From the seventies on, school effectiveness research has been looking for process-variables filling the black box between mainly structural school features and cognitive outcomes in students (e.g., Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979). In the 1970s, school climate seemed for most researchers the most obvious way to gain insight into these school processes (e.g., Brookover et al., 1979; Reynolds & Teddlie, 2000). From the end of the 1980s onward, the concept experienced keen competition from the concept of school culture (e.g., Maxwell & Thomas, 1991). Both concepts are currently used interchangeably, although it is a point of discussion whether both are actually the same or not (e.g., Denison, 1996; Glisson, 2000; Hoy, 1990; Schoen & Teddlie, 2008; Van Houtte, 2005). And if they are one and the same thing, a pertinent question is why two different concepts are used, making matters more complicated? This contribution argues why school culture could be a more fruitful choice within quantitative effectiveness research. Main point is that in contrast to climate, culture can be related to (structural) school features on the one hand and individual student and teacher outcomes on the other hand in a theoretically sound way (Van Houtte, 2005). Useful theories to explain the origin of a certain culture within a specific context are presented. Additionally, student and teacher outcomes can be related to culture by referring to socialisation and reference group processes. As such, putting forward culture offers the possibility to respond an old critique that in SER a theoretical rationale is mostly lacking (Coe & Fitz-Gibbon, 1998). Theoretically, organisational climate cannot be related as an objective fact to individual behaviour or other school features: the associations always need to be made through the individual perceptions. Exactly the perceptual measurement of climate prevents the climate concept to be linked as an objective fact to school features and student outcomes in a theoretically grounded way. Methodologically, the aggregation of the individual perceptions is founded on rather problematic assumptions when dealing with ‘organisational climate’ as an organisational attribute (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Joyce & Slocum, 1984; James et al., 2008). Yet, starting from the classic definition of culture, there is no need to start from individual perceptions. Moreover, this contribution shows empirically by means of very basic techniques that at an aggregated level working with perceptions or working with personal beliefs might yield drastically different results.

This contribution is mainly based on a profound literature study, completed by empirical data comparing two measures of ‘competitive culture’: one measure based on perceptions, one measure based on personal assumptions. This comparison is based on data collected by means of anonymous written questionnaires within the context of the Flemish Educational Assessment during the 2004-2005 school year. Across a representative sample of 84 secondary schools in Flanders, 2.104 teachers instructing the third and/or fifth grade, and 11.872 third- and fifth-grade students from the same sample of schools plus one additional school, completed written questionnaires. The two measures are compared by means of simple univariate descriptives and bivariate correlations.

Conceptual clarity cannot be reached by trying to reconcile the concepts of school climate and school culture. These are different concepts that need to be distinguished. What most climate researchers are measuring nowadays is actually culture, namely shared beliefs. The concept of climate should be reserved to indicate a broader reality encompassing the school’s physical surroundings, the characteristics of individuals and groups participating in the school, the school’s social system and the school’s culture. Furthermore, changing the names of concepts is not enough. A perceptual measurement of culture prevents it to be linked in a theoretically meaningful way to structural school features on the one hand, and students and teachers outcomes on the other hand. For school effectiveness research to make progress, especially with respect to theory building, researchers must dare to put into question traditional ways of doing things.