For Peer Review

Examining school culture in Flemish and Chinese primary

schools

Journal: Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Manuscript ID: EMAL-2011-186.R4

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Keyword: school culture, School Culture Scales, primary school, cultural context

Abstract:

The aim of this research is to gain understanding about school culture characteristics of primary schools in the Flemish and Chinese context. The study was carried out in Flanders (Belgium) and China involving a total of 44 Flemish schools and 40 Chinese schools. The School Culture Scales were used to measure five school culture dimensions with regard to goal-orientation, leadership, innovation orientation, participative decision

making and formal relationships. The School Culture Scales were validated in both contexts and within-group agreement indexes were calculated. The results show that in average, the Flemish schools scored higher in four dimensions of the school culture features than the Chinese schools. Within group differences were also found. The differences between and among the Chinese and Flemish schools were discussed.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

For Peer Review

1

Examining school culture in Flemish and Chinese primary schools

Abstract

The aim of this research is to gain understanding about school culture characteristics of

primary schools in the Flemish and Chinese context. The study was carried out in Flanders

(Belgium) and China involving a total of 44 Flemish schools and 40 Chinese schools. The

School Culture Scales were used to measure five school culture dimensions with regard to

goal-orientation, leadership, innovation orientation, participative decision making and formal relationships. The School Culture Scales were validated in both contexts and within-group

agreement indexes were calculated. The results show that in average, the Flemish schools

scored higher in four dimensions of the school culture features than the Chinese schools. Within group differences were also found. The differences between and among the Chinese

and Flemish schools were discussed.

Keywords: school culture; School Culture Scales; primary school

Page 1 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

2

Introduction

School culture is a pervasive element of schools (Lindahl, 2006). It permeates

everything within a school: the way people act, how they dress, what they talk about

or avoid talking about, whether they seek out colleagues for help or don’t, and how

teachers feel about their work and their students, and how students feel about the

school (Deal and Peterson, 1999). An examination of school culture is important

because each school has a culture of its own and understanding these features is

helpful to make it a better school (Goodlad, 1984). School culture can be regarded as

a bridge or barrier to change (Krueger & Parish, 1982; Patterson, Purkey, & Parker,

1986). As Peterson and Deal (1998) pointed out, understanding school culture is an

essential factor in any reform initiative. It is part of the school change and innovation

process (Dalin et al., 1993). Previous studies point out that a supportive school culture

is considered as one in which higher level of support is practiced (Dalin, 1998;

Darling-Hammond, 1997). Literature suggests that in schools exhibiting positive

cultures, teachers and staff members are more willing to take risks and enact

innovations (Donahoe, 1997; Peterson & Deal, 1998). A positive school culture is

often considered as one in which meaningful staff development and enhanced student

learning are encouraged and practiced (Byrne, 2002; Engels et al. 2008; Kaufman,

2002). Furthermore, several studies confirm that school culture plays an important

role in enhancing school effectiveness (Heck & Marcoulides, 1996; Levine, 1991;

Maslowski, 2001; Sammons et al., 1995). School culture is closely related to the

healthy and sustainable development of a school, the development and well-being of

the school members, and the teaching and learning objectives (Dimmock, 1993;

Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2006). Most reviews of the effective school literature point

out that school culture is central to academic success (Leithwood & Louis, 2002).

Page 2 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

3

In China, during the last twenty years, large investment has been made for the

improvement of Chinese schools’ infrastructure, for example, the renovation of run-

down school buildings. However, investment in infrastructure and hardware is not

enough. In recent years, China has shifted the focus towards experimenting new

teaching methods to improve the quality of compulsory education by relieving

students of the examination burden and stressing quality-oriented education (Liu,

2011). The success of schools varies greatly in terms of quality of teaching and

student academic achievement. This is partly related to available resources such as

funding, but also related to school culture characteristics, such as school objectives,

management and leadership. In recent years, the construction of school culture started

to gain attention of the education administrators of Chinese schools (Zhu, Devos &

Li, 2011). Reconstructing or reshaping school culture is also regarded as significant

for transforming school administration and promoting education curriculum reform

and educational innovation (Du, 2010). Under this background, diagnosing and

understanding the current situation of school organizational culture becomes

extremely important. Furthermore, a comparative perspective comparing Chinese

schools to schools in other contexts can contribute significantly to the literature by

ensuring comparative insights (Slater et al., 2002).

In this study, both Chinese and Flemish (Dutch speaking region of Belgium)

schools were investigated. By examining school cultures in the two different contexts,

we can be better informed about the characteristics in each context and reflect upon

them. Slater et al. (2002) point out that cross-cultural studies can enable educators to

learn about each other’s values and other viewpoints, while strengthening their own

identities and, in the process, transforming themselves. In the related literature, most

studies on school culture are situated in western countries. To our knowledge there are

Page 3 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

4

no empirical studies so far that attempt to examine the features of school culture

dimensions of Chinese and Western schools from a comparative perspective. China

and Flanders are situated in the Eastern culture and Western culture respectively.

According to the Hofstede (1994) scores of cultural dimensions, Belgium featured a

higher individualism and a lower power distance compared to the Chinese culture.

The aim of this study is to characterize the school culture dimensions of Flemish

and Chinese primary schools and to understand the possible similarities or differences

among and between the Flemish and Chinese schools. The reason why Flemish and

Chinese schools are chosen as examples of western and eastern school cultures for the

study is based on the combination of emic and etic approaches, as the researchers

involved in this study have either a Chinese or Flemish background. The emic

approach allows the researcher to understand the culture as an insider, while the etic

approach ensures that the researcher examine the school culture in an objective or

outsider point of view (Harris, 1976; Headland, Pike & Harris, 1990). Below we first

introduce the concept of school culture and the relevant features and research on

school culture in Chinese and Flemish schools. It is followed by a brief review of the

scales measuring school culture and the method of this research.

School culture

School culture is elusive and difficult to define. Schools are shaped by cultural

practices and values and reflect the norms of the society for which they have been

developed (Hollins, 1996). In contemporary literature, the terms school culture and

school climate have quite often been used (Freiberg & Stein, 1999; Hoy, Tarter, &

Kottkamp, 1991; Maslowski, 2006; Owens, 2001; Prosser, 1999). Some researchers

have argued about the differences and the levels of reference between the two terms

(Deal, 1993; Schoen & Teddlie, 2008; Van Houtte, 2005). In this research, we opt for

Page 4 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

5

the use of term “school culture”. Although there is a lack of consistent use and

definition of school culture, a commonly used definition of school culture is that it

refers to “the basic assumptions, norms and values, and cultural artifacts that are

shared by school members, which influence their functioning at school” (Maslowski,

2001; pp. 8-9). It refers to the way people perceive, think and feel about a school, for

example, the taken-for-granted values, the underlying assumptions, expectations

present in a school (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Erickson, 1987; Maslowski, 2001;

Peterson, 2002; Schein, 2004; Stoll, 1999; Stolp & Smith 1994). It is regarded as a

holistic entity that pervades and influences everyone within a school (Hargreaves,

1995; Maslowski, 2001; Stoll & Fink, 1995). In other words, school culture can be

considered as learned assumptions shared by group members (Schein, 1992), assumed

ways of doing things among communities of teachers who have had to deal with

similar demands and constraints over many years (Hargreaves, 1995).

With regard to cultural elements in schools, Schein (1985) classified school

culture into three levels. These three layers differ regarding their visibility within

schools and their consciousness among school members. The first level comprises

artifacts and practices relating to cultural manifestations and behaviour patterns of

organizational members. At the intermediate level in Schein’s classification are the

values. For example, teachers may consider respect for others important, or may value

collaboration with other staff members (Rossman, Corbett & Firestone, 1988). The

underlying level consists of basic assumptions, which constitute the essence of an

organization’s culture. The ‘deepest’, least tangible level of culture comprises the core

of school culture. MacNeil and Maclin (2005) argued that good schools depend on a

strong sense of purpose and leadership. In the Chinese school context, school culture

is often emphasized from three aspects by Chinese schools: the spiritual forming, the

Page 5 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

6

regulation of behaviours, and the construction of material (physical) school

environment and infrastructure. This corresponds to the three levels of school culture

classified by Schein.

The Flemish and Chinese school context and research on school culture

In the Flemish context, there were 2499 primary schools and 392761 pupils in

Flanders in the school year 2009/10 (Eurydice, 2011). The educational networks play

an important role in the educational system. Traditionally a distinction is made

between three types of educational networks: (1) community education organized

under the authority of Flemish Community by a public body, (2) publicly run schools

by municipal and provincial governments, and (3) subsidized privately run schools

mainly with a religious background and some of private initiatives. All schools

received government finances based essentially on the number of students enrolled.

The management of Flemish schools is decentralized (Vandenberghe et al., 2003).

Since the nineties the Flemish government has introduced several laws to promote

decentralization and deregulation, with a clear tendency to de-emphasize the role of

central administration (Vandenberghe et al., 2003). The school board of Flemish

schools (differs for the three educational networks, for example, the school board of

community schools are elected by the students' parents and the teachers) has a wide

range of autonomy with regard to school curriculum, management, regulations and

rules. The school board appoints a principal, who is responsible for the financial,

infrastructural and personnel management of the school. In Flemish schools,

principals play a very important role in managing the school and creating school

culture. The schools have an increasing level of autonomy which in turn demands for

high leadership competencies. The schools have the ‘freedom of education’, which

Page 6 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

7

means no involvement of the government in schools’ choice of educational methods

or curricula in order to meet attainment targets and developmental objectives.

Some previous studies have examined school culture characteristics in Flemish

primary schools from the dimensions of participation in decision making,

innovativeness, supportive leadership, structured leadership, cooperation between

teachers, and goal orientedness (Aelterman, et al., 2007; Devos et al. 2007; Engels et

al. 2008). For example, the study of Engels et al. (2008) studied the possible influence

of school culture on the well-being of principals. The research of Tondeur et al. (2008)

studied two school culture characteristics (goal orientations and innovation

orientations) as predictors for teachers’ educational computer use. However, in these

studies, the school culture dimensions were not directly used to depict the school

culture features of individual schools.

In China, there were 320 000 primary schools in 2010 and about 105 million

primary pupils in Chinese primary schools (Chinanews.com, 2012). Almost all

primary schools are public. The private primary schools are only about 1% of the total

number of primary schools. The schools are managed and mainly financed by the

central, provincial, municipal or county governments. Traditionally the schools should

follow the policies and regulations of the central or local government in a full range of

management and operations. The autonomy of education by schools is limited. Before

the Curriculum Reform started in China ten years ago, schools could not make or

change any curriculum plan made by the central or local government. During the

Curriculum Reform, some schools received a certain level of autonomy, for example

to set up experimental courses. The Education Bureau of the provincial, municipal or

county government appoints the principals. In recent years, the “principal

responsibility system” has authorized the principals more autonomy regarding

Page 7 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

8

personnel management, finance management, student enrollment, and other school

affairs. However, the practice of “principal responsibility system” is limited by a

number of other factors, such as the supervision by the Chinese Communist Party

Committee. In some cases, the principals are themselves the party secretary of the

school; and in other cases, the CPC party secretary supervises the school

management. The level of decision making by the school leaders should play under

this frame. In such a way, the level of “freedom” or full decision making of Chinese

principals is more constrained compared to the school principals in most western

countries.

In the Chinese context, the majority of research clusters culture in three levels,

namely the ideology level (e.g. value, ways of thinking, and beliefs), the (assumed)

behaviour level (e.g. behaviour code, ethics, customs, public opinion, practices), and

the material level (e.g. clothing, architecture, physical environment, classroom

setting). These conceptions are similar to the approach of Schein (1985). Although the

three levels of school culture are stressed at the theoretical level, Chinese scholars

have paid a lot of attention to the material and artifacts level of school culture

construction, such as school building, physical environment, pupil uniforms, images,

posters, visible school slogans and school anthem. Secondly, the school culture at the

behaviour level is also stressed, especially by establishing relevant rules and

regulations to promote and regulate certain activities. There are scarce empirical

studies available examining the deep implicit level of school culture. Zhu et. al. (2011)

conducted a case study of a school in Beijing on teacher perceptions of school culture.

The findings show that the school culture in the case study featured a rather high goal

orientation, innovativeness, and formal relations among teachers, whereas the level of

teacher participation in decision making and informal relations among teachers was

Page 8 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

9

relatively low. This case study, however, cannot depict the school culture features of

the huge number of Chinese schools. More empirical studies involving more schools

are necessary in order to better understand the school culture features of Chinese

schools.

Measuring School Culture

School culture is a multifaceted concept, composed of different dimensions (Devos et

al. 2007; Engels et al. 2008; Hoy and Tarter, 1997; Kruse & Louis, 2009; Maslowski,

2001; Staessens, 1990). School cultures can differ in many ways, and the

measurement of school culture also varies. The research of Phillips (1993) studied

school culture from three dimensions: task, process and relationships. The research of

Saphier and King (1985) measures school culture in the dimensions of collegiality

(professional collaboration), experimentation (exploring new teaching techniques),

high expectations, trust and confidence, tangible support, and reaching out to the

knowledge base. Gruenert and Valentine (1998) studied school culture in terms of

collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, collegial

support, unity of purpose, and learning partnership. Among these scholars, collegial

relationship, goals and collaboration are identified as key factors for school culture.

Other researchers (Handy & Aitkin, 1986) point out that the homogeneity of culture

should be considered. It refers to the extent in which basic assumptions, norms and

values as well as cultural artifacts are shared by the school staff. A culture is

homogeneous if (nearly) all staff members ascribe to the same assumptions, norms

and values. If they hold widely different assumptions, values and norms then the

culture is heterogeneous (Siskin, 1991).

Page 9 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

10

The study of Zhu et al (2011), Devos et al. (2007) and Engels et al. (2008)

examined school culture in five dimensions based on a synthesis of previous studies:

(a) Goal orientation reflect to what extent the school vision is clearly formulated and

shared by the school members (Staessens, 1990). (b) Participative decision-making

reflects to what extent teachers participate in the decision-making process at school

(Devos et al. 2007). (c) Innovativeness reflects to what extent school members adapt

themselves to change, and have an open attitude towards change (Maslowski, 2001).

(d) Leadership reflects to what extent the principal engages in supportive and/or

instructional behaviour (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). (e) Formal relationship reflects the

level of formal relations among teachers and staff (Staessens 1990; Hoy & Tarter

1997). These scales reflect the important dimensions of school culture identified in

previous research. In this research, we adopt these five dimensions of school culture

as they have been tested and validated in the Flemish and Chinese context

respectively (Devos et al., 2007; Engels et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2011). The five scales

constitute the School Culture Scales (SCS) in this study. The higher a school scores in

the five dimensions, the school culture is regarded as more positive.

As to the research methodology, both qualitative and quantitative methods have

their merits in studying school culture. Qualitative research is able to provide more

detailed description and deeper interpretation of some school cultures, whereas less

capable of obtain broader knowledge of school culture features among a larger

number of schools (e.g., Kelley & Bredeson, 1987; Owens, 2001). In this study, we

opt for a quantitative approach, which allows the examination of school culture

features among a larger number of schools.

Page 10 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

11

Research questions

This study addresses the following three main research questions:

(1) What are the school culture features of Chinese and Flemish schools with regard

to the School Culture Scales?

(2) Are there differences regarding school culture features within Flemish schools

and within Chinese schools?

(3) Are there differences regarding school culture features between Flemish and

Chinese schools?

Method

Participants

Forty-four primary schools in Flanders and 40 primary schools in China participated

in this study. The Flemish schools were selected using stratified random sampling

based on the ‘primary school database’, which is managed by the Flemish Department

of Education. The sample was stratified taking into account a representative sample of

the three different networks in Flemish education and the provinces in Flanders. In

total, 698 teachers from 44 Flemish schools participated in this study. Among the

Flemish sample schools, 20% were community schools, 26% were official subsidized

schools and 54% were freely subsidized schools. In the Flemish context, there is no

differentiation of rural or urban schools. The 40 Chinese schools were selected based

on quota sampling and convenience sampling. The researchers first identified several

stratums (schools in developed, developing and least-developed regions, rural and

urban schools). Then judgment and convenience sampling was used to select the

participating schools. Among the Chinese schools, 17% of the schools were from

developed (high GDP) regions, 36% of them were from developing (medium GDP),

and 47% were from underdeveloped (low GDP) regions. 57% of the schools were

Page 11 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

12

from urban areas and 43% of them were from rural areas. A total of 790 teachers

participated in this study.

Instrument

The School Culture Scales (SCS) include five scales: goal orientation, leadership,

participative decision making, innovation orientation, and formal relationships. The

sample items of the scales include: All teachers work together to accomplish our

school goals (Goal orientation); At our school teachers have a positive attitude

towards innovations (Innovation orientation); In our school the director discusses

with the staff members before important decisions are made (Participative decision

making); The principal/director goes out of his/her way to help teachers (Supportive

leadership); Among colleagues, we work together to find new and different methods

(Formal relationships). Respondents were asked to think about their school and to

indicate to what extent a statement characterizes their school on a 5-point Likert scale

(1=completely not true or strongly disagree; 5=very true or strongly agree). The

instrument was used in Dutch and Chinese separately. The Dutch version of the

questionnaire has been used in previous studies (Devos et al., 2007; Engels et al.

2008). The Chinese version of the questionnaire has been tested in a previous study in

the Chinese context (Zhu et al., 2011). Furthermore, teacher demographic and school

background variables were also included. The paper version of the instrument was

sent to a school staff who agreed to be the contact person for this research in each

school. The questionnaire was then distributed to all available teachers within the

schools during the research period. The number of teachers who returned the

questionnaire was on average 78% of the overall staff number of the schools. Except

for sending reminders to the teachers, there were no specific measures taken for the

non-responses as the questionnaires were anonymous. The questionnaires were

Page 12 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

13

collected by the contact person from the schools and sent back to the researcher by

regular mails.

Data Analysis

First of all, the data normality was analyzed and confirmed by checking the histogram

and conducting the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. This provides a basis for the

following statistical analyses. As the School Culture Scales have been tested in

relevant previous studies in the Flemish and Chinese context, we opted for

Confirmatory Factor Analysis in this study. Multi-group Confirmatory Factor

Analyses were conducted to test the validity of the instrument across the two contexts.

Multi-group confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis is a most commonly

used scale-level technique to evaluate measurement invariance of a test across

different groups. The literature suggests that observed means (or latent means) are

comparable only when measurement invariance can be established (Drasgow &

Kanfer, 1985). Reliability analyses were also applied for all scales. In order to

examine whether the data from teachers can be aggregated to the school level, the

Within Group Agreement analyses were conducted. As suggested by Biemann, Cole

and Voelpel (2011), both interrater agreement, i.e., rWG-based indices and interrater

reliability, i.e., Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICCs) statistics should be examined

to provide a form of “psychometric checks and balances” concerning interrater

similarity. The correlations among the scales of SCS were analyzed. ANOVA tests

were conducted to analyze the between-group and within-group variances of the

school culture dimensions among the Flemish and Chinese schools. Data analyses

were conducted using SPSS 18.0 and AMOS.

Page 13 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

14

Results

Reliability and validity of the SCS

Confirmatory factor analysis was first conducted with the Flemish and Chinese

datasets separately. The initial models were in an acceptable range (x2/df <3, GFI>.90,

RMSEA<.07). However, the Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analyses showed that

the Structural covariances model was not very satisfactory, as a multi-group CFA

requires much higher goodness-of-fit compared to separate CFA for one group to

reach the equivalence of measurement weights and structural covariance models.

Modifications of the model were made based on the modification indexes. The

modified model resulted in five items for the scale of goal orientation, five items for

the scale of leadership, four items for innovation orientation, three items for

participative decision making, and four items for formal relationships. The final

model showed a satisfactory model fit (Figure 1 and Figure 2). As a result, the

Measurement weights and Structural covariances models were satisfactory, indicating

that the final model displayed measurement invariance, and group comparisons on the

variables were justified. The SCS items are presented in Appendix 1.

<Insert Figure 1 about here>

<Insert Figure 2 about here>

The reliability of the scales were analyzed and reported in Table 1. The

Cronbach’s α value for the Flemish group was between .74 and .86 and between .72

and .91 for the Chinese group.

<Insert Table 1 about here>

Page 14 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

15

Aggregation of data and within-group agreement analysis results

By using the Tool for Computing Interrater Agreement and Interrater Reliability

Estimates (Biemann, Cole & Voelpel, 2011), the reliability within group rWG(J)s and

ICCs indexes were analyzed and reported in Table 2. The results indicate there were

high agreements in terms of the dimensions of school culture, with a mean rWG(J) of

0.86 (ranging from 0.76 to 0.90) for the Flemish schools, and a mean rWG(J) of 0.79

(ranging from 0.71 to 0.82) for the Chinese schools. In this study, the rWG(J) was used

as it estimates the within-group agreement for multi-item measures while the rWG

estimates the within-group agreement for a single item. The results show that it is

justifiable to aggregate these data to the school level. In the literature, it is advised

that the rWG equals to or is greater than 0.70 (cf. Lance et al., 2006), and ICC(1)

values exceeding 0.05 (Bliese, 2000) is considered sufficient to warrant aggregation.

ICC(1) and ICC(2) are intraclass correlation coefficients (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). The

ICC(1) demonstrates the amount of variance in a variable that is attributable to group

membership. ICC(2) assesses the reliability of the group-level means, indicating how

reliably the aggregate-mean rating across group members distinguishes between

groups (Bliese, 2000). Based on these results, we conclude that it is statistically

appropriate to assess the school culture scales as group-level variables.

<Insert Table 2 about here>

School culture features of Flemish and Chinese schools

Correlations among the SCS scales were analyzed for the Flemish and Chinese

schools (Table 3). The correlations among the SCS scales were significant for all

variables (p<.01), except for the correlation between participative decision making

Page 15 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

16

and formal relations for the Chinese group. The results show that most correlations

were shared among the Flemish and Chinese schools.

<Insert Table 3 about here>

The means and standard deviations of the SCS scales were calculated for the

Flemish and Chinese schools. ANOVA tests show that the between-group variances

were larger than the within-group variances in four dimensions of SCS, indicating that

the Flemish schools and Chinese schools differed significantly in four of the five

school culture dimensions (Table 1). The results show that compared to the Chinese

schools, the Flemish schools scored higher in leadership (F=25.08, p<.001),

innovation orientation (F=5.94, p<.05), participative decision making (F=18.65,

p<.01), and formal relationship among teachers (F=8.51, p<.01). However, the

Flemish and Chinese school seemed to not differ significantly with regard to the

dimension of goal orientation (F= 2.49, p>.05).

The tests of homogeneity of variances in ANOVA (Levene’s Test) show that the

variances of the two groups were not significantly different (with a p value range

from .134 to .796 for the five dimensions). The assumption of homogeneity of

variances justified the comparison of means of the two groups. However, by

comparing the standard deviations of the scales, we found that compared to the

Chinese schools, the Flemish schools were relatively more heterogeneous with regard

to the dimensions of goal orientations and formal collegial relationships; while the

Chinese schools were more heterogeneous with regard to the dimensions of leadership,

innovation orientation, and participative decision making. In other words, although

not to a significant level, there were relatively larger variations with regard to goal

orientation and formal relations among the Flemish schools, whereas there were larger

Page 16 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

17

variations with regard to leadership, innovation orientation and participative decision

making among the Chinese schools.

In addition, ANOVA tests were conducted comparing the Chinese urban and

rural schools. The results show that there were no significant differences between

urban and rural schools in the school culture dimensions except the dimension of

participative decision making, in which the urban schools reported a higher level of

participative decision making compared to the rural schools (p<.05). ANOVA tests

were also conducted in order to compare the Chinese schools situated in the high GDP

region, the middle level GDP and the low GDP regions. The results show that there

were significant differences among the schools in the high, middle and low GDP

regions. Post-hoc analyses show that the schools in the three regions differed

significantly in the five dimensions of school culture, with the schools in the high

GDP region reported the highest in three of the five dimensions (goal orientation,

leadership and innovation orientation); the schools in the low GDP region scored

higher in the dimension of formal relationship than the schools in the middle level of

GDP; the schools in the middle level of GDP region scored the lowest in the

dimension of participative decision making and formal relationship. Furthermore, the

means of the Flemish schools were compared to the mean scores of the Chinese

schools in the high GDP regions, as the material infrastructure gap is relatively less

big compared to those schools in the low GDP regions. The results show that the

scores of two scales of the SCS were significantly different. The Flemish schools

scored higher regarding supportive leadership and participative decision making

(p<.05). The scores regarding the other three dimensions (goal orientation, innovation

orientation and formal relationships) were not significantly different.

Page 17 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

18

ANOVA analyses were conducted to compare the three educational networks of

Flemish schools, namely freely subsidized schools, publically subsidized schools and

community schools. The results show that there were no significant differences

among the three types of schools with regard to two dimensions of school culture,

goal orientation and leadership (p>.05). Differences were found with regard to the

dimensions of innovation orientation (F=5.91, p<.01), participative decision making

(F=3.62, p<.05) and formal relationships (F=4.55, p<.05). Post-hoc analyses show

that community schools scored higher with regard to innovation orientation,

participative decision making and formal relationships compared to the freely

subsidized schools (p<.05). No significant differences were found between

community schools and publically subsidized schools (p>.05).

Discussion

Cross-cultural validation of the SCS

This research focused on examining and analyzing school culture features of Chinese

and Flemish schools. First, we opted for a quantifiable approach in order to conduct

the research in a relatively large scale. The ICC analyses indicate that it was

justifiable to analyze the school culture scales at the school level. Some previous

studies have attempted to measure teacher perceptions of school culture (Sahin, 2011;

Zhu et al. 2011), however, very few studies analyzed specific school culture features

at the school level. Therefore, this research makes a significant contribution in the

field of studying school culture by analyzing the school culture features at the

organizational level.

The School Culture Scales were slightly modified in order to achieve

measurement and structural equivalence between the two groups. The modified model

Page 18 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

19

was satisfactory and thus justified to measure the school culture characteristics in

Chinese and Flemish schools. Cross-cultural validation of an instrument is essential

when data from cross-cultural groups are to be compared. As Fisher and Wallace

(2000) point out, an instrument needs to be subject to rigorous standards of

measurement equivalence to ensure that the desired psychological constructs are

properly measured.

School culture features of Flemish and Chinese primary schools

Hinde (2002) stated that School culture is a pervasive element of schools, yet it is

elusive and difficult to define. Several researchers have attempted to operationalize

the cultural factors within schools (e.g. Cheng, 1996; Heck & Marcoulides, 1996;

Maslowski, 2001). The results show that based on the measurement in this study,

differences were found between Flemish and Chinese schools regarding the school

culture dimensions, namely leadership, innovation orientation, participative decision

making and formal relationships. By analyzing the school culture dimensions between

Flemish schools and Chinese schools in high GDP regions, two dimensions differed

significantly, namely leadership and participative decision making. These results

seem to indicate that the Flemish sample schools are more supportive and democratic

compared to the Chinese schools involved in this study. As to the lower level of

participative decision making among Chinese schools, this seems to be not surprising

as previous studies emphasized that in collectivist cultures, authoritarian and

hierarchical structure was more dominant (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003; Sinangil, 2004).

This can have an influence on the level of democratic involvement and shared

decision-making among school members. The research of Zhu, Devos and Li (2011)

also found that teacher participation in decision-making in a Chinese school was

Page 19 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

20

relatively lower compared to other school culture features. In the Chinese school

context, there are mechanisms that staff members can participate in discussion of

school affairs. Staff members can vote or express their opinions during staff meetings

or staff representative meetings. But the real implementation and practice of staff

participation in decision making is an issue. With regard to the formal relationships

among teachers, previous research argued that eastern societies have a tradition of

collaborative structure and close relationships (Baltas, 2001; Celik, 2002). In this

research, the Flemish schools scored higher in this dimension, indicating a relatively

more positive collegial relationship among the Flemish teachers than among the

Chinese teachers. This might be related to the competition and pressure of rigid

examination systems in Chinese schools, where the competition atmosphere could

sometimes surpass the collaboration culture (Zhu, Valcke & Schellens, 2010). The

research of Zhu et al. (2011) on a Chinese school pointed out that unsound collegial

relationship in Chinese schools has become a problem due to high work load,

stringent administration, social and economic pressure, and sometimes competition.

The leadership score of Chinese schools was also lower than that of the Flemish

schools. A possible explanation can be that because of the bigger power distance

between principals and teachers in Chinese schools, often teachers can get more direct

support from their immediate upper level leaders, instead of support from the

principals. There were also greater variations among the Chinese schools, indicating

an unbalanced situation among the schools in different regions or development stages.

The findings seem to suggest that the economic status of the region has an impact on

school culture characteristics. When the economic status is considered, the differences

in innovation-orientation and collegial relationships in schools seem to be less

significant among the two groups. This shows that the economic development level of

Page 20 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

21

the macro environment may have an impact on the innovation-orientation of the

schools. However, it has to be noted that in this study, the economic development

level is only on relatively terms, as the per capita GDP in Flanders is much higher

than the developed (eastern) region in China.

Compared to the Flemish schools, the Chinese schools were relatively more

heterogeneous with regard to leadership, innovation orientation and participative

decision making among the schools. This indicates that among the Chinese schools,

differences were rather big, especially between urban and rural schools and among

schools in different regions. Results of this research indicate that schools in high GDP

regions have a relatively more positive culture than schools in the lower GDP regions

in the Chinese context. However, the schools in the lowest GDP regions were more

positive regarding collegial relationship compared to the schools in the middle level

GDP regions. Regarding the urban and rural differences, urban schools in China are

often better off than rural schools in terms of getting government money, availability

of better teachers, better infrastructure and resources such as books. The children in

urban areas generally come from families that are better off than their rural

counterparts. As a result, urban schools, especially schools in major cities also

typically produce students with higher academic achievement, especially with

stronger math and science skills. Among the Flemish schools, social equality and

cultural diversity should be safeguarded according to the decrees of the Flemish

government. All schools have the freedom to organize education and parents have the

freedom of choice for schools. However, traditionally schools compete for quality,

students and resources. Therefore, in reality there are differences among schools in

terms of quality of teachers or students. In addition, sometimes there are conflicts

Page 21 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

22

arise between ‘freedom to organize education’ and parents’ freedom of choice (Suijs,

2004).

The results suggest that the Flemish schools were relatively homogeneous with

regard to their school culture features, and the differences between the Flemish and

Chinese schools were larger than the within culture differences. This gives support to

the argument of Walker and Dimmock (2002) that school culture is part of the broader

systematic, local and national cultural framework. It can be influenced by the broader

national culture characteristics such as power distance and individualism. Therefore,

the macro-level factors have an influence on school culture features.

Limitations and future research

First of all, the samples of the schools were limited. For example, the Chinese sample

schools may give some indications about the features of some schools in different

regions, but the schools were not random samples of all Chinese schools as the

numbers are so big and the actual numbers of schools are changing every year.

Statistics showed that the Chinese primary schools reduced by half during the last ten

years (Yuan, 2011). Secondly, we note that this research has limitations by using

quantitative tools only to assess some aspects of school culture. For example, for the

scale of leadership, there can be different situations among schools, as well as

different leadership styles among Chinese and Flemish principals. Adopting a

qualitative approach may be able to identify more aspects of the differences than

using pre-defined scales. Rousseau (1990) argued that combining quantitative tools

and qualitative methods such as structured interviews allow a better understanding of

organizational culture. Because organizational culture is a multi-layered phenomenon,

different data gathering approaches may be necessary to assess the various layers of

Page 22 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

23

organizational culture (Rousseau, 1990). In future research, group interviews and

intensive individual interviews could be used in order to have a deeper understanding

of the comprehensive school culture. Thirdly, although the scales used in this study

have already been validated in the Chinese and Flemish context, it does not mean

there are no other school cultural characteristics that can be interesting to be examined

among the schools. Future studies can try to measure school culture features with

other scales, such as time for collaboration, encouragement of innovation, cultural

strength, productivity and accomplishment orientation and efficiency orientation

(Cheng, 1996; Maslowski, 2001). The current study reflects some important

dimensions of school culture, but cannot depict the complete picture of the school

cultures. Furthermore, school culture is not a static entity. It is constantly being

constructed and shaped through interactions with others (Finnan, 2000; Hollins, 1996).

Therefore, the differences identified between the Flemish and Chinese schools and

among themselves cannot be viewed from a static point of view. In future studies, it

would be interesting to re-examine the school culture features after a certain period of

time, especially in those schools that are under reform or innovation programmes or

making efforts to change. Understanding the change of school culture and its possible

effect on school development would be interesting for the school policy makers.

Implications and conclusion

This study has extended prior work by analyzing school culture features at the school

level and from two different educational and cultural contexts. The findings of the

present research have important theoretical and practical implications. From the

theoretical perspective, the School Culture Scales are validated across the two cultural

contexts and revealed important aspects of school culture features of Chinese and

Page 23 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

24

Flemish primary schools. The similarities and differences revealed in this research

suggest that school culture features can indeed differentiate schools in terms of

leadership, innovation orientation, participation in decision making and formal

relationships. Furthermore, the macro environment, such as the economic status of the

school region, also has an impact on the school culture features, especially on the

innovation orientation of schools.

School culture is an integral component of the school improvement process. It

affects decisions throughout all phases of that process. In turn, it is affected by the

decisions made in all phases of the process. Previous research has argued that in many

cases it is the culture that needs to be changed if true school improvement is to occur

(Deal, 1985; Harris, 2002; Hopkins, 2001). By examining the school culture features,

leaders of school improvement processes can utilize the information gained through

the assessment of school culture to help guide each phase of the change process, from

determining the school’s readiness for change to selecting the types of improvements

most likely to be compatible with the organization’s culture. The findings of this

study may provide some insights about the current situation of the sample schools,

which can be helpful for forming recommendations for school culture construction

and improving school practices.

In conclusion, this research attempted to understand some aspects of school

culture in the Flemish and Chinese context involving a relatively large number of

schools. This is very valuable to increase our understanding of the school culture

features in these contexts. A comparative perspective can make us be better informed

and better prepared for future prospects. Findings of this research also give some

indication of school culture features in different regions and of different backgrounds

in terms of goals, participation, collaboration, innovation and collegiality in schools.

Page 24 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

25

Over time, the insights gained in this research, especially from the comparative

perspective, can help schools to shape and develop school cultures that are supportive

of educational change and school improvement.

References

Aelterman, A., Engels, N., Van Petegem, K. & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2007). The well-

being of teachers in Flanders: The importance of a supportive school culture.

Educational Studies, (33) 3, 285-298.

Baltas, A. (2001). Toward future from changing: Team working and Leadership (2nd

ed.). Istanbul: Remzi Publications.

Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2011). Within-group agreement: On the use

(and misuse) of rwg and rwg(j) in leadership research and some best practice

guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly. in press.

Bliese, P (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K.

Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.) Multi-level theory, research, and methods in

organizations. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass (pp.349-381).

Cameron, K. & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.

Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Celik, V. (2002). School culture and management (2nd ed.). Ankara: Pegem

publications.

Cheng, Y.C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based management: A

mechanism for development, London, U.K.: The Falmer Press, pp.1-203.

Chinanews.com (2012). The number of rural primary schools reduced by half in ten

years. Retrieved from http://www.chinanews.com/edu/2011/12-30/3572269.shtml

Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,

Rosenbloom, D. & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A

longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 377-392.

Dalin, P. (1998). School Development -Theories and Strategies. London: Continuum .

Dalin, P., Rolff, H.G. & Kleekamp, B. (1993). Changing the School Culture. London:

Cassell .

Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (1999). Shaping School Culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Deal, T. E. (1985). Cultural change: Opportunity, silent killer, or metamorphosis? In

R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds)., Gaining control of the corporate

culture (pp. 292-331). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Devos, G. Verhoeven, J.C., Beuselinck, I., Van den Broeck, H. and Vandenberghe, R.

(1999), De Rol van Schoolbesturen in het Schoolmanagement, Garant,

Leuven/Apeldoorn.

Devos, G., Bouckenooghe, D., Engels, N., Hotton, G. & Aelterman, A. (2007). An

assessment of well-being of principals in Flemish primary schools. Journal of

Educational Administration, (45), 1, 33-61.

Donahoe, T. (1997). Finding the way: structure, time, and culture in school

improvement. In M. Fullan (Ed.) The challenge of school change. Illinois:

Skylight Training and Publishing.

Page 25 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

26

Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985). Equivalence of psychological measurement in

heterogeneous populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 662-680.

Du, G. (2010). Dimensions of School Organizational Culture. Higher Education

Forum (Gao Jiao Luntan) (Chinese), 98-104.

Engels, N., Hotton, G., Devos, G, Bouckenooghe, D. & Aelterman, A. (2008).

Principals in Schools with a positive School Culture, Educational Studies, 34 (3),

159-174.

Erickson, F. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 11-24.

Eurydice (2011). Organisation of the education system in the Flemish Community of

Belgium (2009/2010). Eurydice report. Retrieved on 10 September 2011 from

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/eurybase_full_r

eports/BN_EN.pdf

Evans, R. (2001). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-

life problems of innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Finnan, C. (2000). Implementing school reform models: Why is it so hard for some

schools and easy for others? Paper presented at the meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Fisher, C. B., & Wallace, S. A. (2000). Through the community looking glass: Re-

evaluating the ethical and policy implications of research on adolescent risk and

psychopathology. Ethics & Behaviour, 10, 99–118.

Freiberg, H.J. & Stein, T.A. (1999). Measuring, improving, and sustaining healthy

learning environments. In H.J. Freiberg (Ed.) School climate: measuring,

improving, and sustaining learning environments (pp. 11-29). Philadelphia:

Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.

Gruenert, S. & Valentine, J. (1998), School culture survey, Middle Level Leadership

Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and

potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Handy, Ch., & Aitken, R. (1986). Understanding Schools as Organizations.

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Hargreaves, D. (1995). School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(1), 23-46.

Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts, School

Leadership & Management, 22, 1, 15–26.

Harris, M. (1976). History and Significance of the Emic/Etic Distinction, Annual

Review of Anthropology, 5, 329–350.

Headland, T.; Pike, K.; Harris, M. (eds) (1990). Emics and Etics: The

Insider/Outsider Debate, Sage.

Heck, R.H., & Marcoulides, G.A. (1996). School Culture and Performance: Testing

the Invariance of an Organizational Model. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 7 (1), 76-95.

Hollins, E. (1996). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning. New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. Harper

Collins Publishers. London.

Page 26 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

27

Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Hoy, W., Tarter, J. & Kottkamp, B. (1991). Open school / healthy schools: Measuring

organizational climate. London: Sage.

Hoy, W. & Tarter, J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for

change, Elementary Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Jiang, Y.S. & Zhao, M. (2000). School Administration. Guangdong Higher Education

Publishing.

Kelley, B.E., & Bredeson, P.V. (1987). Principals as Symbol Managers: Measures of

Meaning in Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA,

Washington.

Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Genkova, P., Krumov, K., Kanagawa, C.,

Hirshberg, M. S., et al. (2003). Individualism, collectivism, and authoritarianism

in seven societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 304–322.

Krueger, J.P. & Parish, R. (1982). We're making the same mistakes: Myth and legend

in school improvement. Planning and Changing, 13(3), pp. 131-140.

Kruse, S. D. & Louis, K. S. (2009) Building strong school cultures: a guide to leading

change. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Law, W.-W. (2009). Culture and school leadership in China: Exploring school

leaders' views of relationship- and rule-based governance, in Alexander W.

Wiseman (ed.) Educational Leadership: Global Contexts and International

Comparisons (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 11),

Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.303-341.

Leithwood, K & Louis K.S. (2002). Organizational learning in schools. Lisse, NL:

Swets and Zeitlinger.

Levine, D.U. (1991). Creating effective schools: Findings and implications from

research and practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), pp. 389-393.

Lindahl, R. A. (2006). The role of organizational climate and culture in the school

improvement process: A review of the knowledge base. Education Leadership

Review, 7(1), 19-29.

Liu, J.B. (2011). Improving behaviour: a new way of school culture construction.

Chinese Basic Education, 2, 25-29.

MacNeil, A., & Maclin, V. (2005). Building a Learning Community: The Culture and

Climate of Schools. Retrieved 1 November 2011 from the Connexions Web site:

http://cnx.org/content/m12922/1.2/

Maslowski R. (2001). School Culture and School Performance: An Explorative Study

into the Organizational Culture of Secondary Schools and Their Effects. Twente

University Press, Twente.

Maslowski R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal

of Educational Administration, 44 (1), 6-35.

Owens, R.G. (2001). Organizational behaviour in education: Instructional leadership

and school reform. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Patterson, J.L., Purkey, S.C., & Parker, J.V. (1986). Productive school systems for a

nonrational world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Peterson, K. & Deal T. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools.

Educational Leadership, 56 (1), 28-30.

Peterson, K. (2002). Positive: A school’s culture is always at work, either helping or

hindering adult learning. Here’s how to see it, assess it, and change it for the

better. Journal of Staff Development, 23(3), 10-14.

Page 27 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

28

Phillips, G. (1993). The school-classroom culture audit. Vancouver, B.C. Eduserv,

British Columbia School Trustees Publishing.

Prosser, J. (1999). The evolution of school culture research. In J. Prosser (Ed.), School

culture (pp.1 – 14). London: Paul Chapman.

Rossman, G., Corbett, D. & Firestone, W. (1988). Change and effectiveness in

schools: A cultural perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.

Rousseau, D. (1990). Assessing organizational culture: The case for multiple

methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 153 –

192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sahin, S. (2011). An aspect on the school culture in Turkey and the United States.

Asia Pacific Education Review. 12 (4), 593–607.

Sammons, P., Hillman, L. and Mortimore, P. (1995) Key Characteristics of Effective

Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness Research. London: Institute of

Education.

Saphier, J. & King,M. (1985). Good Seeds Grow in Strong Cultures. Educational

Leadership, 42 (6), 67-74.

Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Schoen, L. T. & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: a response to a

call for conceptual clarity, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19 (2),

129 -153.

Shrout, P., & J. Fleiss (1979). Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater

Reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420-428.

Sinangil, H. K. (2004). Globalisation and managing organizational culture change:

The case of Turkey. Psychology Developing Societies, 16(1), 27–40.

Siskin, L.S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary

schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17 (2), 134-160.

Slater, C. L., Boone, M., Price, L., & Martinez, D. (2002). A crosscultural

investigation of leadership in the United States and Mexico. School Leadership &

Management, 22(2), 197–209.

Staessens, K. (1990). The professional culture in elementary schools in Flanders. An

empirical study in reformed primary education. Dissertation. Katholieke

Universiteit Leuven.

Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1995). Changing our Schools. Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Stoll, L. (1999). School Culture: Black Hole or Fertile Garden for School

Improvement? in Prosser, J. (ed.) School Culture, London: Paul Chapman.

Suijs, S. (2004). Managing social and cultural diversity in Flemish primary schools.

CESE 2004 Conference, Copenhagen, June 24-July 1.

Tondeur, J., Devos, G., Van Houtte, M., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2009).

Understanding organisational and cultural school characteristics in relation to

educational change: The case of ICT integration. Educational Studies, 35 (2),

223-235.

Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to

determinants of computer use in primary education: teacher and school

characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 494-506.

Page 28 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

29

Vandenberghe, R., Daniëls, K., Dierynck, R. and Joris, C. (2003), Starting principals

in primary schools: An investigation on the professional development of school

leaders, Leuven University Press, Leuven.

Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture? A plea for conceptual clarity in school

effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 71-

89.

Walker, A. & Dimmock, C. (2002). School Leadership and Administration: Adopting

a cultural perspective. New York: Routledge-Falmer.

Zhu, C., Devos, G. & Li, Y. (2011). Teacher perceptions of school culture and their

organizational commitment and well-being in a Chinese school. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 12 (2), 319-328.

Zhu, C., Valcke, M. & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of teacher

perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative learning in

higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (2), 147-165.

Page 29 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

30

Table 1. Reliability of the School Culture Scales (SCS) and ANOVA tests comparing

the means of Flemish and Chinese schools

School Culture

Scales

Flemish schools

(n=44)

Chinese schools

(n=40)

F Sig.

α M SD α M SD

GO .81 3.70 .47 .72 3.43 .47 2.49 .077

LS .87 4.02 .43 .91 3.22 .55 25.08 .000***

IO .74 3.90 .35 .85 3.57 .42 5.94 .018*

PDM .80 3.78 .43 .82 3.05 .61 18.65 .000**

FR .86 3.80 .35 .74 3.45 .27 8.51 .005**

*p < .05, **p<.01, ***p <.001

Table 2. Within-group agreement index of School Culture Scales of Chinese and

Flemish schools

rWG(J).uniform rWG(J).measure-specific

Measure Mean SD Shape S²E Mean SD F ratio ICC(1) ICC(2)

GO FL 0.88 0.16 Normal 1.04 0.78 0.20 19.24*** 0.54 0.95

CN 0.82 0.12 Normal 1.04 0.54 0.32 6.60** 0.14 0.85

LS FL 0.90 0.15 Slight skew 1.34 0.79 0.26 18.16*** 0.53 0.94

CN 0.76 0.28 Slight skew 1.34 0.48 0.46 7.30** 0.15 0.86

IO FL 0.90 0.15 Moderate skew 0.90 0.82 0.20 19.80*** 0.55 0.95

CN 0.82 0.17 Moderate skew 0.90 0.61 0.30 6.63** 0.14 0.85

PDM FL 0.76 0.24 Normal 1.04 0.61 0.29 17.15*** 0.51 0.94

CN 0.71 0.32 Normal 1.04 0.19 0.32 9.53** 0.20 0.90

FR FL 0.88 0.14 Slight skew 1.34 0.74 0.23 19.54*** 0.54 0.95

CN 0.82 0.26 Moderate skew 0.90 0.58 0.37 2.79** 0.05 0.64

Notes. ICC=Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. rWG=within-group interrater reliability. rWG(J) is reported because multi-item measures were used. SD = standard deviation of rWG(J) values; shape = shape of an alternative null distribution; S²E = variance of an alternative null

distribution. FL=Flemish schools, CN= Chinese schools

GO=Goal orientation, SL= Supportive leadership, IO= Innovation orientation, PDM=

Participative decision making, FR= Formal relationships (Collaboration among members).

**p < .01, ***p <.001

Page 30 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

31

Table 3. Correlations among the scales of SCS of Chinese and Flemish schools.

GO SL IO PDM FR

GO .47** .52** .48** .51**

S .48** .48** .66** .36**

IO .68** .69** .49** .50**

PDM .46** .58** .58** .41**

FR 37** .32** .29** .18

Correlations for Flemish schools are presented above the diagonal, and correlations

for Chinese schools are presented below the diagonal.

**p<.01

Page 31 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

32

Figure 1. Confirmative Factor Analysis of SCS for Flemish samples

GO!

X2/df= 2.11, GFI= .94, AGFI=.91, CFA=.95, RMSEA=.049

.57

Goal

Orientation

Leadership

Participative

decision making

GO2

GO4

GO5

GO6

SL1

SL2

SL4

SL5

Innovation

orientation IO3

IO1

IO6

IO4

PDM1

PDM2

PDM3

Formal

relationships

FR5

FR6

FR1

.45

.65

.45

.41

.66

.49

.53

.43

.40

.41

.31

.30

.50

.51

.22

.45

.30

.37

FR7

.32

SL6

.38

Page 32 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

33

Figure 2. Confirmative Factor Analysis of SCS for Chinese samples

X2/df= 2.50, GFI= .91, AGFI=.90, CFA=.94, RMSEA=.061

.70

GO!

Goal

Orientation

Leadership

Participative

decision making

GO2

GO4

GO5

GO6

SL1

SL2

SL4

SL5

Innovation

orientation IO3

IO1

IO6

IO4

PDM1

PDM2

PDM3

Formal

relationships

FR5

FR6

FR1

.24

.61

.48

.54

.20

.21

.20

.33

.28

.39

.37

.29

.46

.45

.49

.65

.60

.61

FR7

.48

SL5

.41

Page 33 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

34

Appendix 1. The School Culture Scales (SCS)

School Culture Scales

Goal orientation

All teachers work together to accomplish our school goals.

Our school team is enthusiastic.

Everybody here walks the same line.

Teachers support our school goals.

Not all teachers have the same opinion of what is important for our school.

Supportive leadership

The principal/director goes out of his/her way to help teachers.

The principal/director complements teachers.

The principal/director explains his/her reason for criticism to teachers.

The principal/director is available after school to help teachers when assistance is needed.

The principal/director uses constructive criticism.

Participative decision making

In our school, the principal/director discusses with the staff members before important

decisions are made.

In our school the staff members can be involved in the decision making process, such as

giving suggestions for policy proposals.

In our school the director stimulates staff members to take initiatives.

Innovation orientation

At our school teachers have a positive attitude towards innovations.

At our school teachers are expected to have an innovative attitude.

Teachers at our school are expected to try something new in teaching and learning activities.

At our school we expect all staff to have a flexible attitude towards change and innovations.

Formal relationships

Among colleagues, we work together to find new and different methods for teaching and

learning.

Consulting with colleagues means a great support for me.

In order to do better for my work, I work a lot with colleagues together.

My colleagues ask me what I am currently working in my class.

Page 34 of 34

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/emal

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960