The Foundation for Democracy: School Climate Reform and Prosocial Education Free

The foundation for democracy is education. A democratic society is more than just the institution of government. It is a way of living together, of learning to cooperatively agree and disagree nonviolently, a social contract that supports an appreciation of diversity and of coming to support one another for the good of the whole. In this sense, democracy demands of its people the social, emotional, and civic skills and ethical dispositions as well as cognitive capacities to constructively participate in a democratic society. Children learn the skills, knowledge, and dispositions that support an engaged citizenry in our homes, neighborhoods, and in our K-12 schools. And, the vast majority of parents and educators want K-12 schooling to be places and processes where our children learn to become responsible citizens (Rose & Gallop, 2000). This was an organizing idea for Adams, Jefferson, and our “Founding Fathers,” that American public education would enable citizens to partake in and further our democracy (Cohen, 2006). My colleagues and I have suggested that the skills, knowledge and dispositions outlined in Table 1 represent the essential “building blocks” of an engaged citizen (Cohen et al., 2010; Torney-Puta & Vermeer, 2004). My suggestions in Table 1 grow out of this set of understandings about the purpose or goal of K-12 education: to provide the foundation for an engaged citizenry and democracy.

Educational research shows that learning social, emotional, civic skills, and dispositions that overlap with abilities outlined in Table 1 promote general success in schooling and in life. First, these social, emotional and civic competencies/dispositions are predictive of students’ ability to learn and solve problems nonviolently (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005; Brown, Corrigian, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2012; Cohen, 2006; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). These are the same competencies that provide the foundation for healthy adult personal and professional relationships (Cohen, 2006). Furthermore, educational research has shown that when schools work to (1) intentionally teach students to become more socially, emotionally, and civically competent and ethically able and inclined, and, when we (2) systemically work to create safe, caring, participatory schools, academic achievement increases and school violence decreases over a 3 to 5 year period (Cohen, 2012; Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004).

In essence, Lapsley’s article (this issue) summarizes psychological, social, and biological understandings about the transition into adolescence and young adulthood. My understandings of children’s development are aligned with and support Lapsley’s integrative “developmental systems perspective” about the complexity of biopsychosocial forces that shape our lives over time. Lapsley’s understandings lead him to suggest two essential educational goals. First, that helpful character education needs to comprehensively address “overlapping ecological contexts, be implemented early and sustained over time” (Lapsley, this issue, p. 19). Second, effective character education is “embedded in overlapping systems of influence that include family, peers, and neighborhood” rather than “an intervention or a curriculum” alone (Lapsley, this issue, p. 19).

Practically, how can educational policy and educational leaders support a process of learning and improvement for students that appreciate the incredible variation in developmental and learning abilities, neighborhoods, and larger systems across America? Lapsley (this issue) concludes with the notion that “What adolescents need is at least one good relationship with a caring adult in the family or community, the development of cognitive and self-regulation skills, a positive view of the self and a sense of one’s mastery and effectiveness” (p. 20). As I will outline below, I believe that there are research-based understandings and guidelines that recognize, coordinate, and further ecologically informed school wide, instructional, and one-on-one improvement goals (Cohen, 2012).

There is compelling evidence of a growing divide between the rich and the poor (Saez, 2012). We know this divide begins in the first years of children’s lives—the upper middle and upper class are able to provide education and support to their offspring that has life-long consequences (Reardon, 2011). And, there is clearly a range of laws and policies that support this growing gap between rich and poor (e.g., housing segregation, exclusionary zoning laws) (Rothstein, 2012, 2013).

Here I will suggest that school climate reform is a scientifically sound, ecologically informed school improvement strategy that is aligned with and supports prosocial education (character education and social-emotional learning) and the overlapping, ecologically informed systems of influence (family, peers, and neighborhood) that Lapsley’s (this issue) democratically informed “contextualist perspective” recommends. School climate refers to the quality and character of school life (National School Climate Council, 2007). As can be seen in Table 2, an effective school climate improvement process engages students, parents/guardians, school personnel and even community members in a meaningful, democratically informed process of learning and coleadership.

Echoing Lapsley’s “contextualist perspective” I suggest that it is essential that we understand how systemic processes shape learning, well being, and children’s healthy development (Cohen, 2006, 2012; Cohen et al., 2010). School climate reform overlaps with and is aligned with the Character Education Partnership’s 11 Principles of Effective Character Education (Lickona, Schaps, & Lewis, 1995). Like the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning’s theory of change these principles recognize systematic as well as instructional efforts as providing the foundation for prosocial education. Eight of the 11 Principles support systemic improvement goals, and, three of the 11 Principles are focused on various aspects of instruction.

School climate reform is also aligned with the theory of change defined by the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (2008). That theory is grounded in the understanding that two processes provide the foundation for helpful school improvement: (1) systemic improvements that support safe, caring, engaged and well managed schools that include high expectations (for student learning); and, (2) instructional efforts that promote social emotional learning.

There is growing empirical evidence that effective school climate reform increases academic achievement, reduces violence and student dropout rates, and increases teacher retention rates (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). Although school climate reform does not address all of the issues that Murray (2012) and others (e.g., Reardon, 2011; Rothstein, 2012) raise, empirical research findings (Thapa et al., 2013) support the notion that school climate reform efforts will reduce the equity gap.

I now briefly outline a series of processes that define and shape an effective school climate improvement effort. There are six, overlapping school wide improvement processes that I believe promote a climate for learning and children’s healthy development. School climate reform recognizes and promotes all of the processes outlined below.

One of the foundational systemic processes that shape school life is our measurement systems and related systems of accountability. We can and need to measure the social, emotional, moral, and civic as well as intellectual aspects of student learning and school life to insure that we understand and address the complexity of children’s needs as wisely outlined by Lapsley (this issue) and many others (e.g., Berkowitz, 2009; Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, 2008; Lickona et al., 1995; Tough, 2013).

Measurement provides an essential foundation of learning, teaching, goal setting, and of systems of accountability. It is well known that what is measured is “what counts.” In fact, as individuals as well as organizations—like school systems—we are always taking stock and measuring—consciously, intentionally, thoughtfully, fairly, helpfully, or not.

The Common Core is now shaping public education measurement systems. Although this set of goals is intended to move schools away from rote learning and memorization towards a writing intensive pedagogy that promotes reasoning skills, I and others suggest that the Common Core represents a familiar top-down set of practices and foci that school leaders are being forced to adopt. Although the Common Core is somewhat broader in focus than No Child Left Behind, it continues to essentially negate the profound importance of social, emotional, and civic learning and teaching, as well as being problematic in many other ways (ReThnking Schools, 2013). The Common Core fails to appreciate the complexity of children’s needs as outlined by Lapsley. And, I —unhappily—predict that it will not reverse the trends that Murray, Rothstein, Saez, Reardon and many others have pointed to.

In addition to being recognized, supported, and/or endorsed by a growing number of federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, Justice, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute for Educational Sciences, Federal Emergency Management Agency) there is growing international appreciation (from a growing number of foreign educational ministries, the World Bank and UNICEF) that we can measure school climate in K-12 education. Interesting and importantly, this overlaps with an international trend that recognizes subjective well-being as an essential metric that can, and needs to, shape national policy making (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013).

Measurement drives systems of accountability. The National School Climate Council and I recommend that districts and states adopt or adapt the following National School Climate Standards (National School Climate Council, 2009). Its vision is for a positive and sustainable school climate that supports the school and its community:

1. developing a shared vision and plan for promoting, enhancing and sustaining a positive school climate;

2. developing policies that promote social, emotional ethical, civic and intellectual learning as well as systems that address barriers to learning;

3. promoting practices that promote the learning and positive social, emotional, ethical and civic development of students and student engagement as well as addressing barriers to learning;

4. creating an environment where all members are welcomed, supported, and feel safe in school: socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically; and

5. developing meaningful and engaging practices, activities and norms that promote social and civic responsibilities and a commitment to social justice.

There are two important aspects of this policy that I want to underscore: the what and the how; that is, what is the policy focused on, and how is it administered?

The What. These five standards are not a top down mandate but rather recognize and honor the voice of parents/guardians, educators, and students. The standards support local school communities addressing three essential questions: (1) What is your vision for an ideal school? (2) Given this vision, what policies, rules and supports are needed? And, (3) given this vision and sets of policies, what practices are needed to actualize them? A number of states (e.g. Connecticut and Georgia) and districts (e.g. Chicago, IL to Westbrook, CT) are adopting or adapting these standards (www.schoolclimate.org/climate/policy.php).

The How. There is a growing body of research about helpful and unhelpful drivers of school improvement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Fullan, 2011; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010). Unhelpful drivers include (1) accountability systems that use data as a hammer rather than a flashlight; (2) a primary focus on the individual teacher and/or administrator; (3) a primary focus on technology alone; and, (4) specific evidence-based programs. The second, third and forth “drivers” noted above are all important! But, they do not foster transformative organizational change alone. On the other hand, the following four processes are helpful organizing drivers of organizational change: (1) fostering the intrinsic motivation of students, parents and school personnel; (2) igniting the process of school reform in ways that engage students and educators in a continuous process of learning; (3) inspiring team work and a collaborative problem solving process; and, (4) affecting all members of the community. School climate reform supports all of these helpful drivers of change. They comprise a model that honors and supports learning.

It is common sense that engagement in learning and school life supports learning. There is a body of research that supports this and the school climate improvement process (Table 2) is thus grounded in the notion that students as well as parents/guardians and school personnel and even community members need to participate in the process of developing school improvement goals (National School Climate Council, 2012). Such inclusiveness provides a foundation for effective school reform efforts (Fullan, 2011; Mourshed et al., 2010; Tucker, 2011).

There is a robust body of educational, sociological and socioeconomic research that supports the notion that student learning and positive youth development are shaped not only by effective school-family partnerships (e.g. Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007; Patrikakou, Weissberg, Redding, & Walberg, 2005) but also by the social networks and norms of the larger community and collaborative school-community partnerships (Adelman & Taylor, 2005; Berg, Melaville, & Blank, 2006; Glickman & Scally, 2008; Putnam, 2001; Renée & McAlister, 2011). Although the importance of school-community partnerships is widely recognized, in my experience it is rarely practiced. I suggest that there are two important reasons for this. First, principals are focused on what is now measured. School-community partnerships are not measured now. And second, principals are not sure how to best facilitate this goal given how extraordinarily busy they are.

School climate surveys and measurement can be powerful engagement strategies for students, parents, school personnel, and even community members as well as a scientifically sound assessment strategy. Our center recently developed a Community Scale (www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/csci_Community_School.pdf) to complement and extend the student, parents/guardian and school personnel scales on our Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (www.schoolclimate.org/climate/practice.php). The Community Scale can be used with any school climate survey and engages middle and high school students to take this very short survey out to 15 sectors of the community (from the faith based, law enforcement, local political leaders to local media and arts organizations). It asks two sets of questions: (1) how do you view current school-community partnerships? and (2) to what extent would you be interested in supporting the schools’ improvement goals? It is easy—and exciting —to imagine the range of ways that students and community members can engage in conversations about what it means to be socially responsible with regards to their community and its schools. When we see or hear something troubling, for example, what does it mean to be a “responsible” witness?

Social norms are one of the most powerful forces that shape social and emotional life. And, social norms—by definition—provide a foundation for the schools’ climate (National School Climate Council, 2007). Codes of conduct and school rules are designed to helpfully shape social life. Tragically, too many school disciplinary policies rely on punitive or zero tolerance that contribute to the shameful rates of high school dropouts and the “school to prison pipeline” (Editorial Projects in Education, 2013). Social norms and codes of conduct powerfully shape how safe people feel in school. School climate reform supports everyone in the community to understand and delineate social norms, codes of conduct, and rules that support their school being safe, supportive, engaging and flourishing (Cohen, 2012).

In addition to these five schoolwide improvement processes, there are two additional aspects of teaching/learning outlined below that support children’s foundation for healthy relationships, work, and participation in a democracy (Cohen, 2006).

It is clear that K-12 schools can and must support teachers’, parents’ and students’ prosocial behaviors. Such support provides the foundation for students developing the skills, knowledge and dispositions outlined in Table 1 and that provide the foundation for an engaged citizenry. Educators can engage students in more intentional prosocial processes through (1) being a living example, (2) through classroom management and disciplinary practices, (3) through pedagogic strategies such as cooperative learning, conflict resolution/mediation, service learning, moral dilemma discussions, and (4), via curricula (e.g., evidence-based lesson plans and units that have been predesigned and/or through the utilization of a backwards design model of curriculum development that supports teachers intentionally infusing prosocial learning objectives, assessments and activities into existing lessons, units and/or Advisory activities).

Although there is growing recognition of the importance of Professional Learning Communities (Senge, 1990), adult learning is not measured and too rarely appreciated in K-12 education today. School climate reform explicitly supports educators’ compelling need for engagement about learning and effective teaching (National School Climate Council, 2012).

Authenticity matters. Authentic engagement that supports trusting/collaborative problem solving relationships provides the foundation for learning and positive change (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Comer, 2005). Authenticity cannot be mandated or forced. But, schools that explicitly focus on the importance of relationships and the social, emotional and civic dimensions of learning and school life, powerfully support authentic relationships. Caring and attuned relationships between educators and students provide the foundation for school connectedness (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009).

This article is grounded in the understanding that the purpose of K-12 education is to support the skills, knowledge and dispositions that provide the foundation for democracy (Table 1). We have always wanted America to be the land of opportunity. And, we have always hoped that education will opens doors and create the foundation for life-long learning, prosperity and peace.

I have suggested that school climate reform is a scientifically sound educational reform strategy that recognizes and supports ecologically informed and biopsychosocially attuned schoolwide goals that support the healthy development of students. In fact, there is a growing appreciation that school climate reform is an evidence-based reform effort that promotes student learning, and/or reduces dropout rates, and/or prevents school violence as well as promoting teacher retention (Cohen, 2012; Thapa et al., 2013).). The school climate improvement process (Table 2) includes a series of schoolwide educational goals and processes that promote prosocial education and safe, supportive, engaging and flourishing schools.