School Climate and Academic Performance: Key Factors for Sustainable Education in High-Efficacy Schools and Low-Efficacy Schools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A brief summary 

The paper aims to analyse and compare the relationships among teachers and students to understand the school climate in high-efficiency schools and low-efficiency schools. The strengths of this article lie in its connection to the research results from 2011 to 2017, which assessed linguistic communication and mathematical reasoning. Based on these findings, a classification into high-efficiency and low-efficiency schools was carried out, which has proven to be a crucial determinant in analysing the social climate within schools.

General concept comments

Overall, this is an intriguing and pertinent topic. The experimental design is suitable for testing the hypothesis. Results displayed in appropriate tables are reproducible based on the details provided in the methods section. Data are interpreted correctly in principle and consistently throughout the manuscript. The conclusions align with the evidence and arguments presented. To enhance the interpretation and understanding of the results, it would be beneficial to present the subcategories of tables in detail, either in the methods or as an appendix, and to elaborate on the results accordingly, explaining them in greater depth. Such a presentation would also enable a better understanding of the systematised results in Table 4. Given that this was a qualitative study in which the responses were coded and the percentage shares of the results were obtained (i.e. the frequency (F) of their occurrence in the interviews was expressed). I think that it should not be a major problem to conduct appropriate non-parametric tests that would increase the significance of the results and the conclusions related to them. Cited references are relevant.

Specific comments 

Everything is presented in a structured manner, but there are several suggestions I would make to enhance the manuscript.

241 I think that Figure 1 is unnecessary and that it would be better to supplement the necessary information in lines 238 – 240 in the text.

258 – 260 Given that the data presented in the tables are described in detail, it would be good to include a reference to Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the text, just as Table 4 was mentioned in line 251.

563 – 564 It would be good to specify which (or concerning what) perceptions of management teams are described.

270 In Table 1, the subcategories should be shown (especially Types and origin of conflicts on the trail of the mentioned conflicts 289 - 291), and later described in more detail in the following text, including examples of excerpts from interviews. This applies to line 301 in Table 2; however, Table 3 presents the results more clearly.

Author Response

Please see the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and relevant topic regarding the role of school climate in enhancing academic performance and educational sustainability. The study’s qualitative focus through leadership interviews adds valuable insights into the dynamics of high- and low-efficacy schools. However, several areas should be improved before publication:

1. Introduction & Literature Review:

   • While the introduction provides a historical overview and defines school climate adequately, there is limited engagement with recent international literature on sustainable education frameworks and school climate research beyond Spain. Expanding this would situate your contribution more globally.

   • Some seminal works are cited, but integrating more recent, peer-reviewed articles post-2020 would strengthen the contextualization.

2. Research Design & Methods:

   • The design, sampling, and analytical procedures are described clearly. However, you should clarify the rationale for using interviews exclusively with leadership teams and explicitly acknowledge how this choice might limit or bias the representation of school climate.

   • The justification for using diagnostic evaluations from 2011–2017 as a basis for school selection should be reinforced with a discussion on potential impacts of the time lapse on relevance and validity.

3. Findings and Interpretation:

   • The findings are generally well-structured. However, the discussion often repeats results without offering sufficient theoretical interpretation or linking to broader frameworks such as educational equity, social determinants of education, or comparative international studies.

   • The authors could elaborate more on why high expectations are less prevalent in low-efficacy schools despite high involvement, linking these findings more strongly to theories like the Pygmalion effect or educational disadvantage frameworks.

4. Conclusions:

   • The conclusion section reiterates findings but does not sufficiently explore implications for policy or practice. Adding a subsection on practical recommendations for educational policy or school leadership would enhance the article’s impact.

   • Future research suggestions are valid, but more specific and targeted proposals (e.g., longitudinal studies, triangulated methodologies) would provide greater utility.

5. Language and Style:

   • While overall understandable, English phrasing is sometimes convoluted. Examples include overly long sentences and awkward syntax (e.g., “leading to improved educational outcomes” could be rephrased for clarity). A careful copyedit is advised.

   • Several verb tenses fluctuate unnecessarily between past and present; standardizing these will improve coherence.

   • Examples: Replace “is composed of various elements, including…” with “comprises various elements, including…” for succinctness and flow.

6. References:

   • The article is adequately referenced, but as noted, there is a heavier reliance on Spanish-language sources and older studies. Increasing the proportion of recent, international sources (from 2020 onwards) would substantially strengthen the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the manuscript is generally understandable, there are several areas where the quality of English can be improved to enhance clarity and academic style. Some sentences are overly long and complex, making the arguments occasionally difficult to follow. Additionally, there are instances of awkward phrasing and inconsistent verb tenses. It is recommended that the manuscript undergo careful language editing to ensure greater fluency, precision, and syntactic coherence. Addressing these issues will not only improve readability but will also strengthen the overall academic presentation of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors for their thorough responses and their willingness to accept suggestions. Their editing efforts significantly improved the article, making it much more valuable.

I wish the authors continued success in their future scientific work.