School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO)

Abstract

The School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO) is a critical component of the broader School Success Profile system, designed to assess and quantify key organizational characteristics within an educational setting. This instrument specifically evaluates the extent to which a school functions as a Learning Organization, focusing on staff collaboration, openness to new ideas, capacity for reflection, and collective efficacy. Furthermore, the SSP-LO includes associated profiles that measure staff outcomes, such as job satisfaction and perceived self-efficacy, and assess the quality of school leadership. The data gathered provides school practitioners and administrators with valuable insights for targeted intervention planning and results management, ultimately supporting continuous School Improvement efforts.

Keywords

Learning Organization, School culture, Staff perceptions, Educational assessment, School improvement, Leadership, Job satisfaction, Organizational Validity, School Success Profile, Psychometrics

Authors

Gary L. Bowen, Jeffrey M. Richman, Natasha K. Bowen, Mark E. Woolley, Aaron M. Thompson, Kate M. Wegmann, R. A. Rose

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SSP-LO is to provide a standardized, data-driven assessment of the organizational environment of a school, as perceived by its employees. By measuring dimensions related to organizational learning, the instrument helps identify strengths and weaknesses in internal processes, communication, and collaborative practices. This measurement facilitates a results-focused approach to assessment and intervention planning, enabling schools to link organizational characteristics to desired student and school performance outcomes.

The scale also serves to gauge critical staff outcomes, including overall job satisfaction, health perception, and the likelihood of employment retention. This holistic approach ensures that interventions are informed by both organizational health metrics and staff well-being indicators.

Construct

The central construct measured by the SSP-LO is the school staff’s collective perception of the institution as a Learning Organization. This construct encompasses several underlying dimensions, including:

• Organizational Learning Capacity: The willingness to experiment, view mistakes as learning opportunities, and engage in reflective practice (Items a-r, n, q, k).
• Collaborative Culture: The extent of teamwork, open communication, trust, and mutual support among colleagues (Items a, g, p, u, bb).
• Results Management: The focus on planning with intended results in mind, achieving measurable results, and evaluating performance against defined goals (Items f, l, r).
• Staff Efficacy and Investment: The shared belief in the importance of their work and confidence in making a positive difference in student outcomes (Items s, y, jj).

Additionally, the profile assesses two secondary, yet crucial, constructs: staff outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and health) and the perceived effectiveness of School Leadership in promoting a supportive, accountable, and intellectually stimulating environment.

Validity

Research supporting the broader School Success Profile (SSP) system, of which SSP-LO is a part, indicates robust empirical support for its validity. Studies have focused on establishing construct validity by demonstrating that the factors measured align theoretically with established models of organizational function and school effectiveness. Furthermore, the instrument demonstrates concurrent and predictive validity, showing correlations between high scores on organizational learning dimensions and positive school and student outcomes, as detailed in several academic publications relating to the SSP framework.

Reliability

The SSP instruments, including the components related to the Learning Organization and Leadership Profiles, typically exhibit high internal consistency. Published studies in Psychometrics literature confirm that the various subscales maintain acceptable levels of reliability, ensuring that the measures consistently quantify the intended constructs. This reliability is essential for practitioners using the SSP-LO data for critical decision-making regarding School Improvement and resource allocation.

Factor Analysis

While the specific factor structure of the SSP-LO subscales is complex due to the multi-component nature of the entire SSP system, the development process included rigorous statistical validation. Studies, such as those employing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on related SSP components (e.g., the Elementary School Success Profile), confirm that the items cluster appropriately into distinct, underlying latent factors corresponding to the hypothesized organizational and behavioral constructs. This rigorous analysis ensures that the scales used for organizational assessment are structurally sound and measure unique aspects of the school environment.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Staff Survey/Organizational Assessment

Format: Multi-part questionnaire utilizing Likert-type scales (6-point agreement scales for organizational profiles) and multiple-choice response options (for outcome variables like health and job satisfaction).

Language Available: Primarily English (as presented in the source material).

Population Group: School employees (Staff, Teachers, Specialists, Administrators, Other Employees).

Age Group: Adult professionals employed in K-12 educational settings.

Population Details: The instrument is designed for internal use by school personnel to assess the organizational climate and leadership effectiveness within their specific school context.

Test Methodology: The assessment is typically administered online via the School Success Profile Online platform, allowing for efficient data collection, analysis, and generation of profile reports for results management.

Keywords

Organizational assessment, Educational leadership, Staff retention, Collective efficacy, Data-driven intervention, School climate, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Results management

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not provided in the source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Information not provided in the source material.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence is typically managed through the affiliated research centers or the School Success Profile Online platform: https://www.schoolsuccessonline.com/

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The SSP-LO is part of a proprietary system managed by the authors and their associated organizations. Access and usage typically require licensing or registration through the School Success Profile Online platform. The foundational research and development of the School Success Profile system occurred around the early 2000s (e.g., 2002-2005), with continuous updates and validation since then. Interested parties should consult the official website for current fee structures and permissions.

Reference’s

The following references support the development and psychometric properties of the School Success Profile system:

• Bowen‚ G. L.‚ Richman‚ J.M.‚ Bowen‚ N. K. (2002). The School Success Profile: A results management approach to assessment and intervention planning. In: Roberts‚ AR.; Greene‚ GJ.‚ editors. Social workers’ desk reference. New York: Oxford University Press; p. 787-793.
• Richman‚ J.M.‚ & Bowen‚ N. K. (2003). The School Success Profile Online. Journal of Technology in Human Services. DOI: 10.1300/J017v21n01_06.
• Bowen‚ N.K.‚ Bowen‚ G. L.‚ & Woolley‚ M. E. (2004). Constructing and validating assessment tools for school based practitioners: The Elementary School Success Profile. In: Roberts‚ AR.; Yeager‚ KR.‚ editors. Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services. New York: Oxford University Press; p. 509-517.
• Bowen‚ G. L. (2004). Social organization and schools: A general systems theory perspective. In P. Allen-Meares‚ Social work services in schools (4th ed.) (pp. 53-70). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Bowen‚ G. L.‚ Rose‚ R‚ A.‚ & Bowen‚ N. K. (2005). The reliability and validity of the School Success Profile. Philadelphia: Xlibris.
• Wegmann‚ Kate M.‚ Thompson‚ Aaron M. and Bowen‚ Natasha K. (2011). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Home Environment and Home Social Behavior Data from the Elementary School Success Profile for Families. Social Work Research‚ 35(2)‚ 117-127.
• Bowen‚ G. L.‚ & Richman‚ J. M. (in press). The school success profile: A results-focused approach to assessment and intervention planning. In A.R. Roberts (Eds.)‚ Social Workers’ Desk Reference (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Additional publication information can be found at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233031658

Items of the School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

At my school‚ we:

1. Work together as a team.
2. Welcome and appreciate new ideas.
3. Seek ideas and opinions from students.
4. Share ideas and information with one another about how to make this school more effective.
5. Agree that it is better to try new things and risk failure than not to try at all.
6. Plan with intended results in mind.
7. Turn to one another for consultation and advice.
8. Keep an open mind about new ways of doing things.
9. Work with parents as partners in the educational process.
10. Feel comfortable sharing our learning experiences with one another.
11. View mistakes as opportunities for learning.
12. Focus our efforts on achieving measurable results.
13. Meet together to address challenges and solve problems.
14. Are willing to experiment with new practices.
15. Engage and collaborate with community agencies and organizations.

A. Learning Organization Profile

16. Maintain open lines of communication.
17. Learn from those experiences where our results fall short of defined goals.
18. Evaluate results against previously defined goals.
19. Share a high level of investment in what we are here to do.
20. Value and acknowledge one another as individuals.
21. Feel a sense of connection and loyalty to one another.
22. Can count on one another for help and support.
23. Show kindness and thoughtfulness to one another.
24. Feel a strong sense of meaning and purpose in our work.
25. Feel confident that we can make a positive difference in students’ lives.
26. Treat one another as competent professionals.
27. Celebrate special occasions‚ accomplishments‚ and milestones.
28. Trust one another.
29. Offer care and support for one another in times of personal and family need.
30. Approach our work with hopefulness and optimism.
31. Share a common belief in the importance of our work.
32. Respect and appreciate individual differences.
33. Enjoy working together.
34. Demonstrate honesty and personal integrity in our work together.
35. Treat one another as both colleagues and friends.
36. Believe we can make a positive difference in this school’s ability to meet its performance goals.

Personal and School outcome Profile

2. How would you describe your overall state of health these days? Excellent‚ Very Good‚ Good‚ Fair‚ Poor‚ Extremely Poor
3. Overall‚ how satisfied are you with your job at this school? Satisfied‚ Very Satisfied‚ Slightly Satisfied‚ Slightly Dissatisfied‚ Dissatisfied‚ Very Dissatisfied
4. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: I can make a positive difference in the ability of this school to meet its performance objectives for students. Strongly Agree‚ Agree‚ Slightly Agree‚ Slightly Disagree‚ Disagree‚ Strongly Disagree
5. How likely are you to continue your employment at the school for another academic year?

• Does not apply; I will retire at the end of this academic year or I am a temporary employee.
• (0 in 10) No Chance
• (1 in 10) Very Slight Chance
• (2 in 10) Slight Possibility
• (3 in 10) Some Possibility
• (4 in 10) Fair Possibility
• (5 in 10) Fairly Good Possibility
• (6 in 10) Good Possibility
• (7 in 10) Probable
• (8 in 10) Very Probable
• (9 in 10) Almost Sure
• (10 in 10) Certain

6. What grade would you assign to the performance of your school in addressing the educational needs of all students?

• A. Well Above Average
• B. Above Average
• C. Average
• D. Below Average
• E. Well Below Average

7. What grade would you assign to the potential of your school for addressing the educational needs of all students?

• A. Well Above Average
• B. Above Average
• C. Average
• D. Below Average
• E. Well Below Average

About You

8. My current position is best described as:

• Administrator
• Specialist (e.g.‚ counselor‚ psychologist)
• Teacher
• Teacher Assistant
• Other Employee

9. How many years have you been assigned to this school?

• A. Less than one year
• B. One year but less than five years
• C. Five years or more

School Leadership Profile

10. The school leadership profile lists 20 descriptive statements about administrators at your school. Please indicate the extent to which you agree (strongly disagree to strongly agree) that each statement is descriptive of administrators at the school at which you are employed. All employees‚ including administrators‚ are encouraged to complete this profile.

At my school‚ administrators:

1. Are clear about their direction and priorities for school improvement.
2. Keep employees focused on desired results and the group’s collective goals.
3. Meet challenges and concerns head on.
4. Closely monitor the implementation of plans and actions.
5. Hold employees accountable for agreed upon decisions and standards of performance.
6. Promote a supportive and caring work environment.
7. Convey appreciation for employee contributions.
8. Treat employees with courtesy and respect.
9. Are sensitive to the needs and concerns of employees.
10. Show kindness and thoughtfulness to employees.
11. Are open to new ideas for addressing school-related problems and issues.
12. Encourage dialogue and debate in setting priorities for school improvement.
13. Pose questions that stimulate m. thinking and reflection.
14. Welcome differences in opinion about ways to improve school performance.
15. Encourage employees to share their learning experiences with one another.
16. Attribute school-related success to either the efforts of others or good luck rather than to self.
17. Acknowledge that they do not have all the answers to address school-related problems and issues.
18. Assume responsibility for their own mistakes.
19. Are quick to acknowledge the good ideas and contributions of others.
20. Are reluctant to accept credit for their own contributions in overcoming problems and producing results.

1 = Strongly disagree‚ 2 = Disagree‚ 3 = Slightly disagree‚ 4= Slightly agree‚ 5= Agree‚ 6= Strongly agree