2013 - School Climate and Students' Early Mathematics Learning

School Climate and Students’ Early
Mathematics Learning: Another Search

for Contextual Effects
KATERINA BODOVSKI
Pennsylvania State University
INBAL NAHUM-SHANI
University of Michigan
RACHAEL WALSH
US Census Bureau
Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort

(ECLS-K)––a large, nationally representative sample of US elementary school
students, we employed multilevel analysis to answer the following research ques-
tions: (a) Does students’ mathematics achievement growth in grades K–3 vary
among schools? (b) To what extent does school academic and disciplinary climate
explain variation in mathematics achievement growth among schools? (c) To what
extent do students’ and schools’ demographic characteristics explain this variation?
While previous studies have examined the effects of school climate on student
achievement in middle school and high school, the present study is focused on
the effect of school academic and disciplinary climate on students’ mathematics
learning in the first 4 years of schooling—from fall of kindergarten to spring of
third grade. We found that students’ mathematics achievement growth varies sig-
nificantly among schools and that students’ improvement in mathematics achieve-
ment over time was higher in schools characterized by a stronger climate, above
and beyond students’ and schools’ demographic characteristics.
Ever since Coleman’s (1966) famous finding that most of the variation in
individual student achievement lies within, not among, schools—implying that
student and family characteristics are the strongest predictors of student
achievement and inequality in such achievement—educational scholars have
been looking for contextual factors that contribute to student success. There
has been a long debate in the education literature on school sector effects,
Electronically published December 13, 2012

American Journal of Education 119 (February 2013)
䉷 2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0195-6744/2013/11902-0001$10.00
FEBRUARY 2013 209
This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
School Climate and Early Mathematics Learning
and in particular on higher academic achievement in Catholic schools

(Coleman et al. 1982; Coleman and Hoffer 1987; Morgan 2001). Sociologists
have pointed to the demographic effects of student body composition, and
particularly to low student achievement in urban schools with high concen-
trations of low–socioeconomic status (low-SES) and minority students (Gam-
oran and Mare 1989; Kelly 2004; Lleras 2008; Lucas and Gamoran 2002).
As Baker and LeTendre (2005, 38) stated, “‘School effects’ refers to ‘the effect
on academic achievement of going to one school versus another, usually with
differences in resources.’” During the 4 decades since the publication of Equality
of Educational Opportunity (popularly known as the The Coleman Report), study
after study has indicated that differences among US schools are much smaller
than differences among US families. That is, although schools do have varying
degrees of instructional resources, teacher quality, and funding, the differences
in family resources are much greater still, and thus these are more saliently
associated with academic outcomes (Baker and LeTendre 2005). This con-
clusion does not sit well with educators and policy makers because even though
many believe that improvements in academic achievement take more than
just school reform—in fact, they also involve the community outside of school
walls—it is clear that every classroom must face the challenge of effectively
and efficiently educating children in order to fulfill children’s potential as well
as their ability to compete in the global market.
Along these lines, an attempt has been made in the literature to describe
a school environment that is particularly conducive to high academic achieve-
ment. These attempts have been couched under the umbrellas of “academic
press” and “academic climate.” Academic press refers to the mission and stan-
dards around which the goals, values, and norms of a school are shaped
(Shouse 1996a, 1997). Shouse (1996a, 1997) defined academic press by its
three components: academic climate, disciplinary climate, and teachers’ in-
KATERINA BODOVSKI is an assistant professor of educational theory and

policy in the Department of Education Policy Studies at the Pennsylvania
State University. Her research interests include sociology of education, strat-
ification and inequality, comparative and international education, immigra-
tion, and sociology of children. INBAL NAHUM-SHANI is a faculty research
fellow at the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University
of Michigan. Her research interests include peer relations and helping pro-
cesses in the workplace, employee health and well-being, research methods,
and experimental designs. RACHAEL WALSH is a survey statistician at the US
Census Bureau. She is currently redesigning the Survey of Income and Pro-
gram Participation. Her research interests include designing indicators to en-
hance data collection and quality using survey analytics and assessing the role
of education in minimizing the distances among social strata.
210 American Journal of Education

Bodovski, Nahum-Shani, and Walsh
structional practices and emphasis. Academic climate refers to the variety and
level of challenges offered in a school’s courses and the academic integrity
engaged in during grading for those courses. Additionally, academic climate
includes the value of homework and in-class assignments, as well as the system
followed in rewarding performance. Disciplinary climate refers to school atten-
dance and behavior rules and public decorum policies. Teachers’ instructional
practices and emphasis—also referred to as “teacher press”—refers to the objec-
tives and levels of challenge in standards set for each student.
Studies of school academic climate or academic press have mainly focused
on middle schools or high schools while assessing the effects of climate on
student achievement and other outcomes, such as student engagement, peer
relations, and social support, among others (Cook et al. 2000; Kaplan and
Elliot 1997; Lee and Smith 1999; Levpuscek and Zupancic 2009; Middleton
and Midgley 2002; Phillips 1997; Shouse 1996a, 1996b). The present study
focuses on the effect of school academic and disciplinary climate on students’
mathematics learning in the first 4 years of schooling—from fall of kindergarten
until the spring of third grade. The focus on factors contributing to early
academic achievement is crucial because, as shown in the literature, it lays
the foundation for later achievement and attainment and the educational gaps
created early in children’s school careers are not easily closed (Alexander et
al. 1997; Bodovski and Farkas 2007; Duran and Weffer 1992; Entwisle et al.
2005).
Our investigation of the effects of school academic and disciplinary climate
is important because we focus on school contextual effects that may be related
to, but are distinct from, schools’ and children’s demographic characteristics.
Although our study is not based on experiment—and thus does not attempt
to make a causal claim—our findings can serve as a basis for building inter-
vention programs and policies to strengthen and improve school environment
and increase achievement. Thus, our study makes a unique contribution to
the literature by examining the effects of school academic and disciplinary
climate and assessing these effects on variation in students’ mathematics
achievement growth between kindergarten and third grade. We used a na-
tionally representative sample of elementary school students to conduct our
investigation. It is important to note that while previous studies have examined
the effects of school climate on student achievement in middle school and
high school, to the best of our knowledge no study to date has assessed the
role of school climate in explaining variation among schools in achievement
growth over the early elementary years.
Specifically, using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–
Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K)––a large, nationally representative sample
of US elementary school students, we employed multilevel regression analysis
to answer the following research questions: (a) Does students’ mathematics
FEBRUARY 2013 211

achievement growth in grades K–3 vary among schools? (b) To what extent
does school academic and disciplinary climate explain variation in mathe-
matics achievement growth among schools? (c ) To what extent do students’
and schools’ demographic characteristics explain this variation?
Theoretical Background
Academic Achievement in the Elementary Years
There is no consensus in the literature on whether children who start school

with low levels of knowledge improve, remain at the same relative position,
or fall even further behind their peers over time. Similarly, there is no consensus
on whether students who begin school at a high level of achievement maintain
their high rate of learning or assume a slower pace over time. Several studies
have shown that higher initial achievement is associated with lower subsequent
learning rates, possibly due to a combination of regression to the mean and
either instructional or testing ceiling effects (Bloom 1976, 1984; Brown and
Saks 1986; Phillips et al. 2002). However, other studies have indicated that
cognitive outcomes show strong continuity over time. In fact, they have shown
that earlier school achievement is strongly and positively related to later
achievement and that variation among students tends to increase over time
(Alexander et al. 1997; Bast and Reitsma 1997; Brophy 1982; Duran and
Weffer 1992).
Several studies have specifically reported an increasing disparity in students’
mathematics achievement throughout elementary school and middle school.
One study that followed children from preschool to second grade found that
those who started preschool with more knowledge showed faster rates of
learning (Aunola et al. 2004). Williamson et al. (1991) revealed that individual
differences in mathematics achievement increased between the first and eighth
grades, with students’ initial achievement positively correlated with their
growth rate. This study, however, used a relatively small (667 cases), nonre-
presentative sample. Thus, using longitudinal data on a nationally represen-
tative sample of students is essential in examining the mathematics growth
trajectories of different groups of children. Reardon and Galindo (2009) made
a significant step in this direction when examining the Hispanic-white achieve-
ment gap between fall of kindergarten and spring of fifth grade using the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K). They
found that although in the fall of kindergarten both black and Hispanic stu-
dents had significantly lower mathematics and reading scores than those of
white students, different learning trajectories were observed for these groups
over the period of 6 years: the black-white gap has steadily increased, partic-

ularly in mathematics, whereas the Hispanic-white gap narrowed by about

one-third (Reardon and Galindo 2009, 869).
While the effects of students’ individual characteristics, such as gender, race/
ethnicity, and family socioeconomic status, on their achievement were pre-
viously examined, there are gaps in the literature that pertain to contextual
effects. In particular, no study has examined the contextual factors that explain
the differences among schools in students’ academic achievement growth over
time. Our study aims to fill this gap.
Contextual Effects on Academic Achievement
It has been widely established that quantity and quality of instruction predict
students’ achievement. Barr and Dreeben (1983) found that time spent on
instruction, content coverage, and quality of instruction (teacher effectiveness)
predicted educational outcomes for first graders. Many researchers have found
that more instruction produces more learning (Carroll 1963; Dreeben and
Barr 1988; Dreeben and Gamoran 1986; Hallinan 1994; Reynolds and Wal-
berg 1992; Walberg et al. 1994; Wang et al. 1993). Studies have also indicated
that increasing the pace of instruction and the length of the school day in-
creased learning, especially among at-risk children (Barr and Drebeen 1983).
A distinct literature has focused on describing the school environment as it
affects high academic achievement, above and beyond instructional practices
and content coverage. Bryk and Driscoll (1988) made a significant contribution
to the literature by laying the foundation of the discussion on school academic
climate. They conceptualized academic climate as a combination of a shared
belief system, a common agenda of activity, and an ethos of caring. Shouse
(1995, 1997) built upon this research by conceptualizing “academic press” as
consisting of three elements: academic climate, disciplinary climate, and teachers’
instructional practices and emphasis. According to this theory, academic climate
has been operationalized as an overall measure of the school and includes things
such as the ways in which the school publicizes and honors student achievement;
the percentage of teachers with masters’ degrees; graduation requirements as-
sociated with mathematics, foreign languages, science, and humanities courses;
and students’ perceptions of academic demand (Shouse 1996a, 1996b, 1997).
The next element in academic press, disciplinary climate, refers to attendance
policies and school rules regarding student behavior. The schools’ disciplinary
climate has been measured as the school policy on absenteeism, responses to
truancy, and overall classroom and hallway decorum (Shouse 1996a, 1996b,
1997). School disciplinary climate includes emphasis on and adherence to
strict behavior rules, consistency with respect to enforcement and punishment,
and a clearly defined truancy policy (Gill et al. 2004; Pellerin 2000). Teachers’
FEBRUARY 2013 213

perceptions of students’ regard for school property have been also included
in the measurement of school disciplinary climate (Istrate et al. 2006).
Teachers’ instructional practices and emphasis, the last element in academic press,
have also been referred to as “teacher press.” Teacher press has been measured
by grading integrity, higher-order instructional goals, contact with parents,
preparation time, instructional quality, and academic demand (Shouse 1996a,
1996b). Teacher expectations and encouragement have been used, too, as a
measure of their instructional practices and emphasis (Lee and Smith 1999;
Phillips 1997; Roderick and Engel 2001). Further, teachers’ perceptions of job
satisfaction, understanding of the school’s curricular goals, and degree of suc-
cess in implementing the school’s curriculum have been used to measure
teacher press (Istrate et al. 2006).
Several studies have described the school characteristics that predict high
academic press. High-SES schools have been found to have stronger academic
press than schools with a high proportion of low-SES students (Hoy et al.
2002; Kaplan and Elliot 1997). Other studies have found that urban schools
have higher levels of academic press than rural schools (Istrate et al. 2006).
Further, Catholic schools have been found to have higher levels of academic
press that, in turn, is associated with higher student achievement (Bryk et al.
1993).
Schools characterized by high academic press have a strong academic mission,
reinforcing high standards for all student performance and resulting in increased
student engagement, achievement, and educational equity and decreased be-
havioral problems (Bulach et al. 1995; Cammarota 2007; Fowler and Walberg
1991; Hoy et al. 1990; Shouse 1996a, 1996b). Academic press has been found
to be positively and significantly related to academic achievement, particularly
in low-SES schools (Philips 1997; Shouse 1996a). Further, studies have shown
that academic press positively affects attendance rates (Philips 1997) and de-
creases aggressive behavior among students (Cook et al. 2000). A positive re-
lationship has been found to be stronger for girls than boys (though positive
and significant for both genders), specifically predicting self-regulation, self-
efficacy, and help-seeking behaviors (Middleton and Midgley 2002). Further-
more, school academic climate has been found to positively affect student en-
gagement, effort, and rigor in course-taking, due at least in part to higher teacher
expectations (Philips 1997).
A comparative perspective can enrich our understanding of educational
processes and contexts across the world. Willms (2006) conducted a compar-
ative analysis of reading and literacy achievement using the Progress in In-
ternational Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA). Willms found that classroom practice, such as
strong disciplinary climate, importance of parental support, positive student-
teacher relations, and students’ use of resources were associated with higher

reading achievement and that to some extent they mediated the effects of
school SES on achievement. In particular, in both data sets, school disciplinary
climate was associated with an increase in reading achievement. Another
comparative study linked school discipline to mathematics and science achieve-
ment in several countries, using the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS; Gerber 2010; Miwa 2010; Shavit and Blank 2010).
No significant associations were found for Japan and Russia, but a modest
positive effect of disciplinary climate on mathematics and science achievement
was detected in Israel (Shavit and Blank 2010).
In sum, academic press has been shown to increase academic achievement,
as well as other positive outcomes for middle school and high school students
(relationships with peers and teachers, student engagement, among others).
No study to date has examined the role of academic climate or academic
press in shaping academic achievement among elementary school students.
Moreover, previous studies have examined the effects of different elements of
academic press on individual student outcomes, but these have not assessed
the role of school climate in explaining differences in achievement among
schools over time. Thus, our study fills the gap in the existing literature in
three important ways. First, we focus on the role of school academic and
disciplinary climate during the early elementary years. Second, we assess the
role of school climate in explaining the differences in mathematics achievement
growth among schools. Finally, we conduct our investigation using a nationally
representative sample of elementary school students.
Data and Method
The data for this study come from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–
Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K). The ECLS-K, sponsored by the US Depart-
ment of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, selected a na-
tionally representative sample of kindergartners in fall 1998. It has followed
these children through the end of the eighth grade. The children attended both
public and private kindergartens that offered full- and part-day programs. (For
discussion of these data, see National Center for Education Statistics 2002.) The
longitudinal ECLS kindergarten through third grade sample consists of 13,842
students. From that sample we constructed the analytical sample for this study,
which included only students who did not change schools between kindergarten
and first grade and between first and third grades. We used list-wise deletion
to address missing data. The growth model is estimated using the maximum
available number of valid test scores per student. Even if a student had less than
a maximum of five points of test scores, the models would take the existing
points into account in estimating the relevant parameters. The analytical sample
FEBRUARY 2013 215

with valid data on all variables consisted of 9,033 students in 785 schools; 2,349
teachers’ responses were used to construct school climate variables. The analysis
of the mathematics growth was based on 38,170 observations.
Our main dependent variable was student mathematics achievement. We em-
ployed the mathematics achievement variables that are scaled tests adminis-
tered to children in the fall of kindergarten, the spring of kindergarten, the
fall of first grade, the spring of first grade, and the spring of third grade. We
used the maximum available number of observations per child, which on
average was four observations. Scoring is based upon Item-Response Theory
(IRT), so scores can be compared longitudinally (US Department of Education
2004). The kindergarten and first-grade mathematics scores measure children’s
understanding of numbers, number properties, number operations, measure-
ment, geometry and spatial sense, data analysis, statistics and probability, and
patterns. For the third grade, the scores tap higher-order skills, such as arith-
metic, problem-solving, and more advanced geometric concepts.
Following Shouse’s (1996a, 1996b) theoretical model, we attempted to cap-
ture all three dimensions of academic press. However, due to inconsistent
measures of teachers’ emphasis and practices (exploratory factor analysis failed
to detect coherent sets of measurement that correspond with the theoretical
model), only academic and disciplinary climate measures could be adequately
formed. Since school academic and disciplinary climates later in the education
process may be the result, not the cause, of academic growth, we employed
the climate measures taken in the kindergarten year. The teachers were the
homeroom teachers of the students in the study. On average, three teachers
per school were surveyed. As such, the climate scales were aggregated measures
at the school level, capturing the perception of the school by kindergarten
teachers. The academic climate scale (Aclimate) is a summary of teacher re-
sponses to the following statements based on a five-point scale:
“Staff members in this school have school spirit.”
“Many of the children are not capable of learning the material I’m supposed
to teach” (reversely coded).
“I feel accepted and respected as a colleague.”
“Teachers in this school are learning and seeking new ideas.”
“Parents are supportive of school staff.”
“The academic standards at this school are too low” (reversely coded).
“There is broad agreement about the central mission of the school.”
The disciplinary climate scale (Dclimate) was generated by summing the
following:
Teacher judgment of overall class behavior (ranges from “group misbehaves
very frequently” to “group behaves exceptionally well”).

“The level of child misbehavior (noise, fighting) in this school interferes

with my teaching” (ranges from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”).
These measures were all recoded such that higher scores on the scale were
equated with positive climate.
In addition, the following variables were used in the analysis at the student
level:
Family SES: A z-score variable made from a combined measure of parental
education, occupational prestige, and income.
Race/ethnicity (black, Hispanic, Asian, other) : Dummy variables recoded from
the race variable. White was the reference group. Other race refers to
American Indians and Pacific Islanders (these groups cannot be assessed
separately due to small sample sizes).
Female : Dummy variable, with male as the reference group.
Family structure : Single-parent families and other families, with two biological
married parents as the reference category.
The following variables were used in the analysis at school level:
School type : Catholic school; private religious (other than Catholic); nonre-
ligious private. Public school was the reference category.
Region : Midwest, South, West. Northeast was the reference category.
Average school SES : An aggregate of the individual SES scores of students in
the same school. We also employed % black students at school and %
Hispanic students at school.
We used multilevel analysis to assess the extent to which variation in growth
of mathematics achievement over time can be explained by school-level ac-
ademic and disciplinary climates, student demographic characteristics, and
school-level demographic characteristics. We coded the time variable so that
zero represents the fall of kindergarten score; thus, the interpretation of the
intercepts referred to the initial mathematics achievement children exhibited
in the first wave of data collection. We applied this analysis as follows.
Model 1: The Growth over Time Model
We used the following model to assess whether mathematics achievement

growth varied among students and among schools:
(Level 1) Yijk p b0jk ⫹ b1jkTijk ⫹ ␧ijk ,
where Yijk is mathematics achievement score for the ith time point (grade) of
the jth student within the kth school; b0jk is the intercept for the jth student
FEBRUARY 2013 217

within the kth school; b1jk is the slope of time (Tijk) for the jth student within
the k th school (this regression coefficient expresses the growth in mathematics
achievement over time); and ␧ijk are residuals.
The following models were used to assess variation among students in the
2 2
intercept b0jk(jb0 ) and the slope b1jk (jb1 ).
(Level 2)
b0jk p g00k ⫹ u 0jk ,
b1jk p g10k ⫹ u 1jk ,
where g00k is an intercept terms for the kth school, and uojk is an error term
for the jth student within the kth school; g10k is an intercept term for the kth
school, and u1jk is an error term for the jth student within the kth school.
The following models were used to assess variation among schools in the
intercept g00k(jg002 ) and in mathematics achievement growth g10k (jg102 ):
(Level 3)
g00k p p000 ⫹ d 00k ,
g10k p p100 ⫹ d 10k ,
where p000 is an intercept term and d00k is an error term for the kth school;
p100 is an intercept term and d10k is an error term for the kth school.
Model 2: The Moderating Role of School-Level Academic and Disciplinary

Climate
From the policy perspective, it is important to investigate the role of academic

and disciplinary climate before adding school and student demographic char-
acteristics. As shown in the subsequent models, and consistent with the lit-
erature, school environment is related to student body composition. However,
policy makers and educators have little control over the population served by
the school. Thus, it is important to understand the nature of the relationship
between school climate and mathematics achievement growth both with and
without taking into account the demographic characteristics.
To assess the moderating effect of academic and disciplinary climate we
used the following level 3 models (levels 1 and 2 remain the same as in model
1):
(Level 3)
g00k p p000 ⫹ p001Aclimatek ⫹ p002 Dclimatek ⫹ d 00k ,
g10k p p100 ⫹ p101Aclimatek ⫹ p102 Dclimatek ⫹ d 10k .

In this model, we aimed to explain the among-schools variation in g00k in-

2
tercepts (jg00 ) by school-level academic climate (Aclimatek ) and school-level
disciplinary climate (Dclimatek ), where p001 and p002 are the regression coef-
ficient for these measures, respectively, and d00k are residuals. The among-
2
schools variation in g10k intercepts (jg00 ) is also explained by school-level ac-
ademic climate (Aclimatek ) and school-level disciplinary climate (Dclimatek ),
where p101 and p102 are the regression coefficients for these measures, respec-
tively, expressing the moderating role of school-level academic and disciplinary
climate on students’ growth in mathematics achievement over time (yielding
cross-level two-way interactions between each school-level climate measure
and time), and d10k are residuals.

Climate and Student-Level Variables
To assess the moderating role of student-level variables in addition to ac-

ademic and disciplinary climates, we used the following level 2 models (level
1 model is similar to model 1, and level 3 models are similar to those specified
in model 2):
(Level 2)
b0jk p g00k ⫹ g01S1jk ⫹ … ⫹ g08 S 8jk ⫹ u 0jk ,
b1jk p g10k ⫹ g11S1jk ⫹ … ⫹ g18 S 8jk ⫹ u 1jk .
In this model we aimed to explain the between-student variation in intercepts

(jb02) by eight student-level demographic characteristics (S1jk … S 8jk ), where
g01 … g08 are the regression coefficients expressing the effects of student-level
demographic variables, g00k is an intercept term for the kth school, and uojk
are errors for the jth student within the kth school. We also aimed to explain
the among-students variation in slopes (growth in mathematics achievement
2
over time, jb1 ) by the same student-level demographic characteristics (S1jk
… S 8jk ), where g11 … g18 are the regression coefficients expressing the mod-
erating role of student-level demographic variables on students’ growth in
mathematics achievement over time (yielding cross-level two-way interactions
between student-level demographic variables and time); g10k is an intercept
term for the kth school, and u1jk are errors for the jth student within the kth
school.
FEBRUARY 2013 219


Climate, School Demographic Characteristics, and Student-Level Variables
To assess the moderating effect of school-level demographic variables in ad-

dition to student-level variables and school-level climate measures, we used
the following level 3 models (level 1 is similar to model 1 and level 2 models
are similar to those specified in model 3):
(Level 3)
g00k p p000 ⫹ p001AClimatek ⫹ p002 DClimatek
⫹ p003G lk ⫹ … ⫹ p011G9k ⫹ d 00k ,
g10k p p100 ⫹ p101AClimatek ⫹ p102 DClimatek
⫹ p103G lk ⫹ … ⫹ p111G9k ⫹ d 10k .

In this model we aimed to explain the among-schools variation in g00k inter-
2
cepts (jg00 ) by the school-level climate measures as well as by nine school-
level demographic characteristics (G1k … G9k ), where p003 … p011 are the
regression coefficients expressing the first-order effects of these school-level
characteristics. We also aimed to explain the among-schools variation in g10k
2
intercepts (jg01 ) by the school-level climate measures and by the same school-
level demographic characteristics (G1k … G9k ), where p103 … p111 are the
regression coefficients expressing the moderating role of school-level demo-
graphic characteristics in students’ growth in mathematics achievement over
time (yielding cross-level two-way interactions between school-level demo-
graphic variables and time).
Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the variables used in the analysis.
Half of the sample were girls. The sample consisted of 59% white, 12% black,
17% Hispanic, 6% Asian, and 6% American Indian or Pacific Islander stu-
dents. Seventy-three percent of the children in our sample had grown up with
two married biological parents, 17% with a single parent, and 10% in other
family structures (remarried parents, adoptive parents, relative care, etc).
Eighty percent of the children attended public schools, 12% were in Catholic
schools, 6% were in other religious schools, and 2% were in private nonre-
ligious schools. Twenty-five percent of schools were in the Midwest, 32% in
the South, 24% in the West, and 19% in the Northeast. An average school
had an academic climate of 29 out of 35 and a disciplinary climate of 7.6
out of 10.

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Included in the Models

Variable Mean SD
Student characteristics:
Female .50 .50
Race:
Black .12 .32
Hispanic .17 .38
Asian .06 .23
Other .06 .24
Family composition:
Single parent .17 .37
Other .10 .31
SES .05 .79
Mathematics achievement:
Average of all points 51.63 30.10
Fall, kindergarten 24.204 9.361
Spring, kindergarten 35 11.693
Fall, first grade 42.026 13.342
Spring, first grade 60.173 16.201
Spring, third grade 95.141 20.697
N 9,033
School characteristics:
Academic climate 29.29 2.87
Disciplinary climate 7.60 1.10
School SES .05 .54
Region:
Midwest .25 .43
West .24 .43
South .32 .47
School type:
Private, nonreligious .02 .14
Catholic .12 .32
Other religious .06 .24
School racial composition:
% Black .12 .24
% Hispanic .17 .26
N 785

Table 2 presents the correlations among the variables used in the analysis.
Examining these correlations we learned that, consistent with the previous
literature, stronger academic and disciplinary climates were correlated with
higher-SES schools (.45 and .32, respectively). Further, academic and disci-
plinary climates were correlated at .37, which suggests that these two dimen-
sions of school climate are related but clearly distinct.
Table 3 presents the results for the multilevel regression analysis of math-
ematics achievement growth. Model 1 examines the effect of time on math-
ematics achievement growth and assesses whether the intercept (mathematics
achievement in the fall of kindergarten) and the growth in mathematics
achievement vary across students and across schools. The results indicated a
positive relationship between time and mathematics achievement—that is, on
average, mathematics achievement increases over time by 16 points per unit
of time. Since our analysis encompassed five points of time, an average student
in the sample gained an average of 80 points on the mathematics scale between
fall of kindergarten and spring of third grade. The results also showed sig-
nificant variation in mathematics achievement growth among students and
among schools. The results indicated that variation among students (38.08, p
! .0001) accounted for 64% of the variance in the fall of kindergarten math-
ematics score, whereas variation among schools (21.64, p ! .0001) accounted
for 36% of the variance in the fall of kindergarten mathematics score. Ad-
ditionally, variation among students (10.33, p ! .0001) accounted for 80% in
mathematics achievement growth, whereas variation among schools (2.59, p
! .0001) accounted for 20% in mathematics achievement growth.
In model 2 we assessed the moderating role of school academic and dis-
ciplinary climates on students’ growth in mathematics achievement over time.
The results indicated that stronger academic and disciplinary climates are
positively and significantly related to mathematics achievement growth over
time (.191, p ! .0001, and .227, p !. 001, respectively). School climate measures
explained 19.5% of the variance across schools in the fall of kindergarten (i.e.,
initial) mathematics achievement score and 24% of the variance across schools
in mathematics achievement growth over time.
Model 3 presents the results for the moderating role of student-level variables
in addition to academic and disciplinary climates. In this analysis we included
the following variables at the student level: SES, gender (female), race/eth-
nicity, and family structure. We found that black, Hispanic, and students of
other races had lower mathematics achievement in the fall of kindergarten
relative to white students. Higher-SES students started the kindergarten with
higher mathematics achievement. The results for model 3 also showed that
student SES explains the variation in student mathematics achievement growth
over time. More specifically, the growth in mathematics achievement over
time is greater for higher-SES students. Further, we found that compared to

TABLE 2
Correlations among Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 Mathematics achievement ...

2 Female versus male ⫺.03
3 Black versus white ⫺.10 .00
4 Hispanic versus white ⫺.08 .01 ⫺.16
5 Asian versus white .04 .01 ⫺.08 ⫺.10
6 Other versus white ⫺.04 .02 ⫺.09 ⫺.11 ⫺.06
7 Student-level SES .19 ⫺.01 ⫺.20 ⫺.25 .04 ⫺.03
8 Single parent versus two biological married parents ⫺.06 .01 .25 ⫺.01 ⫺.06 .02 ⫺.20
9 Other parent versus two biological married parents ⫺.04 .01 .05 ⫺.01 ⫺.03 .04 ⫺.11 ⫺.15
10 Proportion of blacks at school ⫺.10 ⫺.00 .76 ⫺.11 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 ⫺.22 .24 .05
11 Proportion of Hispanics at school ⫺.08 .02 ⫺.11 .70 .04 ⫺.04 ⫺.27 ⫺.00 ⫺.03 ⫺.15
12 Mean SES at school level .18 ⫺.02 ⫺.24 ⫺.28 .03 ⫺.03 .68 ⫺.18 ⫺.10 ⫺.32 ⫺.39
13 School type: private nonreligious versus public .04 .02 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 .03 .03 .18 ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 ⫺.03 .26
14 School type: Catholic versus public .05 .01 ⫺.08 ⫺.05 .01 ⫺.03 .18 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.11 ⫺.07 .27 ⫺.05
15 School type: other religious versus public .04 ⫺.00 ⫺.03 ⫺.05 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 .15 ⫺.03 ⫺.00 ⫺.05 ⫺.08 .21 ⫺.04 ⫺.10
16 Region: Midwest versus Northeast .04 .01 ⫺.10 ⫺.15 ⫺.05 .03 .07 ⫺.05 ⫺.00 ⫺.13 ⫺.22 .11 ⫺.08 .10 .11
17 Region: South versus Northeast ⫺.03 ⫺.02 .28 ⫺.06 ⫺.08 ⫺.09 ⫺.12 .09 .06 .37 ⫺.08 ⫺.18 ⫺.02 ⫺.12 ⫺.03 ⫺.40
18 Region: West versus Northeast ⫺.01 .02 ⫺.14 .28 .17 .13 ⫺.01 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 ⫺.19 .40 ⫺.02 .16 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 ⫺.32 ⫺.39
19 Academic climate .10 .01 ⫺.14 ⫺.11 .02 ⫺.07 .31 ⫺.10 ⫺.07 ⫺.19 ⫺.16 .45 .15 .22 .15 .07 ⫺.04 .02
20 Disciplinary climate .08 .02 ⫺.17 ⫺.05 .04 ⫺.10 .22 ⫺.09 ⫺.05 ⫺.23 ⫺.08 .32 .10 .08 .10 .01 ⫺.14 .05 .37

TABLE 3
Multilevel Analysis of Mathematical Achievement Growth over Time as a Function of

School Climate, Student-Level, and School-Level Characteristics
Time Climate Students Schools
Effects on the intercept
(initial achievement):
Intercept 18.315*** 18.439*** 19.808*** 18.501***
(.206) (.192) (.230) (.397)
Time 16.268*** 16.306*** 17.242*** 17.058***
(.078) (.073) (.096) (.163)
Academic climate .536*** .226*** .016
(.071) (.058) (.059)
Disciplinary climate .520** .194 .128
(.185) (.149) (.146)
Female ⫺.053 ⫺.062
(.228) (.227)
Race:
Black ⫺2.323*** ⫺2.229***
(.432) (.553)
Hispanic ⫺3.124*** ⫺2.410***
(.359) (.442)
Asian ⫺.578 ⫺.225
(.549) (.558)
Other ⫺1.622** ⫺1.537*
(.541) (.541)
Family composition:
Single parent ⫺.480 ⫺.456
(.328) (.328)
Other ⫺.703 ⫺.673
(.385) (.385)
SES 3.130*** 2.515***
(.174) (.198)
School SES 2.187***
(.430)
Region:
Midwest 1.140**
(.451)
West .442
(.482)
South 1.040*
(.440)
School type:
Private, nonreligious 3.698***
(1.122)
Catholic 2.359***
(.486)
Other religious 1.590**
(.636)
% Black .497
(.881)
% Hispanic ⫺.536
(.812)
224

TABLE 3 (Continued )

Effects on the growth
(slopes # time):
Academic climate .191*** .078*** .078***
(.027) (.023) (.024)
Disciplinary climate .227*** .042 .050
(.070) (.060) (.059)
Female ⫺.782*** ⫺.759***
(.099) (.099)
Race:
Black ⫺2.192*** ⫺2.003***
(.184) (.242)
Hispanic ⫺.577*** ⫺.708***
(.152) (.192)
Asian .146 .169
(.227) (.232)
Other ⫺1.026*** ⫺.987***
(.231) (.232)
Family composition:
Single parent ⫺.148 ⫺.128
(.143) (.143)
Other ⫺.409** ⫺.412**
(.168) (.168)
SES 1.052*** 1.041***
(.074) (.086)
School SES .623***
(.178)
Region:
Midwest .348
(.183)
West .198
(.196)
South .733***
(.179)
School type:
Private, nonreligious ⫺2.106***
(.462)
Catholic ⫺1.002***
(.197)
Other religious ⫺.585*
(.260)
% Black ⫺.445
(.370)
% Hispanic .734*
(.338)
Between-students variance:
Intercept 38.077*** 38.063*** 34.205*** 34.065***
1.695 (1.695) (1.618) (1.611)
Time effect 10.331*** 10.355*** 9.172*** 9.162***
.329 (.329) (.308) (.307)
225

TABLE 3 (Continued )

Between-schools variance:
Intercept 21.640*** 17.424*** 7.451*** 5.940***
1.652 (1.431) (.856) (.759)
Time effect 2.591*** 1.974*** .887*** .753***
.239 (.207) (.137) (.128)
NOTE.—Statistics shown are b’s, with standard errors in parentheses.
* Significant at the .05 level.
** Significant at the .01 level.
*** Significant at the .001 level.
white students, the growth in mathematics achievement over time was weaker
for black and Hispanic students and students of other races. We also found
the growth in mathematics achievement over time to be weaker for girls
compared to boys. No statistically significant difference was found in math-
ematics achievement growth between children from single-parent families and
two married biological parents’ families, but children from “other” family
structure (remarried parents, adoptive parents, relative care, etc.) showed
weaker growth over time relative to children raised in two married biological
parents’ families. Adding student characteristics to the model made the effect
of disciplinary climate nonsignificant and reduced the effect of academic cli-
mate by half. The student-level variables explained 10% of the variation across
students in the fall of kindergarten mathematics scores and 11% of the variation
across students in mathematics achievement growth over time.
Model 4 presents the results of the moderating effect of school-level de-
mographic variables in addition to student-level variables and school-level
climate measures. This model included the following school-level variables:
school average SES, % of black, % of Hispanic, school sector, and region.
Children in higher-SES schools and all types of private schools (compared to
public schools) had higher mathematics achievement in the fall of kindergarten.
However, the results indicated that growth in mathematics achievement was
weaker for students in all types of private schools as compared to public school
students. The results also indicated that school average SES significantly ex-
plained among-schools variation in students’ mathematics achievement growth
over time, such that growth in mathematics achievement intensifies when
school-level SES increases. Further, schools in the South showed stronger
growth in mathematics achievement over time as compared to northeastern
schools. In model 4, school-level demographic characteristics, in addition to
school climates, explained 73% of variation in mathematics achievement across
schools in the fall of kindergarten and 71% of variation across schools in
mathematics achievement growth over time.

TABLE 4
Results of Single Slope Analysis of Climate on Mathematics Achievement Growth

Growth Growth
in Mathematics in Mathematics
Achievement Achievement
(No Controls)* (with Controls)†
Growth for ⫹2 SD in climate 17.9 17.5
Growth for ⫹1 SD in climate 17.1 17.3
Growth for mean climate 16.3 17.1
Growth for ⫺1 SD in climate 15.5 16.8
Growth for ⫺2 SD in climate 14.7 16.6
Difference in mathematics achievement
between ⫹1 SD and ⫺1 SD
schools over 4 years (five units of
time) 1.6 # 5 p 8 .5 # 5 p 2.5
Difference in mathematics achievement
between ⫹2 SD and ⫺2 SD
schools over 4 years (five units of
time) 3.2 # 5 p 16 .9 # 5 p 4.5
NOTE.—All coefficients are significant at the .0001 level.
* For this calculation the coefficients for both academic and disciplinary climates
from model 2 in table 3 were used.
† For this calculation the coefficient for academic climate from model 4 in table 3
was used.
In addition, we examined three-way interactions between time, student and

school demographic characteristics, and academic and disciplinary climates.
No significant three-way interactions were detected, suggesting that the effect
of climate on mathematics achievement score does not depend on student-
level characteristics.
Finally, in order to provide an effect size estimate for mathematics achieve-
ment growth as a function of school climate moderators, we employed simple
slopes analysis, following Aiken and West (1991). Table 4 presents the results.
The results concerning growth in mathematics achievement with no controls
(based on model 2 in table 3) indicated that when demographic characteristics
are not included, students in a school with strong academic and disciplinary
climates (i.e., one standard deviation above the sample average) enjoyed an
increase of 17.1 points on the mathematics scale per time unit. On the other
hand, students in a school with weak academic and disciplinary climates (i.e.,
one standard deviation below the sample average) enjoyed a growth of 15.5
points per time unit. This means that relative to students from schools with
weak climates, students from schools with strong climates have an advantage
of 1.6 points per one time unit, which is eight points over the period of 4
years (i.e., five time points). When operationalizing “strong” and “weak” cli-
FEBRUARY 2013 227

mates in terms of plus/minus two standard deviations from the sample average,
the simple slopes analysis indicated an advantage of 16 points over the 4-year
period in favor of students from schools with a strong climate. This is a
substantial advantage, indicating a half standard deviation in mathematics
growth over time.
We performed similar calculations based on the coefficients in model 4 in
table 3 while schools and students demographic characteristics were included.
We estimated the simple slopes for growth in mathematics achievement only
as a function of academic climate because the interaction between time and
disciplinary climate turned insignificant in model 4. The differences were
understandably smaller. Students in a school with a strong academic climate
(defined as one standard deviation above the sample average) enjoyed an
increase of 17.3 points on the mathematics scale per time unit. On the other
hand, students in a school with a weak academic climate (i.e., one standard
deviation below the sample average) enjoyed a growth of 16.8 points per time
unit. Over a period of 4 years, this resulted in an advantage of 2.5 points.
When operationalizing “strong” and “weak” climate in terms of plus/minus
two standard deviations from the sample average, the simple slopes analysis
indicated an advantage of 4.5 points over the 4-year period in favor of students
from schools with a strong academic climate. Although these are small effects,
it is important to remember that they are detectable even after including in
the models both student and school demographic characteristics.
Discussion
Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Co-

hort (ECLS-K)––a large, nationally representative sample of US elementary
school students—we employed multilevel analysis to answer the following
research questions: (a) Does students’ mathematics achievement growth in
kindergarten through third grade vary among schools? (b) To what extent does
school academic and disciplinary climate explain variation in mathematics
achievement growth among schools? (c ) To what extent do students’ and
schools’ demographic characteristics explain this variation? While previous
studies have examined the effects of school climate on student achievement
in middle school and high school, the present study focused on the effect of
school academic and disciplinary climate on students’ mathematics learning
in the first 4 years of schooling—from fall of kindergarten to spring of third
grade. Moreover, previous studies have examined the effects of different el-
ements of school climate on individual student outcomes, but they have not
assessed the role of school climate in explaining differences in achievement
between schools over time. Thus, our study fills the gap in the existing literature

in three important ways. First, we focused on the role of school academic and
disciplinary climates during the early elementary years. Second, we assessed
the role of school academic and disciplinary climates in explaining differences
in mathematics achievement growth between schools. Finally, we conducted
our investigation using a nationally representative sample of elementary school
students.
Consistent with the previous literature, the results of the current study show
that several student-level characteristics have significant relationships with
mathematics achievement growth during the first 4 years of schooling. Black,
Hispanic, and students of other races had lower mathematics achievement
than white students in the fall of kindergarten, and their growth over time
was also weaker. Higher-SES students started the kindergarten with higher
mathematics achievement, and their growth over time was stronger. These
findings indicate increasing race/ethnicity and socieconomic inequality in
mathematics achievement. We also found that girls’ mathematics achievement
did not differ from boys’ in the fall of kindergarten but that their growth in
mathematics achievement over time was weaker compared to boys.
We found that student mathematics achievement growth varies significantly
among schools. The results indicated that school average SES significantly
explains among-schools variation in students’ mathematics achievement
growth over time, such that the growth in mathematics achievement intensifies
when school-level SES increases. Students in higher-SES schools and all types
of private schools had higher mathematics achievement in the fall of kinder-
garten. However, results showed that subsequent growth in mathematics
achievement was weaker for students in all types of private schools as compared
to public school students.
With respect to our investigation of the role of school climate, we found
that school academic and disciplinary climates significantly explain among-
schools variation in students’ mathematics achievement growth, with academic
climate retaining its significance over and above the variation explained by
school SES, race/ethnicity composition, school sector, and region. That is to
say, students’ growth in mathematics achievement over time was steeper in
schools characterized by strong academic and disciplinary climate. We ex-
amined the effects of school climate with and without school and student
demographic characteristics. Without any other controls, the effects of climates
were understandably larger. As the simple slopes analysis indicated, students
in schools with strong academic and disciplinary climates enjoyed an advantage
of one-half of a standard deviation (16 points) of the mathematics achievement
growth over the period of 4 years relative to students from schools with weak
climates. Similar calculations comparing schools with strong and weak aca-
demic climates, while student and schools characteristics were included in the
model, produced a difference of one-sixth of a standard deviation (4.5 points).
FEBRUARY 2013 229

These are important findings from the policy perspective. Schools have little
control over the populations they serve, and they strive to provide the best
possible learning environment for their students. Knowing that stronger school
climate does account for differences among schools in mathematics achieve-
ment growth during the 4 critical years at the beginning of children’ educa-
tional career is important. Equally important is to understand that the nature
of school climate is related to student body composition, with higher-SES
schools enjoying stronger climates. It is particularly telling that including stu-
dent demographic characteristics in the model weakened the predictive
strength of disciplinary climate. This suggests that schools, on average, are
unable to buffer or compensate for the lack of the resources children experience
at home and commensurate effects on their behavior. It seems that school
reform alone is not sufficient to battle profound inequalities in student achieve-
ment. The social reality in which schools exist and function reflects the pro-
found inequality found outside of school walls.
The findings from this study are important given the almost half-century
search for contextual effects in educational research. Our finding that school
academic climate makes a difference in student achievement over time, above
and beyond students’ and schools’ characteristics, highlights a potential di-
rection for intervention targeting school community as a whole, supporting
teachers and staff in their mission to educate all students. Attaining high
academic standards while maintaining positive student behavior as well as
ensuring school safety are undoubtedly crucial issues for all schools. These
challenges are especially pressing in urban schools that have a high proportion
of low-SES and minority students. Our findings are important given recent
studies of the effects of school discipline (Gregory et al. 2010; Osher et al.
2010), particularly because the lack of a positive disciplinary climate is not
only negatively associated with all students’ achievement but has an especially
devastating effect on minority students, thus enlarging the achievement gap
(Gregory et al. 2010). Strong climate does not happen overnight. The literature
on academic press and academic climate shows that these changes require
profound dedication from all faculty and staff, as well as from parents and
students, to commit to an academic mission for the school and to create an
environment that is conducive to learning.
The limitation of our study is the lack of information about school policy
regarding academic and disciplinary issues. Our climate measures were based
on three teachers’ judgments about a particular school, on average. Interest-
ingly, none of the teachers’ characteristics that we tested (e.g., level of edu-
cation, type of certification, race/ethnicity, years of experience) yielded sig-
nificant associations with the outcomes. This construct has a stronger reliability
compared to any one particular teacher’s judgment. However, we are not able

to speak to the relative efficiency of different strategies schools can use to

improve their learning environment.
Note
This research was supported by a grant from the Foundation for Child Development.
Opinions expressed in the article are ours and do not necessarily reflect those of the
granting agency.
References
Aiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alexander, Karl, Doris Entwisle, and Carrie Horsey. 1997. “From First Grade Forward:
Early Foundation of High School Dropout.” Sociology of Education 70 (April): 87–107.
Aunola, Kaisa, Esko Leskinen, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, and Jari-Erik Nurmi. 2004.
“Developmental Dynamics of Math Performance from Preschool to Grade 2.” Journal
of Educational Psychology 96 (4): 699–713.
Baker, David, and Gerald LeTendre. 2005. National Differences, Global Similarities: World
Culture and the Future of Schooling, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barr, Rebecca, and Robert Dreeben. 1983. How Schools Work. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bast, Janwillem, and Pieter Reitsma. 1997. “Matthew Effects in Reading: A Com-
parison of Latent Growth Curve Models and Simplex Models with Structured
Means.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 32 (2): 135–67.
Bloom, Benjamin S. 1976. Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Bloom, Benjamin S. 1984. “The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group
Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring.” Educational Researcher 13 (6): 4–16.
Bodovski, Katerina, and George Farkas. 2007. “Mathematics Growth in Early Ele-
mentary School: The Roles of Beginning Knowledge, Student Engagement, and
Instruction.” Elementary School Journal 108 (2): 115–30.
Brophy, Jere E. 1982. “Fostering Student Learning and Motivation in the Elementary
School Classroom.” Occasional Paper no. 51, Institute for Research on Teaching,
East Lansing, MI.
Brown, Byron W., and Daniel H. Saks. 1986. “Measuring the Effects of Instructional
Time on Student Learning: Evidence from the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study.”
American Journal of Education 94 (4): 480–500.
Bryk, Anthony S., and Mary E. Driscoll. 1988. The School as Community: Theoretical
Foundations, Contextual Influences, and Consequences for Students and Teachers. Madison: Na-
tional Center of Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin.
Bryk, Anthony S., Valerie E. Lee, and Peter B. Holland. 1993. Catholic Schools and the
Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bulach, Clete R., Malone, Bobby, and Christy Castleman (1995). “An Investigation
of Variables Related to Student Achievement.” Mid-Western Educational Researcher 8
(2): 23–29.
Cammarota, Julio. 2007. “A Social Justice Approach to Achievement: Guiding Latina/o
FEBRUARY 2013 231

Students toward Educational Attainment with a Challenging, Socially Relevant Curric-

ulum.” Equity and Excellence in Education 40 (1): 87–96.
Carroll, John B. 1963. “A Model of School Learning.” Teachers College Record 64 (8):
723–33.
Coleman, James S. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity: Summary Report. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office.
Coleman, James, and Thomas Hoffer. 1987. Public and Private High Schools: The Impact
of Communities. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, James S., Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore. 1982. High School Achievement:
Public, Catholic, and Private Schools Compared. New York: Basic Books.
Cook, Thomas D., Robert F. Murphy, and H. David Hunt. 2000. “Comer’s School
Development Program in Chicago: A Theory-Based Evaluation.” American Educational
Research Journal 37 (2): 535–97.
Dreeben, Rebecca, and Robert Barr. 1988. “Classroom Composition and the Design
of Instruction.” Sociology of Education 61 (3): 129–42.
Dreeben, Rebecca, and Adam Gamoran. 1986. “Race, Instruction, and Learning.”
American Sociological Review 51 (5): 660–69.
Duran, Bernadine J., and Rafaela E. Weffer. 1992. “Immigrants’ Aspirations, High
School Process, and Academic Outcomes.” American Educational Research Journal 29
(1): 163–81.
Entwisle, Doris R., Karl L. Alexander, and Linda S. Olson. 2005. “First Grade and
Educational Attainment by Age 22: A New Story.” American Journal of Sociology 110
(5): 1458–1502.
Fowler, William J., Jr., and Herbert J. Walberg. 1991. “School Size, Characteristics,
and Outcomes.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13 (2): 189–202.
Gamoran, Adam, and Robert D. Mare. 1989. “Secondary School Tracking and Ed-
ucational Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement, or Neutrality?” American Journal
of Sociology 94 (5): 1146–83.
Gerber, Theodore. 2010. “School Discipline, Math/Science Achievement, and College
Aspirations in Contemporary Russia.” Paper presented at the seventeenth World
Congress of the International Sociological Association (ISA), Gothenburg, Sweden,
July.
Gill, Michele G., Patricia Ashton, and James Algina. 2004. “Authoritative Schools: A
Test of a Model to Resolve the School Effectiveness Debate.” Contemporary Educational
Psychology 29 (4): 389–409.
Gregory, Anne, Skiba Russell J., and Pedro A. Noguera. 2010. “The Achievement
Gap and the Discipline Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Educational Researcher
39 (1): 59–68.
Hallinan, Maureen. 1994. “Tracking: From Theory to Practice.” Sociology of Education
67 (2): 79–84.
Hoy, Wayne K., Scott R. Sweetland, and Page A. Smith. 2002. “Toward an Orga-
nizational Model of Achievement in High Schools: The Significance of Collective
Efficacy.” Educational Administration Quarterly 38 (1): 77–93.
Hoy, Wayne K., C. John Tarter, and James R. Bliss. 1990. “Organizational Climate,
School Health, and Effectiveness: A Comparative Analysis.” Educational Administration
Quarterly 26 (3): 260–79.
Istrate, Olimpius, Gabriela Noveanu, and Thomas M. Smith. 2006. “Exploring Sources
of Variation in Romanian Science Achievement.” Prospects: Quarterly Review of Com-
parative Education 36 (4): 475–96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-006-9006-6.
Kaplan, David, and Pamela R. Elliott. 1997. “A Model-Based Approach to Validating

Education Indicators using Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of

Educational and Behavioral Statistics 22 (3): 323–47.
Kelly, Sean. 2004. “Do Increased Levels of Parental Involvement Account for Social
Class Differences in Track Placement?” Social Science Research 33:626–59.
Lee, Valerie E., and Julia B. Smith. 1999. “Social Support and Achievement for Young
Adolescents in Chicago: The Role of School Academic Press.” American Educational
Research Journal 36 (4): 907–45.
Levpuscek, Melita Puklek, and Maja Zupancic. 2009. “Math Achievement in Early
Adolescence: The Role of Parental Involvement, Teachers’ Behavior, and Students’
Motivational Beliefs about Math.” Journal of Early Adolescence 29 (4): 541–70.
Lleras Christy. 2008. “Race, Racial Concentration, and the Dynamics of Educational
Inequality across Urban and Suburban Schools.” American Educational Research Journal
45 (4): 886–912.
Lucas, Samuel R., and Adam Gamoran. 2002. “Tracking and the Achievement Gap.”
Pp. 171–98 in Bridging the Achievement Gap, ed. John E. Chubb and Tom Loveless.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Middleton, Michael J., and Carol Midgley. 2002. “Beyond Motivation: Middle School
Students’ Perceptions of Press for Understanding in Math.” Contemporary Educational
Psychology 27 (3): 373–91.
Miwa, Satoshi. 2010. “School Discipline and Achievement in Japan.” Paper presented
at the seventeenth World Congress of the International Sociological Association
(ISA), Gothenburg, Sweden, July.
Morgan, Stephen L. 2001. “Counterfactuals, Causal Effect Heterogeneity, and the
Catholic School Effect on Learning.” Sociology of Education 74 (October): 341–74.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. User’s Manual for the ECLS-K First Grade
Restricted-Use Data Files and Electronic Code Book. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Osher, David, George G. Bear, Jeffrey R. Sprague, and Walter Doyle. 2010. “How
Can We Improve School Discipline?” Educational Researcher 39 (1): 48–58.
Pellerin, Lisa A. 2000. “Urban Youth and Schooling: The Effect of School Climate
on Student Disengagement and Dropout.” Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 24–28.
Phillips, Linda M., Stephen P. Norris, Wendy C. Osmond, and Agnes M. Maynard.
2002. “Relative Reading Achievement: A Longitudinal Study of 187 Children from
First through Sixth Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (March): 3–13.
Phillips, Meredith. 1997. “What Makes Schools Effective? A Comparison of the Re-
lationships of Communitarian Climate and Academic Climate to Mathematics
Achievement and Attendance during Middle School.” American Educational Research
Journal 34 (4): 633–62.
Reardon, Sean F., and Claudia Galindo. 2009. “The Hispanic-White Achievement
Gap in Math and Reading in the Elementary Grades.” American Educational Research
Journal 46 (3): 853–91.
Reynolds, Arthur J., and Herbert J. Walberg. 1992. “A Process Model of Mathematics
Achievement and Attitude.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 23 (4): 306–
28.
Roderick, Melissa, and Mimi Engel. 2001. “The Grasshopper and the Ant: Motiva-
tional Responses of Low-Achieving Students to High-Stakes Testing.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23 (3): 197–227.
Shavit, Yossi, and Carmel Blank. 2010. “School Discipline and Achievement in Israel.”
Paper presented at the seventeenth World Congress of the International Sociological
Association (ISA), Gothenburg, Sweden, July.
FEBRUARY 2013 233

Shouse, Roger C. 1995. “Academic Press and School Sense of Community: Sources
of Friction, Prospects for Synthesis.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 18–22.
Shouse, Roger C. 1996a. “Academic Press and Sense of Community: Conflict and
Congruence in American High Schools.” Research in Sociology of Education and Social-
ization 11:173–202.
Shouse, Roger C. 1996b. “Academic Press and Sense of Community: Conflict, Con-
gruence, and Implications for Student Achievement.” Social Psychology of Education 1
(1): 47–68.
Shouse, Roger. 1997. “Academic Press, Sense of Community, and Student Achieve-
ment.” In Redesigning American Education, ed. James Coleman, Barbara Schneider,
Stephen Plank, Roger Shouse, and Huayin Wang. Boulder, CO: Westview.
US Department of Education. 2004. User’s Manual for the ECLS-K Third Grade Public-
Use Data File and Electronic Code Book. NCES Publication No. 2004–001. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education.
Walberg, Herbert J., Richard P. Niemiec, and Wayne C. Frederick. 1994. “Productive
Curriculum Time.” Peabody Journal of Education 69 (3): 86–100.
Wang, Margaret C, Geneva D. Haertel, and Herbert J. Walberg. 1993. “Toward a
Knowledge Base for School Learning.” Review of Educational Research 63 (3): 249–94.
Williamson, Gary L., Mark Appelbaum, and Alex Epanchin. 1991. “Longitudinal
Analysis of Academic Achievement.” Journal of Educational Measurement 28:61–76.
Willms, J. D. 2006. Learning Divides: Ten Policy Questions about the Performance and Equity
of Schools and School Systems. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.


2013 - School Climate and Students' Early Mathematics Learning

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2013 - School Climate and Students' Early Mathematics Learning

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

School Climate and Students’ Early

Mathematics Learning: Another Search

Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort

Electronically published December 13, 2012

FEBRUARY 2013 209

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

and in particular on higher academic achievement in Catholic schools

KATERINA BODOVSKI is an assistant professor of educational theory and

210 American Journal of Education

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

FEBRUARY 2013 211

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Academic Achievement in the Elementary Years

There is no consensus in the literature on whether children who start school

212 American Journal of Education

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

ularly in mathematics, whereas the Hispanic-white gap narrowed by about

Contextual Effects on Academic Achievement

FEBRUARY 2013 213

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

214 American Journal of Education

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Data and Method

FEBRUARY 2013 215

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

216 American Journal of Education

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

“The level of child misbehavior (noise, fighting) in this school interferes

Model 1: The Growth over Time Model

We used the following model to assess whether mathematics achievement

FEBRUARY 2013 217

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Model 2: The Moderating Role of School-Level Academic and Disciplinary

From the policy perspective, it is important to investigate the role of academic

g10k p p100 ⫹ p101Aclimatek ⫹ p102 Dclimatek ⫹ d 10k .

218 American Journal of Education

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

In this model, we aimed to explain the among-schools variation in g00k in-

Model 3: The Moderating Role of School-Level Academic and Disciplinary

To assess the moderating role of student-level variables in addition to ac-

b1jk p g10k ⫹ g11S1jk ⫹ … ⫹ g18 S 8jk ⫹ u 1jk .

In this model we aimed to explain the between-student variation in intercepts

FEBRUARY 2013 219

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Model 4: The Moderating Role of School-Level Academic and Disciplinary

To assess the moderating effect of school-level demographic variables in ad-

g10k p p100 ⫹ p101AClimatek ⫹ p102 DClimatek

⫹ p103G lk ⫹ … ⫹ p111G9k ⫹ d 10k .

220 American Journal of Education

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Included in the Models

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

222 American Journal of Education

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Correlations among Study Variables

1 Mathematics achievement ...

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Multilevel Analysis of Mathematical Achievement Growth over Time as a Function of

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Time Climate Students Schools

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on July 26, 2016 05:49:36 AM

Time Climate Students Schools

226 American Journal of Education