Culture as a Tool for School Improvement: The Case of Children’s Socialisation Centres

Open access

Abstract

The concern for delinquent children’s social and emotional development in closed institutions is a significant topic in educational research. This shows the need to improve the existing re-socialisation practice. Despite the fact that school effectiveness and school improvement researches theoretically have different general purposes and value bases, educational effectiveness and improvement paradigm involves both trends, which are combined by the same aspects: scientific approach and empirical data based on educational settings; knowledge of how to improve the school practice; and use of this knowledge for social purposes. In this context, the concept of the school culture is one of the main variables that allow us to answer how to address the needs of all children and improve their academic or social outcomes. The aim of this article is to illustrate the cultural characteristics of children’s socialisation centres as specific schools and to identify the guidelines for improving their performance. The mission of children’s socialisation centres is to re-socialise delinquent behaviour of children and to help them to integrate into the society. Quantitative data for measuring the school culture is obtained from the survey that was conducted using the School Culture Inventory (Maslowski, 2001). This instrument is based on the Competing Values Framework (Cameron, Quinn, 2011) consisting of four dimensions, which are labelled by human relations, open systems, rational goal and internal process orientation. The theoretical value of the survey is the analysis of school culture in terms of successful re-socialisation. The cultural profiles of these schools showed the priorities that require practical changes.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alifanovienė D Šapelytė O (2009). Nepilnamečių resocializacijavidutinę priez̆iūrą vykdančioseinstitucijose: pedagogų požiūris [Juveniles’ resocialisation at medium supervision institutions: educators’ viewpoint]. Socialinisugdymas (20) 84-97.

  • Bakutytė R. Geležinienė R. Gumuliauskienė A. Juodraitis A. Jurevičienė M. Šapelytė O. (2013). Socializacijoscentroveiklosmodeliavimas: ugdytiniųresocializacijosprocesųvaldymasirmetodika [Modeling the Activity of the Socialization Center: the Management and Methodology of the Process of Students Re-socialization]. Vilnius: BMK leidykla.

  • Cameron K.S. Quinn R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco CA: Wiley.

  • Chapman Ch. Muijs D. Reynolds D. Sammons P. Stringfield S. Teddlie Ch. (2016).Educational Effectiveness and Improvement Research and Practice: the Emergence of Discipline 34-57. The Routledge International Handbook of Educational Effectiveness and Improvement. New York: Routledge.

  • Creemers B. Kyriakides L. (2016). Theory Development in Educational Effectiveness Research 182-205. The Routledge International Handbook of Educational Effectiveness and Improvement. New York: Routledge.

  • Creswell John W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Third edition. Washington DC: Sage.

  • Fullan M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change 4th Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Hopkins D. (2016). School Improvement and System Reform 157-181. The Routledge International Handbook of Educational Effectiveness and Improvement. New York: Routledge.

  • Ketokivi M. Choi T. (2014). Renaissance of Case Research as a Scientific Method. Journal of Operations Management (32) 232-240.

  • Maslowski R. 2001. School Culture and School Performance. Twente: Twente University Press.

  • Merkys G. Ruškus J. Juodraitis A. (2002). Nepilnamečių resocializacija. Lietuvos nepilnamečių priežiūros įstaigų psichosocialinė ir edukacinė situacija. Vilnius: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

  • Muijs D. (2013). Collaboration and Networking Between Schools. Presentation at the VI Seminario Internacional de la Red de Escuelas Líderes Santiago Chile 5 July.

  • Reynolds D. Teddlie C. (2000). The Processes of School Effectiveness. The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research 134-159. London: Falmer Press.

  • Sakalauskas G. (2015). Kalinimosąlygos ir kalinių resocializacijos prielaidos. Teisės problemos (2) 5-53.

  • Sammons P. Davis S. Gray J. (2016). Methodological and Scientific Properties of School Effectiveness Research 58-109. The Routledge International Handbook of Educational Effectiveness and Improvement. New York: Routledge.

  • Scheerens J. (1992). Effective Schooling: Research Theory and Practice. London: Cassell.

  • Targamadzė V. (2006). Konfliktųkontūrųbrėžimas: ugdymorealybėskontekstas [Conflict Contours: the Context of Educational Reality]. Vilnius: Vilniauspedagoginiouniversitetoleidykla.

  • Terhart E. (2013). Teacher Resistance Against School Reform: Reflecting an Inconvenient Truth. School leadership and management (33:5) 486-500.

  • Van Gasse R. Vanhoof J. Van Petegem P. (2016). The Impact of School Culture on Schools’ Pupil Well- being Policy-Making Capacities. Educational Studies DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2016.1195718 1-17.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 289 189 5
PDF Downloads 189 125 7