University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

(USC Thesis Other)

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

OUTPERFORMING EXPECTATIONS: A CASE STUDY OF
AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL

by

Sharon Adkins Anderson

________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Sharon Adkins Anderson

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave
me the strength to write every word written here. He brought me to it and He saw
me through it.
Also to my loving husband, Brian Anderson, whose encouragement, love,
and support during the past twelve years of marriage has made a young college girl’s
dream a reality.
To my mom, Rita Key, who prayed with me when my frustrations turned into
tears.
To my dad, Donald Adkins, who always saw the educator that I could be.
To my in-laws, Don and Deloris Anderson, who have been a second mom
and dad to me.
Finally, to my precious goddaughter, Victoria Nicole Collins, whose laugh,
life, and smile served as a constant inspiration for me to continue the journey.
Gidget, all things are possible if you only believe.
I love you all.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My sincerest thanks to Dr. Gothold, my Chairperson; you are a God-send.
Your encouragement, guidance, and patience gave me the confidence I desperately
needed to complete the dissertation. Words can never express the debt I owe to you.
To Dr. Hocevar and Dr. Stowe, thank you for serving as my committee
members. You both are truly amazing educators.
To my thematic cohort group, I will never forget you. Not only are you my
colleagues but also you are my friends.
To the staff and students of Star Performing High School, thank you for
allowing me to learn from all of you.
To my dearest friend Talin, we can now exhale and have that girl time we
talked so much about.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………………………………………………….. iii
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………….. v
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………… vi
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING
FRAMEWORK ……………………………………………………………….. 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………… 18

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……………………… 54
Figure 3.1: Cohort Conceptual Model ………………………………………… 58

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ………………………………………………. 72

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS ……… 119

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………….. 126

APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………… 136

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Race & Ethnicity at Star Performing High School and Star
Performing Unified School District ……………………………………….. 61

Table 3.2: 2003-2006 Academic Achievement & Demographic Data
for Star Performing High School ………………………………………….. 62

Table 4.1: Star Performing High School API Subgroup Data ……………. 85

Table 4.2: National High School Survey of Student Engagement and
SPHS: A Comparison of Survey Items ……………………………………. 105

Table 4.3: Teacher and Student Perception of Student Engagement:
A Comparison of Survey Items …………………………………………… 107

vi
ABSTRACT
In an age of accountability, closing the achievement gap among urban and
non-urban schools has become a priority for educators. In a globalizing economy,
the need for a skilled workforce has never been greater either. Preparing the nation’s
youth for tomorrow’s challenges can be accomplished only by understanding what
effective schools are doing and replicating those practices in other schools.
This study focused on one urban high school that exceeded academic
expectations. The purpose for this study was to answer the following research
questions: 1) What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school, and 2) Is there a link between student engagement and
student achievement in a high performing urban high school? Using a mixed
methods approach of surveys, interviews, observations, and document review, the
researcher sought to uncover the factors for the school’s success. Several themes
emerged during the data collection phase, which validated the existing literature on
successful schools. The school acted as a family and the school culture was one of
caring and respect. The staff acknowledged the effectiveness of research-based
strategies and dedicated themselves to the use of such strategies. The school
developed a college going environment and supported students in achieving future
goals. The most recent principal gained the help of parents in new ways to
accomplish positive academic outcomes. Student engagement as a factor for the
school’s high performance, however, was inconclusive. Therefore, more studies are

vii
needed to uncover how higher levels of student engagement can improve student
success in urban schools.

1
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
Introduction
America’s public high schools are largely failing to prepare the nation’s
children for their future within a global economy. A recent report card issued by a
workforce development consortium concluded that America’s high school students
are deficient in fundamental skills necessary for work, life, and community.
Interview and surveys results from 400 employers indicate that high school students
are deficient: deficient in English, math, reading comprehension, written
communication, critical thinking, and problem solving (Casner-Lotto & Barrington,
2006). National survey results confirm the nation’s high schoolers are unprepared to
meet the demands of college level requirements in reading, writing, and math (High
School Survey of Student Engagement, 2005a). The authors of the report conclude
“the need has never been greater for high schools to prepare all students for success
in college and the work force” (High School Survey of Student Engagement, 2005a).
According to a third nationwide survey conducted by the Alliance for Excellent
Education (2005), the public agrees that the nation’s high schools are in dire need of
reform. Two-thirds of the public feels that public high schools are graduating
unprepared high school students for the workforce. In an age of technological
advancement, where the need for highly specialized skills is imperative, educators
must address the public’s perceptions or count the cost of our high schooler’s
‘deficiencies’, if we are to remain a competitive force with other nations.

2
In an attempt to improve the nation’s education system, federal and state
accountability systems have been developed, which philosophically serve to hold
educators accountable for student achievement. Accountability mechanisms at the
national level, termed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ACT, emphasize the notion
that all children regardless of color, socioeconomic status, or nationality will excel
academically. In accordance with the federal government, states have scurried to
align with NCLB requirements by mandating that districts develop student standards
and subsequent assessments from which to measure learning. In spite of
accountability mechanisms, many high schools, particularly urban high schools are
failing to ‘make the grade’.
Faced with a globalizing economy and heightened accountability, all high
schools face the same challenges; however, the challenges of urban high schools are
arguably greater due to their unique student demographics. Urban high schools serve
larger numbers of students of color with low socioeconomic status and who speak
limited English. Inadequate funding, resources, and credentialed teachers are often
among their challenges. Although traditionally underserved, urban populations are
among the workforce of tomorrow. Without a superior education these students, as
adults, will negatively impact the nation’s economy, if the problem goes
unaddressed. Since a few urban high schools exist who are outshining their urban
peers, understanding what factors contribute to high performance among these
unique urban high schools is significant for us to study.

3
Background of the Problem
Since the high school movement of the 1900’s, the tides of change in
America’s high schools have risen and fallen. The past thirty years are noteworthy
however, as America has sought to understand and at the same time challenge the
mediocrity of the nation’s schools. With the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk,
the dire state of education was broadly recognized. Since then the Federal
government has intervened through various legislative mandates, which have served
to force states to create standards for the academic performance of its youth.
In 2001 President George W. Bush reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, known today as the No Child Left Behind Act. Designed
to ensure that all students learn and excel, the legislation came as a result of a
growing societal awareness that certain groups of students were academically
lagging behind other students. Specifically, the law made provisions for minority,
English language learners, and low income students so they, too, are more likely to
meet challenging state standards. The law further mandates that students may
transfer out of failing schools, that these schools must provide supplemental
education services (tutoring), and hire highly qualified teachers.
Although the government’s accountability plans thus far have included the
Federal Comprehensive Reform (CSR) program and NCLB, which have both
prompted overall school reform, the federal government has more recently
recognized an explicit need for high school reform. Due to lower test scores among
U.S. high school students compared to other nations, higher remediation costs among

4
U.S. universities and colleges, and the failure of U.S. high schools to graduate one-
third of their students on time, high schools were included in the 2007 NCLB
reauthorization plans. The U.S. Department of Education published the following
goals for high schools: improve graduation rates, ensure students graduate ready to
succeed in the workforce, promote rigor, increase funding for high schools which
serve low-income students, and establish an Adjunct Teacher Corps to consult as
professional experts to high schools. The expectation is that every student will
graduate and be prepared for the twenty-first century (Spellings, 2007).
The 2007 goals present a challenge as national high school survey results
from the past two years indicate a wide-spread problem; America’s high school
students are academically disengaged and unprepared for college.
The University of Indiana began collecting student engagement data in 2004
in an attempt to pinpoint what is ‘going on’ in the nation’s high schools. In 2005,
55% of students self-reported spending less than three hours per week preparing for
all of their classes. Only 48% reported that their school work intrigues them to study
more; a mere one-third reported excitement about their classes, and 48% felt they are
unchallenged to do their best work (High School Survey of Student Engagement,
2005a). Survey results from 2006 indicate that two out of three high school students
are bored everyday in school. Since high school students have alluded to
uninteresting and irrelevant content, lack of student-teacher interactions, and
unchallenging assignments, high schools across America are faced with an enormous
problem (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006).

5
In California, the context for this study, the situation is just as bleak as the
nation’s. One-third of students drop out of high school each year. Only 55% of
Latino and 55% of African American students graduate each year (The Education
Trust-West, 2004). The Education Trust (2004) reported that students are dropping
out because school is boring and they feel as though they are not learning. Even if
students felt challenged to learn, only one of six or 17% of California school districts
offer a college preparatory curriculum (The Education Trust, 2004). Of those
students who are fortunate enough to attend a school which offers a college
preparatory program, only 12% of Latino and 14% of African American students
participate in the program (The Education Trust, 2004). As recently as 2004, The
Education Trust (2004) reported that only 35% of Latino and 31% of African
American students passed the math section of the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE). Nearly one out of two of all students failed the math section altogether.
Also, 35% of all California high school students scored below basic on the English
Standards Tests. As a result of inadequate high schools, 49% of students, who enter
the California university system, require remediation in English. More astounding is
that The Education Trust (2004) reported that the achievement gap between Latino
and African students compared to White students is enormous; White students read
about four grade levels higher than Latino and African American students do.
Statement of the Problem
No Child Left Behind legislation codified the achievement gap between
students of color and White students. Now widely recognized is the fact that

6
students in urban high schools perform academically lower than their suburban
counterparts. Yet, some urban high schools have outperformed expectations and
achieved significant gains. Unclear is what contributes to high performance in these
schools. In an attempt to understand this phenomenon, this study examined one
urban high school that is exceeding expectations, despite a unique set of challenges.
The school serves a high population of both English language learners and students
receiving free and reduced lunches.
Purpose of the Study
A plethora of research exists, which documents the factors for high
performance among schools. Strong leadership, exceptional teachers, high student
expectations, a safe and orderly environment, personalized learning, regular
monitoring of student progress, professional development, resource and school goal
alignment, and community and parent involvement reoccur in the literature.
However, the research pertaining to high performing urban high schools is scarce.
Student engagement as a factor for high performance is also overlooked in the
literature. Student engagement is defined and or described as the following: 1)
student’s effort, investment, and strategies for learning; 2) student’s actions in social,
extracurricular, and non-academic activities, including interactions with other
students; and 3) student’s feelings or connection or disconnection to their school,
how they feel about where they are in school, the ways and workings of the school,
and the people within their school (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006, p. 7-8). Moreover, using a
conceptual model based upon effective schooling research, the author of this study

7
sought to explore the factors for high performance including but not limited to
student engagement.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to determine what perceived factors contribute
to high performance in one urban high school. The author also wanted to uncover
whether or not student engagement was a contributing factor for high performance
within one high performing urban high school. A cohort of 10 doctoral students
from the University of Southern California developed the research questions for this
study during the Spring of 2007. Although guided by the same research questions
and data collection instruments, each member collected individual data to produce 10
unique dissertations regarding the same topic.
The research questions, which guided this research, were:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
Significance of the Problem
Nearly 15 million of the nation’s population are high school students
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Although the nation expects
America’s high schools to graduate an educated citizenry prepared for the demands
of college and the workforce, most would agree that we are failing short of our goals.
If educators, policymakers, parents, and other stakeholders are serious about

8
changing the nation’s high schools, we must take responsibility for understanding
what factors explicitly contribute to high performance among the nation’s most
underserved schools and students. A practical method to accomplish this goal is to
examine urban high school ‘success stories’.
As is the purpose of all research, this study attempted to add to the existing
body of literature. Specifically, this study added to the scholarly research by
investigating two topics rarely explored in the literature: factors for high
performance at urban high schools and student engagement as a factor for high
performance in urban high schools. This study sought to improve practice by
illuminating what factors characterize urban schools, which are exceeding
expectations. A great deal of research indicates what effective schools do in general
to improve academic outcomes; however, less is known about the differences which
may exist at those high schools which are exceeding expectations with the ‘odds
against them’. With a more thorough understanding of urban high schools, who are
outperforming their peers, we are more likely to pinpoint what needs to be altered at
the national, state, local, and school level and to evoke change within the nation’s
neediest schools, so their students can contribute and compete within a global
economy, too.
Another component of this study was whether or not student engagement was
a factor for high performance at one urban high school as evidenced through an
adapted form of the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE).
Currently, the creators of the HSSSE have merged all survey data; high and low

9
performing schools and urban and non-urban schools are collapsed into the national
profile. Since student engagement levels at high performing urban schools is
unavailable via the HSSSE database, one goal of this study was to uncover how the
student engagement profile of one urban high school, which is outperforming
expectations, differs from the national student engagement profile. The national
profile reveals that a large number of high school students are academically
disengaged, unchallenged, and unprepared for college. The author of this research
tried to understand if students at a high performing urban school were more engaged
and more importantly why and how this was happening.
Methodology
A qualitative case study design was chosen as the research methodology for
this study. In an attempt to uncover the factors for high performance at one urban
high school, a multiple methods qualitative approach was necessary. Several data
collection instruments were used to answer the research questions: student, teacher,
and out-of-classroom personnel surveys, interviews, observations, field notes, and
document review. The researcher desired to investigate a particular phenomenon,
specifically, a high performing urban high school. The researcher wanted to explore
the processes, events, persons, and any other related factors related to high
performance (Gall et al., 2003). No hypothesis was developed for the study, instead
the researcher sought to discover any factors for high performance including, but not
limited to higher student engagement levels. An inductive design allowed patterns to
emerge without forming conjectures regarding the research outcomes (Patton, 2002).

10
Weaknesses
Potential weaknesses of this study included the following points:
 The researcher’s analyses of the study findings were based upon the
researcher’s interpretation of the data collected and thus are subject to
researcher bias.
 Participants volunteered for the study and so their responses are subject to
participant bias.
 This study was conducted within a limited time period and may not
reflect long-term trends or characteristics of the school.
 The validity of the study is only as reliable as the instruments employed
within the study.
Delimitations
The scope of this study was limited by the following:
 The school site was purposefully selected based upon pre-established
criterion: at least 40% of the school’s population had to be participants in
the Federal Free-Reduced Lunch program, the student body had to be
diverse or largely non-White, and the school’s similar school ranking had
to be at least two deciles higher than their California state ranking.
 The study was confined to one high performing urban high school in
Northern Orange County, California.

11
 Although this study is one of 10 case studies developed by a cohort of
doctoral students at the University of Southern California, the
transferability of the findings to other school sites is limited.
 Only a sample of administrators, teachers, and students were included in
this study; therefore, the views expressed here may or may not represent
the entire staff and study body.
 An adapted form of the HSSSE was used for this study.
Assumptions
The researcher assumed the following regarding the research:
 Data collected via the California Department of Education was accurate
and valid regarding the school’s API, free-reduced lunch participants, and
state and similar school ranking.
 Data collected via the district website was accurate and valid regarding
the school’s demographics.
 Data collected from administrators, teachers, and students was accurate
and are valid representations of the participant’s experiences.
 The researcher suspected that a link between student engagement and
student performance at the school site existed.
 The researcher assumed there would be other factors besides student
engagement contributing to student performance at the school site.

12
Definition of Terms
Nearly all of the study definitions were paraphrased from EdSource’s (2005)
online glossary. Other sources were cited where applicable.
 A Nation at Risk. A 1983 document which detailed the perils of the nation’s
schools. Then President Ronald Reagan commissioned Secretary of
Education Terrell Bell to study the public school system. This document
preceded the accountability efforts largely recognized today (Peterson, 2003).
 Academic Performance Index (API). A number ranging from 200 to 1000
points. The number is indicative of the performance of students, a school, or
district on California’s standardized tests. The state derives the index from a
complicated series of inputs.
 Accountability. A mechanism by which students, schools, and districts are
held responsible for the academic progress of students. Usually content
standards and subsequent assessments are the means whereby performance is
gauged.
 Achievement Gap. The difference in achievement among various groups of
students, determined by standardized test scores.
 A-G requirements. A series of 15 one-year college prep courses high school
students must take to be eligible to enter either the California State University
or University of California college systems.
 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Academic performance benchmarks
which states must meet to qualify for Title I Federal Funding.

13
 California Department of Education Base Report. A yearly report issued by
the state of California Department of Education. The report lists school
information including but not limited to a school’s API, similar schools
ranking, and state ranking (California Department of Education, 2007a).
 California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). State exam in which students
must pass to graduate high school. It is a pass-fail test measuring student
competency in English-Language Arts and math.
 California Standards Test. State assessment based upon content standards.
Various grades must take various tests. Four areas are tested: English-
Language Arts, math, history/social science, and science.
 Case Study. A type of research which attempts to study a phenomenon in-
depth (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
 Criterion-Referenced Tests. A type of test which determines student
performance. The California Standards tests are criterion-referenced tests
which determine if students have a basic, proficient, or mastery level of
skills.
 DataQuest. A website maintained by the Department of Education which lists
demographical and academic information regarding school districts and
specific schools.
 Elementary and Secondary Education School Act (ESEA). ESEA was first
enacted in 1965. It is the principal federal law affecting K-12 education. The

14
No Child Left Behind Act is the reauthorization of ESEA (U.S. Department
of Education, 2004a).
 English Language Learners. Students whose native or primary language is
not English.
 Federal Comprehensive School Reform (CSR). The CSR Program began in
1998 and was authorized as Title I, Part F of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 2002. The CSR Program is a component of the No Child
Left Behind Act. The program aims is to monetarily assist public schools
across the country to implement effective, comprehensive, and scientifically
based school reform (U.S. Department of Education, 2004b).
 Federal Free-Reduced Lunch Program. A federally funded program which
provides lunch and/or breakfast for low-income students.
 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Survey created by the
University of Indiana which attempts to measure student engagement through
survey items (High School Survey of Student Engagement, 2007).
 High Stakes Testing. Types of tests which are associated with sanctions for
underperformance.
 No Child Left Behind. 2002 legislation which emphasizes an increased
influence of the federal government within the nation’s schools. NCLB has
brought attention to the nation’s failing schools which are categorized by
high numbers of disadvantaged students (primarily poor and English-
Language learners).

15
 Norm-Referenced Tests. A type of test which determines student
performance compared to a larger group, usually students nationwide.
 Outperforming. Exceeding academic expectations of like or similar schools
when ranked by an academic indicator such as the Academic Performance
Index (API).
 Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). A 1999 law which delineates
how a school’s academic performance is to be measured and how the state
will intervene when schools are underperforming.
 Similar Schools Ranking. Comparison of a school with 100 schools with
similar demographics. The schools are ranked using their API scores and
demographics. Schools are ranked from 1 to 10 with 1 being the lowest and
10 the highest. A school’s similar schools ranking differs from their statewide
ranking (California Department of Education, 2007a).
 State Standards. State determined criterion, which are usually statements of
what students should know as a result of teaching.
 Statewide Ranking. Elementary, middle, and high schools are ranked
statewide using only their API scores. Ranks are on a scale of 1 to 10. A
school’s statewide ranking is different from their similar schools ranking
(California Department of Education, 2007a).
 Student Engagement. Defined differently by researchers. Believed to have
affective, behavioral, cognitive, and social dimensions. For the purposes of
this study, the researcher adopted the explanation of the creators of the

16
HSSSE survey. Cognitive engagement describes student effort, investment,
and strategies for learning. Social/behavioral engagement describes student’s
actions in social, extracurricular, and non-academic activities, including
interactions with other students. Emotional engagement describes student
feelings or connection or disconnection to their school, how they feel about
where they are in school, the ways and workings of the school, and the
people within their school (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006, p. 7-8).
 Student Mobility. Refers to changes in student enrollment at school.
 Title I. The first section of the ESEA, which refers to programs for
America's most disadvantaged students. Title I Part A provides assistance to
improve the teaching and learning of children in high-poverty schools so they
are able to meet state academic content and performance standards (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004a).
 Triangulation. A data analysis method used to verify research findings by
cross-checking multiple data sources (Patton, 2002).
 Urban School. A school characterized by large numbers of non-White
students, students with limited English proficiency, and students with lower
socioeconomic status (taken from cohort discussions).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the following: the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research

17
questions, the significance of the study, methodology, assumptions, delimitations,
and definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature pertinent to the study. The following
topics are included: the evolution of urban high schools, accountability, high school
reform, high schools today, high performing conditions, high school students today,
and student engagement.
Chapter 3 addresses the methodology selected for this study. Topics include:
research development, the conceptual framework, the research design, population
and sample, instrumentation, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures,
and the trustworthiness of the study.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study.
Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study. Conclusions and
recommendations for future study are included too.

18
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
High performing urban high schools are rare. A confluence of factors impede
their performance: poverty, high student mobility rates, and large populations of
English language learners. Accountability measures have highlighted the academic
underperformance of urban schools. As a result, urban schools have received federal
attention. Reform models have followed in an attempt to rectify failing urban high
schools. Yet, understanding how a select few urban high schools are able to
overcome extraneous barriers to learning and to become high performing schools
remains an open field of study. Although a great deal of research discusses what
successful schools do in general to increase student achievement, little is known
about student engagement as a factor for high performance in urban high schools.
Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on urban high
schools, high performing conditions, and the possible link between high performance
and student engagement. The chapter concludes by bridging how this study is an
important addition to that literature. A historical context for high schools is provided
next; a section on accountability follows.
The Evolution of Urban High Schools
The history of public urban high schools is rooted within a complex web of
societal factors, some of which are uniquely urban and others which affected high
schools across America. While industrialization and immigration marked the start of

19
urban high schools, they were also affected by the same periods of change and
controversy as non-urban high schools. Stated differently, the history of urban high
schools is blurred by its non-urban counterparts.
Prior to the 1900’s private academies existed in rural areas (Tyack, 1974) and
their purpose was to prepare students for college (Goldin, 1998; Hammock, 2004;
Marsh & Codding, 1999). However, as America changed from an agrarian to an
industrial society during the late 1800’s, the population of cities swelled (Tozer,
Violas, & Senese, 2002). By 1920, more than 50% of the United States’ population
lived in cities (Tozer et al., 2002). The population density and large tax base of urban
areas were capable of supporting public high schools, unlike those of rural areas
(Tyack). As a result, public schools increased in number. Industry jobs outnumbered
agrarian jobs by 1920 (Tozer et al.). This economic transformation displaced the
traditional and classical curriculum proposed by the Committee of Ten in 1894 with
a more practical curriculum. Advances in science, the emergence of big business, the
growth of large-scale retailing, changes in technology, and specialized labor required
potential employees to acquire advanced skills for increased economic production
(Goldin, 2001). A high school diploma equaled substantial wage increases (Goldin)
and parents all across America soon realized the significance of a high school
education (Goldin & Katz, 2001). As the demand for a high school education
increased, states scurried to build more high schools and mass education exploded
(Goldin). The years between 1910 to 1940 are considered the high school movement

20
(Goldin, 1998). By World War II most states had extended the mandatory age of
school attendance to age 16 (Marsh & Codding, 1999).
During the same time period as the high school movement, the modern day
comprehensive high school emerged, which impacted both urban and non-urban high
schools. In 1918 the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education
convened to discuss the role of high schools in an industrialized economy
(Hammock, 2004; Spring, 2001). They wrote the Cardinal Principles of Secondary
Education, which recommended various vocational courses in addition to health,
homemaking, and civics (Hammock).
By 1959, James Conant, an influential educator and then Harvard President,
extended the Commission’s recommendation (Hammock, 2004). In The American
High School, Conant (1959) supported the co-existence of vocational and college
preparatory courses. He advocated building large high schools where students could
choose from expansive course offerings. He also recommended that America’s high
schools develop a counseling system, declassify students as vocational or college-
preparatory, offer a core of general education courses for graduation (English,
history, math, science, and electives), group students by specific subject ability,
create grade transcripts, provide remedial instruction for below-grade level reading
students, provide additional coursework for gifted students, divide the school day
into 7 or 8 periods, require pre-requisite course work, develop a honors list, provide
tuition-free summer school, extend third and fourth year foreign language course
offerings, and establish homerooms (Conant). In short, Conant’s vision included

21
providing a diverse curriculum for varied student populations (Conant). The
comprehensive high school model remains imprinted upon today’s high schools.
Besides Conant’s vision of the comprehensive high school, other factors
shaped the development of urban schools. Cities became ethnically diverse during
the nineteenth century as millions of immigrants arrived in American cities to fill
high-demand positions in factories and assembly plants (Pratte, 1973; Tozer, Violas,
& Senese, 2002). From 1940-1970 millions of uneducated and poor Blacks, Puerto
Ricans, Mexicans, Chicanos, Native Americans, and Whites migrated to cities too
(Tyack, 1974). Millions of Whites migrated concurrently to suburban areas (Rury,
1999). From 1950 to 1990 the White population of urban cities fell to one-third
(Rury). Minority groups and poverty began to define urban areas (Rury).
The condition of urban schools was highlighted in 1961 with Conant’s book
entitled Slums and Suburb: 50% drop-out rates, disproportionate per-pupil
expenditures between urban and suburban schools, and crowded, understaffed, and
dilapidated schools. By the Civil Rights movement, researchers and policymakers
began exploring the relationship between academic achievement and race, poverty,
and urbanicity (Gutek, 2000; Spring, 2001). Four decades later these same issues
define the urban challenge. Consequently, politicians have intervened within the
educational domain and called for increased accountability for all schools, teachers,
and students.

22
Accountability
The most recent challenge urban and non-urban schools face is
accountability. Although accountability at some level has always existed in public
schools, the means have changed (Darling-Hammond & Ascher, 1991). High stakes
testing and sanctions geared toward improving student achievement characterize the
last decade. Like previous waves of school change, accountability is entrenched in
the history of American education. As the industrial revolution and Conant’s
philosophy shaped public high schools so did the launching of Sputnik, A Nation at
Risk, and The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. However, the nation’s urban
schools received federal attention from the latter. State and local standards followed
NCLB; thereby, enforcing the cries from businesses and politicians for a more
productive, effective, and results-oriented education system. The next section
discusses the evolution of accountability as a major reform of today.
Sputnik
Secondary public schools came under scrutiny during the 1950’s as America
fought the ideological spread of communism (Gutek, 2000). On October 4, 1957 the
Soviet Union launched a satellite (Sputnik) into space which orbited the earth.
Because the United States’ ‘enemy’ was first in space, public education was
criticized for inadequately preparing the nation’s youth in science, math, and
technology. Hence, the nation’s educational focus shifted towards preparing
students to reclaim the lead in these critical areas. Congress assisted in the reform
with the National Education Defense Act. The act provided aid for science, math,

23
and foreign language instruction (Gutek, 2000). The federal government’s
intervention and influence expanded into the twenty-first century with A Nation at
Risk and NCLB (Gutek, 2000).
A Nation at Risk
Although the focus upon academic performance shifted from Sputnik toward
the Civil Rights movement during the 1960’s and 1970’s (Peterson, 2003), the
nation’s high schools were once again in the spotlight and being compared to other
countries with the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk (Gutek, 2000). Four years
after the creation of the federal Department of Education, Secretary of Education,
Terrell Bell, convinced then President Ronald Regan to appoint a commission to
study the condition of education. Respected educators formed the National
Commission on Excellence in Education (Ravitch, 2003). Emphasizing secondary
student achievement (Peterson, 2003), the report cited 23 million Americans as
illiterate, 13% of 17-year olds as functionally illiterate, 40% functional illiteracy
among minority youth, declining standardized and SAT achievement scores, and
lagging student achievement compared to other countries (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983).
Although the report stated that “all, regardless of race or class or economic
status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual
powers of mind and spirit to the utmost” (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983, para.1), the report failed to address the needs of poor and minority
students in urban areas (Hill, Guin, & Celio, 2003). Specifically, the report failed to

24
address the distinctive challenges of urban students. Compared to non-urban
students, they are often unprepared to begin school, they lack parental support, and
are affected academically by poverty (Hill et al., 2003). In 2002 the achievement
gap between urban and non-urban areas was finally addressed in No Child Left
Behind legislation.
NCLB
Although National Goals for Education 2000 preceded NCLB and pushed
accountability one step forward, NCLB directly addressed the underperformance of
urban students. In 2001 President George W. Bush reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, known today as the No Child Left Behind Act. This
legislation intended to ensure that all students learn and excel. The Act made several
provisions for urban students. NCLB was designed for the following: to create an
awareness of the achievement gap between urban and non-urban students, to hold
schools accountable for the achievement of traditionally overlooked minority
populations, to assist states in the implementation of programs to help non-English
speaking students learn English, and to allocate funding to low-income students for
additional academic support so these students master challenging curricula and meet
state standards in core academic subjects. NCLB requires schools to report how well
students are performing; this report is called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). By
2014 all schools are expected to have met their targets; specifically, students are
required to show proficiency on statewide tests (California Department of Education,
2007b).

25
Additionally, NCLB established criteria for hiring highly qualified teachers,
allowing families to transfer out of a failing school, and providing supplemental
education services to students in low performing schools (NCLB, 2001). While
NCLB placed urban schools at the forefront of education reforms; individual states
were given the responsibility of setting learning standards aimed at increasing
student achievement.
State Standards
Although some states developed standards prior to Goals 2000 (Fuhrman,
2004), Goals 2000 legislation mandated the development of state standards and
alignment with assessments (Goals, 2000). As of 2007 all states have adopted
standards and most have attempted to align the standards with assessment (Linn,
2004). However, states vary in reporting assessment results, sanctioning teachers
and students, testing in various content areas, using assessment criteria (normative or
otherwise), and weighing the performance of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic
statuses (Linn). Disaggregating student performance between minority and poor
students and White students is intended to monitor the closing of the achievement
gap (Linn).
Student achievement is the purpose of state standards (Linn, 2004); yet, high
school standards are particularly problematic within the comprehensive school
model. Siskin (2004) asserted that schools are not structured to accomplish these
expectations. Alluding to the fact that only in recent times have all students been
expected to graduate high school, Siskin (2004) suggested that schools are entering a

26
new era. Schools are expected to bring all students up to the same standards. Yet,
urban high schools lack the capacity to prepare their students to meet these standards
due to high teacher turnover rates, uneducated parents, and inadequate resources
(Siskin).
Researchers have debated the impact of standards upon subsequent student
achievement. Siskin (2004) suggested that the gap between minority and low income
students may be paradoxically widening instead of closing due to standards-based
accountability. Hall and Kennedy’s (2006) research supports this assertion. They
reviewed state assessment results from 2003 to 2005 and found academic gains most
consistent in the elementary grades. Math scores increased in 29 of 32 states and
reading scores increased in 27 of 31 states.
Hall and Kennedy (2006) concluded that overall states have failed to educate
low-income and minority students in both middle and high schools. Alternatively,
Carnoy and Loeb’s (2004) study contradicts both Siskin (2004) and Hall and
Kennedy (2006). Using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math
scores and data from The Nation’s Report Card, they examined the relationship
between 50 states’ accountability indexes and their NAEP math gains. The
researchers developed a 0 to 5 point ranking system to measure the accountability
index; schools assigned a 0 at the time of the study did not have state standards
whereas states with a 5 point index had multiple grade level assessments, sanctions,
rewards, and a high school competency test. Carnoy and Loeb (2004) studied
whether or not a strong state accountability system improved math test scores. They

27
cited a statistically significant relationship between the two when factoring in racial
and ethnic groups. However, the results reflected eighth grade math scores; high
schools were excluded. Although Carnoy and Loeb (2004) developed an
accountability index including high school exit exams, they left unexamined the
relationship between high school exit exams and subsequent graduation rates.
Combining Carnoy and Loeb’s (2004) accountability index with survey data, Lee
and Wong (2004) similarly found that state accountability has no negative effect on
minority or low income students.
However, more research is needed to determine the effect of state standards
upon student achievement gains as some states are in the infancy stage of
implementing state standards.
California’s Accountability System
In 1999, California legislators called for accountability within the state’s
public schools. The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) requires schools to
show and report student achievement results yearly (California Department of
Education, 2007c). The state of California developed Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) system for meeting NCLB requirements and calculating the
Academic Performance Index (API). Three components are included in STAR:
California Standards Tests (CST), the California Achievement Test (CAT-6), and the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) (WestEd, 2004). The Academic
Performance Index, California Standards Tests, and the California High School Exit
Exam are examined here.

28
Academic Performance Index
The Academic Performance Index (API) is based on a performance scale of
200 to 1000, where 1000 is the highest score possible. The API serves a two-fold
purpose: 1) to measure growth and 2) to rank schools, both of which are based on
annual calculations. Yearly school improvement is based on the prior year’s
performance (California Department of Education, 2007c). Standardized testing and
the CAHSEE results are included within a complex mathematical formula to
determine school achievement. The state weights CST results and CAHSEE results
differently in the formula.
California Standards Tests
Across differing grades and subject content areas, schools are required to
administer state sanctioned tests called California Standards Tests (CST). Students
are tested in the elementary, middle, and high school grades.
High school students are tested in the following areas: general math, algebra,
geometry, and integrated math, English, world history and U.S. history, biology,
earth science, chemistry, physics, and integrated science.
California High School Exit Exam
The academic performance index uses not only the CST results but also the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Students must show proficiency in
reading, writing, and math to obtain a high school diploma (California Department of
Education, 2006a). Besides California, 35 additional states will have high school

29
exit exams by 2008; 26 will require a passing score to graduate (Fuhrman, Goertz, &
Duffy, 2004).
Fuhrman, Goertz, and Duffy (2004) noted the problems associated with exit
exams. They examined the exit exam concerns of four states and several concerns
were detailed: 1) high failure rates, 2) limited time to expose students to assessment
content, 3) the tests are single-measure performance indicators for student progress,
and 4) test validity issues. For urban students, Garcia and Calhoun (2002) found that
minority students fared worse than Whites on the CAHSEE. Using a sample size of
3,925 students at a large Central California school district, they found a statistically
significant relationship (p < .05), which supported that White students outperform
Hispanic, African American, and Asian students on the exam. Their findings suggest
that in spite of increased accountability, states are struggling to facilitate higher
student achievement gains among urban students.
Throughout the history of America’s high schools, one theme is apparent.
Schools have failed in the past and continue to disappoint the nation in preparing
students for their economic futures. This is evidenced by historical precedents such
as the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, Sputnik, A Nation at Risk, Goals
2000, and NCLB. As recently as 2007, the NCLB reauthorization focused upon high
school students’ preparedness for the twenty-first century workforce. Nearly a
century has passed since the industrial revolution prompted the high school
movement and shifted education towards increased worker productivity.

30
Today, little has changed as the new challenge, standards-based
accountability, is rooted in a business ethos based upon productivity (Fuhrman,
2004). Given the stakes are higher than ever for students, teachers, and schools,
reform strategies penetrate the educational landscape.
Reform
The widely recognized achievement gap between urban and non-urban
students and increased accountability has pushed urban high schools to the forefront
of reform efforts (Tushnet, Flaherty, & Smith, 2004). Comprehensive school reform
(CSR) is a set of interrelated strategies designed to help schools improve (Husbands
& Beese, 2001). One does not have to look far to find a school undergoing
comprehensive school reform (CSR). Some researchers cite this is due to the federal
government’s reform impetus (Tushnet et al., 2004), the Comprehensive School
Reform Program (CSR).
Intended to assist low-performing schools, the CSR program provides
schools with monetary awards in exchange for results. For fiscal year 2005,
Congress allocated $205,344,000 for the CSR program; California received
$27,680,353 of the total (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). However, the funds
are restricted by guidelines.
The guidelines, which delineate the components of CSR are based upon
much of the effective schooling research spanning thirty years. Specifically, schools
undergoing comprehensive school reform must adopt model(s) based upon scientific
and replicated methods and practices where the reforms focus on student learning,

31
teaching, and school management. The approach must also be a comprehensive one,
encompassing instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional
development, parental involvement, and school management. Routine measures and
benchmarks must be set regarding student achievement too. Other requirements
include staff and faculty support of the reform model and parental and community
involvement in planning, implementing, and evaluating school improvement
activities. Schools must also identify other sources of funding to sustain their reform
efforts (NCLB, 2001, Title 1, Part F, Section 1606).
Studies confirm that CSR is accomplishing the established goals. CSR
targets low-performing, high poverty high minority urban schools (Tushnet,
Flaherty, & Smith, 2004). WestEd conducted a 3 year longitudinal study of CSR.
Using school survey data, researchers examined a 2002 cohort of schools. With a
random sample size of 400 CSR and 400 non-CSR schools with similar
demographics, they found 45% of CSR schools had 75% poverty rates, 75% had a
minority enrollment rate of 47%, and 46% of the schools were urban. In alignment
with federal criteria, CSR schools were also more likely to use replicated research-
based reform models proven to increase student achievement, to use measurable
goals for student performance, to conduct more frequent professional development
where all teachers were involved, and to maintain a democratic process for adopting
reform models (Tushnet et al., 2004).
Tushnet, Flaherty, and Smith (2004) failed to disaggregate the number of
elementary, middle, and high schools included in the sample. Therefore, any

32
differences among CSR high schools are uncertain. More important is that the
research failed to examine whether or not student achievement improved as a result
of CSR implementation. Other studies; however, explore the relationship between
various reform models and subsequent affects on student achievement (See Borman,
Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003; Mason, 2005).
Reform Models
Various reform models have resulted from the Federal CSR program. The
North West Regional Education Laboratory (2005) catalogued several high school
reform models. Research-based models intended to address lower socio-economic
students include: America’s Choice, Atlas Communities, Coalition of Essential
Schools, Community for Learning, Co-Nect, Edison Schools, Expeditionary
Learning/Outward Bound, First Things First, High Schools That Work, Modern Red
Schoolhouse, and Talent Development High School with Career Academies
(National Research Council, 2004). Reoccurring themes emerge in the models:
 A standards-based curriculum and aligned assessments
 A focus upon basic skills in math and reading
 Developing smaller learning communities
 Strong leadership and shared decision making among faculty and staff
 High expectations for all students and personalized learning
 Academic rigor, project-based learning, and mastery learning
 Parent and community involvement
 Whole faculty study groups and shared planning

33
 Integration of technology
 Professional development, and
 Flexible scheduling
Research findings for these models are mixed. For example, Borman,
Hewes, Overman, and Brown (2003) analyzed the research associated with several
high school models. Citing a high quality research base, they found that CSR models
as a whole were significant in raising student achievement. However, Mason (2005)
questioned Borman’s findings and conducted a follow-up study. Mason (2005)
found that the achievement gains were overestimated due to less internally valid
research methods; the same groups of students were not followed over time in a
longitudinal study. Therefore, more research is needed.
Reform will continue to characterize secondary education due to the federal
government’s intervention in high schools. Specifically, high schools were
accentuated in the January 2007 NCLB reauthorization plan. Secretary of Education,
Margaret Spellings, proposed five goals for high schools: improve graduation rates,
ensure students graduate ready to succeed, promote rigor, increase funding for high
schools that serve low-income students, and establish an Adjunct Teacher Corps to
consult as professional experts to high schools. The expectation is that every student
will graduate and be prepared for the twenty-first century (Spellings, 2007). Given
the current characteristics of high schools and high school students, this is a daunting
task.

34
High Schools Today
In 2004, there were a total of 18,435 high schools with an average enrollment
of 722 students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). The National
Research Council (2004) estimated that 28% of students attend urban schools.
However, dividing the number of urban and non-urban schools is problematic
because urban schools are defined differently (National Research Council, 2004).
Urban schools are typified by large concentrations of minority students, high
populations of students living in poverty, and high student mobility rates.
Compared to non-urban schools, urban high schools also have larger
enrollments, fewer resources, and higher teacher absenteeism (Lippman, Burns, &
McArthur, 1996). Urban schools have more discipline issues, gang activity, and
higher student absentee rates (Lippman et al., 1996). Compared to non-urban
schools, urban schools are characterized by unsatisfactory student achievement,
political factions, inexperienced teachers, low student expectations, a lack of
academic rigor, a lack of instructional coherence, and unsatisfactory fiscal conditions
(Council of Great City Schools, 2002).
Urban and non-urban high schools alike face similar challenges. Marsh and
Codding (1999) identified several challenges that are pervasive in American high
schools. Unclear purposes, low student expectations, low academic standards, grade
inflation, uncommon standards and accountability, weak student engagement,
student anonymity, student alienation, ineffective curricula and instruction, and a

35
lack of incentives for students characterize high schools today. Because effective
schools research spans more than 30 years, these pervasive issues are alarming.
High Performing Conditions
A plethora of literature has documented the strategies which effective schools
use to increase student achievement (Cotton, 2001; Marzano, 2003). Although these
strategies apply for both urban and non-urban schools, several recent studies have
highlighted ‘what works’ for urban schools in particular. Of these studies, urban
high schools are mentioned less; much of the research concentrates on elementary
schools. Therefore, more studies are needed which target high performing urban high
schools.
Numerous factors influence learning outcomes. Marzano (2003) cited three
factors for high performance: schools, teachers, and students. Strong leadership,
exceptional teachers, high student expectations, a safe and orderly environment,
personalized learning, regular monitoring of student progress, professional
development, resource and school goal alignment, and community and parent
involvement reoccur in effective schooling literature.
Strong Leadership
At the helm of effective schools are effective leaders. An immense
relationship exists between leadership and student achievement (Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003). Marzano et al. (2003) stated that “effective leadership means more
than simply knowing what to do-it’s knowing when, how, and why to do it” (p. 2).
Through analysis of 70 studies, Marzano et al. (2003) identified several leadership

36
responsibilities which correspond with effective leadership. Effective leaders: 1)
develop a sense of community within the school by developing with the staff a
shared vision, 2) solicit teacher feedback and emphasize shared decision-making, 3)
are flexible and open to change, 4) are aware of implicit cultures within the school,
informal groups, and dissension, and 5) they ensure the staff has opportunities to
develop professionally. In a study of 59 urban schools in Illinois, leadership was
paramount in the findings. Principals held high expectations for all, lead by
example, and they were visible and actively involved with instruction (McGee,
2003). In short, strong leaders are the driving force behind effective schools;
however, teachers are a critical piece of the puzzle too.
Exceptional Teachers
Marzano (2003) suggested that high performing schools employ effective
teachers. Student achievement is higher in classes with teachers who utilize
successful instructional strategies. Teachers who encourage their students to compare
and contrast information, summarize information, use graphic organizers, generate
and test hypothesis, and work cooperatively have higher levels of student
achievement. Effective teachers also provide students with opportunities for more
practice and provide students with feedback. Teachers with successful classroom
management and who use a combination of reinforcement and punishment impact
student achievement outcomes. Teacher student relationships are also significant.
Effective teachers are able to balance appropriate levels of control and support
(Marzano, 2003).

37
A Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum
Effective schools develop a sense of purpose and create a culture based upon
student learning and achievement (Kitchen, DePree, Celedon’-Pattichis &
Brinkerhoff, 2004). They understand a guaranteed and viable curriculum is
essential to success. To achieve their mission they enact a series of steps. Although
this requires shifting school priorities and goals, they prioritize student success.
Essential content is determined, instructional time is protected, and students are
given ample time to learn the required content standards (Marzano, 2003). In a case
study of nine high performing urban elementary schools, researchers concluded
similar findings as Marzano (2003): leaders minimized distractions during
instruction, teachers aligned standards and assessments to ensure students had the
opportunity to learn them, and both leaders and teachers emphasized quality
instruction (Charles A. Dana Center, 1999). Other urban schools have chosen to
prioritize basic math and reading skills (Council of the Great City Schools, 2002).
Regardless of the obstacles, effective schools understand the significance of the
curriculum as a vehicle for maximizing student learning.
Challenging Goals, High Expectations, and Feedback
Effective schools employ leaders and teachers who believe in students’
ability to excel but also they set high expectations for students and give students
timely feedback. This practice is especially important for urban students as most of
them have unsuccessful school experiences from the past (The Education Trust,
2005). Effective schools set and communicate challenging academic goals for all

38
students ( Cotton, 2001 & Marzano, 2003). At the same time, students are held
responsible for their learning. Feedback is critical for both processes. Two factors
coincide with feedback; it must be frequent, appropriate to the content learned, and
specific (Marzano, 2003).
Marzano’s (2003) research is exemplified in a case study of nine low-income
racially and ethnically diverse high schools. In these schools students readily
recognized their teachers’ high expectations of them. Students not only described
their teacher’s willingness to help them after school and for as long as students
needed help, but also they acknowledged the work as challenging and that they had
to work harder to earn a B. Teachers concurred, citing their students were
encouraged to take four years of math when only three years where required
(Kitchen, DePree, Celedon’-Pattichis & Brinkerhoff, 2004).
Safe, Orderly Environment
Effective schools foster a safe environment (Marzano, 2003). Feeling secure
is essential for urban students as urban schools have higher incidences of criminal
activity, gangs, and violence. Students cannot be expected to learn in an unsafe
school. Hence, effective schools identify students predisposed to behavior problems,
foster a protective environment by establishing procedures and rules and enforcing
consequences for unwanted behaviors, and teach self-discipline and accountability to
students (Marzano, 2003).

39
Professional Development
Effective schools emphasize the personal growth and collaborative learning
among staff (Marzano, 2003). Professional development opportunities are
meaningful and authentic but most importantly they are centered on student
achievement. Another professional development dimension is that it must be
collaborative where teachers respect, support, and care for one another. They work
together to solve student issues (Kitchen, DePree, Celedon’-Pattichis & Brinkerhoff,
2004). In sum, effective schools provide frequent, intensive, content-driven,
relevant, and comprehensive professional development opportunities (Marzano,
2003).
Community and Parent Connections
Effective schools understand the importance of building relationships and
support with stakeholders (Marzano, 2003). High performing schools use
communication, participation, and governance to involve parents and the community
(Marzano, 2003). For example, schools inform parents and the community of what
is happening in the school. Schools also invite the community and parents into the
school often in a volunteer or guest speaker capacity. When parents and community
members are involved with the school, additional resources follow. Shared
governance with parents and the community is also a key feature of effective
schools. When these groups are given voice within the school they are more likely
to support the school (Marzano, 2003).

40
Several factors in the literature define high performing schools. No ‘magic
bullet’ exists but rather several factors interact to influence student achievement.
Effective schools have capitalized on the confluence of factors. Yet, too many urban
high school students are still failing academically.
High School Students Today
In 2003 there were 14,338,486 public high school students. High school
students are racially diverse; 1% are Alaskan American, 5% are Asian Pacific
Islanders, 16% are Black, 16% are Hispanic, and 62% are White (National High
School Center, 2006). Of these students, a larger percentage of minority students
than White students live in cities. The total public schooling enrollment for cities
having a population greater than or equal to 250,000 in 2003 were broken down into
the following racial demographics: African Americans (32.4%), Hispanics (36.6%),
and Whites 22.7% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).
In terms of academic measures, an achievement gap exists between White
students and Black, Hispanic, and Native American students and between students
with high and low socioeconomic standing. Whites score higher than African
American, Hispanic, and Native American students on criterion and norm-referenced
standardized test and students with a higher socioeconomic standing perform higher
than students with a lower socioeconomic standing (The Council of the Great City
Schools, 1999).
Research validates the achievement gap. In 2004 Black and Hispanics scored
lower than Whites on the NAEP. Seventeen year-old Whites scored an average

41
scaled score of 293 in reading and a 313 in math whereas Blacks scored a 264 in
reading and a 285 in math. Hispanics scored a 264 in reading and a 289 in math.
Whites scored nearly 30 points higher than both Black and Hispanics in reading and
more than 20 points more in math (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
Minority students also leave high school more than White students. In 2004
the drop-out rates for Whites were 6.8%, Blacks 11.8%, and Hispanics 23.8%
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). In another study, Swanson (2001)
analyzed graduation rates using the U.S. Department of Education Common Core of
Data for 2000-2001. With a sample size of 11,110 school districts, Swanson (2001)
found that historically disadvantaged minority groups (American Indian, Hispanic,
and Blacks) have a 50% chance of obtaining a high school diploma. Students in
high-poverty, racially segregated, and urban schools graduate 15 to18% less than
their peers.
Not only are urban students dropping out at higher rates than Whites but also
urban students are underrepresented in post-secondary education. In 2004 the
percentage of post-secondary enrollment for Whites was 71.2%, Blacks 7.7%, and
Hispanics 5.1% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). White enrollment
exceeds both Black and Hispanic enrollments combined.
Course-taking patterns are different for minorities also. In 2005, the
University of Indiana reported the results from 80,904 high school student surveys.
They found 59% of students are taking general or regular track classes and 27% are
taking advanced placement or honors courses. The percentage of Whites (30%)

42
represented in these classes are double the number of Latino (13%), American Indian
(16%), and African American (16%) students. However, almost every respondent
said they planned to graduate, 39% expected to earn a bachelor’s degree, and 35% a
masters or beyond (High School Survey of Student Engagement, 2005b). Although
the university’s findings are helpful in capturing a general composite of high school
students, the survey results combined urban students and non-urban students on all
measures. Disaggregating the data by urban and non-urban students would perhaps
present a different picture.
Causes for the Achievement Gap
In an attempt to explain the differences in achievement between urban and
non-urban students, researchers have identified numerous factors for the gap.
Poverty, high student mobility rates, and high populations of English language
learners are more prevalent in urban schools. The next section details each of these
factors in detail.
Poverty
In 2005 49% or 9.6 million children ages 0 to 18 lived in a low-income
family and in an urban area. Of these children, 31% were Latino and 23% were
Black (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2006). Low income students are
characterized by the following: single-parent homes, parent(s) with low education
backgrounds, and parents who are unemployed or earn low wages.
By definition low-income students lack basic food, clothing, and shelter
(Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Poverty-stricken students are more susceptible to

43
other issues. For example, poor children are more likely to have physical, cognitive,
and emotional difficulties. Physical conditions include low birth weight, growth
stunting, asthma, and lead poisoning. Cognitive conditions include developmental
delays and learning disabilities. Emotional issues include aggression, anxiety, and
depression. Poor adolescents are also more likely to become pregnant. Brooks-
Gunn and Duncan (1997) also suggested that poor children’s home environments
differ too. Students have less learning related resources and differing parental
interactions; both foster student learning. Besides this, poor students are more likely
to live in high crime neighborhoods with fewer resources (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,
1997). All of these factors interfere with student learning.
High Mobility Rates
High student mobility rates also impact urban schools. The National Center
for Children in Poverty (2006) indicated that 21% of children in low-income families
or 5.9 million moved in 2005. Kerbow (1996) cited that African-American and
Hispanic students are among the most frequent movers. Poor families move for a
variety of reasons. They move because their existing neighborhood is unsafe or their
child’s current school is an underperforming one. Residential instability interrupts
students’ schooling experiences. As students move from one school to another, the
new school may move at either a faster or slower rate than the child’s previous
school. Students may also miss prerequisite information during the transition. High
student mobility rates also affect the receiving and exiting schools. For example,
teachers may be unable to plan long-term for students, need to review more often,

44
and be unable to reflect upon his or her instructional practices and effectiveness
(Kerbow, 1996).
English Language Learners
In addition to poverty and high mobility rates, English language learners
(ELL) are concentrated in urban schools (Cohen, Deterding, & Clewell, 2005).
English language learners are typically immigrants who have recently migrated to
the United States. Forty percent of foreign-born children are unable to speak English
proficiently (The Urban Institute, 2001). The Urban Institute (2001) cited that 5.7%
of the high school student population are immigrants. ELL students pose significant
challenges for urban schools. Recruiting highly qualified teachers to work with these
students is problematic. Urban teachers are more likely to have less academic
preparation, emergency credentials, and less teaching experience (Cohen et al.,
2005). Given the research, which supports the link between effective teachers and
high performance (Marzano, 2003), this is yet another barrier for urban schools.
Besides teacher recruitment, schools with high ELL populations also provide more
support services such as after school programs, summer school, early education
programs, and remediation (Cohen et al.). These added resources place fiscal strain
upon urban schools too (Ruiz-de-Velasco, Fix, & Clewell, 2000).
Engagement
The literature alludes to a strong connection between high performance and
strong leadership, effective instructional practices, a culture of high expectations,
challenging goals, a safe and orderly environment, and parent and community

45
connections. However, the literature is less clear about whether or not student
engagement is a contributing factor for high performing urban high schools.
Fredericks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) reviewed 44 student engagement studies;
of these studies four specifically addressed urban high school students. None of the
studies examined student engagement and achievement directly.
Student engagement as an achievement-educational outcome is largely
unexplored in the literature (Furlong, Whipple, Jean, Simental, Soliz & Punthuna,
2003; Marks, 2000; Newmann, 1992; Steinberg, Brown, & Dornbusch, 1996). How
student achievement is defined determines the relationship between engagement and
achievement (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Fredericks et al. (2004)
suggested that student engagement has several definitions throughout the 44 studies
they examined. They proceeded to note that measuring student engagement is
difficult because engagement is a three-dimensional meta-construct with behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive elements (Fredericks). In spite of this, Fredericks et al.
(2004) makes clear that engagement is a complex variable but nonetheless important
for understanding.
In simplest terms, behavioral engagement is observable student actions such
as completing assignments and participating in activities. Emotional engagement is
associated with valuing and feeling connected to the school. Cognitive engagement
is a student’s use of cognitive strategies to understand learning material (Fredericks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Fredericks et al. (2004) suggested that behavioral and
cognitive engagement is related with achievement; however, less is known about

46
emotional engagement and achievement. Similarly, Jimerson, Campos, and Greif
(2003) reviewed 45 empirical student engagement studies and contended that several
student engagement instruments measure observable academic behaviors; however,
the more extensive instruments consider both the affective and cognitive factors
related to student engagement. In short, the literature definitions for student
engagement overlap into behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions.
Collapsing these concepts make it challenging to understand engagement as a
concept (Fredericks et al., 2004; Jimerson et al., 2003).
When the three constructs are measured separately, the behavioral dimension
coincides the most with achievement, perhaps this is because behavior is observable.
Attendance, task completion, amount of time spent on academic work, perceived
student concentration, enthusiasm, and interest are metrics of student engagement
(Newmann, 1992). Researchers indicate that student engagement via observable
behaviors is associated with positive outcomes (Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003).
Newmann (1992) surveyed nine public high schools and found student engagement
is positively correlated with lower incidences of deviant behaviors such as skipping
class and cheating. More engaged students drop out of school less. Finn (1989)
found that adolescents who participate in school and class and identify with the
school are less likely to drop out. Newmann (1992) concluded that higher academic
performance and higher educational aspirations are correlated with student
engagement too. However, Newmann (1992) made a disclaimer to his findings;
students may appear engaged and they may complete tasks to fulfill the school

47
requirements without having an actual desire to learn. He noted that engagement
must be viewed on a continuum. Students have levels of engagement rather than
being engaged or disengaged only (Newmann).
Throughout the literature several factors emerge which positively impact
student engagement. Marzano (2003) found effective schools are influenced by
school, teacher, and student level factors. Student engagement is also impacted by
school, teacher, and individual factors. All three are highlighted in the literature.
School Factors
A sense of school belongingness and a positive school environment impacts
student engagement (Marks, 2000; Newmann, 1992). Newmann (1992) asserted that
students must perceive school as important and worthy of respect. To accomplish
this, schools must facilitate student connectedness to the school. By establishing a
climate of purpose, equity, fairness, support, and celebrating the educational success
of all students, schools foster higher levels of student engagement.
Besides these practices, the organization of the school impacts student
engagement too. Finn and Voekl (1993) found that at-risk students are more
engaged in smaller schools. Other research has examined the racial-ethnic
composition of schools and engagement. Johnson, Cosnoe, & Elder (2001) assumed
students exposed to highly engaged peers would be more engaged. They found
individual characteristics predict engagement more than racial-ethnic compositions
of schools. Still they suggested further research be conducted regarding the school
and engagement relationship.

48
Teacher Factors
Teachers also influence student engagement. Teachers who assign
challenging tasks and authentic assignments facilitate engagement (Marks, 2000;
Newmann, 1992). In a study of 13 randomly selected high schools and 526 student
participants, high challenge and high meaning tasks equated with higher
engagement. Teachers who assign students active rather than passive learning tasks
engage students more too (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff,
2003). Teachers facilitate student engagement levels in other ways. In a another
study of 449 students where 85% received free-reduced lunch and 96% were non-
White, Akey (2006) found that teacher support, student-to-student interactions, and
clear expectations regarding conduct were related to student engagement. Teacher
support is important but also students’ perceived relationships with teachers relate to
levels of student engagement (Hudley, Daoud, Polanco, Wright-Castro, &
Hershberg, 2003). Latino students in particular are more engaged when they
perceive their teachers as ‘warm’ and have developed a positive interpersonal
relationship with them (Hudley et al., 2003). Teachers who establish high
expectations for students positively impact student engagement levels too (Marks,
2000).
Individual Factors
Student engagement depends upon individual student characteristics and
experiences (Marks, 2000). Students have a physiological need to feel competent
and to perceive themselves as competent to engage in learning (Akey, 2006;

49
Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003; Marks, 2000; Newmann, 1992). In a study
of 123 high school students, researchers used survey data and concluded that
students receive better grades and are more engaged when they are confident of their
academic ability. Goal orientation impacts student engagement levels too; when
students set and achieve goals for themselves, students are more likely to continue
the same cycle and are more motivated to persist in spite of challenges (Caraway et
al., 2003).
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)
The University of Indiana began collecting national high school student
engagement data in 2004 in an attempt to understand academic student engagement
and foster changes within schools (High School Survey of Student Engagement,
2005b). Citing assessments as telling only half the story, the HSSSE creators
suggested student engagement survey data is helpful for understanding and changing
student behaviors and school features to improve test results (High School Survey of
Student Engagement, 2005b). As of 2006, the survey has been administered to
300,000 students.
The survey consists of 23 survey items which attempt to solicit student
demographical information and student responses regarding various high school
experiences. Students are asked to report their current grade level, age, sex, racial
and ethnic identification, and if English is their primary language. Students are also
asked to report the number of hours they sleep each night, number of school year
absences, class tardiness rates, whether they have internet connection at home, their

50
out of school activities (both related to school and non-related to school), and their
parent’s education levels. Educational aspirations, course-taking patterns, and
transcript information is also gathered. The survey gauges students’ participation in
activities associated with higher educational achievement. For example, students are
asked to report their writing, reading, class participation, and collaboration
experiences. Students are also asked to report their perception of the school: faculty
and staff support, academic expectations, and relevancy of the curriculum to student
career goals (High School Survey of Student Engagement, 2005b).
The national profile of the 81,499 high school students who completed the
survey in 2006 represents a heterogeneous ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic student
body but homogenous group of English language speakers (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006). Of
the participating schools 34% were categorized as urban, 33% suburban, 23% rural,
and 10% town. Of the 2006 respondents, 54% classified themselves as White
students, 16% preferred not to respond, 9% were classified as Black, 7% Multiracial,
7% Latino, 4% Asian, 2% American Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian, or other
Native American, and 1% Middle Eastern. Eighty-five percent of respondents
reported English as their primary language spoken at home. The socioeconomic
profile of 2006 participants shows that 21% of students who took the survey
qualified for the Federal Free-Reduced Lunch Program, 21% did not know if they
were eligible, while 58% reported they were not eligible (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006).
The 2006 national profile reveals that high school students are disengaged
academically. Nearly 60% of students reported that they go to school because “it’s

51
the law” (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006). Sixty-six percent reported they are bored every day
at school; 75% cited their school work as uninteresting, 39% cited the material was
irrelevant, and 32% suggested that their material was unchallenging. Thirty-one
percent of students stated their boredom was due to a lack of teacher-student
interaction. Over 50% of students reported skipping school either once or twice,
while 22% have considered dropping out of school altogether. Of those who
considered dropping out, over 50% stated a dislike for school, their teachers, or the
material. Similarly, 43% of students reported they spend less than one hour per
week doing written homework and 55% spend less than one hour reading and
studying for class. Accordingly, students reported spending two or more hours on
the following activities: 70% watching television and playing video games, 60 %
talking on the telephone, and 86% socializing with friends, 53% online surfing and
chatting (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006).
Although, the national profile gives a broad depiction of the lives of high
school students in general, the level of student engagement in specific settings albeit
urban, rural, suburban, or town is unknown. Since the University of Indiana failed to
publish disaggregated data which is representative of students by their urban and
non-urban status, this is a significant point of interest for this study. More
specifically, it is unknown if and how the national profile differs from the profile of
high performing urban schools.

52
Conclusion
In summary, the evidence reviewed here suggests that urban high schools are
failing to prepare students for the future demands of society. High dropout rates, low
postsecondary enrollment, and low standardized test scores among urban students are
only a few indicators detailing the unsatisfactory condition of urban high schools.
Underperformance is attributable to urban schools’ need to balance accountability
measures with high poverty rates, high student mobility rates, and high
concentrations of ELL students. These challenges are exacerbated by the larger
observation that both urban and non-urban high schools are failing to engage
students.
While the success of high performing urban and non-urban schools is related
to strong leadership, exceptional teachers, high student expectations, a safe and
orderly environment, personalized learning, regular monitoring of student progress,
professional development, resource and school goal alignment, and community and
parent involvement, the literature is less clear about student engagement as a factor
for high performance. Because it is unknown whether or not student engagement is a
factor for high performance in urban high schools, this study will utilize an adapted
form of the High School Survey of Student Engagement to investigate the link
between the two. This study will also attempt to identify other factors related to high
performance in urban high schools. Since many high performing urban school
studies concentrate on elementary schools, researching the factors for high
performance in urban high schools is especially needful to fill the gap in scholarly

53
literature. In short, the practices of these ‘in spite’ of schools are significant as they
illuminate the possibilities for success to other urban schools.

54
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of chapter three is to detail the research methodology for this
study. This is one case study of 10 developed by a team. The following are
described: how the study was developed, the research design, conceptual model,
population, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis components.
The methodology chosen for this study was based upon the research questions. The
researcher examined the factors associated with high performance in an urban high
school and whether or not student engagement was a contributing factor.
Research Development
A team of 10 doctoral cohort members developed the study elements prior to
collecting data at each high school. The cohort met at specified periods and for
extended sessions from December 2006 to August 2007. These sessions served as
the basis for all research decisions. The team began with a thorough review of the
literature. Because urban high schools were largely unexplored in the literature, our
suspicions were validated; more research was needed pertaining to urban high schools
who were outperforming expectations and their peers. The literature also pointed to
what effective schools were doing in general to raise achievement but student
engagement as a factor for outperforming urban high schools was unexplored.
Therefore, student engagement was included as another dimension for further study.

55
After combing the research, we developed our problem statement and research
questions to guide our actions. Next, we developed our data collection instruments.
Once we established the parameters of the study, we individually selected one urban
high school for each researcher. A total of 10 individual case studies using the similar
criteria were studied.
Problem Statement
The cohort developed the following problem statement; “historically,
students in urban high schools have underperformed academically in comparison to
their suburban counterparts. Nonetheless some urban high schools have achieved
significant gains. Unclear is what contributes to high performance in these schools.”
To determine the factors for high performance, the cohort developed two research
questions.
Research Questions
Creswell (2003) has suggested several guidelines for developing research
questions. Using his framework, the questions for this study were designed.
Creswell (2003) recommended researchers develop broad questions and use words
such as ‘what’ or ‘how’ as this is an indicator that the research is emerging. In
accordance with these standards, the research questions for this study were:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?

56
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
Selection Criteria
A high school, which met the specified criteria developed by the cohort
group, was selected for this study. Since we wanted to study urban high schools, we
attempted to define what constitutes an urban school. After extensive dialogue, we
determined that we would study high schools with ‘urban-like’ factors only. We
limited our focus on those high schools which met the following criteria:
demographic criteria.
1. 40% of the school population had to be participants in the Federal
Free-Reduced Lunch program.
2. The student body had to be diverse or largely non-White.
academic criteria.
1. The school’s similar school ranking had to be at least 2 deciles
higher than their California state rank.
Once we established the parameters of site selection, our dissertation
chairperson instructed us to establish initial contact with the site administrator. The
researcher used Creswell’s (2003) protocol for the first contact: 1) identify who to
contact first pertinent to your study, 2) decide upon a contact method via telephone,
letter, or in-person, 3) determine the proper phrasing for presenting your study to the
contact(s), and 4) be prepared for the contact’s questioning regarding the study (p.
445). In accordance with these standards, the researcher determined the principal

57
would be the best point of contact for initiating the study. The researcher decided to
call the principal first. The researcher introduced herself as a doctoral student from
the University of Southern California, who was studying high performing urban
schools. Using the school’s academic rankings obtained from the California
Department of Education website, she described her interest in studying the school
because of its high performance. The principal and the researcher set a formal
meeting to discuss the study in more detail. Once the principal granted permission to
study the school, the researcher developed a mutually acceptable schedule with the
principal for visiting the school. Additionally, the researcher secured a
confidentiality agreement for collecting and reporting data regarding the school.
Conceptual Framework
Based upon the literature and specifically Marzano’s (2003) work, effective
schools are positively impacted by the school culture, leadership, and curriculum and
instruction. Other external factors influence the performance of schools, too,
namely, accountability, urban-risk factors, globalization, and national and state
influences. However, it is unknown if student engagement is a factor for high
performance in urban high schools. During the research development process, the
cohort spent extensive time reflecting and collaborating to determine the lens from
which to view the entire study; figure 3.1 is a display of the conceptual model we
adopted.

58
?

Figure 3.1: Cohort Conceptual Model

Globalization
Accountability
National/State/
District Influences
Urban-like
Risk Factors

Student
Achievement
Leadership
Student
Engagement
Curriculum &
Instruction
School
Culture

59
Research Design
A case study research design was chosen for this study based upon the match
between the problem statement and approach. A multiple method case study via
quantitative and qualitative data sources best aligned the problem statement. By
conducting a case study, the researcher was able to determine what was happening at
one particular urban high school, which is exceeding expectations. Shavelson &
Towne (2002) stated the following to this regard: “if you want to know what’s going
on, you have to go out and look at what is going on. Such inquiries are descriptive.
They are intended to provide a range of information . . . to rich descriptions of the
complexities of educational practice” (p. 101-102). Using the case study design
recommended by Gall, Gall & Borg (2003), the researcher sought to uncover a
particular phenomenon, specifically, a high performing urban high school. The
researcher wanted to explore the processes, events, persons, and any other related
factors related to high performance in an urban high school (Gall et al., 2003).
Initially, the cohort intentionally avoided stating a hypothesis for the study; instead
we wanted to discover the factors for high performance. Stated differently,
researchers using inductive designs allow patterns to emerge without making
conjectures regarding the research outcomes (Patton, 2002).

60
Population and Sample
Overview of Star Performing Neighborhoods
The sample for this study was taken from a local high school in the city of
Star Performing
1
, California. Star Performing is located in Northern Orange County.
In 2005, the city of Star Performing had a population of 192,345 with 40% of the
population Hispanic, 33.7% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders, and 33.5%
White. Forty-five percent reported being foreign-born and 67% above the age of
five speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Fifty-
one percent of these speak Spanish. The poverty rate in 2005 was 13%. Of the total
population 11,333 students were enrolled in grades 9-12 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2005).
Overview of Star Performing Unified School District
The high school selected for this study was within the Star Performing
Unified School District (SPUSD). Nine high schools are located in the district. The
student ethnic composition for the district is as follows: Hispanic 52%, Asian 28.8%,
White 14.9%, Pacific Islander 1.1%, Filipino 1.2%, African American 1.0%, and
American Indian 0.2%. Sixty percent of SPUSD students speak another language
besides English. English language learners represent 46.7% of the total enrollment:
32.1% speak Spanish, 11.7% Vietnamese, and 0.8% Korean (EdData District
Reports, 2005-2006).

1
Star Performing is a pseudonym for both the city, school district, and school site used in this study.
To maintain anonymity, the school and district information is intentionally unstated in the reference
list also.

61
Overview of Selected Site
Star Performing High School was selected for this study. Star Performing
High met both the demographic and academic criteria that the cohort established for
the case studies. Star Performing High is located in Northern Orange County, CA.
Star Performing High School’s student body is somewhat diverse as 79% of
the student-body is Hispanic or Latino, 14% is Asian, 5% is White, and African
Americans and Pacific Islanders comprise 1% each (California Department of
Education, 2007d). In comparison to the district, SPHS has 27% more Hispanics and
50% less White and Asian students. See Table 3.1.

Table 3.1
Race & Ethnicity at Star Performing High School and Star Performing Unified
Race/Ethnicity Hispanic Asian White Pacific
Islander
African
American
American
Indian
Star Performing
Unified
52% 28% 14% 1.1% 1.0% 1.2%
Star Performing
High School
79% 14% 5% 1.0% 1.0% 0%

School District
English language learners represent 44.0% of the school’s total enrollment
(California Department of Education, 2007d). Thirty-eight percent speak Spanish
and 3.7% Vietnamese (EdData School Reports, 2005-2006). Forty-two percent of

62
parents, whose children attend the school, reported less than a high school diploma.
Seventy-three percent of students participate in the Federal Free-Reduced Lunch
program (California Department of Education, 2007d).
Academically, Star Performing is ‘beating the odds’. The most recently
published California Department of Education (2006b) Base Report indicated that
the school obtained a five statewide ranking and a 10 similar school ranking. The
Base Reports for the past four years (2003-2006) reveal that the school has steadily
improved their API scores in spite of a constant and high number of free-reduced
lunch program participants and ELL students. See Table 3.2.

Table 3.2
2003-2006 Academic Achievement & Demographic Data for Star Performing High
School
Year API
Score
State Ranking &
Similar School
Ranking
CAHSEE
Pass Rate
% Free-
Reduced
% English
Language
Learner
2007 711 Not available Not
available
73 44
2006 692 5/10 77% 72 46
2005 671 4/9 60% 70 48
2004 644 4/10 62% 72 50
2003 619 4/9 75% 70 56
Note. CAHSEE passage rates were obtained from the California Department of
Education (2006-2007) website.

63
Overview of Participants
Star Performing High School has a student population of 2,105 (EdData
School Reports, 2005-2006). For 2005-2006, the freshman class enrollment was the
largest with 613 students, the sophomore, junior, and senior classes totaled 587, 507,
and 398 respectively. As previously stated, the student body is largely non-White
with 78% of the students being Hispanic. SPHS has one principal and three assistant
principals. SPHS employs 85 teachers. Only two percent of the teaching staff have
an emergency credential (EdData School Reports, 2005-2006). The ethnic
composition of the teaching staff is as follows: White 78.8%, Asian 9.4%, Hispanic
8.2%, Filipino 2.4%, and Pacific Islander 1.2%. The school employs 22
paraprofessionals, which includes teaching assistants, teacher aides, pupil services
aides, and library aides. SPHS employs 11 office and clerical staff or those with
clerical or administrative support duties, such as the school secretary. SPHS also
employs other classified staff; the other subgroup includes all the remaining non-
certificated staff, including custodians, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers (EdData
School Reports, 2005-2006).
Instrumentation
Instrument Development
Qualitative data collection methods included conducting interviews and
observations, writing field notes, and reviewing documents (Patton, 2002). These
types of datum allow the researcher the opportunity to explore beyond typical
quantitative data sources, where answers are objective and defined numerically.

64
Qualitative data sources ‘humanize the numbers’ (Patton, 2002). Based upon the
research questions, the cohort decided to use the instruments in which qualitative
researchers traditionally use. The following paragraphs describe the instruments in
detail. A copy of the instruments are located in the appendix for the reader too.
Surveys
Surveys were used for this study. Student, teacher, and out-of-classroom
personnel were surveyed using the instruments developed by the cohort group. All
three of the surveys asked respondents to comment upon the student engagement at
the school site. A few cohort members used one secondary data source, an adapted
form of the High School Survey of Student Engagement created by the University of
Indiana. The cohort members developed all three survey instruments.
Student
The first source of data source was secondary. Students were surveyed using
an adapted form of the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)
developed by the University of Indiana. The survey consisted of 24 questions
ranging in topics. Respondents were asked to report demographical information,
study habits, their perceptions of teachers and the school, and non-school and school-
related activities and information.
Teacher
Another survey, which also mirrored the HSSSE, was administered to SPHS
teachers. The survey consisted of 24 items. Teachers were asked to report their

65
perceptions of student engagement at the school. The surveys were collected by a
staff member and submitted to the researcher for analysis.
Out-of-classroom personnel
A third survey nearly identical to the teacher survey was administered to
SPHS administrators. The survey consisted of 22 items. Administrators were asked
to report their perceptions of student engagement at the school. The surveys were
collected by a staff member and submitted to the researcher for analysis.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were also used for this study. Parents, teachers,
and out-of-classroom personnel were interviewed. Prior to interviewing, the cohort
developed a list of questions for the interviewing process. Questions were developed
with the intention of uncovering all factors related to the school’s high performance
and whether or not student engagement was a factor as outlined in the research
questions. The survey included nine questions and the researchers were allowed to
ask follow-up questions too. The cohort determined in advance that each researcher
should be allowed the flexibility to pursue all leads since the research was
exploratory. Prior to interviewing, all participants were notified that their
participation was voluntary and their responses confidential as outlined in the
Internal Review Board policies. All interviews were audio taped and later
transcribed.

66
Observations
The researcher observed classrooms and the school-wide for this study by
using the cohort developed observation instrument. Areas observed included
classrooms, faculty and staff meetings, extracurricular events and activities, and
other non-classroom events throughout the school. Based on Patton’s (2002)
recommendations, the researcher attempted to be unobtrusive while attending to
nonverbal details of those observed. The observations were helpful in providing a
description of the setting, understanding the environment under investigation, and
capturing the details of the phenomenon, which might have otherwise been
overlooked (Patton, 2002). Observation notes were taken from both the emic and
etic perspectives as suggested by Gall, Gall & Borg (2003).
Field Notes
Extensive field notes were written throughout the data collection process.
The researcher wrote meticulous field notes in an attempt to capture any data which
may have been inadvertently excluded by the other data collection procedures. Field
notes followed Patton’s recommendations (2002). The researcher attempted to write
descriptively by including participant’s direct quotations as much as possible. The
researcher also wrote reflective notes regarding her own feelings, insights, and
perspectives regarding the school setting, interactions with staff, and all other data
collection material. The reflections were written continually throughout the process
so accurate and important information was captured immediately as Patton
recommended (2002).

67
Student Data
Student achievement data was examined during the data collection process.
The researcher requested access to the school’s most recent state student
achievement data. This included reviewing the results of the following academic
indicators: California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP), Academic Performance Index (API), Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and
California Standards Test (CST) data.
Documents
Besides collecting data via surveys, interviews, observations, field notes, and
student achievement data, other documents were reviewed. The cohort determined
that each researcher obtain data on the number of student suspensions, expulsions,
rewards, school sponsored activities, graduation rates, and attendance rates. The
researcher obtained the information by reviewing accreditation reports, Dataquest,
district, school, and state websites, and the school handbook. Additionally, the
researcher reviewed student work samples and looked for evidence supporting
student engagement as defined by the HSSSE.
The surveys, observations, field notes, interviews, and document review
processes informed the research questions for this study. Specifically, the
instruments established a clear direction for the research; however, because the
research design was an emerging one, often the researcher had to reevaluate which
direction and themes to pursue. This provided a more comprehensive set of findings.

68
Data Collection Procedures
The cohort developed a systematic data collection protocol. Once we
developed the instruments and they were approved by the dissertation chair, we
established a time frame for beginning our research. At the onset, the dissertation
chairperson stated a minimum of six full days of on-site research was necessary. He
recommended that we each spend as much time at our respective schools beyond this
parameter as possible. After we defined the details of the data collection procedures,
we began the actual data collection process utilizing the instruments we developed.
We began in the Fall of 2007 after school had started as we wanted to allow the
students and administrators as much time as possible to settle into the new school
year before beginning our research. Since the researcher wanted to obtain a clear
and accurate portrait of the school, she spent several full days at the school. Once
the data reached a saturation point, the data collection process ended and data
analysis procedures began.
Data Analysis Procedures
During and after the data collection process, the researcher used the
suggestions of Creswell (2003) to address the research questions of this study (p.191-
195). Specifically, the researcher used the following steps for the data analysis
process:
Step 1: The researcher organized and prepared the data by transcribing the
interviews, creating folders for the types of data collected and coded all completed
surveys.

69
Step 2: The researcher read through all the data to obtain a sense of the
overall theme(s).
Step 3: The researcher coded the themes and labeled them into categories.
Step 4: The researcher used the codes to describe the setting, people, events,
categories, and themes.
Step 5: The researcher used narratives to present the findings.
Step 6: The researcher made interpretation of the findings based upon the
researcher’s understanding.
By using these steps, the researcher was able to construct meaning of the data
collected. The research findings are discussed in chapter four.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is paramount for ensuring a study’s accuracy. Researchers
must strive to portray their findings truthfully. The trustworthiness and integrity of
this study was based upon the researcher’s systematic data collection procedures in
which the cohort developed. Similarly, the researcher used Creswell’s (2003)
recommendations to protect the credibility of the study. Methods employed include
triangulation, member checking, extended observations, and peer examiners.
Triangulation of Data
Data was collected in multiple ways: observations, interviews, surveys, and
document review. Emerging themes were categorized and coded. The researcher
used triangulation to verify the data collected answered the research questions and
that the data was verifiable through more than one data source.

70
Member Checking
During the data collection process, the researcher conducted dialogue with
participants to verify the researcher’s interpretations reflected participants’ reality
and perceptions.
Extended Observations
The researcher regularly and repeatedly visited the school over a four month
period. The researcher varied her visits. For example, the researcher visited the
school on different days of the week and during morning, afternoon, and evening
hours. She visited the school site for several full days.
Peer Examiners
The researcher met with the cohort during the data collection process for
review and clarification of the data collected. These sessions provided the researcher
with an objective view of the data collection process. The researcher solicited
feedback from her peers throughout the Fall and Spring semesters regarding the data
collection and analysis procedures.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to describe the research methodology used
for this study. The methods were based upon the decisions of the cohort and
suggestions of Gall et al. (2003), Creswell (2003), and Patton (2002). Data
collection via interviews, surveys, observations, and document review informed the
research findings. The study validity was ensured via triangulation, elongated

71
observations, member checking, and peer-review. Chapter four details the research
findings in the form of a qualitative narrative.

72
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter reports the findings of an in-depth examination of an urban high
school in Southern California, Star Performing High School, which exceeded
expectations of similar urban schools within the state. Data collected at the site is
presented and analyzed in this chapter to determine what factors contributed to
higher academic achievement within the school. The researcher explored several
possible factors for the school’s high performance. All factors were exploratory with
one exception, student engagement. The researcher wanted to uncover any and all
factors for the school’s success and also whether or not students were more engaged
at the school site.
This study was designed to shed light upon a phenomenon, high performing
urban high schools. The research questions which guided this study are as follows:
Research Questions
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
A qualitative case study approach was used to report the findings of
observations, informal conversations, structured interviews, field notes, document
review and administrator, student, and teacher surveys. The researcher observed

73
passing periods, classrooms, before, during, and after school student activities,
faculty meetings, and parent activities. Administrators, parents, and teachers
voluntarily provided information through surveys and interviews. One administrator,
25 teachers, and 193 students responded to the surveys and 13 interviews were
conducted. Those interviewed included three administrators, including two current
Assistant Principals and the previous Principal, the Athletics Director, the Activities
Director, the Media Center Director, The Career Center Director, one parent, and
five teachers. The Athletics, Activities, Media Center, and Career Center Directors
were all teachers too. All of the teachers except one had five or more years of
teaching experience. The researcher also shadowed the principal on multiple days
for one to two hour intervals. All data was collected over a four month period of
time during the Fall of 2007.
Once the data was collected, the researcher transcribed all interviews and
analyzed all surveys. Interviewee perspectives were coded as P1, P2, P3, etcetera,
where P represents the interviewee’s perspective and the corresponding number
represents the interviewee. The results were analyzed and triangulated along with
student achievement, accreditation, and policy documents, field notes, and
observations. The findings are the result of integrating all data sources into common
themes. Such themes are described here as suggested by Gall, Gall, & Borg (2003)
into a thick and rich narrative, which re-creates the situation studied.

74
First Impressions of Star Performing
Exiting the freeway onto the city streets to Star Performing High School
(SPHS), the manicured lawns, towering palm trees, and Spanish style architecture
associated with Orange County California disappeared from sight. Graffiti painted
overpasses, dingily painted houses, and grown men riding bicycles presumably to
work, paved the streets to the school’s entrance. Once on campus, the scenery
changed. No sooner than I had turned into the driveway for my first day of data
collection, a middle-aged Hispanic man waved me into the school. His job, I
thought, just might be to smile at those entering the school. He brought new
meaning to the phrase welcome wagon.
At 7:15, the school parking lot was already crowded, even though the school
day began at 8:00. From my parking space I had a clear view of the school. At the
front entrance, a tall marquee flashed the school’s name and also the names of the
teacher and staff member of the month. A patch of neatly trimmed grass wound
around the thorough fare. I watched teachers hurrying to their classrooms, their
strides seemingly filled with a purpose. Parents dropped their kids off for the day
too and nothing more and nothing less struck me but the ordinariness of it all.
Nearly 50 years old, the campus was recognizably worn. The buildings were
from another time in history; paved sidewalks meandered through the brick and
mortar walls. As I slipped into the bathroom, the story was the same; the faucets
were rusty, the porcelain sinks scratched, and the door locks needed repair. In spite
of the aged outside, the school was clean. The trash was collected and the grass was

75
a healthy green. The quietness of the campus surprised me more than the exterior.
By all accounts, a school with 2,105 students should have been bustling with student
chatter and the slamming of locker doors. I knew immediately that this was a serious
place, a place of order and routine.
As I made my way towards the office, students passed me smiling as though I
was a friend or a member of the SPHS family instead of the stranger who I was. As I
entered the front office, I was immediately greeted by a lady who I later came to
know as the office receptionist. As I looked around the office, already busy with the
day’s events, I saw what appeared to be more than 15 group portraits of student
athletes, which aligned the office wall alongside dozens of trophies and awards from
years past. As I waited for the principal, a mother walked by me and commented on
one of the photos; she stated that her daughter was a 2000 graduate. The tone in her
voice led me to believe that the picture gave her a sense of pride. As other students
walked into the office they were promptly greeted. At that moment, I thought, if the
office was any indication of the rest of the school then it must be happy place-smiles
were abundant and so were the good mornings. Unbeknownst to me then, my first
glimpse into the school was certainly a reflection of the school’s motto, which
emphasized family, friendship, courage, and victory.
Hail to thee, our Alma Mater . . . Purple and White our pride . . . Victory ever
is our motto . . . Courage is our guide! Loyal to thee, thy sons and daughters .
. . Friendship is our tie! Hail to thee, our Alma Mater: Star Performing
High!!!

76
To an outsider, perhaps the school’s motto was merely a series of word; however, the
school’s motto embodied the school’s history.
School History
While sitting in the principal’s office one late afternoon, she handed me a
photo of the first day of school at Star Performing High in 1961. I stared at the
picture for a while, hoping the picture would tell me more about the school that I had
decided to study. Besides the obvious changes, which occur over time, such as
student dress, I noticed how the demographics had changed; the school that was by
all indications predominantly White in 1961 had become largely Asian and Hispanic.
Now, only five percent of the school population was White. Besides the photo, other
alumni documents revealed more about the school’s history. For example, some
time ago the school had selected the cavalier as their mascot; “The cavaliers were a
group of knights from 12
th
century Spain who were responsible for protecting the
nation and helping the poor”. Star Performing High School had continued to be a
haven for the less fortunate as seventy-two percent of SPHS students participated in
the Federal government’s Free and Reduced Lunch Program. Although SPHS had
undergone many changes from 1961 to 2007, SPHS’s more recent history mirrored
the Cavalier’s fight song: turbulent; yet, “courageous and victorious”, a journey from
low performance to above average performance.
With the NCLB Act of 2001 schools across the nation began to feel the push
of the accountability movement and SPHS was no exception. During an interview
with the former principal he recalled his first year at the school. He described how

77
the school district in an attempt to reform its schools had hired an outside consulting
firm to assess the current state of student achievement within the district. He said the
district presented him with the school’s achievement data during his first interview.
He further detailed how the school district had wanted to clean up the school, which
at that time was in program improvement status. He described the school as a
“disaster”; “morale was bad”, “test scores were low”, and “the school had received
multiple bomb threats”. The current Assistant Principal concurred; “The school was
in a lot of trouble”. The Career Center Director confirmed this too; she said, “We
were borderline school improvement school . . . we had had a lot of campus
problems . . . we’d had bomb threats . . . we had all kinds of weird things happen”.
Another teacher recalled her first impression of the school five years ago when she
started her teaching assignment. She said that she had thought to herself that the
school was “really in a bad area” [and] “kind of ghetto” (P5). Still another teacher
who had been at the school for more than a decade, said that prior to taking a
position at the school, “people said oh, don’t go to SPHS . . . I was a little nervous
because I’d heard so much” (P2). During a parent interview, a parent stated that in
the past she too had been afraid to send her son to the school because it was unsafe.
Through one of the first interactions with the current principal it was evident
that similar problems still existed in the community surrounding the school and the
kids were consequently affected. While standing at the student drop-off with the
principal one morning, one student in particular caught the principal’s eye; she began
to explain his background.

78
That’s . . . [she stated the student by name]. He’s had it tough, a life marred
by gang violence. He’s had a brother killed by a gang. He’s an orphan and
his sister is a teenage mother. We want to get him to college, we really do.
SPHS is a safe place, but out there [referring to the community], it is not safe.

As the principal continued talking, my impression was that this student was only one
of many more at the school with similar home and life challenges. One teacher said
it this way.
We’ve had the lowest socioeconomic, the most EL students, the most kids on
free and reduced lunch, and we’ve had the lowest test scores, and so we’ve
taken those kids and put them in a better situation and given them the tools to
advance (P4).

The school had somehow managed, within five short years, to break down barriers to
student success and I soon found out how.
School Reform, 2002-2006
With the hiring of a new principal in 2002, Star Performing Unified School
District hoped to change the poor image and low test scores of the school, especially
since the school was labeled program improvement status in 2000-2001. The staff
described the principal chosen for the job as “an intelligent, data-guy, who wasn’t
very nurturing”. However, several staff members cited his tenure at the school as a
factor for the school’s progress. Since the staff repeatedly mentioned his name
during informal conversations and interviews with me, I requested an appointment to
speak with him and he gladly responded.
My first impression of the previous principal was that he was an articulate,
confident, and candid man. During the first interaction with him, he openly
described how he felt about his efforts to change Star Performing High. He said,

79
I think I did as much as much as Star Performing Unified would allow
anyone to do. They are a very conservative district. Some of the things I did
were way ahead of them.

As we continued talking, he described the changes he had implemented while at the
school. The interview served as both a context and backdrop for the research
findings.
Curriculum Alignment
The previous principal attributed curriculum alignment efforts as the number
one factor for dramatically affecting the school’s test scores. He described what
actions he immediately took during the first summer at the school site.
Aligning curriculum is the most important thing, because if students are not
being taught what they are being tested on then you’re not going to have such
great scores. The first thing, when I first got hired in the summer, was I met
with the department chairs and then all the department members in the four
academic departments [English, math, social studies, and science] and we
spent some of our categorical money having people come in that whole
summer to align the curriculum with the state standards . . . that
accomplished two things. It definitely got the curriculum to match more
what the students were being tested on and it also got staff members to work
together.

The principal went on to describe curricula alignment as the biggest and most
important step for facilitating the creation of pacing guides and common
assessments. Accordingly, the principal said that “everything that we did kind of
after that [curriculum alignment] for the next couple of years was all centered on
staff development and changing instruction in the classroom”.

80
Staff Development in Instructional Strategies
The previous principal dually noted the role that staff development played in
changing the school in subsequent years. The implementation of three major
teaching strategies and one support program was the school-wide focus during the
first years: READ 180, Direct Instruction, Reciprocal Teaching, and Writing as a
Process. When asked why the principal chose these components over the many
available options, he noted his belief in the program or strategy, the role of the
district in approving or recommending the strategy or program, and the
corresponding research associated with the strategy or program.
Read 180.
The principal said READ 180 worked because the research supported it; he
had observed the program’s success at a previous school in which he had worked,
and he had sent teachers to various school sites to investigate it. The principal felt
that the program was a successful one because it engaged students, tailored
instruction to individual students, and provided student achievement and progress
data to teachers on a daily basis. Of the two state approved programs, READ 180
and Language!, the principal stated that the READ 180 program was the far better
one. However, receiving the district’s support for the program was a challenge for
the principal. After he made multiple requests to use the program, the district finally
agreed to the implementation.

81
Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal Teaching was the second strategy the principal required teachers
to use. He cited that the school district had recommended the strategy to all schools
but the schools had the option to implement it. The principal stated that, “It
[Reciprocal Teaching] forces kids to talk to each other about whatever is going on in
the lesson and the more students have academic discussions in class then the higher
their achievements gonna be.” Reciprocal Teaching remained a focus strategy after
the principal’s tenure ended.
Writing as a Process
The principal cited the use of Jane Schaffer’s Writing as a Process at the
school too. According to the Star Performing Unified School District’s High School
Course Outline,
The course provides a structured approach to writing and practice in the
various steps to the writing process. Using the writing process students will
write a variety of essays incorporating various writing genres. Emphasis will
be placed on the genres of response to literature and expository writing.

The previous principal noted that many sections were offered at the school site for
students. He said that he believed resources had been taken away from the program
to date. Repeated visits and observations during English classes revealed that a
strong focus on the writing process was still emphasized. Student work samples
showed that students were required to break down the writing process into small
parts to create a larger piece of writing.

82
Direct Instruction
Direct Instruction was implemented at the school site too. Through the use of
questioning and clarifying techniques, this strategy was aimed toward reaching a
larger number of students in each classroom. The strategy called for appropriate
lesson pacing, giving multiple students opportunities to participate, using think-pair
share, and proper note-taking. The underlying concept of the strategy was to help
students learn by improving the instruction of teachers who predominately lectured
and used more traditional teaching methods.
Use of Data
Besides creating support programs and providing professional development
targeted at improving the quality of instruction, teachers were also required to use
data to inform instruction. The previous principal explained how he had assigned
homework assignments to teachers. The homework assignments required teachers to
use the Data Director program for lesson planning and to integrate data for each class
period. The principal involved students in the data process too. Beginning with his
first year, the principal went to every class every year and presented student
achievement data to students. A teacher verified this activity during an interview.
He made that [test scores] a focus . . . he went into the classroom, every
single classroom and he had these data white boards . . . he said here’s our
Hispanic achievement, and here’s our Asian achievement, you know, why,
why are they outpacing you guys by so much? . . . I’m [principal] trying to
show you that we need to close this big achievement gap, there’s no reason
for this to exist. We’re all in the same boat here. You know we need to close
this gap up. We want to push you to do better, we know that you can.

83
However, controversy ensued at the school after the first round of student
presentations. The teacher went on to describe how unpopular the principal became
with students because “they felt dissed”. Coming into the classrooms where both
Asian and Hispanic students were and stating that one group (Hispanics) was doing
poorly compared to the other group (Asians), created dissension among students.
The principal later partnered with area businesses to provide extrinsic rewards to
students who made the most improvement on the California Standards Tests. In one
year, several game systems were awarded to students throughout the school.
According to the previous principal and another teacher, although the move was
considered unconventional, the students responded and test scores increased. When
asked, the previous principal admitted that he had used an “incentive program” to
award prizes to students; he referred to the plan as “part motivation, part bribery”.
He affirmed that the underlying motivation for the extrinsic motivation program was
a belief in the kids’ ability to succeed.
High Expectations
With the use of data came a challenge to hold high expectations for all
students. The principal honestly described how teachers who work in lower
socioeconomic schools often foster poor performance. He said that teachers often
care for urban students too much and they actually hold lower expectations and make
excuses for students’ poor performance. He said that teachers make exceptions for
students whose homes are less than perfect. He said, “It was a struggle for us to get

84
them, to get teachers to believe that the students could perform higher academically.”
One teacher confirmed that in the past she had believed this misconception.
A lot of people have the feeling that well, the excuse for our test scores is our
kids come from low socioeconomics. The parents are too busy, but what we
are starting to believe is that’s not true. These kids, yeah, they come from
maybe low socioeconomics but they do want to be successful and they are
smart enough to do itt.

Teachers also readily acknowledged that the previous principal knew the school
could change.
When we got [the previous principal], he really made that a focus [test
scores]. That was a focus, that we would improve the test scores here. He
saw potential and he really pushed and he was unpopular because of it . . . so
he was pivotal in that increase.

Changing the school; however, meant changing the staff. The previous principal and
teachers openly described how the staff had changed over the past five years.
Staff Replacement
One of the ways in which the previous principal challenged teacher’s beliefs
and practices was by replacing them. He stated that during his tenure he had
replaced many of the staff with enthusiastic and more wiling staff, ones who were
willing to try new things. One teacher described the turnover: “I have seen just in
my five years here so many teachers who were here that left, people who have come
and gone, people who have disappeared, quit, gone on to other careers, I’ve seen an
incredible amount”. Another teacher commented on the turnover during the previous
principal’s tenure at the school.

85
He pushed people too hard and he pushed people out, I mean he made people
leave that should have left a long time ago”. “He really drove people in some
respects to the end. You know they left, they just gave up, but it was a good
thing for us because it let new blood come in with better ideas on how to
teach these kids.

Although, the staff alluded to the changes as difficult, change paid-off when the
yearly test results were published.
The Payoff
Although the strategies the previous principal employed were at times
unconventional and unpopular, during the first year alone the school made a 63 point
API gain and shortly thereafter was removed from the state’s program improvement
list. Below is a table showing the growth made in each subgroup from 2001-2005.

Table 4.1
Star Performing High School API Subgroup Data
Year Hispanic Asian Socio-economically Disadvantaged
Base API Growth Base API Growth Base API Growth
2005 639 +28 831 +46 658 +22
2004 611 +41 785 +28 636 +33
2003 578 +75 752 +39 609 +72
2002 509 +18 699 +18 540 +17
2001 487 +17 665 +16 521 +13
Note. Prior to 2005 ELL and students with special needs were excluded as a
subgroup. (Data obtained from the California Department of Education (n.d.)
website.

86
Clearly the data is evidence that during the previous principal’s tenure, the
school made substantial gains in closing the achievement gap. The changes in which
the principal attributed the school’s success included aligning the curriculum with
state standards, improving the quality of instruction by replacing staff, requiring
teachers to use Direct Instruction, Reciprocal Teaching, Writing as a Process, and
data to inform instruction, and by raising expectations for all students. These
changes were the historical context for answering the research questions asked in this
study.
Findings for Research Question One
Research question one sought to answer the question; what perceived factors
contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school? Both
the researcher (etic perspective) and research participants (emic perspective)
provided insights to answer this question. The research questions were answered
through the researcher’s personal observations, field notes, and reflections and the
research participant’s responses from interviews and informal conversations, and
survey responses.
A Special Place
When asked why the school was a unique place, what made it different, and
what could be attributed to its high performance, the staff found it difficult to put
their thoughts into words. One teacher said, “It’s a very special place, it’s different
from the other schools in our district and I can’t really describe what that is exactly”
(P2). Another teacher said, “This is such a neat campus and it is hard to put it into

87
words” (P1). When interviewees did describe the school, they described it as a
“special place”: “When I got here, I realized it’s a very special place” (P2), “it’s a
wonderful school . . . you have to be on campus to feel it” (P1), and “I think we have
a special place here” (P4). Another teacher described the ‘mood’ of the school as
different than other schools. As an outsider, walking on and off campus, I realized it
was a special place as well. I observed the quietness of the campus throughout the
morning hours and during instructional time, the orderliness of the kids during
passing periods, and the openness of the campus. Nearly every classroom door was
open during the days I visited the campus; the classrooms were welcoming places.
The library, office, and Career Center were welcoming places too. Students were
constantly aided by the staff and their eagerness and helpfulness was noticeable
during all school visits.
We are A Family
As the interviewees described the school more and what made it a special
place they began to use terminology such as mother, father, and family. One teacher
said: “Who knows what their home life is like; I mean they come here a lot of times
and they use us as father or mother figures” (P3). A second teacher stated,
Some of the kid's, their parents don’t come [to events] but the teacher comes.
You know so they see, well yeah the teacher has a life outside here too but
they made the effort to come and so and I am not even their kid, you know . .
. so I think you know that’s part of it too. It is like a big family, it really is
(P2).

88
A third teacher stated,
A lot of my classes are like, this is beginning to feel like a little family, which
is good cause then they feel comfortable sharing with each other . . . even one
of my boy student’s was like, this is like a little family. . . I feel that in all my
classes (P5).

A fourth teacher said,
We have a nice family environment . . . our teachers care about the kids and
the kids know they are being cared about and they feel comfortable, they feel
comfortable to take risks (P4).

Great Kids
Family often invokes notions of admiration, support, and caring. Stated
differently, parents often brag about their kids and this was the case with SPHS
teachers. When asked what made SPHS a unique place, interviewees nearly always
cited the kids as the reason. “We have really special kids here” (P10). “We just
have really neat kids” (P4). “The kids are amazing” (P5). “The students are
outstanding, friendly, giving” (P13). During interviews, teachers couldn’t say
enough about the kids. They used several words to brag about students which
included: “cooperative”, “respectful”, “nice”, “caring”, “hard workers”, and
“amazing”. When teachers talked with me about the kids, it became apparent that
they were passionate about the work in which they did with them. One teacher even
described her work as a “labor of love” (P4).
Caring Teachers
Teachers not only attributed the school’s success to great kids but also to
their colleagues. Eighty-eight percent of the sample of teachers who returned the

89
survey reported that students were provided the support needed to succeed in school.
Additionally, six of the twelve interviewees cited the success of the school to the
caring staff. Teacher one stated,
There’s a strong commitment on the part of the staff for student success, the
teachers really, really care about the kids here . . . there’s a genuine feeling of
concern for them [students] (P2).
Teacher two stated,
A lot of our teachers have true compassion for our kids . . . teacher’s reach
out to these kids (P10).

Teacher three stated,
Our teachers care about the kids and the kids know that they are being cared
about (P4).

Teacher four stated,
Overall the teachers that are here really care about their students . . . I think
there’s a lot of teachers who do care and a lot of teachers who will fight for
the kids (P5).

Teacher five stated,
We have really good people here and by good people what I mean, and this is
another component, is that we have a lot of teachers here, the majority of our
teachers, really care about our kids and really want our students to succeed
and do well (P8).

Teacher six stated,
We really care about the students and their success (P1).

Interviewees also discussed how teachers cared and nurtured students in
tangible ways. Interviewees routinely cited that teachers went above and beyond
their daily responsibilities to ensure students were successful. Routine home visits,

90
increased teacher accessibility, and positive student-teacher relationships were
described.
Home visits were only one of the ways in which SPHS teachers exceeded
their daily responsibilities. Written on the whiteboard in one teacher’s classroom
was a weekly reminder to students stating that he was available to come to their
homes for dinner. Later I interviewed a Mexican-American teacher who spoke to me
in broken English; “I tell my students that if they want to invite me to take dinner at
home on Wednesdays, I’m available” (P9). He further explained how such an
intimate setting created a connection between him and parents and how parents now
approached him as a result of the relationship which was built during these times
together in student’s home. The teacher’s seemingly small gesture had rippled
throughout the Hispanic community. Parents with children in other classes routinely
called the teacher to set up conferences to talk about their child and his or her
academic concerns, even though formally he wasn’t their child’s teacher.
Besides going into student’s homes, teachers also found ways to be more
accessible for students beyond the regular instructional day. Two interviewees
remarked upon the staff’s willingness and practice of staying late and coming to
school early. One teacher stated that “Tons of teachers have before school, after
school, and lunch tutoring, and they don’t need to do that. They don’t have to do
that but they want to provide these kids with every opportunity to do better” (P4).
Similarly, the Activities Director stated that teachers “always” volunteered to
be club advisors and this had never been a problem. She stated further that more

91
than 50% of the staff was involved with students outside of their formal teaching
roles. Even teachers who weren’t advisors showed student support by attending
activities and events (P2). Another teacher remarked upon the staff’s willingness to
“step away from the school environment” to work with students (P1), even if it
meant sacrificing their weekends. Students noticed the teachers’ support too. Of the
sample of student surveys, 76% reported that they received the support needed to
succeed in school.
Teacher involvement with students at all levels was conveyed at the school
site as well. For example, one teacher stated, “the kids know that we’re interested in
all areas of what they do . . . we’re aware of what’s going on with our kids, not just
in our classroom but in other classes as well”. Teachers in return talk to students
about their own experiences. One teacher stated,
I talk about my struggles being a student. I talk about myself being a first
generation college student on both sides of my family . . . I try to create
bonds with the kids as early as possible. I give all of my kids little
nicknames, I don’t know if you have noticed that when you are in fifth period
but a lot of my kids get these cheesy nicknames . . . their getting like a little
special attention . . . I think in this school a lot of kids don’t get that at home
because their parents, you know, . . . the attention is drawn so thin (P5).

Teachers often asked students about their home life and what was occurring there
too. One teacher said, “They feel like they can tell me their specific situations, I
understand and then I will support them. They feel the support of the teacher” (P9).
During observations, the researcher noted student-teacher interactions. One
afternoon during an English class, the students had been assigned a project detailing
their life. The students worked on the assignment for multiple days. As students

92
intently drew collages recreating their life stories, the teacher, a student teacher, and
a language aide walked around the classroom stopping to ask students questions
regarding their work. At one point, the teacher leaned over to a student and said, “I
broke my leg once, too, let me show you a picture”. She brought the student a
picture of herself with her leg in a cast. Another student drew a picture of a facial
scar, the teacher pointed to a scar on her chin to represent that she had experienced a
similar situation. Another student drew a picture of the Mexican flag expressing
how difficult it had been to leave his family to come to America. The teacher
acknowledged his feelings as he continued to draw, his eyes fell intently on the
teacher as though he trusted in what she said. The teacher commented on the
trusting relationship of her and her students. She stated,
You have to trust your teacher, and I always say, you guys trust me? They
say, like why are we doing this? I say, you gotta trust me, alright we trust
you. Like we understand that you are going to get us here the way you’re
doing it. So I think that’s really important (P5).

During this class period and during return visits, the researcher noted not only the
deep level of concern that the teacher held for her students and their personal lives
beyond the classroom but also the trusting relationship between the two of them.
Teachers showed their concern for students in other ways too. Written in my
observation log was the following comment: “It’s not uncommon to see teachers
smile, physically touch, and verbally encourage students”. When teachers asked
students to complete a task it was always followed up with “please” and “thank you”.

93
The students responded with respect and they quickly acknowledged the request of
their teachers.
Advanced Teaching Strategies
Besides dynamic students and a caring staff, interviewees also attributed the
school’s high performance to special strategies adopted from the AVID
(Achievement Via Individual Determination) program. According to the AVID
website, the mission of the AVID program is to ensure that all students, and most
especially the least served students who are in the middle: 1) will succeed in rigorous
curriculum, 2) will complete a college preparatory path, 3) will enter mainstream
activities of the school, 4) will increase their enrollment in four-year colleges, and 5)
will become educated, responsible participants and leaders in a democratic society.
To accomplish these goals, AVID approved teaching strategies are used: Socratic
Seminar, Cornell notes, and WICR (writing, inquiry, collaboration, and reading).
Star Performing adopted the program six years ago. The school began with
two sections; by 2007 they had nine sections and they planned to open two more
sections in 2008. The AVID teacher said that two years ago Star Performing Unified
realized the AVID program was working and therefore wanted to expand the
program school-wide so that more of the AVID strategies were being used in a
variety of classrooms. To accomplish this, the district offered professional
development in each of the AVID teaching strategies. Department Chairs attended
AVID workshops and returned to the school and taught the strategies to SPHS’s
teachers. The expectation became that all teachers would use AVID strategies in

94
their classrooms. During interviews, several teachers referred to the ‘Avidization’ of
the campus. Interviewees also attributed the school’s high performance to AVID
strategies (Socratic Seminar, Cornell Notes, and Reciprocal Teaching) rather than the
program itself. One teacher stated,
Socratic Seminar is a strategy being used by many of our teachers so far. I’d
say that we’re Cornell Notes pretty much across the board. We use inquiry,
writing, critical reading, critical writing reading rhetorically, collaboration.
They’re just good teaching techniques. We call them avidizing but really it’s
just good teaching. And the kids are comfortable with it now (P4).

The Assistant Principal stated,

I think number one the use of a wide of instructional strategies in our
classrooms has been a very, very important component to student
achievement here in the last five years, five or six years since the increases in
our API scores . . . we’ve really made an emphasis on research-based
instructional strategies. Those being things as simple as Direct Instructional
strategies to some of the more complicated AVID methodology such as the
Socratic Seminar, Reciprocal Teaching. Our staff members have been
trained on a variety of those things and then we’ve had the expectation that
those be implemented in all of our classrooms. So I think that’s one thing
that’s made a big difference and if you walk into our classes in the majority
of our classrooms you’ll see evidence of those strategies pretty much across
the board and you’ll see it from our newest teachers to our veteran teachers
making an effort.

Another teacher said,
I think the teaching strategies that we are using [is a factor for high
performance] and we are using those across our school. We are trying to get
kids to think higher level thinking . . . we’re using Cornell notes. We’re
using those strategies across all subject areas. So when the kids see o.k. all
teachers are doing this, I think it really, it’s a great strategy they all know
how to do it, they can use that as a study tool, use it as a classroom study skill
(P6).

95
One other teacher stated,
The last three years has been strategies, how to not just teach what you think
you’re supposed to, here’s what we think works, you know, researched
methods that have been proven. So I’d say the past two to three years has
been a big push. And this year strategies are just going all over the place
(P7).

Below are the strategies teachers described most.
Cornell Notes
Cornell notes was a school-wide teaching strategy. A systematic procedure
for recording lesson information, Cornell note-taking, emphasizes the use of higher
level questioning and summarizing. Two columns are created on notebook paper
with an output and an input side. At the bottom the student must summarize their
notes for each page. Questioning (output) includes clarification of information and
gaps in the notes. The input includes the ideas presented by the teacher.
Socratic Seminar
Teachers also mentioned the school-wide use of Socratic Seminar. The
purpose of this strategy is to engage learners through test examination, dialogue, and
discourse. Teachers begin the lesson by questioning students. The class then
engages in collective inquiry to think in creative ways regarding complex issues.
Although several teachers noted the use of this method, the researcher never
observed it being used in classrooms. Other strategies were; however, observed.
Meta-cognitive Strategies
Walking into classrooms it was evident there was a school-wide focus on
meta-cognitive strategies. Learning was viewed as a process and not an end result.

96
Hung in nearly every classroom were five posters: Summarizing, Clarifying,
Questioning, Reciprocal Teaching, and Predicting. When asked about the posters,
one teacher stated that the district had provided training with the strategies and
printed the posters to be displayed in every classroom. During observations teachers
regularly integrated the strategies into their lessons.
Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal Teaching was observed the most at the school. During 28
classroom observations, 11 instances of Reciprocal Teaching occurred. The ease of
partnering with your neighbor was remarkable. Students had learned to work
together to achieve common goals. During one observation a teacher stated to me,
“Students are supposed to be working independently but they like to help each
other.” Another teacher stated that, “we’ve all been trained in Reciprocal Teaching,
I’ve done differentiated instruction, so we’re all getting trained in those. They’re
proven, proven studies that those help kids achieve” (P6).
College Going Culture
A college going culture permeated the campus. During one of the first
conversations with the current principal, she described how she had struggled as a
student and how she desired to show students that they could attend “the university”
too. Hung upon her office wall was an expensive mahogany encased doctorate
degree from a well-known college in Southern California. When I commented on
how beautiful the frame was, I was surprised by her response. She said that she
regularly took the diploma to classrooms and let students pass it around. She said,

97
“Some of them have never seen what a degree looks like”. She also said that many
of them don’t understand the American college system. This comment was
confirmed during a parent interview; she described how parents in the Hispanic
community found the American college system perplexing. The principal used the
diploma to show students that college was attainable and also she used it as a
teaching tool for understanding the American college system.
A college going focus was evident beyond the principal’s office. In several
classrooms both Spanish and English posters, which described college entrance
requirements and admission deadlines, were displayed. Other examples of the
school’s college going focus were evidenced through college promoting activities.
One event was College Apparel Day. The event served as a reminder to all students
to submit their college applications by the Fall deadline. All staff and students were
encouraged and expected to wear a college sweatshirt. College sweatshirts adorned
the campus-wide in response to the event. Besides College Apparel Day, the school
also participated in a district-wide college fair. One teacher said that college
representatives routinely visited the campus too. She said, “The college bound
atmosphere is really being stressed now over the past few years. We have more
college reps on campus too that are calling these kids in” (P10).
The school not only posted college information and promoted a college going
environment but also through the curriculum they carved out pathways for all
students to attend college. The curriculum reflected a college going focus. One
teacher described how the school split up the SAT vocabulary across all four years;

98
the vocabulary was introduced to freshmen in all English classes. She said that
although the words were difficult, the kids did well. Too, every year all tenth
graders were expected to take the PSAT on campus; eighth graders at the feeder
schools also took the PSAT in preparation for college. One interviewee said that the
district pushed for early preparation for college.
Besides preparing students for college entrance exams, SPHS worked to
ensure that every student had an opportunity to go to college by offering college
level coursework. The master schedule reflected the school’s attempt to increase the
less than favorable percentage of students who failed to meet the A-G requirements
established by the state of California. In 2007 the number of students who met A-G
requirements hovered at 20 percent. The school; however, had made efforts to
reverse this negative trend. The principal cited that the number of remedial classes
was significantly reduced. In fact, all students were expected to enroll in A-G
classes. Classes, which did not meet A-G requirements, were being removed from
the schedule altogether. The former principal described how he had begun this
emphasis during his tenure. He said,
One of the things I tried to do was to increase the number of honors and
advanced placement classes being offered. We added a lot. I think from year
one to four, we probably increased by 35%. The whole idea of more
advanced classes is to give students access to a challenging curriculum . . . if
you hold kids back and give them a remedial curriculum they tend to perform
exactly to expectations.

This trend has continued. One teacher stated,
We have put kids in A-G required classes. So we’re raising the bar in that
way. We’re having high expectations for them as well as for our school.

99
Each child should be given the opportunity to go to college. So we put them
in college prep classes . . . even the kids that were you know so called, they
had stereotyped them as low achievers, and they were in lower classes that
were not going toward any type of college credit, this was for graduation
requirements only. So they were tracked and all together. Now, we’ve
heterogeneously grouped those kids . . . our goal is to have every student
have the opportunity to go to a UC or Cal state. So that when they leave our
school they may do that, at least they were prepared and have the option (P6).

In addition to requiring all students to take college preparation coursework,
the school also managed to spread the word regarding AB-540, an important
legislative decision which affected a large percent of SPHS immigrant population.
According to the California government website, the law states that California
taxpayers provide non-residents of the state of California – including foreign
nationals illegally in the United States – the same in-state tuition subsidy as legal
California residents – as long as they have spent three years in and graduated from a
California high school. The significance of AB-540 was discussed in an interview
with a teacher. She stated,
With the AB-540, which helps undocumented students go to college without
extra fees, the word is getting out now and I think that shows that there’s
hope. I mean there’s a lot of people telling these kids that there’s hope. The
message is getting through the community (P10).

AB-540 was also discussed in classrooms. During one classroom observation, a
teacher invited two former SPHS students, who were at the time college students, to
speak to her classes. The guest speakers informed students of their rights under AB-
540, in spite of their undocumented status. The speakers encouraged the students to
be unafraid of deportation and to apply to colleges early.

100
Students were also expected to know the A-G requirements. During a full-
day teacher collaboration day, AVID students presented the A-G requirements to
teachers. The hope was to ensure that all students knew how to get to college and to
hold them accountable for this information. Similarly, of the sample of students who
returned the survey, 71% reported that they were encouraged and provided
meaningful opportunities to develop clear, sequential, career goals and prepare for
appropriate post-secondary training.
Parents, too, were expected to be involved in the college going focus. During
both Back to School Night and Freshman Orientation, the A-G requirements were
discussed with parents. The school also held regular meetings to inform parents
about the college going expectation. The school developed the Ten Commandments
of Education, which described the college going expectation and parental roles to
this regard. Below are the commandments.
1. Commit as a family to be involved in school
2. Do my part in helping my child study
3. Understand how grades work (A, B, C, D, F)
4. Learn how the schools are ordered (preschool through college)
5. Learn what my child needs to graduate successfully from high school
6. Help my child prepare for college early
7. Realize college is affordable
8. Support the learning of mathematics, science, and English
9. Encourage my child to take honors and advanced courses

101
10. Teach my child to hope and visualize their future.
To maintain the level of school achievement, the new principal had increased
parental involvement. Many teachers felt this was a factor for the school’s continued
academic achievement. Both teachers and parents remarked upon how that the
appointment of a new principal had improved parental involvement. The new
principal had gained the support of parents to improve student achievement
substantially within the last year. Both parents and teachers had observed a
noticeable difference in parental involvement.
One interviewee described how parent participation had been historically
low. She described how frustrated she and the staff became after trying to get
parents involved at the school. Soon she learned why the participation was so low.
Because the majority of the student population was Hispanic and Vietnamese,
parents were frustrated that parent meetings were not conducted in Spanish and
Vietnamese. She said that although the district provided translators, the school failed
to take advantage of the services. Once the new principal came she changed the
ways in which the school communicated with parents. One reason the
communication was changed was because the principal herself was Hispanic.
Through a translator, one parent stated the following.
For this year the principal [has made the difference] because she’s Hispanic
and she’s making a difference at this site . . . parents know now that if they
are not well-received when they call or come they immediately contact the
principal and have access to her.

102
Another way the new principal changed communication with parents was by
ensuring that information was communicated in three languages: English, Spanish,
and Vietnamese. Higher parent attendance resulted at meetings and parent
perceptions changed too. An interviewee stated that, “The principal really wants to
keep open dialogue with parents because if there are concerns she wants to address
them” (P8). Another interviewee said,
She was a key factor in getting the parents actually here. She promised them
this and that and she delivered and they have confidence in her. And that’s
why you see we have a parent group now and it’s just wonderful (P10).

A third interviewee commented on the increased parent participation.
Especially last year and this year there’s a positive connection also from the
administration to the community, the parents are participating more in
number and more closely with the school (P9).

Yet, another interviewee described the principal’s work with the parents.
She’s [the principal] built on the work of the previous principal . . . she’s
taken that, built on that, but added the very valuable parent component,
getting parents involved now starting to educate our parents through
programs like the Ten Commandments of Education, encouraging our
teachers not encouraging actually expecting our teachers to make regular
parent contacts, increasing the amount of parent conferences, she has brought
that piece, and really revitalized the community here at [SPHS] around what
we are doing here in school. Whereas opposed to parents kind of feeling like
they’re visitors here at our school site, I think she’s slowly changing that
impression and now parents are feeling like they’re truly partners and that’s
made a real big difference in the last year (P8).

Interactions between the principal and parents were observed too. At the start
of the school day the principal made a point of greeting students and parents to the
campus. It was common for parents to walk directly over to the principal and begin
dialogue with her in Spanish. On one occasion, a parent approached the principal

103
and the principal immediately stopped what she was doing and assisted the parents
instead of telling them to see the receptionist or another Assistant Principal.
Findings for Research Question Two
Research question two sought to answer the following question; is there a
link between student engagement and student achievement in a high performing
urban high school? The definition for student engagement used for this study was
the same as the definition developed by the University of Indiana. Engagement
describes student effort, investment, and strategies for learning, student’s actions in
social, extracurricular, and non-academic activities, including interactions with other
students, and student feelings or connection or disconnection to their school, how
they feel about where they are in school, the ways and workings of the school, and
the people within their school. The research question was answered through the
examination and comparison of teacher and student survey results of SPHS and the
national survey results of the 2005 High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE). One hundred and ninety- three student surveys and 25 teacher surveys
were returned. Only one of four administrator surveys was returned. One
administrator’s perspective seemed insignificant and was therefore excluded from
the findings. In addition to the survey data, the researcher’s observations and the
participant’s interviews were also used.
The National Profile of Student Engagement
The 2005 HSSSE profile showed that students are disengaged in school.
Fifty-nine percent of students reported taking a general or regular education

104
academic track, 30% reported enrollment in a college preparatory or honors track,
while 10% reported enrollment in a career, special education, or unknown academic
track. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they spend three hours or less per
week reading for class but 61% stated their school required quite a bit or very much
studying. Twenty-four percent of students reported writing two to three papers with
a length of more than five pages. Students more frequently wrote short papers; 39%
had written more than three papers that were three to five pages long during the
school year. Although their study habits are misaligned with college going
behaviors, 83% of students planned to attend some form of post-secondary education
while 7% stated that they planned to graduate high school only.
SPHS Profile of Student Engagement
The surveys administered to SPHS staff and faculty was based on the 2005
survey questions. Based on the sample of students surveyed (N=193), there is little
difference in the level of engagement at the study school and nationally. Sixty-nine
percent of students surveyed reported enrollment in a general or regular education
academic track, 30% reported enrollment in either a college preparatory or honors
track, while 0% reported enrollment in either a career, special education, or unknown
academic track. Sixty-three percent of respondents stated that they spent three hours
or less per week reading for class and 54% stated their school required studying
often. Sixty-eight percent of students reported writing zero to two papers with a
length of more than five pages and only 22% had written more than three papers that
were three to five pages long during the school year. Although SPHS students study

105
habits are misaligned with college going behaviors, 75% of students surveyed
planned to attend some form of post-secondary education while 6% stated aspiration
of graduating high school only. The following table compares the two profiles, the
national and SPHS.

Table 4.2
National High School Survey of Student Engagement and SPHS: A Comparison of
Survey Items
Survey Question
National Profile
Percentage
(N=80,904)
Star Performing High
School Percentage
(N=192)
Students who reported they were
enrolled in general education
coursework.
59% 69%
Students who reported they were
enrolled honors or college placement
coursework.
30% 30%
Students who reported they were
enrolled in special education, career
education, or unknown coursework.
10% 0%
Students who reported spending three
hours or less reading for class each
week.
80% 63%
Students who reported they spend a
great deal of time studying for school.
61% 54%
Students who planned to attend some
form of post-secondary education.
83% 75%
Students who planned to only graduate
high school.
7% 6%
Note. Writing items were omitted as the survey questions differed.

106
National Profile and SPHS Profile of Student Engagement
The percentage of students who reported enrollment in general education
coursework was 10% higher at SPHS than nationally. The percentage of students
who reported enrollment in honors or advanced placement coursework was exactly
the same for SPHS and nationally. The percentage of students who reported that
they spend three hour of less reading for class was 17 % less at SPHS than
nationally. This suggests that SPHS students reported reading more than students
nationwide. On the other hand, SPHS students reported that they spend less time
studying for school than students do nationwide. The percentage of students who
planned to attend some form of post-secondary schooling was eight percent lower for
SPHS students than for the nation. The number of students who planned to graduate
high school was similar for both SPHS and the nation. Ninety-four percent of SPHS
students surveyed planned to graduate high school and 93% of students nationwide
planned to graduate high school. The survey results indicated that the level of
engagement for SPHS is only slightly different than the nations’.
Teacher’s Perceptions of Student Engagement
Teachers were also surveyed in an attempt to compare student perceptions of
their own engagement levels and whether their perceptions matched their teacher’s
perceptions of student engagement. Eighty-three percent of teachers reported that
they assign three or less hours of reading per week during the school year. Forty-
four percent of teachers reported that students must spend very much or quite a bit of
time studying and on school work. While 94% reported they had assigned zero to

107
two papers with a length of more than five pages and 84% reported they had
assigned zero to two papers with a length of three to five pages in length. The
following table compares SPHS teacher and student responses on comparable survey
items.

Table 4.3
Teacher and Student Perception of Student Engagement: A Comparison of Survey
Items
Survey Question Students
(N=192)
Teachers
(N=25)
Students must spend three hours or less reading for
class each week.
63% 83%
Students must spend a great deal of time studying
for school.
54% 44%
Students have been assigned zero to two papers of
more than five pages in length.
68% 94%
Students have been assigned zero to two papers
with a length of three to five pages.
32% 84%

Teacher and student perceptions regarding reading assignments differed but
studying time perceptions were similar. Both agree; however, that students do not
spend a great deal of time reading or studying for class. However, teacher and
student perceptions regarding writing assignments differed. Ninety-four percent of

108
teachers reported that they had assigned papers with a length of five or more pages
and 84% reported they had assigned zero to two papers three to five pages in length.
Students perceived receiving more writing assignments of both three to five pages
and more than five pages in length. Although teacher and student perceptions of
student engagement levels varied somewhat, as evidenced by the surveys, teachers
still believed that student engagement was a factor for the school’s success.
Teacher interviewees cited student engagement as a factor for the school’s
performance. However, teachers associated student engagement with time on task in
class only. Teachers attributed heightened student engagement levels to the use of
diverse teaching strategies in the classroom. One teacher said,
Student engagement, that’s probably the biggest factor . . . I’ve been at this
school for 25 years, so I’ve seen lots of different trends, you know, it’s
always been a lot of times teachers lecture, students record, but now teachers
are lecturing, questioning at the same time, checking for understanding
during that lecture, being able to do lots of things very quickly, think-pair
shares, lots of different strategies for student engagement and higher level
thinking skills. So I think that’s huge (P6).

The Assistant Principal stated,
Student engagement is always going to be a major piece of school
performance. For us it is a big deal. We are trying to get away from the days
where you know the best students where the ones who came in and wrote
down every word the teacher said, raised their hand when they were supposed
to raise their hand, and took it down when they were supposed to take it
down. We’re trying to get away from that to a point where in our classrooms
everyone has an opportunity and everyone has a role to play in the learning
process. What I mean by that is that for example we want our teachers to
engage every student not just the ones that have the answer when called
upon. No one can hide. No one can escape. Yes, engagement is definitely a
major factor in our success.

109
Another teacher stated,
It [the strategies] causes the student to be more active in class, when you’re
lecturing you only gonna get a certain percentage of kids taking note and
listening. The new strategies force the kids to be engaged. They have no, I
think I’ll sleep in class today or I’ll sit in the back and you know I’m not
going to do anything. No, the teachers are actively moving the kids around,
they have to be engaged, and through that they’re learning. It’s just kind of
like osmosis. They have to work in class with inquiry, Cornell notes, and
Socratic Method. With all those things, the kids can’t sleep in class. They
can’t hide. They’re in groups, they have to work. They have to do
something. Through their activities they’re learning (P10).

Classroom observations pointed to high levels of student engagement.
Students were rarely observed talking about topics other than the task at hand.
Perhaps some of this was due to the constant pacing, assistance, and monitoring of
teachers. During nearly every visit, teachers were standing and ensuring time on
task. The level of teacher engagement with students was extraordinary. One teacher
stated the following to this regard. She said,
There’s a lot of strategies . . . I think giving us all these strategies it’s been
huge. I feel like the teachers here are bending over backwards, doing like
activities, getting the kids excited . . . they are jumping from activity to
activity and it’s no longer like the teachers are sitting at the desks, the
assignments on the board, come up, and ask me if you have a question. We
are out there (P 7).

Interviewees were less likely; however, to attribute student engagement
dimensions such as student participation in athletics and activities as a reason for the
school’s performance. Interviews with both the Athletic and Activities Director
resulted in the same findings. Both described the low participation rates in sports
and clubs at the school. The Athletics Director stated that the school had a higher
number of student participation compared to other urban schools in the area but the

110
number of participants was a mere quarter of the school’s population. He said, of
2,105 students approximately 500 participate in athletics and clubs.
The Athletic Director also stated that students who do participate in sports
only come to school for this reason. He said that the majority of student athletes held
a grade point average less than a 3.0. He further stated that student engagement in
sports caused higher academic performance only because students needed to
maintain a 2.0 grade point average to play sports. Survey results showed that sixty-
one percent of the sample of students who returned the survey reported that they felt
encouraged to participate in school events and activities (athletics, music, etc.) while
84% of teachers reported that students are encouraged to participate in school events
and activities (athletics, music, etc.)
The Activities Director concurred that the number of students who
participated in clubs, especially leadership ones, was low. The Activities Director
stated that the students who participated in ASB, a leadership club for the school
body, were mostly Asian. Asians make up less than a fourth of the entire student
population. Also, student survey results showed that 33% reported they felt
encouraged to get involved in school leadership and governance, while 56% of
teachers reported that students are encouraged to get involved in school leadership
and governance.
Both directors also concluded that the kids who participated in athletics were
the same ones who participated in clubs too. Both directors were perplexed by the
overlap, especially since the district monetarily supported any student who wanted to

111
get involved in extracurriculars. Uniform and transportation expenses were covered
by the district also. The Activities Director stated that, “Any student who wants to
play, can.”
Summary of Findings
This study focused on one urban high school that exceeded academic
expectations. The purpose for this study was to answer the following research
questions: 1) What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school, and 2) Is there a link between student engagement and
student achievement in a high performing urban high school? Using a mixed
methods approach of surveys, interviews, observations, and document review, the
researcher sought to describe in a narrative the factors for the school’s success.
Several themes emerged during the data collection phase. The school
environment was one of caring and respect. The staff acknowledged the
effectiveness of research-based strategies and dedicated themselves to the use of
such strategies. The school developed a college going culture and supported students
in achieving future goals. The most recent principal gained the support of parents in
new ways to accomplish positive academic outcomes.
Teachers described SPHS as a ‘special place’, where all members were a
‘family’. Teachers stated that students were ‘cooperative’, ‘respectful’, ‘nice’,
‘caring’, ‘hard workers’, and ‘amazing’. Teachers also elevated their peers. They
often cited each other as an underlying factor for the school’s success. Teachers
visited their student’s homes and they stayed late and came early to school. They

112
made themselves available to students in extraordinary ways. Teachers involved
themselves in and out of school with students. They invested more than time; they
shared their personal experiences with students in order to relate to them. They did
not ask any more of students than they were willing to provide of themselves.
The school adopted the AVID program six years ago; during the same time
the school began reform efforts. Although the staff did not attribute the school’s
success to the AVID program, they did credit the school’s success to the use of
AVID endorsed teaching strategies, such as Cornell Notes, Socratic Seminar, and
Reciprocal Teaching. The school took the strategies of a small-scale within school
AVID program, which targeted a select group of students, and adopted the strategies
school-wide.
Besides caring staff and the use of research-based strategies, the school also
fostered a college going environment. The school held college apparel days,
sponsored college events, and changed the curriculum to facilitate college going.
The school integrated college test preparation into the curriculum and tested students
in advance so they knew what college exams looked like. The school also changed
the master schedule; the school increased the number of advanced placement and
honors classes and decreased the number of remedial classes. All students were
expected to meet the A-G requirements, including special education students.
The newest principal also gained parental support in higher numbers than
ever before. The principal worked to ensure that communication was clear between
the school and parents. She used translators and her own background as a Mexican-

113
American to relate to parents. Both parents and the staff regarded the principal as
integral to the heightened parental involvement.
Discrepancies between the survey results and interview data suggested that
student engagement as a factor for the school’s performance was inconclusive. The
national profile differed only slightly from that of SPHS students. For similar survey
question items, SPHS students were just as disengaged as the University of Indiana
survey suggested for students nationwide. However, SPHS teachers indirectly
attributed the school’s performance to student engagement. They cited that their use
of research-based strategies required students to be more engaged. Their logic
assumed that highly engaging strategies required higher levels of student
participation which resulted in higher student achievement at the school.
Discussion of Findings
Star Performing High School began in 1961. With 78% of students Hispanic,
72% receiving free or reduced lunch, and 43% of the student population categorized
as English language learners, the school has changed dramatically over the years.
Labeled a program improvement school in 2000-2001, SPHS found an escape route
from mediocrity and low achievement. Yet, success came with hard work. SPHS
did not stumble across success but the school was intentional about what needed to
be accomplished to bring the school not only up to par but also to greater heights.
As described in chapter two, effective schools research points to several
factors which facilitate improved student achievement: strong leadership, exceptional
teachers, curriculum alignment, challenging goals, high student expectations, a safe,

114
orderly school environment, professional development, and community and parent
connections. These factors are the same for both urban and non-urban schools. Star
Performing High School is not only a reflection of the literature but also an
extraordinary real life example of an effective urban school.
Strong Leadership
The school district began changing the school with the hiring of a new
principal seven years ago. The principal reformed the school and changed the very
core of the way things had been done at the school in the past. He made swift,
significant, and difficult changes. Prior to his first school year beginning, it was
clear the principal had a goal; he wanted the school to become a better place and he
had a plan to accomplish that goal, which included but was not limited to staffing
changes, curriculum alignment, focusing on improved test scores, and data-based
decision making. The current administration not only built upon the work of the
previous principal but also increased parental involvement at the school.
Exceptional Teachers
The heart of the school was its teachers. Star Performing teachers cared
about their students and this was evident in the ways in which they interacted with
students. Teachers showed genuine affection toward students through their body
language, tone of voice, and the manner in which they described students. The
teachers had internalized the belief that their students were good kids in bad
situations. They only spoke positively of students; they spoke of the students’

115
character, and they believed that their population of students could and would learn
with their support.
Strong Curriculum
The school aligned the curriculum with state standards and the administration
improved the quality of instruction by requiring teachers to use advanced teaching
strategies. This decision affected the way the curriculum was carried out in
classrooms. The staff bought into the belief that through the use of research-based
strategies the school could turn around for the better.
High Expectations
Evidence that the school held high expectations for students was noted
through conversations with the administration and teachers. They noted that in spite
of the odds against them, Star Performing kids were entitled to a rigorous
curriculum. The school recognized that the number of A-G courses offered at the
school reflected low expectations. They believed that all students would perform to
higher standards if they were given the opportunity to do so. From the principal to
the teachers, students, and parents, all stakeholders became aware of the possibilities
that a college education affords. They embraced the idea that students could achieve
to higher standards and they made changes to reflect their goal of providing every
child an opportunity to go to college.
Safe and Orderly Environment
Although the surrounding neighborhood was unsafe, leaders made SPHS a
safe place for all students and staff. Students moved with ease through the campus.

116
All principals were present during passing periods and security cameras had been
installed on campus. Students and staff reported that they felt safe on the campus
too. Ninety-one percent and eighty-seven percent of teachers and students
respectively stated that they felt safe on the campus.
Professional Development
The previous principal also recognized that the curriculum was only as strong
as the teachers behind it. He made tough decisions, which were unpopular at the
time. Instead of trying to professionally develop the existing staff, he “weeded out”
ineffective teachers. He replaced them with teachers who were energetic, open to
change, and zealous for the schools’ immigrant, high minority, and high poverty
population. Teachers working at the school beyond the previous principal’s tenure
acknowledged the turnover at the school. Although some of the teachers seemed
discouraged by the turnover, they also concluded that the school needed to replace
the ineffective teachers. The remaining teachers were supported so they could
improve their instructional practices. The most current principal acknowledged the
importance of the staff too. She was cognizant that teachers needed to continually
develop professionally. She hadn’t accepted the notion that all of the teachers had
arrived and she embraced the idea that everyday was “business as usual”. She
dutifully noted the role that the administrators played in the process; being visible,
observing teachers, and providing them with feedback is important for improving
student achievement too.

117
Community and Parent Connections
During the former principal’s tenure, he had been unable to fully harness the
help of the community and parents to improve student achievement. The previous
principal managed to solicit the help of community businesses to obtain tangible
incentives for student’s to improve their test scores; however, he was unsuccessful in
gaining the level of parental involvement that the most recent principal had achieved.
As a Mexican-American herself, the most recent principal was able to relate to
parents in culturally specific ways, namely through communication with parents in
Spanish. The newest principal also leveraged district translation services to
communicate with Vietnamese parents. With the language barrier removed, parents
responded in higher numbers.
Student Engagement
Although teachers perceived that their students were more engaged in their
classes, SPHS student survey results suggested otherwise. Students were as
disengaged as those across the nation. However, students appeared more on task
when teachers employed highly engaging instructional strategies. Teachers ensured
that students weren’t simply appearing to be engaged; by circling the room and
checking for student understanding they monitored student engagement levels. Yet,
student engagement outside of the classroom was unremarkable. Student
participation in school sponsored clubs and sports provided no support that the
school was performing better as a result of such participation.

118
Conclusion
An informal conversation with the principal rang true at the close of the data
collection process. Standing on the sidelines of the homecoming football game, with
one eye on the field she said, “It really is a confluence of factors that makes this
school successful”. I had hoped; however, that I would be able to uncover a unique
factor for the school’s success that I could share with her and other urban high
schools alike. What I found was that this school, in spite of the odds against them,
was doing what successful schools all across the nation are doing. They are trusting
and safe places where students are empowered to engage in meaningful learning
experiences so they may reach their future potential. SPHS was no exception.

119
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
Statement of the Problem
No Child Left Behind legislation codified the achievement gap between
students of color and white students. Now widely recognized is the fact that students
in urban high schools perform academically lower than their suburban counterparts.
Yet, some urban high schools have outperformed expectations and achieved
significant gains. Unclear is what contributes to high performance in these schools.
In an attempt to understand this phenomenon, this study examined one urban high
school that’s exceeding expectations, despite a unique set of challenges. The school
serves a high population of both English language learners and students receiving
free and reduced lunches.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine what perceived factors contribute
to high performance in one urban high school. The author sought to uncover
whether or not student engagement was a contributing factor for high performance
within one high performing urban high school. A cohort of 10 doctoral students
from the University of Southern California developed the research questions for this
study during the Spring of 2007. Although guided by the same research questions
and data collection instruments, each member collected individual data to produce 10
unique dissertations regarding the same topic.

120
Research Questions
The research questions, which guided this research, were:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
Methodology
A qualitative case study design was chosen as the research methodology for
this study. In an attempt to uncover the factors for high performance at one urban
high school, a multiple methods qualitative approach was necessary. To answer the
research questions, student, teacher, and out-of-classroom personnel surveys,
interviews, observations, field notes, and document review were used. No
hypothesis was developed for the study, instead the researcher sought to discover any
factors for high performance including, but not limited to higher student engagement
levels. An inductive design allowed patterns to emerge without forming conjectures
regarding the research outcomes (Patton, 2002).
Sample and Population
Located in Northern Orange County California, Star Performing High School
was selected for this study. Star Performing High School has a student population of
2,105 (EdData School Reports, 2005-2006). SPHS met both the demographic and
academic criteria that the cohort established for the case studies: 1) 40% of the
school population had to be participants in the Federal Free-Reduced Lunch

121
program, 2) The student body had to be diverse or largely non-white, and 3) The
school’s similar school ranking had to be at least 2 deciles higher than their
California state rank.
Star Performing High School’s student body is comprised of 79% Hispanic or
Latino, 14% Asian, 5% White, and 1% African American and Pacific Islander
(California Department of Education, 2007d). English language learners represent
44.0% of the school’s total enrollment (California Department of Education, 2007d).
Seventy-three percent of students participate in the Federal Free-Reduced Lunch
program (California Department of Education, 2007d).
SPHS has one principal and three assistant principals. SPHS employs 85
teachers. The ethnic composition of the teaching staff is as follows: White 78.8%,
Asian 9.4%, Hispanic 8.2%, Filipino 2.4%, and Pacific Islander 1.2%. The school
employs 22 paraprofessionals and 11 office and clerical staff or those with clerical or
administrative support duties, such as the school secretary (EdData School Reports,
2005-2006).
Academically, Star Performing is ‘beating the odds’. The most recently
published California Department of Education (2006b) Base Report indicated that
the school obtained a five statewide ranking and a 10 similar school ranking. The
Base Reports for the past four years (2003-2006) reveal that the school has steadily
improved their API scores in spite of a constant and high number of free-reduced
lunch program participants and ELL students.

122
Conclusions
This study substantiates the current literature on effective schools. Elements
for effective schooling include: strong leadership, exceptional teachers, a viable
curriculum, high expectations, a safe and orderly environment, professional
development, and community and parent connections. Star Performing High School
exemplified each of these factors in the following ways.
Strong Leadership
 The administration understood the weaknesses of the school and established a
plan for changing the school.
 The administration acted as change agents and made difficult decisions for
the betterment of students.
 The administration acted on the belief that all kids can achieve irregardless of
their backgrounds.
 The administration used data to inform and to change instructional practice.
Exceptional Teachers
 Teachers were caring; they believed in their students’ ability to succeed.
 Teachers acted on their belief in the students by making sacrifices beyond the
regular work day.
Viable Curriculum
 The school aligned the curriculum with state standards early on in their
reform efforts.

123
 The school implemented the curriculum in conjunction with advanced
teaching strategies: Cornell Notes, Socratic Seminar, meta-cognitive
strategies, and Reciprocal Teaching.
High Expectations
 The school changed the master schedule by eliminating remedial course
offerings.
 The school required all students to enroll in A-G coursework, including
students with special needs.
 The school held the expectation that every student would be prepared and
have access to a college going curriculum and they established steps to
complete this goal.
Safe and Orderly Environment
 The administration was visible throughout instructional and non-instructional
periods.
 The school ensured school safety though the use of security cameras.
Professional Development
 The administration provided opportunities for the staff to develop
professionally but in accordance with student achievement goals.
Community and Parent Connections
 The most recent principal successfully increased parental involvement by
changing the ways in which the school communicated with parents.

124
 The previous principal solicited community businesses and instituted a
student incentive program to increase test scores.
Implications
The study suggests that low performance for urban schools is inexcusable.
We know what works in schools and high performing urban schools are ‘out there’.
Researchers must be willing to extend their work into urban schools. The factors for
success in non-urban schools are equally important for urban schools.
Schools in the most underserved areas and with the most challenging students
need strong leaders who are willing to act as change agents, exceptional teachers
who are willing to go beyond what is expected of them, a viable curriculum which
challenges students and is aligned with state standards, a safe school, and high levels
of parent and community involvement. Although many urban schools clearly
struggle to operationalize these factors within their school walls, other urban schools
have managed to do so. From this study, it is apparent that urban schools can
improve but it takes commitment, tenacity, and a no excuse approach.
This study also suggests that although student engagement is perceived
fundamental to student achievement, we have yet to uncover how this factor plays
out in schools. More research is needed which examines the current intuitive
approach to student engagement as a factor for student achievement.
Recommendations for Future Study
The findings and conclusions of the study necessitate future research.
Recommendations for future study are as follows.

125
1. Future studies should focus on gaining qualitative student perspectives on
what factors contribute to the success of urban schools.
2. Future studies should attempt to elucidate how higher levels of student
engagement could improve student success in urban schools.
3. Future studies should be longitudinal and focused on exploring how high
performing urban schools have managed to overcome barriers to student
success.
4. Student engagement is a multidimensional and complicated construct; hence,
researchers need to develop a more concrete definition of student engagement
for measurement purposes and in relations to student achievement.
5. Since this study viewed student engagement as a factor or input for increased
student achievement, other studies should focus on what factors increase
student engagement and subsequent student achievement.

126
REFERENCES
Akey, T.M. (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and academic
achievement: An exploratory analysis. NY: MDRC.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). A Presentation of Survey Research on the
Public’s Views on Public High Schools. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from
www.all4ed.org/NationalPollPowerPoint.ppt

American Institutes for Research. (September, 2003). California’s Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA): Evaluation Findings and Implications. Retrieved
March 15, 2007, from http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_psaa03.cfm

Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (Summer 2003).
Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. [Electronic
version]. Review of Educational Research.73(2), 125-230.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Futures of Children 7(2), 55-71.

California Department of Education (n.d.). Academic Performance Index Report.
Retrieved January 26, 2008, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/API/APISearchName.asp?TheYear=&cTopic=
API&cLevel=School&cName=santiago^high^&cCounty=&cTimeFrame=S

California Department of Education (2006-2007). California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE). Retrieved September 5, 2007, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cahsee/SearchCahsee.asp?rYear=2006-
07&Topic=ExitExam&Level=School&cName=santiago^high^&cCounty=&r
bTimeFrame=oneyear

California Department of Education. (2006a). California High School Exit
Examination. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/cahseeregs0706.doc

California Department of Education. (2006b). Similar Schools Report, 2006
Academic Performance Index (API) Base Report. Retrieved March 27, 2007,
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/

California Department of Education. (2007a). 2006-07 APR Glossary - Base API.
Retrieved April 20, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/glossary07b.asp

127
California Department of Education. (2007b). Parent and Guardian Guide to
California’s 2006-07 Accountability Progress Reporting System. Retrieved
March 15, 2007, from
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/parentguide07.pdf

California Department of Education. (2007c). 2006 Base Academic Performance
Index Report. Retrieved March 15, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/

California Department of Education. (2007d). School Demographic Characteristics
2007 Growth Academic Performance (API) Report. Retrieved September 5,
2007, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2007/2007GrthSchDem.aspx?allcds=3
0-66522-3036555

Caraway, K., Tucker, C.M., Reinke, W.M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal
orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high
school students. [Electronic version].Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 417-
427).

Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2004). Does external accountability affect student
outcomes? In S. H. Casner-Lotto, J. & Barrington, L. (October, 2006). Are
They Ready to Work? Employer’s Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and
Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21
st
Century Workforce. Retrieved April
21, 2007, from http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/BED-06-
Workforce.pdf

Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas at Austin. (1999). Hope for urban
education: A study of nine high performing, high poverty urban elementary
schools. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and
Evaluation Service.

Cohen, C., Deterding, N., & Clewell, B.C. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant
children in high and low LEP schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today: A first report to interested
citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Conant, J. B. (1961). Slums and suburbs: A commentary on schools in metropolitan
areas. New York: McGraw-Hill.

128
Cotton, K. (2001). Educating urban minority youth: Research on effective practices.
NW Archives: School Improvement Research Series (SIRS). Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved February 1, 2007,
from www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/5/topsyn4.html

Council of the Great City Schools (October 1999). Closing the achievement gaps in
urban schools: A survey of academic progress and promising practices in the
great city schools. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from
http://www.cgcs.org/reports/achievement_gaps.html

Council of the Great City Schools. (September 2002). Foundations For Success:
Case Studies of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement.
Retrieved February 7, 2006, from
http://www.cgcs.org/reports/Foundations.html

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Ascher, C. (March 1991). Creating accountability in big
city schools. Urban Diversity Series No. 102. New York: National Center for
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching at Teachers College.

Ed-Data School Reports. (2005-2006). Retrieved March 30, 2007, from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp

EdSource. (2007). Glossary. Retrieved April 21, 2007, from
http://www.edsource.org/glo.cfm

Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawal from school. [Electronic version]. Review of
Educational Research, 59(2), 117-142.

Finn, J.D. & Voekl, K.E. (1993). School characteristics related to student
engagement. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Negro Education , 6 (3),
249-268.

Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement
potential of the concept, state of the evidence. [Electronic version]. Review of
Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Fuhrman, S.H. (2004). Introduction. In S. H. Fuhrman & R.E. Elmore (Eds.),
Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers
College Press.

129
Fuhrman & R.E. Elmore (Eds.), (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for
education. NY: Teachers College Press.

Fuhrman, S. H., Goertz, M.E., & Duffy, M.C. (2004). Slow down, you move too
fast: The politics of making changes in high-stakes accountability policies
for students. In S.H. Fuhrman & R.E. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education. NY: Teachers College Press.

Furlong, M.J., Whipple, A.D., St. Jean, G, Simental, J., Soliz, A., & Punthuna, S.
(2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement: Moving toward a unifying
framework for educational research and practice. [Electronic version]. The
California School Psychologist, 8, 99-113.

Gall, M.P., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research-An introduction
(7
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Garcia, P., & Calhoun, D.O. (2002, April). An examination of the correlates to
achievement on the California high school exit exam. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/G2K/g2k-fact.html

Goldin, C. (1998). America’s graduation from high school: The evolution and
spread of secondary schooling in the twentieth century. [Electronic version].
The Journal of Economic History, 58(2), 345-374.

Goldin, C. (2001). The human-capital century and American leadership: Virtues of
the past. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Economic History, 61(2), 263-
292.

Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2001). Why the United States led in education: lessons from
secondary school expansion, 1910 to 1940. Paper presented at the Rochester
Conference in honor of Stanley Engerman.

Gutek, G. L. (2000). American education 1945-2000: A history and commentary.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Hall, D. & Kennedy, S. (March 2006). Primary Progress, Secondary Challenge: A
state-by-state look at student achievement patterns. Washington, D.C.: The
Education Trust.

130
Hammock, F. M. (2004). What should be common and what should not? In F.M.
Hammock (Eds.), The comprehensive high school today (pp. 6-25). New
York: Teachers College Press.

High School Survey of Student Engagement. (2005a). A Special Report from the
High School Survey of Student Engagement. Getting Students Ready for
College: What Student Engagement Data Can Tell Us. Retrieved May 5,
2007, from
http://www.ecs.org/html/IssueSection.asp?issueid=108&s=Selected+Researc
h+%26+Readings

High School Survey of Student Engagement 2005. (2005b). What we can learn
from high school students. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/hssse_2005_report.pdf

High School Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). About HSSSE. Retrieved April
25, 2007, from http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/html/about.htm

Hill, P., Guin, K., & Celio, M.B. (2003). Minority children at risk. In P.E. Peterson
(Eds.), Our schools and our future . . . are we still at risk? Stanford, CA:
Hoover Institution Press.

Hudley, C., Daoud, A., Polanco, T., Wright-Castro, R., & Hershberg, R. (2003,
April). Student engagement, school climate, and future expectations in High
School. Paper presented at the 2003 biennial meeting of the society for
research in child development. Tampa, FL.

Husbands, J., & Beese, S. (2001, July). Review of selected high school reform
strategies. Paper prepared for the Aspen Program on Education Workshop on
High School Transformation. Aspen, CO.

Jimerson, S.R., Campos, E., & Greif, J.L. (2003). Toward an understanding of
definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. [Electronic
version]. The California School Psychologist, 8, 7-27.

Johnson, M.K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G.H. Jr. (2001). Students’ attachment and
academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. [Electronic version].
Sociology of Education 74, 318-340.

Karoly, L.A. & Panis, C.W.A. (2004). The 21
st
Century at Work: Forces Shaping
the Future Workforce and Workplace in the United States. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation.

131
Kerbow, D. (1996). Patterns of urban student mobility and local school reform.
[Electronic version]. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, (1)2,
147-169.

Kitchen, R., DePree, J., Celedon-Pattichis, S., & Brinkerhoff, J. (February 2004).
High achieving schools initiative final report. Retrieved February 2, 2007,
from www.unm.edu/~jbrink/HASchools/hp_final_report2.pdf

Lee, J., & Wong, K.K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and
socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement
outcomes. [Electronic version]. American Educational Research Journal,
41(4), 797-832.

Linn, R. L. (2004). Accountability models. In S. H. Fuhrman & R.E. Elmore (Eds.),
Redesigning accountability systems for education. NY: Teachers College
Press.

Lippman, L., Burns, S., and McArthur, E. (1996) Urban schools: The challenge of
location and poverty. (Rep. No. NCES 96-184). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education.

Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years. [Electronic version]. American
Educational Research Journal,37(1), 153-184.

Marsh, D.D., & Codding, J.B., (1999). The new American high school. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in Schools: Translating research into action.
ASCD: Alexandria, VA.

Mason, B. (2005). Achievement effects of five comprehensive school reform designs
implemented in Los Angeles Unified School District. Retrieved January 29,
2007, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD192/

Mcgee, G.W. (2003, April). Closing Illinois achievement gap: Lessons from the
“Golden Spike” high poverty high performing schools . Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Chicago: IL.

National Center for Children Living in Poverty. (2006). Basic Facts about low-
income children: Birth to age 18. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from
http://nccp.org/pub_lic06b.html

132
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Enrollment in public elementary
and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and locale: 2003. Retrieved
February 7, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/RuralEd/TablesHTML/1_racialethnic_enroll.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of Education Statistics and
tables. Washington, D.C. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/lt2.asp#c2

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The condition of education 2006
(NCES No. 2006-071). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk.
Retrieved February 3, 2006,
fromhttp://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html.

National High School Center. (2006). Quick stats fact sheet. Retrieved February 7,
2007, from
http://www.betterhighschools.org/pubs/documents/USFactSheetandReferenc
es_FINAL_080406.pdf

National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school
students’ motivation to learn. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press.

Newmann, F. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary
schools. (Ed.). NY: Teachers College Press.

No Child Left Behind (2001). Retrieved February 15 ,2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Catalog of school reform
models. Portland, OR: Author. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/index.shtml.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peterson, P.E. (2003). Our schools and our future . . . are we still at risk? In P.E.
Peterson (Eds.), Our schools and our future… are we still at risk? Stanford,
CA: Hoover Institution Press.

133
Pratte, R. (1973). The public school movement: A critical study. New York: David
McKay Company.

Ravitch, D. (2003). A historic document. In P.E. Peterson (Eds.), Our schools and
our future . . . are we still at risk? Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., Fix, M., & Clewell, B.C. (December 2000). Overlooked and
underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools.. Retrieved
February 10, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310022

Rury, J. (1999, April). Educating urban youth: James Conant and the changing
context of metropolitan America, 1945-1995. In F.M. Hammock (Eds.), The
comprehensive high school today (pp. 45-68). New York: Teachers College
Press.

Shavelson, R.J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E.S. (2003).
Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow
theory. [Electronic version]. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-76.

Siskin, L.S. (2004). The challenge of high schools. In S. H. Fuhrman & R.E. Elmore
(Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education. NY: Teachers
College Press.

Spellings, M. (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No
Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/reauth/index.html.

Spring, J. (2001). The American School: 1642-2000 (5
th
ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Steinberg, L., Brown, B.B., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why
school reform has failed and what parents need to do. NY: Simon &
Schuster.

Swanson, C.B. (2001). Who graduates? Who doesn’t? A statistical portrait of public
high school graduation, class of 2001. The Urban Institute Education Policy
Center. Washington, D.C.

134
The Education Trust-West. (2004). Are California High Schools ready for the 21
st

Century? A Special Report. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/819B2A7C-C749-477E-A90A-
13DFA120C382/0/EdTrustWest_ReportFINAL.pdf

The Education Trust. (2005). Gaining Traction, gaining ground: How some high
schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Retrieved February 3,
2007, from http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/hspage.html

The Urban Institute. (2001). Children of immigrants. Retrieved February 2, 2007,
from http://www.urban.org/publications/900506.html

Tozer, S.E., Violas, P.C., & Senese, G. (2002). School and society: Historical and
contemporary perspectives (4
th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tushnet, N.C., Flaherty, J., & Smith, A. (2004). Longitudinal assessment of
comprehensive school reform and program implementation and outcomes:
First-year report (Document No.2004-20). Washington, DC: U.S Department
of Education.

Tyack, D.B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

U.S. Department of Education (2004a.) Glossary of Terms. Retrieved May 3, 2007,
from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html#12

U.S. Department of Education. (2004b). About CSR. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Federal Comprehensive School Reform
Expenditures. CSR State by State Funding Allocation Table - FY 2001
through 2007. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/compreform/awards.html

United States Census Bureau. (2005). Factfinder Fact Sheet. Retrieved March 3,
2007, from http://www.census.gov/

Visher, M.G., Emanuel, D., & Teitelbaum, P. (March 1999). Key high school reform
strategies: An overview of research findings. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates,
Inc.

135
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What
30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO.: Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning.

WestEd. (May 2004). Student Achievement in California: Steady Progress Made,
Faster Improvement Needed. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from
www.wested.org/online_pubs/cde.studentachieve.pdf

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2006). Voices of student engagement: A report on the 2006 high
school survey of student engagement. Retrieved March 7, 2007,
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/HSSSE_2006_Report.pdf

136
APPENDIX A

FOCUS: FACTORS IMPACTING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AT URBAN
HIGH SCHOOLS
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Suggested personnel to interview: Principal, Assistant Principal(s), Superintendent,
Support staff, Parent groups and community groups, Extra-curricular Activities
Leaders (minimum of 5 interviews)

Questions

Tell me about this school.

What are you most proud of at this school? What areas would you like to improve
within the school?

What is the vision or mission of the school? Are there common goals in which all
stakeholders are focusing upon? If so, please tell me about them.

What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement at your school?

What role do you feel student engagement (defined by cohort group) contributes to
student achievement at your school?

What do you feel are the strengths of the school?

Would you consider your school high performing? Why or why not? If so, how?

Is your school unique? If so, how?

How does the school prepare students beyond high school?

137
APPENDIX B

DOCUMENT REVIEW

How we would identify high performing schools?
API score
Similar School Ranking

What do we need to know?
CAHSEE passage rate
Discipline (suspensions, expulsions, rewards)
School sponsored activities
Attendance
Graduation rates
Student Demographics (SES, free/reduced lunch, mobility, ELL)
Parent education level
Course grades (GPA)

How would we find this information?
California Department of Education (Data Quest- http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/)
WASC Report- Self study report & recommendations
School Accountability Report Card
District Website
School Website
School Handbook
Student/Parent Handbook

138
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION LOG

Date: ________________________________________ Page ________ of ________

School Class Leadership Meetings

School
Culture
Curriculum &
Instruction
Leadership Student
Engagement
Additional
Observations

139
APPENDIX D
SURVEY OF HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS REGARDING STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT
This survey asks questions about how you perceive the high school experience for the
students at your high school. The information provided by these surveys will be compiled to
be shared with site and district stakeholders. Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

1. What areas do you supervise?
2. Are you _____ Female ______ Male
3. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
(Mark all that apply.)
______American Indian/other Native American ______Asian American or Pacific Islander
______Black/African American ______White
______Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin ______Other, specify: ___________
______Prefer not to respond
4. Is English the main language used in the majority of your students’ homes?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I do not know

5. Do the majority of your students have a computer with Internet access, at home?
____ Yes ____ No ____ I do not know
6. During this school year, about how many writing assignments are students given?
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+
a. Written papers/reports of more
than 5 pages
b. Written papers/reports of 3 to 5
pages
c. Written papers/reports of fewer
than 3 pages

7. How much reading are students assigned in a typical school week?
# of hours of assigned reading

____0 ____1 ____2-3 ____4-5 ____6-7 ____8-10 ____11+
8. During this school year, how often do teachers utilize strategies to encourage all students
to participate in class?

____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never

140
9. During this school year, how often are students given prompt, personal feedback to
students on assignments?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
10. School safety is clearly a priority on this campus?
____I agree ____I disagree
For numbers 11- 21, check the response that best identifies the extent to which this high
school emphasizes the skill or learning activity mentioned.

11. Students must spend a lot of time studying and on school work.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

12. Students are provided the support needed to succeed in school.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

13. Students are encouraged to participate in school events and activities (athletics, music,
etc.).
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

14. Students are encouraged to get involved in school leadership and governance.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

15. All adults on campus treat students fairly.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

16. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to learn work-related
skills.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

17. Students are encouraged to write effectively.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

18. Students are encouraged and provided the support to use information technology.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

19. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities to solve real-world problems.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

20. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to develop clear,
sequential career goals and prepare for appropriate post-secondary education or training.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

21. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to make their
community a better place.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

141
22. What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

142
APPENDIX E
SURVEY OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS REGARDING STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT
This survey asks questions about how you perceive the high school experience for the
students at your high school. The information provided by these surveys will be compiled to
be shared with site and district stakeholders. Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

1. What subject area do you teach? ____________________________________________
2. Which category represents most of the classes you teach?
_____ General/Regular _____ Special Education
_____ Remedial _____ Honors/College Prep
_____ Career/Career Technical Education

3. Are you _____ Female ______ Male
4. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
(Mark all that apply.)
______American Indian/other Native American ______ Asian American or Pacific Islander
______Black/African American ______ White
______ Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin ______ Other, specify: ___________
______Prefer not to respond
5. Is English the main language used in the majority of your students’ homes?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I do not know

6. Do the majority of your students have a computer with Internet access, at home?
____ Yes ____ No ____ I do not know
7. During this school year, about how many writing assignments have you given?
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+
a. Written papers/reports of more
than 5 pages
b. Written papers/reports of 3 to 5
pages
c. Written papers/reports of fewer
than 3 pages

8. How much reading do you assign in a typical school week?
# of hours of assigned reading

____0 ____1 ____2-3 ____4-5 ____6-7 ____8-10 ____11+

143
9. During this school year, how often have you utilized strategies to encourage all students to
participate in class?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
10. During this school year, how often have you given prompt, personal feedback to students
on assignments?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
11. School safety is clearly a priority on this campus?
____ I agree ____ I disagree
For numbers 13-23, fill in the response that best identifies the extent to which this high
school emphasizes the skill or learning activity mentioned.

12. Students must spend a lot of time studying and on school work.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

13. Students are provided the support needed to succeed in school.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

14. Students are encouraged to participate in school events and activities (athletics, music,
etc.).
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

15. Students are encouraged to get involved in school leadership and governance.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

16. All adults on campus treat students fairly.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

17. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to learn work-related
skills.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

18. Students are encouraged to write effectively.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

19. Students are encouraged and provided the support to use information technology.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

20. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities to solve real-world problems.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

21. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to develop clear,
sequential career goals and prepare for appropriate post-secondary education or training.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

144
22. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to make their
community a better place.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little

23. What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement?
_____________________________________________________________________

145
APPENDIX F
HIGH SCHOOL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
This survey asks questions about how you perceive the high school experience at
your high school. The information provided by this survey will be compiled and
analyzed. Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

1. What grade are you in? (Circle one) 9 10 11 12
2. Which category represents most of the classes you take?
_____ General/Regular _____ Special Education
_____ Remedial _____ Honors/College Prep
_____ Career/Career Technical Education

3. Are you _____ Female ______ Male
4. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
(Mark all that apply.)
______American Indian/other Native American ______Asian American or Pacific
Islander
______Black/African American ______White
______Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin ______Other, please specify:
______Prefer not to respond

5. Is English the main language used in your home?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I prefer not to state

6. During the school year, how many writing assignments are you assigned?

0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+

a. Written papers/reports of
more than 5 pages
b. Written papers/reports of 3 to
5 pages
c. Written papers/reports of fewer than 3 pages

7. How many hours do you read for school each week?

____ 0 ____ 1 ____ 2-3 ____ 4-5 ____ 6-7 ____ 8-10 ____ 11+

146
8. During the school year, how often are you given feedback from teachers on
assignments?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
9. School safety is clearly a priority at your school.

____ I agree ____ I disagree
10. Fill in the response that best identifies the extent to which your high school
emphasizes the skill or learning activity mentioned.

Very
often
Often Some Never
a. You must spend a lot of time studying and on
school work.

b. You are provided the support needed to
succeed at school.

c. You are encouraged to participate in school
events and activities (athletics, music, etc.)

d. You are encouraged to get involved in school
leadership and governance.

e. All adults on campus treat students fairly.
f. You are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to learn work-related skills.

g. You are encouraged to write effectively.
h. You are encouraged and provided the support
to use information technology.

i. You are encouraged and provided
opportunities to solve real-world problems.

j. You are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to develop clear, sequential, career
goals and prepare for appropriate post-secondary
education or training.

k. You are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to make your community a better
place.

147
11. Are you eligible for free or reduce-priced lunch?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I do not know / Decline
to state

12. How far do you think you will go in school? (Choose one)
____ Not finish high school ____ Certificate of
completion without a
diploma
____ High school diploma/GED ____ 2-year college
degree (Associate’s)
____ 4-year degree (Bachelor’s) ____ Master’s degree
____ PhD or other advanced professional ____ I Don’t Know
degree (law, medicine, etc.)

13. Would you like to say more about any of your answers to these survey
questions?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In an age of accountability, closing the achievement gap among urban and non-urban schools has become a priority for educators. In a globalizing economy, the need for a skilled workforce has never been greater either. Preparing the nation s youth for tomorrow s challenges can be accomplished only by understanding what effective schools are doing and replicating those practices in other schools.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective factors of high performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban high school: the relational pattern between student engagement and student achievement in a magnet high school in Los Angeles

PDF

Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability

PDF

Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

Student engagement in high-performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study

PDF

Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study

PDF

A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement

PDF

A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school

PDF

A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement

PDF

Factors which may contribute to academic achievement in an outperforming urban high school with a career technical education curriculum

PDF

A case study: one California high school's commitment to preparing students for a global world

PDF

A case study of an outperforming elementary school closing the achievement gap

PDF

Outperforming nontraditional urban school: a high school case study

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of one outperforming urban high school

PDF

Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban magnet high school

PDF

Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

Outperformance in a nontraditional urban elementary school: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Anderson, Sharon Adkins (author)

Core Title Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/01/2008

Defense Date 03/19/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag effective schools,high performing,High School,OAI-PMH Harvest,Urban

Language English

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email shar.anderson@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1069

Unique identifier UC151160

Identifier etd-Anderson-20080401 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-50119 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1069 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Anderson-20080401.pdf

Dmrecord 50119

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Anderson, Sharon Adkins

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu