Darling-Hammond and Cook-Harvey (2018) argue that because of the focus on test-based accountability, many U.S. schools were not focused on the “broader life skills” that students need or the “sense of self” to achieve their full potential.” They cite the results of a study of more than 148,000 students in grades 6-12 that found that:
- Only 29% felt their school provided a caring, encouraging environment;
- Less than half reported that they had social competencies such as empathy, decision making, and conflict resolution skills; and
- 30% of high school students reported being engaged in multiple “high-risk” behaviors such as substance abuse, violence, and attempted suicide (Durlak et al., 2011).
As Dr. Carstarphen noted in her Director’s Desk article, for schools to serve the Whole Child, they must create a climate that is intentionally and authentically focused on the social, emotional, and academic well-being of every child. Serving the Whole Child entails offering a wide range of curricular options, as children’s interests and talents often extend beyond the core curriculum. Further, schools must address children’s physical and mental health needs. Physical education classes are available in almost all schools; sports teams are offered at the secondary level; and many schools provide dental, vision, and health screenings, as well as psychological and counseling services.
The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) framework, developed by the CDC and ASCD, and adopted by the Maryland Department of Education, emphasizes a coordinated approach in which schools, families, and communities work together. The WSCC framework has 10 components (CDC, 2024).
- Physical education and physical activity.
- Nutrition environment and services (see November Equity Express articles, Thanksgiving, Food Insecurity, and Politics, and School Nutrition and Physical Fitness).
- Health education.
- Social and emotional climate (see February article, Social Emotional Learning (SEL) and Not-So-Random Acts of Kindness, and August edition article, Climate, Culture, Equity, and Achievement.
- Physical environment.
- Health services.
- Counseling, psychological, and social services.
- Employee wellness.
- Community involvement (see January Director’s Desk: The Power of Partnership in a New Year).
- Family engagement.
Many of these components are central to the work and research conducted by NCEED staff and faculty. Justice and equity underpin NCEED’s six pillars as we work with partners to address the most critical issues facing students, parents, communities, teachers, and administrators (see https://nceed.morgan.edu/). Many of these factors are also central to the research on school and classroom climate.
This article provides a detailed examination of the relationship between both school and classroom climate and student outcomes, and of the inequities identified in the research, as students of color often experience school climate more negatively than their peers.
In Darling-Hammond and Cook-Harvey’s (2018) article, they cite extensive meta-studies by Berkowitz et al. (2017) and Wang and Degol (2016). Berkowitz et al. (2017) noted that differences in effect sizes were reported, in part due to the varying definitions and measures of climate employed. Many studies measured climate using one or more of the most prevalent components, such as “safety, student–teacher relationships, and engagement,” while others measured climate based on less common measures, such as the number of disciplinary referrals, administrative leadership, school environment, expectations, school size, attendance, and the “extent of ethnic-based tension at the school.”
Regardless of differences in definitions, the researchers found that, of the 78 studies reviewed, “all but one study found evidence of the impact of a positive climate on achievement.” Additionally, over 60 of the studies found that positive climate has a “compensatory positive contribution to academic achievement… beyond the negative contribution of poor socio-economic (SES) background.” Several studies found that school climate plays a “mediating role” in academic achievement. For example, research has shown that school climate can influence how socioeconomic status and community risks affect student performance. Similarly, studies have found a cascading effect where positive aspects of school climate—especially strong student–teacher relationships—improve student engagement, which in turn leads to higher academic achievement. Furthermore, research shows that low SES is not automatically associated with a negative school climate and that schools serving disadvantaged communities can build strong, supportive environments that promote student success.
The meta-analysis by Wang and Degol (2016) of 327 studies found similar results, particularly regarding “moderating” factors. These studies of classroom quality provide evidence on the impact of specific aspects of climate on youth outcomes; however, effect sizes varied substantially across classroom climate dimensions, child characteristics, and study designs. However, they argued that much of the prior research conceptualized climate as a unidimensional construct rather than a multidimensional one. They suggest that framing classroom climate as a multidimensional construct and examining potential moderators will help clarify the strength of the associations between climate and children’s outcomes.
At the classroom level, Wang & Degol (2016) suggest that there are three main dimensions of climate: Instructional Support (e.g., quality of teaching practices and learning activities), Socio-emotional Support (e.g., relationships and emotional tone of interactions between teachers and students), and Classroom Organization and Management (e.g., structure, routines, behavior management, and how effectively the classroom runs).
At the school level, they proposed four major climate domains: Academic Climate (e.g., teaching quality, expectations for learning, and instructional practices and support that promote achievement), Community Climate (e.g., relationships, connectedness, respect, and the sense of belonging among students, teachers, and staff), Safety Climate (e.g., Physical and emotional safety), and Institutional Environment (e.g., resources, facilities, policies, and school size).
As Berkowitz et al. (2017) found, Wang and Degol reported that positive school climates are associated with student outcomes, including higher academic achievement and motivation, more positive mental health and sense of well-being, greater engagement and attendance, and fewer behavioral problems. However, they found that some domains matter more than others. Similar to findings reported by Darling-Hammond and Cook-Harvey (2018), the strongest and most consistent effects were observed for Relationships (teacher–student support and peer respect), Safety (physical and emotional security), and Academic climate (high expectations and instructional support).
In summary, research on school and classroom climate encompasses a range of samples, definitions, and theoretical constructs. A wide range of components and concepts have been used to define climate, including engagement, safety, teacher-student relationships, and a sense of belonging. Moderating factors examined included instructional organization, efficiency, and quality; school size; resources; and discipline policies. Finally, many of the studies examined student outcomes in relation to socioeconomic status.
As Darling-Hammond and Cook-Harvey (2018) observed, “Educators’ abilities to forge strong relationships with students lie at the heart of strong schools,” and the foundation of this work is a caring, stable, and safe social and emotional school climate. Consistent with this view, hundreds of studies found that school climate is consistently associated with academic, behavioral, and social outcomes (Berkowitz et al., 2017; Wang & Degol, 2016).
While Berkowitz et al. (2017) reported on several moderator variables, Wang and Degol (2016) adopted a multidimensional approach to school climate components and factors. Using this approach, Wang and Degol (2016) identified three moderating factors. They found that:
- Grade level and school structures may limit the sense of belonging and autonomy.
- The positive effects of climate are stronger in more diverse classrooms.
- Positive climate benefits students across SES levels (Wang, Smith, Miller-Cotto, & Huguley, 2020).
Similarly, Berkowitz et al. (2017) found that school climate is strongly associated with academic achievement and social-emotional outcomes, even after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). “These findings are encouraging, as a positive classroom climate appears to benefit all students across racial/ethnic and SES backgrounds. However, differences in motivation and engagement emerged, with classroom climate associated with higher motivation and engagement only in more racially diverse classrooms” (Wang & Degol, 2016).
These findings highlight the critical importance of positive school and classroom climates. Investing in school and classroom climate is an essential equity-focused strategy. A positive climate serves as a lever for equity across all SES levels, supporting inclusion and positive development among students from diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
—————————————————-
References
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425–469.
CDC, 2024. Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC).
https://www.cdc.gov/whole-school-community-child/about/index.html
Chiang, R. J., Meagher, W., & Slade, S. (2015). How the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model works: creating greater alignment, integration, and collaboration between health and education. Journal of School Health, 85(11), 775-784.
Comer, J. P. (Ed.). (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education. Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to Support Student Success. Learning Policy Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., & DePaoli, J. (2020). Why school climate matters and what can be done to improve it. State Education Standard, 20(2), 7.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
National School Climate Council. (n.d.). What is school climate, and why is it important? https://www. schoolclimate.org/school-climate.
Noddings, N., 2005. What does it mean to educate the whole child?. Educational leadership, 63(1), 8.
Wang, M. & Degol, J., 2016. School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352.
Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., & Guo, J. (2020). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, 100912.
Wang, M. T., Henry, D. A., Smith, L. V., Huguley, J. P., & Guo, J. (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization practices and children of color’s psychosocial and behavioral adjustment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 75, 1–22
Wang, M. T., Smith, L. V., Miller-Cotto, D., & Huguley, J. P. (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization and children of color’s academic success: A meta-analytic review. Child Development, 91, 528–544
