even realize that they are doing this, the student is still affected by it.

This is not to say that all teachers treat children of different ethnic background poorly, or that children cannot respond positively to a teacher that is of a different ethnicity. However, there has been more than one study done that indicates children are more responsive when they are with a person of their same ethnic background. Whether this is due to genetics and the comfort that children find in someone who is 'like them' or whether it is indicative of the way the children are treated by those of the same ethnicity is not clearly stated. Possibly both are factors, or it varies between the children that are studied.

In their analysis of the Inviting School Safety Survey (ISSS), Shoffner and Vacc (1999) argue that although the influence of family, community, school, and peers is frequently cited as being related to adolescent delinquent involvement, it is only recently that schools have begun to implement programs of prevention.

Shoffner and Vacc (1999) in their analysis point out that a primary issue that needs attention is concern over the factors that should be addressed in prevention programs to achieve safe schools. It is also important to study whether these factors are being properly addressed and discussed in order to ensure that the best prevention measures are being utilized.

In the Inviting School Safety Survey, Purkey and Lehr (1996) point out that there are five areas of people, places, policies, programs, and process which create the environmental framework in the schools where adolescent behavior is affected. According to Purkey and Lehr (1996) the component of the model related to people assesses respect and caring; places relates to the physical aspect of the school; policies refers to rules and regulations; programs refers to preventive programs that emphasize nonviolent means of negotiation; and process refers to values and attitudes of school staff.

The center also suggests that the "climate" in the school be addressed.

A school's climate is often assessed in terms of how safe students, teachers, school staff, and parents perceive the school. Perceptions of safety and feelings about safety reveal important information about a school's climate and help educators determine where the problems lie. This "climate" is also often referred to as the school's "culture" and this is one reason why it is believed that the culture of the school is related is some way to the safety of that school.

Effective School Research (2000) emphasizes that the orderliness of a school involves how students relate to each other and how they relate to the teachers and school staff. An environment characterized by respect for others is important, as is a clear explanation of what is expected from students with reference to behavior and conduct. Student behavior is a critical component of the orderliness of a school, and this behavior is often regulated mostly by the teachers that see the students for several hours every day, but is also somewhat regulated by the principal of the school, by peer pressure placed on a student by other children, and by parents and others adults who teach children what they need to know from an early age.

A school's safe school plan should include a clear set of such expectations. It can not be assumed that all students will conform to the rules that have been set forth by the principal, teachers, and others with the authority to do so, but it can be expected that those who break the rules have been made aware of what the consequences would be. It is very important that all students know the punishments for various infractions, just as it is important for them to be aware of all of the rules and regulations that are often included in handbooks that are provided to students and parents (Young & Fraser, 1994).

Sizer (1984) also agrees with research concerning the importance of a safe and orderly environment within a school, which is an important characteristic of effective schools. Most schools effectiveness studies, according to Sizer (1984), have focused on academic achievement in terms of basic skills in reading and mathematics or examination results, but there is more to an effective school than this information would indicate. Skills and basics, as well as examination results, are all very important, but there are many other factors that make up a school, and many of them will showcase the effectiveness of the schools.

However, Sizer's (1984) research shows evidence that providing a safe and orderly environment increases achievement scores and student performance, which are important components of the most effective schools. This once again indicates that children cannot learn effectively in a school where they must spend time worrying about when the next violent event will occur and if it will involve them or effect their ability to complete their work.

Students in schools that have low safety ratings and high amounts of violence often show poor scores on academic tests, and also indicate that they have a lack of concentration. This is presumably because they are worrying about where the next problem will come from and whether they will be a part of it. A school should be a place where everyone can feel safe and secure, and this is difficult to provide in a school where violence is rampant and armed guards roam the halls to keep an eye on what kinds of activities are taking place (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995).

The Subcommittee on School Violence (1999), in their report to Congress, posed the following questions: (1) What is it that leads a student to commit or even consider heinous acts of violence?, (2) Do our Federal programs accomplish their goals efficiently and effectively?, (3) Is the Federal Government helping or hurting with these programs and policies?

For many decades, the debate has been raging over the quality of public schools in the United States and whether the educational reform efforts that have been attempted have failed or succeeded. Berliner, et al. (1997, p. 21) asserts "the public school system of the United States has actually done remarkably well as it receives, instructs, and nurtures children who are poor, without health care, and from families and neighborhoods that barely function." While this is true to a great extent, there is much more that can be done in order to make schools safer and help them help the students that really need it the most.

Barth (1990, p. 147) notes that public schools are "working, but could work better."

Hill, Foster, and Gendler (1990) agree that, "Unacceptably large numbers of American school-age youth are insufficiently equipped with the skills and knowledge to enable them to acquire additional educational education or employment, or to lead fulfilling personal lives." This is of great concern to parents and educators, as the United States continues to turn out high school graduates that cannot read, and students that cannot hold a job, balance a checkbook, or cook a meal.

Some individuals blame these deficiencies on the parents, but many others are starting to look to the schools. When they do look toward the schools, they are seeing that the educational opportunities that are afforded to today's children are not what they used to be, nor are they often up to the standards that parents and administrators expect. The process of change, however, is a slow one, and the answers to the problems are not simple. This does not mean that finding a solution should be abandoned, but only that it is a time consuming and important task (Weishew & Peng, 1993).

The Center for Effective Schools

2001) also lists a safe and positive environment as one of seven correlates for effectiveness. Their list includes these facts: "effective schools have an orderly, purposeful, businesslike environment, which is free from the threat of physical harm. Desirable student behaviors are consistently articulated and expectations are clear. Students help each other and what is best for all. The environment nurtures interaction between students and teachers that is collaborative, cooperative, and student centered."

According to research by Hough et al. (1997), because of the violence in our school systems, teachers and administrators now have to be concerned with maintaining their own physical safety and that of their students, instead of focusing solely on academic education. This is stopping many of the children of today from reaching their full potential and also keeping teachers from doing all that they can to ensure that students are safe and happy.

Safe Schools America, Inc. (2001) defines school safety as the process schools use to dedicate their attention to creating the safest and most secure environment for learning possible in any given situation. Because standards for a safe school apply to all issues that contribute to the safety and security of adults and students at the school the research conducted by Safe Schools (2001) stress that all schools are vulnerable to various threats to their safety and security.

These threats can come from any number of things, but most often they involve weakness at the external perimeters to building procedures and student behavior. However, their research reports that these threats can be reduced or eliminated entirely when schools study and adapt safety standards that address their specific needs, such as facilities standards, policies and procedures standards, equipment standards, state certification standards, and safety planning and crisis response training standards, among others.

Culture

Ownes (2001) refers to what Likert pointed out:

It is the administrator -- "who has options from which to choose in deciding what the philosophy of management is to be, how communication is to be carried out, and how decisions shall be made in the organization -- "who bears major responsibility for the culture that develops in an organization (p. 283).

As far back as 1952 Kroeberg and Kluckhorn (1960) referred to culture as patterns of behaviors that are acquired and transmitted by symbols over time, which become generally shared within a group and are communicated to new members of the group in order to serve as a cognitive guide or blueprint for future actions" (cited in Black & Mendenhall, 1990, p. 120).

Schein (1996) defines culture as, "a phenomenon that surrounds us at all times. Culture implies that rituals, climate, values, and behaviors bind together into a coherent whole. The levels of culture are the artifacts (visible organizational structures and processes, the espoused values (strategies, goals, philosophies - espoused justifications) and basic underlying assumptions (unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings - ultimate source of values and actions). This patterning or integration is the essence of what we mean by culture." (p. 17).

According to Schein (1996) leaders need to become aware of the critical role an understanding of culture plays in their efforts to stimulate learning and change and how intricately intertwined their own behavior is with culture creation and management (p. xi). Many people do not realize that their culture shapes what they do very greatly. Many of the things that people do belong to their culture and they don't even realize it. It is simply an action that is performed because it has always been done that way. This cultural phenomenon happens in schools as well as other organizations, and throughout society itself.

A study by Wohlstetter (1997) examined schools in search of elements central to the creation of "high-performing learning communities." This study considered "how school missions were developed and translated into classroom practice; how schools learned from what they were doing; and what factors were likely to produce high-quality teaching and learning" (p. ii).

It identified four building blocks critical to the development of high-quality learning communities: the school mission, the school instructional program, the accountability system and school leadership (pp. 25-26). It was found that the schools' approaches to these building blocks both supported and hindered their development as learning communities.

Given similarities between "creating learning communities" and "creating school cultures," this study covers some of the same ground as Wohlstetter (1997). The "building blocks" and" enabling conditions" -- "and in particular the findings about mission and leadership -- "overlap to some extent with this exploration of culture and a safe and orderly environment.

In Organizational Behavior in Education Robert Owens (2001) reports on a study by Wilbur Brookover and his associate. The researches took a random sample of 2,226 Michigan elementary schools and studied school effectiveness and how it relates to organizational culture. The investigators found that "the first and foremost conclusion derived from this research is that some aspect of social environment clearly makes a difference in academic achievement of schools" (p. 161).

The researchers concluded that this concept is clearly related to school achievement. Strong research for a close relationship between the culture of the school and outcomes also comes from a study of twelve inner-city London schools (Owens, 2001). These studies continue to enforce the belief that there is a correlation between the safety of a school and the culture of the students. Even though many people state that there is no link, repeated studies show that there is at least some link between the two, and this link must be studied in order to determine how strong it is and how culture can be improved in schools in an attempt to create more secure environments for children to learn in.

Owens also reported on large-scale research in the United States by Rudolf Moos (1997) that supports the mounting evidence in the literature that the learning and development of students is significantly influenced by characteristics of organizational culture. Moos (1997) studied some 10,000 school students in more than 500 classrooms and was able to identify characteristics of classroom organizational culture that facilitated academic achievement, on the one hand, and those that induce stress, alienate students, and inhibit learning, on the other.

Getzels et al. (1968) also acknowledges that it is important to note that culture is the source of values that people share in a society, school, or organization. Culture can be viewed as having effects on multiple features of the school and its environment, as well as having effects on the individuals in the organization. Cultures shape the institutional and community context within which the school is situated by defining predominant value orientations and norms of behavior.

Getzels (1968) believes that leaders must respond to and establish a fit between the school and its institutional structure. To provide a culture that supports an orderly, safe environment school leaders must be very sensitive to the needs of their specific school. This includes not only the students, but the faculty and staff as well, as they are all part of the culture.

Without the sensitivity to the students, a school leader cannot be effective, as they do not have the trust and confidence of the teachers and the students. Without this trust and confidence, no one will follow that particular leader for very long, and the leader will not be able to turn the dreams and visions that the school has into a reality that will benefit everyone involved. This is why it is extremely important for the leader, or the principal, of the school must be sure that he or she takes into account the culture of the school and the people that work there, as well as the students and their thoughts and beliefs about the school.

Collaborative Leadership

Frederick (1987) discusses the idea of patterns that have emerged in studying schools as complex social systems that reveal a set of distinct characteristics. These characteristics, among others, include the importance of an orderly, safe environment conducive to learning. The question Frederick poses is, "If we consider the importance of this characteristic then how does the leader of a school interact with staff to assure that this characteristic is played out?

Education Reform Studies (1994, p. 1) point out that the collaboration of leadership with staff is critical. Strong leadership measures the level of strategic interaction between the principal and teachers in areas of mobilizing resources, communicating, serving as instructional resource, and being a visible presence. Understanding how a leader interprets the culture of the community and the institution to his school staff is an important idea.

Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) warn against contrived collaboration:

Leaders must create the appropriate structures for collaboration that provide opportunities for teachers. Teachers cannot be forced to collaborate. There are many structures and methods that contribute to teachers' collaboration, such as team teaching, action research teams, peer observations, common planning times, and shared decision-making. The strength of collaboration comes from time structured for teachers to have meaningful discussions about improving their practice, to share their expertise (p. 4).

Peterson & Deal (1998) in How Leaders Influence the Culture of Schools offer some insights of how school leaders shape culture. First, they read the culture -- "its history and current condition. Second, leaders uncover and speak about core values, looking for those that support what is best for students. It is important to identify which parts of the culture are destructive and which are constructive.

Finally, leaders work to fashion a positive context, reinforcing cultural elements that are positive and modifying or deleting those that are negative and dysfunctional. Positive school cultures are never oversized or conforming, but core values and shared purpose should be broad and deep (p. 28-30).

Peterson and Deal offer these specific ways school leaders shape culture:

They communicate core values in what they say and do.

They honor and recognize those who have worked to serve students and the purpose of the school.

They observe rituals and traditions to support the school's heart and soul.

They recognize heroes and heroines and the work these exemplars accomplish.

They eloquently speak of the deeper mission of the school.

They celebrate the accomplishments of the staff, the students, and the community.

They preserve the focus on students by recounting stories of success and achievement.

Peterson and Deal (1998) point out that the roles of school leaders in shaping culture are extremely pervasive. By their words, nonverbal messages, actions, and accomplishments they shape the culture of the school in many ways. In conclusion, they add that without the attention of leaders, school cultures can become toxic and unproductive.

To overcome this, these school leaders must pay very keen attention to the symbolic side of their schools. These symbols can be very important, and leaders can easily overlook them if they aren't willing to stay in tune with the things that are happening at their school and the thoughts and feelings of the teachers and students. Symbolism often accounts for much, and school leaders that pay attention to these things will keep the trust and confidence, as well as the respect, of their students, teachers, and staff.

Teacher Collaboration

In their report, Tyrrell et al. (1998, p. 30-32) conceived on what they term The Strategic Planning Process. In this process teachers engage in collaboration to renew the values and missions of the district, and to create a vision for the future. This vision is to plan together and observe and discuss the premise that real peace in the world must begin with children. The idea of creating peace in the world and nurturing cooperative schools in which learning can flourish emerged in the strategic plan, and it has been indicated that this would benefit society as well as schools.

The purpose of the program was to foster the values of compassion, respect, and appreciation of others' differences, to build character, and to strengthen the practice of the nonviolent resolution of conflict. The program helped students and adults better understand and manage the conflicts they encountered in their own lives - in the schools, at home, and in the community.

It is felt that these life-long skills should help people build caring relationships with others and function effectively in our complex, changing society, and that schools are a good place to teach these kinds of skills, because they are turning out the adults of the future. It is becoming problematic, however, because many of the schools are having such issues with safety that they are not able to do the jobs that they would normally do and ensure that they students of today are learning everything that they should to be productive members of society.

The following information from a study by Shann (1990) should be of interest to teachers willing to study and evaluate programs relating to order and safety. This study was conducted in four urban middle schools in Boston that were serving sixteen hundred students, mostly from low-income minority families, to assess urban public school effectiveness.

School level practices were the primary focus of the study, but self-reports of classroom teaching behaviors were also studied in relation to student achievement through interviews with twenty to thirty teachers in each school. Teachers in these schools were well educated and experienced, but their individual caring did not always appear on an institutional level.

Shann (1990) reported that the most effective schools combined emphasis on academic learning with an ethic of caring that went beyond what was required of the faculty and staff. Clarity of purpose and positive relationships among teachers were seen in higher levels of student achievement, lower rates of inappropriate behaviors among students, and lower incidences of antisocial behaviors, indicating once again that the culture of a school and the interactions between teachers and students relates to school safety.

As an example of the accountability system that is becoming more popular in recent years, there are some areas of the country where school districts are trying this system out to see if it is beneficial. The accountability system that is being implemented in the Dallas (Texas) Independent School District is a three-tier system. The third tier involves school effectiveness indexes.

The program does not reward individual competition between teachers within schools. To achieve the necessary improvement in student outcomes, teachers must work together. This report by Webster et al. (1993) is important because the outcome reports on the impact on the most students effected by the collaboration of teachers working together to increase student learning.

Professional Development

Schiffbauer (2000) in her article A Checklist for Safe Schools suggests that along with information on crisis-response procedures staff should receive in-service programs that enhance staff members' coping skills. Strategies should be given to staff for dealing with aggressive students or adults, for resolving conflicts peacefully, for managing stress, and for handling discipline problems. Teachers and others are often at a loss for what they can and cannot do to prevent problems in schools or to deal with others that cause difficulties. Clear information on proper procedures goes a long way toward making teachers and students feel safe and protected.

As reported by Callahan in School Counselors: Untapped Resources for Safe Schools (2000) the population of students at risk for school violence is growing, and we need new methods and models for assisting students. This report found that teachers and school counselors can play an important part in helping schools address the needs of at-risk youth.

Although researchers have documented the need for comprehensive developmental in-service on guidance and counseling programs many schools are unaware of these needs. Schools that are aware of these needs often do well and have good student achievement because they spend time developing programs that the students can really use to help them later in life.

Paisley and Borders (1995) agree that depending upon the level of training and experience of their schools' teachers and counselors, principals should make seminars on safety and other professional sources available to them. Researchers Paisley and Borders (1995) have documented the need for comprehensive developmental programs that support professional growth throughout the years and that pays off in teachers' involvement and commitment to Effective School beliefs.

In general, their report found that teachers felt good about the changes instituted through the Effective Schools process and about their ability to provide input in the process of identifying problems and solutions. Allowing teachers to have a say in the changes that were being implemented in their schools gave them the chance to talk about some of the things that they were seeing in their classrooms. It also gave them a chance to make suggestions as to how to help the students that they teach perform better and feel better about themselves and their safety.

Collegial Support

The Committee on School-based Reform (1995) cited the reforms at South Mission High School that exemplify a successful adoption of the Effective Schools model. Among the reasons cited for the success of their reform effects was evidence of coordination and collaboration in how the teachers coordinated curriculum planning and issues relating to the welfare of students. The participation of teachers from various disciplines formed correlate committees to stimulate interest in interdisciplinary collaboration.

According to the report, some teachers were not positive about eliminating tracking, but they recognized research supporting it and sought additional training in the teaching of heterogeneous populations. Even though they felt that tracking was important, they were willing to be open-minded about other ways that they could use to help students do better, feel safe, and achieve more. This willingness to consider other options is what helps to make school leaders important in the lives of the students. The teachers at South Mission High took responsibility for effective instruction and ongoing improvement.

In addition, teachers worked together to improve South Mission by serving in seven teacher-staffed subcommittees, each of which assesses how well the school is doing regarding that committee's mission. They forwarded their recommended changes to the school council, then to the principal. The first set of reforms addressed safety and school climate. Another vehicle for collaboration has been eight observations of teachers by administrators per year. The result of this collaboration has been that the teachers have opened up communication between the administration and teaching staff as they work to accomplish the tasks of the school organization.

Case studies by Taylor (1990) illustrate that shared decision-making in a collaborative enterprise leads to improved staff and student morale. And in another study by the Committee on School-based Reform on Empire High School (1995) there was data to support the positive feelings voiced by teachers in the dramatic changes in the organization of the school control. The administrative pyramid was "flattened" by creating a management team. The flattening of the administrative pyramid was beneficial in many ways, including allowing teachers to speak their minds and making them feel more like equals.

The new role of administrators was reflected by their new titles as "coordinators" and their temporary status on one-year contracts. All building administrators knew their jobs were on the line. At Empire, leadership was diffused between an interim principal and a few teacher-leaders. The elimination of administrative positions and allocation of the funds to team planning further stressed the trend toward collegial support between teachers and management.

It also provided a more equal footing for all teachers and reminded everyone that they must work to do the best job possible or they would be replaced. This was evidenced by the fact that contracts for many people were temporary, and that all of the people who worked at the school were made aware that their jobs could be forfeit if they were found to be ineffective in promoting good relations and good school culture for all students.

Unity of Purpose

The Committee on School-based Reform on Empire High School also showed the degree to which the teachers were willing to work toward a structure of participatory governance, which involved working together with administrators and others to accomplish their new reform goals. In the 1991-92 planning year, a team made up of school staff and administrators took charge of designing the restructuring of both the high school and the middle school, attempting to make the schools safer and better for teachers and students alike.

The data from this report lists an important finding regarding the unity of purpose of this staff.

It is important to have a participatory management structure in place for a few years, so there is a cadre of teachers that exist to act as coaches in the decision making progress while working toward a common mission. Unifying behind the school mission of safety is a major concern especially when schools are being required to educate a more diverse range of students.

The diversity of the student population has been increasing in recent years, and this is significant for two reasons. First, many prejudices die hard, and there are students attending schools that bring with them prejudice against particular races that they have been taught at home or by other students. Second, some students who are not otherwise prejudiced against anyone in particular will develop these feelings if there is trouble in the school that seems to revolve around individuals of a particular race or ethnic background. These feelings can be very detrimental to the schools, and these prejudices also keep students from realizing their full potential and developing people skills that they need for life outside of school.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) set forth the premise that all students are to be educated in the least restrictive environment with a preference given to the general education setting. Therefore, students with serious emotional disabilities who have previously been schooled in alternative settings are being educated in the public schools.

The inclusion of all students has challenged the ability of schools to meet the needs of all students. The diversity of student populations with problem behaviors poses the largest threat to the safety and success of the public school (Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Colvin, 1999). Not only are students with disabilities often harder to teach, they are also more vulnerable to school violence because they are seen as different or 'not normal,' and they may be unable to defend themselves for the most part, making them an easy target for bullies and troublemakers.

According to Sprague et al. (1998) variables that influence student behavior are similar to and consistent with factors associated with creating safe schools. An important variable that has been shown to influence safety is strong teacher commitment and unity of purpose. Sprague argues that all staff must understand and support effective programs that offset patterns of increased destructive behavior.

In order to work with these kinds of programs, teachers must understand that many different factors go into making students who they are and shaping them into what they will become as they get older. Because of this, there are many different ways that teachers can use to reach these students and help them benefit as much as possible from all of the learning that they can do in school.

Learning Partnerships

Creating safe environments for schools is only one part of a multi-faceted total prevention strategy. Student's problems are often reactions to stressors in their daily lives (poverty, inadequate health care and/or nutrition, physical and/or emotional abuse, homelessness, etc.). These stressors can distract students from their schoolwork and their ability to cope with conflicts at school, thereby causing inappropriate and violent reactions that impede their ability to learn and could be avoided if teachers were made aware of the problems that the student was facing (Office of Special Education Programs, 2001).

The research done by OSEP reveals the importance of parental partnerships to prevent violent or inappropriate behavior. Parents are one of the main lines of defense against this kind of behavior, and it is important that they pay attention so that they can work with the school to curb this behavior before it becomes dangerous. Classroom and school-wide supports are usually not enough; therefore, schools also need to serve as a pathway to family and community service partnerships. This pathway will help the schools work with the community to improve the safety of students.

Chency, (1998) and Watson & Rangel (1996) suggest that schools develop solutions that involve the home environment as well as the school environment. The authors point to the benefits students derive from messages that are consistent between home and school. Parents and educators should work together closely to build student behavioral skills and competencies, and much more is accomplished when they do so willingly and thoroughly. They must also work together to stop aggression before problems develop, as problems of this nature can be hard to stop or control once they have gotten started. Levine & Lezotte (1994) also agree the effective school correlates include a productive school climate that reflects a culture of shared values between school and parents.

The report on Prevention Strategies that Work, (Key et al., 2001) suggests these prevention strategies:

Family-teacher planning around student problems

Action research teams of teachers and parents facilitated by a parent liaison

Referral of students who show signs of emotional and/or behavioral problems

Time for teachers to meet with families; access to trained parent liaisons

Classroom instruction in social skills; parent liaisons to support families

This report also stresses the importance of conducting action research, which involves the systematic investigation of a specific problem by those most closely concerned with it, such as parents and/or teachers. The authors go on to explain that action research in education is usually carried out by teachers, singly or in collegial groups.

Parent-teacher action research combines the benefits of parent-teacher teaming with the systematic and democratic structure of action research. Using the support of parent liaisons, parents can participate as equal partners in student's behavior plans, thus providing the student involved with the most help and the best help available in his or her particular situation. Action research conducted by parents and teachers involves the following steps:

Choose the research question.

Collect the data. Information is gathered from interviews, observations, etc. Teams often collect both types of data.

Reflect on the data and share thoughts with one another.

Analyze the data, making sure that both parents and teachers participate.

Formulate a practical theory.

Use the practical theory to guide a new plan of action.

Brainstorm ideas and choose those upon which there is mutual agreement.

Plan a course of action and implement it.

The point made by the report on Prevention Strategies That Work is that parents and teachers should work together to establish and set mutual goals for the student's progress during the school years. Setting mutual goals and carrying out joint action plans ensures greater consistency between home and school, and helps the student to avoid the mixed messages he or she may get when the school says one thing and the parents say something else.

The Midwest Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities (1995) lists the following factors that can have a protective and positive influence on the lives of children. The factors are broken down into listed specific to each group that the student may become involved with, such as schools, peers, parents, etc. This is for ease of understanding and to avoid the repetition of material.

Peers can be a positive influence if they:

Are involved in drug-free activities.

Respect authority.

Bond together in conventional peer groups.

Appreciate the unique contributions and talents of individuals.

School can positively influence youth if:

Teachers express high expectations.

The staff encourages goal setting and self-mastery.

Staff members view themselves as nurturing caretakers.

Teachers encourage pro-social development.

The staff provides leadership and decision-making opportunities.

The staff attends development programs in the areas of social development and cooperative learning.

Parents are involved in school activities and programs.

It provides alcohol, tobacco, and other drug-free alternative activities.

The community can be a good influence on youth if:

Norms and public policies support non-use among youth.

There is access to resources (housing, health care, job training, employment, recreation, and so on).

Youth are involved in community service programs.

The family can have a positive influence on the child if:

The parents seek prenatal care.

The parents develop a close bond with the child.

Education is valued and encouraged.

Stress is managed well.

Parents spend quality time with their children.

Parents use a high-warmth/low-criticism parenting style.

Parents express clear expectations.

Parents encourage supportive relationships.

Family responsibilities are shared.

Equally important is the landmark report Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General that was published on January 17, 2001 by David Satcher, MD, then United States Surgeon General. In this report the Surgeon General focuses on the topic of youth violence with a summary of the state of the science about this problem and how to address it. Youth violence, particularly that violence which occurs in schools, has become especially significant to the government in recent years because this violence has been on the rise and many communities have seen it first hand. Society as a whole is concerned that this unpleasant trend may continue.

Furthermore, this report confirms that to be most effective, approaches to youth violence require action at the school, family, and community levels. The report clearly indicates that this problem does not belong to a specific group, but rather to everyone in the community. It will, therefore, take everyone's help to correct it and make the schools safe again. Not everyone agrees with this report, however, and it is necessary to convince the doubters of the importance of the report so that they can help work with others to stop the violence in the nation's schools.

The drive for this report emerged from the April 1999 Columbine High School tragedy that resulted in the deaths of 14 students. The usefulness of this report is significant because the Surgeon General affirmed the importance of evidence-based youth prevention programs by utilizing a regional planning approach and convening a series of community-based forums in four cities across the country: Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These forums provided a medium to report and help shape future directions in youth violence prevention.

As a result, in January of 2002, President Bush amended Title IV to include Part A - Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (2002). The purpose of Section 4001 is to support programs that prevent violence in and around schools. These programs must also prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. In addition, these programs must involve parents and communities, and be coordinated with related Federal, State, school, and community efforts. Federal resources will be provided that support a safe and drug-free learning environment and which improve student academic achievement.

It is important to note that the Act gives assistance to:

States for grants to local educational agencies and groups of such agencies to establish, operate, and improve local programs of school drug and violence prevention and early intervention;

States for grants to, and contracts with, community-based organizations and public and private entities for programs of drug and violence prevention and early intervention, including community-wide drug and violence prevention planning and organizing activities;

States for development, training, technical assistance, and coordination activities; and Public and private entities to provide technical assistance; conduct training, demonstrations, and evaluation; and to provide supplementary service and community-wide drug and violence prevention planning and organizing activities for the prevention of drug use and violence among students and youth.

Monetarily they are authorized to appropriate:

650,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years, for State grants under subpart 1,and

Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002, and for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years, for national programs under subpart 2.

Concluding Remarks

Creating and sustaining an organizational culture that contributes to high academic achievement is frequently a problem in schools, as can be seen from the review of available literature on the subject. Effective School Research (1997), points to the fact that the key to creating and sustaining high academic achieving schools is using a comprehensive approach to creating a culture of safety and order.

Children do not learn well when they perceive their environment to be dangerous, and this applies whether they are very young children or high school age young adults. In order to help students learn better and achieve more, the amount of violence that they face in schools must be reduced, and the level of safety that they feel while they are at school must be raised. This is a difficult, but not impossible, task that must be undertaken by virtually everyone in a particular community if it is to be successful and achieve safety and security for the students.

The problem does not just belong to children, either. Even adults that work on the staff and faculty of schools often feel that they are not safe in some of the more dangerous and problematic schools in this country. These individuals are worried about much more than just whether the students are getting a good education, and this can cause them to neglect much of what they need to be accomplishing in favor of worrying about the safety of the students and themselves.

In some of these schools, safety takes priority over education. As a result of this, the students do not learn what they should and are therefore unprepared when they complete school and end up out in the world where they must get jobs and survive on what they have learned.

Safe schools integrate designs for school safety into their plans for school improvement, restructuring, and reform efforts, among other things. Schools, families, and communities must work together to assess students' and schools' needs; reduce factors that place students at risk of committing violence or becoming victims, and promote strategies that increase students' abilities to reduce or overcome the risks they face (Kadel et al., p. 2, 1999).

CHAPTER III

Research Design and Methodology

Introduction

Problem and Purposes Overview

An overview of the problem is important here. While the study has already discussed the literature that relates to this subject and the opinions of leading researchers in the field, the problem and purposes of the study need to be restated clearly so that the research design and methodology can be discussed without being required to refer back to Chapter One to gain necessary information about the scope of the study.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that school culture has on safety and order, and whether there is a direct correlation between the two or whether the apparent correlation is a result of some other factor that has not been previously considered. Through background information in the first chapter, and the review of relevant literature in the second chapter, this impact has been looked at from virtually every angle, and a great deal of information from many other researchers has been supplied for consideration.

There are several ways to undertake a study like this, and there are different ways that data could be collected and analyzed in order to obtain the desired information in a valid and reliable way. The main goal of the chosen method is to obtain the information in the best and most logical way possible, while ensuring that the collected information is also accurate. This accuracy is important in any study conducted and is vital to this study because the problem of school violence is detrimental to so many people. Naturally, there are always limitations and assumptions, regardless of the kind of methods used for the study.

The whole future of the nation's children is being put at risk every time that violence is allowed in schools and no one notices the problem before it is too late. It is sending the wrong message to young people and showing them that not only does violence happen more often than they would like to think, but it could happen to them any time, even when they are somewhere -- "like school -- "where they previously believed that they were safe.

This chapter details the design and the methods to be used by the researcher to obtain and analyze the data that has been collected during the research. Information of this kind is important, not only to see where the researcher potentially went wrong if there is a problem with the study, but also so that the research can be replicated by others to see if the same results are obtained.

It is possible that the same study, performed in another area of the country for example, would yield unexpected results that were very different from the results obtained here. In order to be able to replicate this study elsewhere, it is crucial that everything about the study be explained in great detail so that nothing about the study is left to speculation or assumption on the part of other researchers.

This will help to prove the validity of the hypotheses presented in sound research. Future researchers can also examine the research details in order to determine what aspects of it they might want to change or modify to see how this modification affects the results and other information in the study.

The details of the method could also be utilized by others that are studying slightly different hypotheses and research questions that are nevertheless similar to the scope of this study. This would allow researchers in the future to use basically the same methods to provide them with information about schools that might be helpful to them in the scope of their research.

This section describes the context of the study so that understanding of the abilities and limitations of the study is clear. It also discusses how the subjects will be selected for study, and the procedures that will be used to carry out the experimental design, once again so that abilities and limitations are clear. This is an important aspect of the study, and recognizing what the study can do, but also what it cannot do due to limitations, is crucial.

In addition to clearing up any abilities and limitations of the study, describing the context of the study also gives other researchers more detailed information as to how the study was conducted and how the subjects for the study were chosen. Studies can be greatly affected by the subjects that are used, and using inappropriate subjects can skew results in either negative or positive ways as based on the desired results, invalidating the study.

Naturally, all studies that are conducted are designed to be as statistically accurate as possible, and allowing the subjects to be chosen carelessly will give otherwise credible methods and research a tarnish that many others will notice. The research could easily be discredited by the inappropriateness of the subjects that were selected, and avoiding this is desirable. Providing information about the kinds of subjects used also helps to indicate to other researchers whether they want to use the same kinds of subjects in their future research, or whether the study would perhaps be better served by allowing different subjects into the study group.

This can be very significant, not only for the results of the study, but also for how smoothly the study itself gets conducted, as some subjects would be more willing to participate than others. Participation is important, since getting subjects can sometimes be difficult, and the study would be wasted if subjects were found and then chose not to participate, or if subjects that were qualified to participate in the study could not be found as needed. Care must be taken to make sure that the subjects selected are willing and able to participate, and that they are appropriate for the study undertaken so that the most accurate results are obtained.

The chapter also contains a description of the instruments that will be used to collect data, how the data will be organized, and the means with which it will be statistically analyzed. This information will provide an understanding for those that look at this research in the future, and also for those who wish to replicate this research while doing their own.

The instruments that are used are vitally important to the study, as the wrong instruments can easily skew the results of the study. Just as the subjects must be chosen with care so as to be appropriate to the study, the same is true with the instruments used to collect the data. Any data can be rendered invalid by those that do not collect it properly or analyze it correctly. Since this is a concern, the data collection procedure in this study was carefully designed to make sure that it was confidential, that the subjects knew about the collection procedures, and that the questionnaires used to collect the data were those that had already been previously used by other researchers and found to be valid for the type of data being collected in this case.

As for the organization of the data, this is also a valid research concern, as poor organization can also skew data and make an otherwise important research study into something that is no longer valid and accepted by others in the research community. In order to avoid this concern, the data organization method will be discussed so that there is no future questions or concerns about how the data was collected, organized, or examined by the researcher.

Statistical analysis is one of the most important aspects of research, and good data is worthless without the proper analysis. It is for this reason that the analysis of the data will be thoroughly discussed, in order to allow replication by other researchers in the future and also to allow questionable practices to be studied and validated through discussion and experimentation. The understanding of the statistical analysis involved in this research will provide other researchers with the ability to replicate the research if they so desire, or to study it and validate it for themselves if they choose to, giving credibility to the researcher's work.

Research Questions

The research questions were mentioned in Chapter One. They will be mentioned again here and also in Chapter Five, as their need for discussion arises. The following research questions were created, analyzed, and ultimately examined as a result of this study:

1. Is there a relationship between school culture and school safety?

2. Are there identifiable behaviors within school culture that contribute to safety?

3. What are the perceptions of teachers and administrators about school culture and order?

Research Hypotheses

To study the research questions, three quantitative hypotheses were developed. These were discussed in Chapter One, are repeated here, and will be brought to light again in Chapter Five to help determine whether they have been validated by the research. These hypotheses were:

H01 There were no statistically significant differences between school culture and safety.

H02 There were no identifiable behaviors within school culture that contribute to safety and orderliness.

H03 There were no identifiable perceptions of teachers and administrators about safety and order and school culture.

Population and Sample

The population available for this study was limited to seven suburban elementary schools from one particular school district. Ideally, a larger sample would have been more desirable, but various constraints such as time, distance, and funding did not permit the study to be expanded beyond the immediate geographical area of the researcher for this study, therefore the sample remains small. Nevertheless, it is believed that this sample represents suburban schools in the Southwestern United States and is therefore a valid sampling for this research.

Participating schools were chosen using convenience sampling. There were a couple of reasons why convenience sampling was used, instead of another method which would have allowed for a larger and more varied sample of schools that could have been used in the study. The main reason, obviously, was convenience of the schools that were involved in the study.

They were schools that were available to the researcher, and therefore were easy to use in the study. There was however a second reason that convenience sampling was used, and that the proximity of the schools was desirable to the researcher. This also helped the researcher ensure that the data was collected properly and turned over in time to complete the study.

Questions could be answered if they arose during the collection of the data, and this helped to assure that the data was not tainted by the perceptions or opinions of those that collected the data from the schools. A larger sampling of schools would have meant that either the researcher would have had to mail the questionnaires and collect the data in an impersonal manner, or the researcher would have to have other individuals go to the schools and collect the data, which would then be returned to the researcher through the mail.

There are reasons why these ideas were not desirable, and the main reason is that the study would not have been as controlled if the sample was larger and required mailing and/or other individuals. Asking others to complete a questionnaire and mail it back raises confidentiality issues, as the subjects may discuss the questionnaire and their answers with others, and use others opinions to help them decide what to say in the questionnaires. This would invalidate the data that was received from the subjects and skew the study.

Questionnaires could also become lost in the mail, which would result in a problem for the researcher, and also for the subject that was ensured confidentiality. Neither party would receive what they expected, and the study could not be conducted without enough participants. A subject who learned of this unintended breach of confidentiality would likely be unwilling to participate in a repeat study or another study in the future, which would also damage the future of research in this area and the credibility of the researcher.

Allowing other individuals to assist with the study could also be problematic, as they would need training and instruction in this area, and would need to be able to answer questions asked about the study while still being careful as to not answering questions about the types of answers the subjects should give. Suggesting answers or giving advice in this area will skew the study results.

Confidentiality is also an issue any time that others are brought into the study, as the more people that are aware of the answers to the study, the less confidential the study becomes, which may cause some of the subjects to become unwilling to participate. Making the subjects uncomfortable was extremely undesirable, as many might have chosen not to complete the survey. Those that did complete the survey might not think as carefully about their answers if they felt that they were being pressured, and they might not be as honest with their answers if they had worries about how confidential their information actually was.

The decision to participate in this particular research study was ultimately made by district administrators, site administrators, and school faculty. All schools participating in the project were included in this study. Even though the teachers were not specifically asked in the initial phase of obtaining permission, they were all assured several times that they could end their participation at any time or choose not to participate if they did not wish their information to be given or were concerned about the confidentiality of the study.

The decision to participate that was made by the administrators was made on the basis that the school would be willing to participate in the study and provide information, but it was understood from the beginning that a particular individual at the school was not bound by this agreement and forced to be involved with the study if they chose not to at a later date. All of the schools did choose to participate and completed the information that was asked for. They were all, therefore, included in the data that was analyzed in the study.

Instrumentation

Two instruments were used in this study to collect data, as this helped with validity and also assured that all needed aspects of the research would be included. Obtaining information from only one instrument would not have given complete and thorough results, as one instrument measured the perceived safety of the school and the other instrument measured the behavior and values of the same school. All of this information was needed to render the data valid and to provide information that would assist in answering the research questions and validating or invalidating the hypotheses that were presented.

The School Culture Survey (Gruenert & Valentine, 1997) (Appendix *), was used to provide insight about the shared values and beliefs, the patterns of behavior, and the relationships in the school. The Inviting School Survey (Lehr and Purkey, 1996) was used to evaluate how students and teachers perceive the relative safety of their school (Appendix *).

Together, the information from the two studies was sufficient to determine the validity of the hypotheses that were presented and also to give answers to the research questions undertaken by the study.It was believed that no other instrumentation was necessary in the collection of the data, as the two surveys measured everything that the researcher was interested in measuring for the purposes of answering the research questions that had been asked and determining whether the hypotheses were valid or invalid.

More information could have been collected by the use of other questions and other instruments, but instead of lending more credibility to the study, they would have taken away validity and stopped the researcher from learning what they really wanted to know.

School Culture Survey (SCS)

The School Culture Survey was developed by the Middle Level Leadership Center (MLLC) at the University of Missouri in the fall of 1997. The School Culture Survey provides insight about the shared values and beliefs, as well as the patterns of behavior and the relationships in the school environment. Each factor of the survey measures a unique aspect of the school's culture.

This is especially important for this study, as the values and beliefs about whether the school environment is safe often affect how people react to problems and other things that happen at their school, which can contribute to whether the school is actually plagued by safety issues that they might not otherwise have had.

In other words, if the school is perceived as generally safe, one small incident will often not change that belief and cause the environment of the school to change. It can, of course, but usually it will be seen as an isolated incident and will not contribute to fear in the school in such a way that the majority of the students are convinced that it or something like it will happen again. The values and beliefs that are largely shared by a school like this would not change over one incident.

It would take large problems over a period of time before those who attended and worked at the school would begin to feel as though their school would not be a safe place to inhabit. Schools that are not perceived as safe from the beginning would need to have a safe environment for quite some time before the students and teachers would begin to believe that their school might have become a safe environment, because they would always be expecting something else to happen.

The SCS is a semantic differential type-measuring instrument, consisting of six subscales. The instrument is used to measure six aspects of school culture, based on these subscales. The instrument is composed of six subscales which measure the following:

1. Collaborative Leadership measures the degree to which the school leaders can establish and maintain various collaborative relationships with the school staff

2. Teacher Collaboration measures the degree to which teachers engage in constructive dialogue that furthers the educational vision of the school

3. Professional Development measures the degree to which teachers value continuous personal development and school-wide improvement

4. Collegial Support measures the degree to which teachers work together effectively

5. Unity of Purpose measures the degree to which teachers work toward a common mission for the school and, 6. Learning Partnership measures the degree to which teachers, parents, and students work together for the common good of the student.

Inviting School Safety Survey (ISSS)

The Inviting School Safety Survey (ISSS) (Lehr and Purkey, 1996) is a 50-item instrument. The items chosen focus on issues of safety and the absence of fear in the school. It is believed that the degree of fear that students have is directly related, in most cases, to the actual level of danger that they are facing when they attend school. This study of safety is done by the use of subscales that measure fear levels and comfort feelings. The ISSS contains five of these subscales.

According to Lehr and Purkey, the ISSS focuses on identifying school staff (people) and practices (places, policies, programs, and processes). In addition, the authors specify the appropriateness when used as a pre-post measure when evaluating a program to improve the general safety of a school. This helps researchers and school officials determine not only whether their students and staff feel safe and secure when they are at school, but what they can do to make things safer. It also indicates whether programs to improve the school safety worked or failed.

The Inviting School Safety Survey centers on four guiding principles of respect, trust, optimism, and internationality. The Inviting School Safety Survey proposes that the five areas of people, places, policies, programs, and policies create the environmental framework in the schools in which adolescent behavior is affected, and therefore are related to how safe their school is and what kind of culture the students perceive their school to have.

This can be very effective as a survey to determine not only if there is a problem within the school, but what can be done to correct it. This is made easier by the ability of the survey to indicate the basis area in which the problem may lie and whether there is a problem with a specific aspect of school safety or if safety is related to several issues that must be worked on.

This instrument is composed of five subscales which measure the following:

1. The component of the model related to people assesses respect and caring

2. Places relates to the physical aspect of the school

3. Policies refers to rules and regulations

4. Programs refers to preventive programs that emphasize nonviolent means of negotiation and, 5. Processes refers to values and attitudes of school staff

Context of the Study

This study was conducted in a suburban school district in the Southwestern section of the United States, due to the convenience that this provided. This district serves families with children from birth to five years old, as well as preschool students, so the sample is restricted to students in kindergarten and similar programs. Since this does not include older students, it does not work to determine the safety of the school environment in middle and high schools.

Enrollment for the last five years in this suburban district falls between 14,503 and 15,491. Ethnicity totals for this district are as follows: (1) Asian 0.6%, (2) Black 2.1%, (3) Hispanic 85.4%, (4) Native American 4.3% and (5) White 7.5%. Special Education enrollment falls between 12.6% to current enrollment of 14.6%. The mobility rate for this district is between 34.9% and 37.1%.

The ethnicity of certified staff is: (1) Asian 0.2%, (2) Black 0.6%, (3) Hispanic 78.9%, Native American 0.6%, and White 19.7%. Three-fourths of students in this district qualify for the federal Free Reduced Meals Program. This is a low-income area where many of the students need a little extra help and many of the parents are on government assistance or other programs to help them survive.

As can be seen from the data, the makeup of both students and staff in this district is largely Hispanic. Some available information suggests that schools with higher minority percentages may have more trouble with school violence and other safety issues, but this is not proven, and does not hold true in all cases. In cases where this information has been found to be accurate, it has often occurred in inner-city schools where crime is an issue and not in suburban areas where crime and violence have traditionally not been as large of a problem.

Participants

Subjects in the study will be teachers from seven elementary schools to be selected by convenience sampling. Limitations do not allow for a nation-wide research study to be conducted, and the researcher has selected the largest and most diverse sampling based on the constraints that were put on the study by time, funds, and other considerations. Teachers and principals will be advised that their participation will be strictly voluntary, that they will be free to withdraw at any time during the study, and that confidentiality will be assured.

There will be no pressure for those that begin the study to complete it if they choose not to or if data collection becomes uncomfortable or difficult for them, nor will their information be released to anyone, including others who are participating in the study. Any teachers who do not wish to participate in the study may decline without concern for any kind of retribution based on their decision.

Race, gender, ethnicity, and any other demographic characteristics of the subjects involved in the study will be determined by the composition of the school, and therefore will be beyond the control of the researcher. No special effort will be made on the part of the researcher to attempt to find specific demographic information or characteristics, or to exclude schools that have specific demographics. For purposes of this study, demographic characteristics of the individuals who will participate in the study are not relevant, and are of no concern to the researcher.

Although ethnicity may affect the research somewhat, the type of information that the researcher is seeking is generic for all schools and is not based on whether there is a certain ethnic makeup involved. Others in the future may choose to use this research to build on and see whether different ethnic makeups in different schools change the data or the validity of the hypotheses.

Experimental Design and Procedures

The design and procedure for this particular study is very specific, and designed to ensure the maximum amount of participation with the minimum amount of concern for confidentiality and other problems.The researcher will submit a request to conduct research to the school district's Research, Development, and Assessment department. This request will detail the nature and purpose of the study and the methodology to be used.

When approval is received, a letter requesting participation by the school district will be hand-delivered to the Superintendent of the district. This is in order to assure that the request arrives, and also to assure that the Superintendent has the chance to see the letter and ask any questions that he might have before the study actually begins. The letter will be specific in the details that it provides in order to avoid problems and questions later on.

The letter will identify the nature and purpose of the study, stating that participation in the study is strictly voluntary and that the district could withdraw at any time if it feels uncomfortable with the research. The letter will also indicate that reasonable confidentiality to all subjects, schools, and the school district will be assured. Two copies of the consent form will be attached to the letter. A signed copy of the consent form will be returned to the researcher and a copy retained by the Superintendent.

This will ensure that everyone agreeing to the study has knowledge of the procedures and the confidentiality involved, as well as to cover any issues that might be raised with the researcher as to the researcher's abilities to do the study or the permission given by the Superintendent.

After obtaining consent from the Superintendent the researcher will hand-deliver a similar letter requesting participation to each elementary school principal. The principals will be advised both verbally and in writing, that their participation is strictly voluntary, that they can withdraw at any time and that confidentiality will be reasonably assured. The best efforts of the researcher will be made to encourage participation while ensuring that no one is pressured into participating in the study if they decide that they don't wish to be involved.

Each principal of each participating school will be asked the same thing. The researcher will then describe the nature and purpose of the study and will advise the teachers that their participation is strictly voluntary, that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and that reasonable confidentiality is assured. A signed copy of the consent form will be returned to the researcher and a signed copy will be retained by the principal.

The researcher will request to be placed on the agenda of a regularly scheduled staff meeting at each of the seven selected elementary schools, in order to begin obtaining research and making sure that the staff is aware of the researcher and what the researcher wants to do.

At these staff meetings the researcher will ask the principal and all non-teachers to leave the room so as not to bias the recruitment efforts of the researcher, or the responses of the subjects by making them uncomfortable. This will also help to ensure confidentiality.

The researcher will then verbally describe the nature and purpose of the study and advise all of the teachers that their participation is strictly voluntary in nature, that they can withdraw from the study at any time that they wish, and that reasonable confidentiality is assured. The teachers will then be given an opportunity to ask questions about the study. The researcher will then distribute a letter that describes in writing the nature and purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of the teachers' participation, the teacher's right to withdraw at any time, and reasonable assurance of confidentiality.

Accompanying this letter will be two copies of a subject consent form. One of these will be for the subject to sign and return to the researcher, and one will be for the subject to retain for his or her personal records. This will ensure that there is no dispute about the terms of the study, the confidentiality involved, or whether the subject agreed to participate in the study.

There are rarely problems with this type of research, but consent forms ensure that there will not be problems later on with subjects who might feel that they were not told everything about the study that they actually wanted to know, or believe that their questions were not answered.

While this continued repeating of the confidentiality and voluntary participation of the subjects may seem excessive, it is necessary in order to make sure that everyone understands clearly that they are not required to participate in the study and that anything they say will not be provided to others, it will only be used for the study. This continued reassurance is important for the study, and important in that people must not feel pressure about answering questions or participating in the study.

After collecting all the signed consent forms from the subjects, the researcher will distribute a packet containing the School Culture Survey (Grurnert & Valentine, 1997), the Inviting School Safety Survey (Lehr & Purkey, 1996) and a blank envelope. Subjects will be instructed not to begin filling in the surveys until after the researcher has left the room.

This helps to avoid nervousness on the part of the subjects, and also helps to discourage the subjects from asking the researcher how they should answer a question. Any help on the part of the researcher will likely skew the results of the study and render the data invalid.

The subjects will be given general instructions on how they should complete the surveys and the subjects will be instructed that when finished, they should place the completed surveys inside the blank envelope. They will be asked to seal the envelope to reasonably assure confidentiality of their responses, and return the sealed envelope to the researcher as they leave the building.

Subjects will also be advised that they are free to withdraw from the study by putting their unmarked surveys into the blank envelopes. After answering questions the subjects might have about the procedure, the researcher will exit the room to allow the subjects to answer the questions freely and without the worry of the researcher standing nearby.

Data Collection

For HO1 Pearson-Product Moment correlation analysis will be used to determine if any of the six subscales of culture and safety correlate with one another as has been suggested by a great deal of research.

H02 will use multiple linear regression and it will be used to determine if any of the six subscales of culture (collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, collegial support, unity of purpose, and learning partnership) from the School Culture Survey correlate with the five Inviting School Safety Scales (people, places, policies, programs, and processes) as measured by the Inviting School Safety Survey.

For H03 multiple linear regression will be used to identify cultural factors that predict school safety. The six subscales of culture (collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, collegial support, unity of purpose, and learning partnership) from the School Culture Survey will be used as the predictor variables for each of the five Inviting School Safety Scales (people, places, policies, programs, and processes) as measured by the Inviting School Safety Survey.

CHAPTER IV

Presentation and Analysis of the Data

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact that school culture has on school safety. As reported by Leithwood (1999) there is very little research on how the leader or the school impacts the culture of the school and in turn how this impacts school safety.

Even though little research is presented on this topic, it is a valid topic of discussion and is therefore an important and worthy consideration, as children and young people are the future of this world.

This study utilized two surveys. One of these was the School Culture Survey created by Gruenert & Valentine (1997) that measures Leader Collaboration, Teacher Collaboration, Unity of Purpose, Professional Development, Collegial Support, and Learning Partnerships. Another survey used was Lear & Purkey's (1999) Inviting School Safety Survey that measures Valuing Influence of Teachers and Staff, Feelings of Fear and Lack of Safety, Stressors and Daily Discomforts, and Positive Attitude toward School Environment and Community.

An Ordinary Least Squared Regression was used to create data tables. This chapter presents the data from the two surveys in table and narrative form. Both forms are necessary to give a complete understanding of the data collected and what it truly represents. The narrative information will be given, and then the tables will follow, one table to a page, so that they are easy to see and do not disrupt the flow of the text throughout the chapter. Before this information is presented, however, some background information on the surveys sent out and the data collected will be provided in order to give all necessary and relevant information.

As stated above one of the two surveys used in this study was a School Culture Survey developed by Gruenert & Valentine (1997). Respondents were asked to rate the degree that the statements posed describe the conditions at their school. Each statement was rated on the following scale: l=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree. The survey consisted of 35 different statements, and each statement gave the same five options listed above as appropriate answers for the subjects to choose from.

A total of 210 surveys were sent to seven different elementary schools in the researcher's area. Of the 210 surveys administered 194 were completed. The rest of the surveys were either not returned, or returned unanswered, presumably because the selected teachers chose not to participate in the study. All items were categorized on the surveys. After the initial screening process, the 35 items were combined into five different ratings.

Two of the returned surveys were discarded because only one of the two surveys sent to the subjects had been answered or completed properly. Using these surveys would have affected the data collected and could have possibly skewed the results of the study. In order to be valid, both of the surveys sent to each subject must have been completed and returned.

The analysis of the data began with the results of one of the surveys. An analysis of the first survey consisted of determining the number of times each of the 35 different items were rated out of the one to five ratings possible. This allowed the researcher to have a chart or graph of the number of times each of the ratings were selected by each subject and together over all of the surveys that were sent out to subjects, completed, and returned.

Gruenert & Valentine's (1997) instrument, The School Culture Survey, was administered in this study to attain descriptors of these schools. The responses given by the subjects were used as a measure to ascertain the level of agreement to certain aspects of the school culture. Participants marked the extent to which they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed to statements organized under eight categories of questions.

The categories of questions are collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, unity of purpose, professional development, collegial support, and learning partnerships. A five-point Likert scale was chosen and used to determine the level of agreement each participant selected on the survey's 35 statements covering the six categories mentioned previously.

Each of the choices of answers on the Likert scale utilized was given a numerical value. A mean score was tabulated on each of the six categories of questions as well as each statement within the six categories. The closer the mean score was to 1.00 on each category, the higher the level of the participant's agreement with the item presented to them. The survey was used to substantiate data collection. Results of the survey are provided in the Appendix **. The results illustrate the teacher's p-scores on each of the six categories.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Collaborative Leadership on the Safety Factor of Valuing Influence of Teachers and Staff was used. The results are displayed in Table I in the Index. As shown in Table I the independent variables of Collaborative Leadership, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students, and student mobility show a 44.1% of variance in Collaborative leadership that can be attributed to the Independent variables.

Independent variable of Percentage of Special Education Students had a p-score of.021 and Total Number of Students had a p-score of.233.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Teacher Collaboration on the Safety Factor of Valuing Influence of Teacher and Staff are shown in Table 2 in the Index. As shown in Table 2 the independent variables of Teacher Collaboration, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students, and student mobility show a 38.3% of variance in Teacher Collaboration that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable of Total Number of Students had a p-score of.001.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Unity of Purpose on the Safety Factor of Valuing Influence of Teacher and Staff are shown in Table 3 in the Index. As shown in Table 3 the independent variables of Unity of Purpose, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students, and student mobility show a 36.3% variance in Unity of Purpose that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variables of Free/Reduced Lunch had a p-score of.049, Percent of Special Education Students had a p-score of.139, Number of Students had a p-score of.164, and Transfers out of School had a p-score of.008.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Professional Development on the Safety Factor of Valuing Influence of Teacher and Staff are shown in Table 4 in the Index. As shown in Table 4 the independent variables of Professional Development, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 50.0% variance in Professional Development that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variables of Percent of Special Education Students had a p-score of.001 and Total Number of Students had a p-score of.004.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Collegial Support on the Safety Factor of Valuing Influence of Teacher and Staff are shown in Table 5 in the Index. As shown in Table 5 the independent variables of Collegial Support, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 42.9% variance in Collegial Support that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable of Percent of Special Education Students had a p-score of.011, and Total Number of Students had a p-score of.282.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Learning Partnerships on the Safety Factor of Valuing Influence of Teacher and Staff are shown in Table 6 in the Index. As shown in Table 6 the independent variables of Learning Partnerships, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 35.8% variance in Learning Partnerships that can be attributed to the Independent variables. The p-scores for the following independent variables are - Free/Reduced Lunch.030, Percent of Special Education Students.835, Total Number of Students.660 and Student Mobility Rate.045.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Collaborative Leadership on the Safety Factor of Feelings of Fear and Lack of Safety are shown in Table 7 in the Index. As shown in Table 7 the independent variables of Collaborative Leadership, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 12.5% variance in Collaborative Leadership that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Collaborative Leadership.030, Free/Reduced Lunch.003, Percent of Special Education Students.006, Total Number of Students.481, and Student Mobility Rate.001.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Teacher Collaboration on the Safety Factor of Feelings of Fear and Lack of Safety are shown in Table 8 in the Index. As shown in Table the independent variables Teacher Collaboration, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 10.5% variance in Teacher Collaboration that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Teacher Collaboration.585, Free/Reduced Lunch.001, Percent of Special Education Students.002 and Total Number of Students.627.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Unity of Purpose on the Safety Factor of Feelings of Fear and Lack of Safety shown in Table 9 in the Index. As shown in Table 9 the independent variables of Unity of Purpose, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 15.0% variance in Unity of Purpose that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Unity of Purpose.002, Free/Reduced Lunch.052, Percent of Special Education Students.022, Total Number of Students.514, and Student Mobility.019.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Professional Development on the Safety Factor of Feelings of Fear and Lack of Safety are shown in Table 10 in the Index. As shown in Table 10 the independent variables of Unity of Purpose, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show an 11.0% variance in Professional Development that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Professional Development.246. Free/Reduced Lunch.002, Percent of Special Education Students.003, and Total Number of Students.624.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Collegial Support on the Safety Factor of Feelings of Fear and Lack of Safety are shown in Table 11 in the Index. As shown in Table 11 the independent variables of Collegial Support, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 12.4% variance in Collegial Support that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Collegial Support.038, Free/Reduced Lunch.002, Percent of Special Education Students.005, Total Number of Students.474, and Student Mobility.001.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Learning Partnerships on the Safety Factor of Feelings of Fear and Lack of Safety are shown in Table 12 in the Index. As shown in Table 12 the independent variables of Learning Partnerships, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 17.5% variance in Learning Partnerships that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced.075, Percent of Special Education Students.156, Total Number of Students.258, and Student Mobility.084.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Collaborative Leadership on the Safety Factor of Stressors and Daily Discomforts are shown in Table 13 in the Index. As shown in Table 13 the independent variables of Collaborative Leadership, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 17.8% variance in Collaborative Leaderships that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced Lunch.404, Percent of Special Education Students.032, and Student Mobility.566.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Teacher Collaboration on the Safety Factor of Stressors and Daily Discomforts are shown in Table 14 in the Index. As shown in Table 14 the independent variables of Teacher Collaboration, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 12.3% variance in Teacher Collaboration that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Teacher Collaboration.001, Free/Reduced Lunch.080, Percent of Special Education Students.214, Total Number of Students.002, and Student Mobility.073.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Unity of Purpose on the Safety Factor of Stressors and Daily Discomforts are shown in Table 15 in the Index. As shown in Table 15 the independent variables of Unity of Purpose, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 19.6% variance in Unity of Purpose that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced Lunch.589, Percent of Special Education Students.007, and Student Mobility.505.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Professional Development on the Safety Factor of Stressors and Daily Discomforts are shown in Table 16 in the Index. As shown in Table 16 the independent variables of Professional Development, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 13.1% variance in Professional Development that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced Lunch.286, Percent of Special Education Students.107, and Student Mobility.281.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Collegial Support on the Safety Factor of Stressors and Daily Discomforts are shown in Table 17 in the Index. As shown in Table 17 the independent variables of Collegial Support, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 14.0% variance in Collegial Support that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced Lunch.249, Percent of Special Education Students.062 and Student Mobility.389.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Learning Partnerships on the Safety Factor of Stressors and Daily Discomforts are shown in Table 18 in the Index. As shown in Table 18 the independent variables of Learning Partnerships, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 25.4% variance in Learning Partnerships that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced Lunch.388 and Student Mobility.105.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Collaborative Leadership on the Safety Factor of Positive Attitude toward school environment and Community are shown in Table 19 in the Index. As shown in Table 1 the independent variables of Collaborative Leadership, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 25.7% variance in Collaborative Leadership that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free / Reduced Lunch.295, Percent of Special Education Students.016, and Student Mobility.035.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Teacher Collaboration on the Safety Factor of Positive Attitude Toward School Environment and Community are shown in Table 20 in the Index. As shown in Table 20 the independent variables of Teacher Collaboration, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 15.6% variance in Teacher Collaboration that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced Lunch.691, Percent of Special Education Students.308, Total Number of Students.029, and Student Mobility.859.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Unity of Purpose on the Safety Factor of Positive Attitude Toward School Environment and Community are shown in Table 21 in the Index. As shown in Table 21 the independent variables of Unity of Purpose, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show a 20.5% variance in Unity of Purpose that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced Lunch.022, Percent of Special Education Students.006, Total Number of Students.001, and Student Mobility.002.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Culture Factor of Professional Development on the Safety Factor of Positive Attitude Toward School Environment are shown in Table 22 in the Index. As shown in Table 22 the independent variables of Professional Development, free and reduced lunch, percentage of special education students, total number of students and student mobility show an 11.0% variance in Professional Development that can be attributed to the Independent variables. Independent variable p-scores are - Free/Reduced.642, Percent of Special Education Students.148, Total Number of Students.005, and Student Mobility.262.