Organizational Health Inventory for Secondary Schools (OHI-S)

1. Teachers are protected from unreasonable community and parental demands.
2. The principal gets what he or she asks for from superiors.
3. The principal is friendly and approachable.
4. The principal asks that faculty members follow standard rules and regulations.
5. Extra materials are available if requested.
6. Teachers do favors for each other.
7. The students in this school can achieve the goals that have been set for them.
8. The school is vulnerable to outside pressures.
9. The principal is able to influence the actions of his or her superiors.
10. The principal treats all faculty members as his or her equal.
11. The principal makes his or her attitudes clear to the school.
12. Teachers are provided with adequate materials for their classrooms.
13. Teachers in this school like each other.
14. The school sets high standards for academic performance.

15. Community demands are accepted even when they are not consistent with the educational program.
16. The principal is able to work well with the superintendent.
17. The principal puts suggestions made by the faculty into operation.
18. The principal lets faculty know what is expected of them.
19. Teachers receive necessary classroom supplies.
20. Teachers are indifferent to each other.
21. Students respect others who get good grades.
22. Teachers feel pressure from the community.
23. The principal’s recommendations are given serious consideration by his or her superiors.
24. The principal is willing to make changes.
25. The principal maintains definite standards of performance.
26. Supplementary materials are available for classroom use.
27. Teachers exhibit friendliness to each other.

28. Students seek extra work so they can get good grades.
29. se‎lect citizen groups are influential with the board.
30. The principal is impeded by the superiors.
31. The principal looks out for the personal welfare of faculty members.
32. The principal schedules the work to be done.
33. Teachers have access to needed instructional materials.
34. Teachers in this school are cool and aloof to each other.
35. Teachers in this school believe that their students have the ability to achieve academically.
36. The school is open to the whims of the public.
37. The morale of the teachers is high.
38. Academic achievement is recognized and acknowledged by the school.
39. A few vocal parents can change school policy.
40. There is a feeling of trust and confidence among the staff.
41. Students try hard to improve on previous work.
42. Teachers accomplish their jobs with enthusiasm.
43. The learning environment is orderly and serious.
44. Teachers identify with the school.
institutional Integrity (.91)‚ Initiating Structure (.89)‚ Consideration (.90)‚ Principal Influence (.87)‚ Resource Support (.95)‚ Morale (.92)‚ and Academic Emphais (.93)
 occurs‚ 2=Some= times occurs‚ 3=Often occurs‚ 4=very frequently
Reverse score items 8‚ 15‚ 20‚ 22‚ 29‚ 30‚ 34‚ 36‚ and 39
Institutional Integrity (II) = 1+8+15+22+29+36+39
Consideration (C) =3+10+17+24+31
Principal Influence (PI)=2+9+16+23+30
Resource Support (RS)=5+12+19+26+33
Morale (M)=6+13+20+27+34+37+40+42+44
Academic Emphasis (AE) = 7+14+21+28+35+38+41+43
This instrument can be found at:  

Hoy‚ W. K.‚ Tarter‚ C. J.‚ & Kottkamp‚ R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Beverly Hills‚ CA: Sage.

Hoy‚ W. K.‚ & Tarter‚ C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change‚ Elementary Edition. Thousand Oaks‚ CA: Corwin Press.

Hoy‚ W. K.‚ & Woolfolk‚ A. E. (1990). Organizational socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal‚ 27‚ 279-300.

Hoy‚ W.K.‚ & Woolfolk‚ A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal‚ 93(4)‚ 355-372.

Hoy‚ W. K. & Feldman‚ J. A. (1999). ‘Organizational Health Profiles for High Schools‚’ in Freiberg‚ H. J. (ed.) School Climate: Measuring‚ Improving and Sustaining Healthy Learning Environments‚ Philadelphia‚ PA: Falmer Press‚ Taylor & Francis Group‚ pp. 84-102.