University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Professional development in high- and low-performing elementary schools serving large numbers of African American, Latino, and low-socioeconomic students

(USC Thesis Other)

Professional development in high- and low-performing elementary schools serving large numbers of African American, Latino, and low-socioeconomic students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH- AND LOW-PERFORMING
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SERVING LARGE NUMBERS OF
AFRICAN AMERICAN, LATINO, AND LOW-
SOCIOECONOMIC STUDENTS
by
Mary Ruth Henry-Bell
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
December 2006
Copyright 2006Mary Ruth Henry-Bell
ii

DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation and all the work taken to make it happen to my loving
parents, my two children, and my siblings. To my mom, Mrs. Allie Mae Ollison and my
dad, Mr. Eugene Ollison, who are no longer on earth with us but forever live in my
heart: I thank them for being the world’s greatest mom and dad. I thank them for in-
stilling within me a will to help make the world a better place by first bettering myself.
To my daughter, Serena Lanette Bell, and to my son, Sammy Lee Bell, Jr.,
remember this dissertation experience as proof that all things work together for the
common good. To my eight brothers, my four sisters, and my three nephews reared by
my parents—this is an outcome of what happens when family and loved ones are posi-
tive influences on one another. To big brother Horace Henry, I will always be grateful.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank God for making a way out of no way,
once again. I extend my deepest and most heartfelt gratitude to my dissertation chair,
Dr. Etta Ruth Hollins. I thank her so much for believing in me and my ability to make a
contribution that informs the education community. I thank her for allowing me to learn
in a manner that did not strip away my sense of who I am and the gift I offer to help
make the world a better place.
I especially would like to thank my two committee members, Dr. Robert G.
Keim and Dr. Chester A. Newland, for not giving up on me.
I thank friends and relatives who have gone through this process with me. The
encouragement of Doris Edwards was invaluable; I could not have done it without her. I
am grateful to Valta Adger, California Department of Education, Title I Neglected and
Delinquent Consultant; George King, Consultant with Speaker of the Assembly Office;
Dr. Stuart Gothold; and editor Phyllis Parmet. Thanks also to County Superintendent
David W. Gordon and the Sacramento County Office Board of Education, Deputy
Superintendent Martin J. Cavanaugh, and Assistant Superintendent Timothy J. Taylor.
Last, but not least, I want to sincerely thank all the principals, teachers, and
school districts participating in this study. Their genuine responses and very candid
expressions were the foundations necessary to help close an achievement gap that
disenfranchises entire student populations served by our public schools. I am very
appreciative for their help.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION. ..................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ............................................iii
LIST OF TABLES. ..................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES. .................................................viii
GL OSSARY. ...................................................... ix
ABSTRACT........................................................ xi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION. ........................................ 1
Statement of the Problem..........................................10
Purpose of the Study. ............................................12
Importance of the Study...........................................13
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
The Researcher. ................................................17
Conceptual Framework. ..........................................19
Chapter Introductions and Overviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Definitions. ....................................................22
Academic Performance Index (API).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Delivery of PDPs. ...........................................22
Elementary School. ..........................................22
High-Performing School. .....................................22
Low-Performing School. ......................................23
Positivist Tradition. ..........................................23
Professional Development or Professional Staff Development. . . . . . . . .23
Professional Learning Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Progressive Tradition. ........................................24
Social Critique Tradition. .....................................24
Underserved Students.........................................25
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ...........................26
Documentation. ................................................26
Literature Review. ..............................................26
A National Imperative............................................28
The Missing Link. ...........................................29
v
No Child Left Behind. ........................................33
Standardized Testing. ........................................34
Effective Professional Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Collective Learning and Practice. ...................................38
Planning and Content.........................................40
Delivery and Evaluation. ......................................41
Supportive School Culture.........................................44
Sustainability . ..................................................50
Technology in the Classroom. ..................................51
Historical Perspectives............................................53
Positivist Tradition: Learning Is an Additive Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Progressive Tradition: What Is Known and How Was it Acquired. . . . . .55
Social Critique Tradition: Broader Issues of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Conclusions. ...................................................59
I mplications. ...................................................66
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY. .......................................68
Theoretical Framework of the Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Process........................................................72
Sample and Population. ..........................................75
I nstrumentation. ................................................77
Data Collection. ................................................78
Data Analysis...................................................81
Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION. .............................84
Overview. .....................................................84
Characteristics of HP and LP Elementary Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
High-Performing School Set. ......................................89
HP School A1. ..............................................89
HP School A2. ..............................................99
Low-Performing School Set. ......................................110
HP School B1. ..............................................110
HP School B2. ..............................................122
Summary of Findings Relative to Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
Research Question 1. .........................................134
Research Question 2. .........................................138
Research Question 3. .........................................141
vi
Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Conclusions. ...................................................149
I mplications. ...................................................155
Implications for PD Practices. ..................................155
Policy Decisions by Districts. ..................................158
Preservice Education Program Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
REFERENCES CITED. ..............................................161
APPENDI X. .......................................................169
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Selected Studies for Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Table 2:Three Overarching Research Questions and Discussion Topics.. . . . . . . .70
Table 3:Characteristics of the High- and Low-Performing Elementary Schools. . .87
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:Summary of findings: Differences in HP and LP schools.. . . . . . . . . . .144
Figure 2:Summary of findings: Similarities in high- and low-performing
schools...................................................145
ix
GLOSSARY
ACLUAmerican Civil Liberties Union
APIAcademic Performance Index
AB466Assembly Bill 466 mandating teacher professional development
AYPAdequate Yearly Progress
BTSABeginning Teacher Support and Assessment
CAT-6California Achievement Test 6
CDECalifornia Department of Education
CSTCalifornia Standards Test
CLADCrosscultural, Language, and Academic Development
CTECareer and technical education
ELEnglish Learner
ELAEnglish Language Arts
ELLEnglish Language Learner
ESEAElementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
ETSEducational Testing Service
HPHigh-performing
IASAImproving America’s School Act of 1994
LPLow-performing
NCEENational Commission on Excellence in Education
NCESNational Center of Education Statistics
x
NCLBNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001
NISENational Institute for Science Education
NSDCNational Staff Development Council
PBSPositive Behavior Support
PDProfessional development
PDPProfessional development program
PDSProfessional development school
PLCProfessional learning community
PSDProfessional staff development
PSTPreservice teacher
RIQReflective-interpretive-inquiry
SARCSchool Accountability Report Card
SESSocioeconomic status
SFASuccess for All
SIFSchool improvement funds
SIPPSSystematic Instruction in Phonics and Sight Words
SPSASingle Plan for Student Achievement
SSASchool Site Agreement
xi
ABSTRACT
Although the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and some state laws
have mandated increased student achievement by 2014 to levels of proficiency in
reading and math for all students attending American public schools, the achievement
gap between underserved students and their higher performing Caucasian peers con-
tinue to widen. In spite of some federal and state resources to public schools and efforts
to close the academic achievement gap, researchers seek to ascertain why the gap
persists.
Qualitative research techniques were used in this study to investigate character-
istics of professional development and learning communities in high-performing (HP)
and low-performing (LP) California public elementary schools. Four principals and 6
teachers were interviewed using research questions focused on (a) planning, delivering
and evaluating professional development programs; (b) characteristics of learning
communities in HP and LP schools serving large numbers of underserved students; and
(c) strategies employed by principals to improve student learning.
Findings of the study showed that (a) HP and LP were more similar than dissim-
ilar in terms of professional development and learning community characteristics; (b)
HP schools had a more formalized needs assessment process to gather input from staff,
(c) administration and central office played a larger role in staff development decisions
for LP schools, and (d) the mission and values of HP and LP schools appeared different.
HP schools exhibited a stronger sense of efficacy and shared a common vision—that of
xii
improved student test scores. The LP schools had a pressing mission to get off the
state’s LP list and then to increase student test scores.
Implications for future research suggest exploration of the achievement gap
when HP and LP schools have similar professional development and learning commu-
nities. Is teacher efficacy, or lack thereof, increasing the achievement gap for under-
served students in public schools?
1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Underserved students, defined for the purposes of this study as African Ameri-
can, Latino, and low-socioeconomic status (SES) students (Gage & Berliner, 1998), are
not receiving a quality education in the American educational system and the problem is
getting worse. According to Goldberg and Traiman (2001), 77% of poor, language, and
minority students are unable to score at even the most basic academic levels. Burr and
Fuller (2000) suggested that underserved students are more likely to be African Ameri-
can or Latino. The achievement gap between these students and their higher performing
Caucasian peers has been recognized for some time.
According to the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES; 2003), by the
end of 4 grade, African American, Latino, and poor students of all races are 2 years
th
behind other students. By 8 grade, they have slipped 3 years behind; and when they
th
reach 12 grade, underserved students are about 4 years behind. This means that the
th
average 17-year-old African American and Latino student is at the same academic level
as a 13-year-old Caucasian student. In terms of the actual gap in reading scale scores,
the average 9-year old African American student scored 35 points below that of the typ-
ical Caucasian student on the 1999 National Assessment of Educational Progress
reading test. The 29-point gap for 13-year-olds and the 31-point gap for 17-year-olds
were not any more encouraging.
2
The more crucial fact about this problem is that the reading achievement gap
narrowed from 1971 to 1988 but then widened again from 1988 to 1999. Since 1988,
the gap for 9-year-olds increased by 6 points; for 13-year-olds, 11 points; and for 17-
year olds, 10 points (NCES, 2003).
America’s need for an informed citizenry to participate in a pluralistic demo-
cratic society is at the heart of narrowing the achievement gap for underserved students
and requires a holistic, unified, bipartisan approach from American leaders. Recogni-
tion of this problem and steps to mitigate it have led to the bipartisan contributions of
U.S. presidents dating back as far as the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson
(Cowan, Manasevit, Edwards, & Sattler, 2002).
The Johnson administration sought to help the poor offset the effects of poverty
by providing educational opportunities for underserved children through Title I, Part A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (as cited in Pinkerton,
2002). This law not only followed the 1964 Civil Rights legislation but, in particular, it
followed the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 that authorized Head Start and Up-
ward Bound programs specifically targeting educational assistance for underserved
children (Pinkerton). The focus on improving education for underserved students
proved successful when real gains were made between 1970 and 1988. The achieve-
ment gap between African American and Caucasian students was cut in half, and the
gap separating Latino students and Caucasian students declined by a third (Haycock,
2001). Still more bipartisan work was needed.
3
During President Ronald Reagan’s administration, A Nation at Risk was pub-
lished as an outcome of collaboration with the 1983 National Commission on Excel-
lence in Education (NCEE) convened by first U.S. Secretary of Education, Terrell H.
Bell (Cowan et al., 2002; NCEE, 1983). The publication alerted America to its alarm-
ing state of mediocre educational performance. The administration of President George
H. W. Bush convened the National Education Summit of Governors to discuss Amer-
ica’s education agenda, a discussion that led to Goals 2000. President William J.
Clinton’s administration revised that earlier agenda with key recommendations to hold
schools and school districts accountable for the education of underserved students by
threatening consequences. This revision became know as the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act, which was enacted into law in April of 1994 as the Title I reauthorization
or Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 (Cowan et al.).
The current administration of President George W. Bush delivered the culmina-
tion of bipartisan presidential work to address quality education needs for underserved
students through reauthorization of Title I, Part A of the ESEA. This reauthorization is
known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, signed into law by President
Bush on January 8, 2002 (as cited in Pinkerton, 2002). Accountability and conse-
quences were built into the bipartisan plan designed to increase student achievement.
The NCLB Act of 2001 requires states to set annual performance goals for
schools based on the percentage of students scoring proficient on state reading and math
assessments. These performance goals must rise in equal increments for 12 years, be-
ginning with the year 2002, until all students are proficient in reading and math by the
4
targeted year of 2014. In addition, each student subgroup (e.g., race, income, English
proficiency) must meet the same annual performance goals. When schools have met
expectations of incremental rises in student proficiency over a 12-year span, they have
met their adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals. Those not making AYP for 2 consecu-
tive years are identified and eventually required to develop and implement improvement
plans or face sanctions.
Legislated accountability and consequences mandate a sense of urgency contin-
ually as national discussions on narrowing the achievement gap for underserved stu-
dents persist. Addressing the issue may actually begin with dispelling powerful myths
and identifying those schools that have been successful in raising the achievement
levels of these students:
The American education system has been in thrall to a myth for more than 30
years. The myth says that student achievement has much more to do with a
child’s background than with the quality of instruction he or she receives. . . .
The myth is powerful. It is pervasive. And it is wrong. No one who has visited
as many urban classrooms as we have would argue that poverty and racism don’t
make both teaching and learning more challenging. But more challenging does-
n’t mean impossible. All across the country, there are examples of high-poverty
schools that perform at or near the top on state tests. (Haycock, Jerald, &
Huang, 2001, p. 5)
The best argument that schools can overcome the obstacles of poverty, race, and
ethnicity is the fact that a number of schools already are doing so. The Education Trust,
a research and advocacy group, identified approximately 4,500 successful schools
across the nation in 2000 (as cited in Ali & Jerald, 2001). Those schools, serving large
numbers of poor and/or minority students, performed in the top third among all schools
in their respective states.
5
Another organization based in Washington, D.C., The Heritage Foundation,
examined lessons from 21 schools that have performed well with large numbers of poor
and minority students. According to Carter (2000):
For all their differences, these schools share certain traits and beliefs. Most
notably, they all are led by strong principals who hold their students and their
teachers to the highest standards. Every single one of them believes that chil-
dren of all races and income levels can meet high academic standards. (Carter,
p. 8)
A U.S. Department of Education report on nine urban success stories, including
schools in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, and East St. Louis, also cited school leadership
and accountability as key ingredients (Dana Center, 1999). The report indicated that the
school leaders created a collective sense of responsibility for school improvement.
Another study conducted as a 3-year follow-up to determine sustainability of
research-based practices in reading found a collective sense of responsibility by school
stakeholders was among factors reported as facilitating sustainability of the practices
(Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, & Arguelles, 1999). These factors included support net-
works where teachers received support from a variety of sources: other teachers, para-
professionals, university professors providing consultation skills to the school-wide
efforts, and others. Teachers in the study also reported having administrative backing
from the principal and district administration made a substantial difference. In one
school, the principal took responsibility for continued implementation of the reading
program by actively demonstrating its importance and providing necessary training,
release time, and other supportive resources (Klingner et al.). These actions created a
learning community that fostered a collective sense of responsibility.
6
Adopting a collective sense of responsibility for school improvement was a
vision of professional development (PD) proposed in a study conducted by Joyce and
Showers (1995). They proposed that schools needed to promote a culture where teach-
ers worked together to improve teaching practice and student learning. Specifically,
they suggested that schools utilize coaching teams, study groups, and improvement
councils in order to make PD more meaningful and more focused on academic achieve-
ment. Others have used the term professional learning community (PLC) to describe
schools that have successfully integrated PD and school improvement in order to in-
crease student learning outcomes (Hollins, 2006; Hord, 1997; Resnick & Fink, 2001).
For example, a 3-year study of selected low performing K-4 schools in the
Dayton Public School District (DPSD) successfully integrated PD to improve literacy
instruction for underserved urban students (Hollins, 2006). Participants in this collabo-
rative project between Wright State University and DPSD committed to meeting to-
gether at their schools for at least 1 hour a week, maintaining weekly journals and
working to improve their ability to teach literacy. Joyce and Showers (2002) described
this effort as the four essential elements of effective PD: planning, content, delivery,
and evaluation nested within a PLC that is needed for optimal student achievement.
Results of the study illustrated that teacher participation in structured dialogue
concerning issues of improved student literacy created PLCs that maintained the overall
process of professional growth, even in the face of high teacher turnover rates, which is
a fact of life for urban schools, according to Hollins (2006). The full evolution of the
project was not realized until the 3 year of structured dialogue when comparisons
rd
7
between spring and fall standardized test scores were analyzed. Students in first,
second, and third grades, whose teachers participated in the study for the entire 3 years,
realized average gains in reading scores of more than 1.5 grade equivalents (Hollins,
2006). Thus, increased student achievement, the agreed-upon ultimate goal of effective
PD, materialized with student academic growth (Guskey, 2003; Joyce & Showers,
2002).
This research, conducted by Hollins (2006), confirmed Hord’s (1997) assertion
that the term professional learning community was a powerful staff development ap-
proach and a potent strategy for school change and improvement. Hord (1997) de-
scribed this learning community as a collegial group of administrators and school staff
who were united in their commitment to student learning. They shared a vision, worked
and learned collaboratively, visited and reviewed other classrooms, and participated in
decision making. She reported that the benefits to the staff and students included a
reduced isolation of teachers, better informed and committed teachers, and academic
gains for students (Hord, 1997). Comparable findings were discovered in the Wright
State University and DPSD literacy project (Hollins, 2006).
Urban schools should expect teachers to collectively assume responsibility for
making sure all students learn and to understand that structured dialogue is a powerful
instrument for empowering teachers, according to Hollins (2006). Creating a culture
where professionals feel a collective sense of responsibility for student learning appears
to be working in another large urban area (Hord, 1997). Several experts have reported
on the efforts of a New York City district to raise student achievement using these PD
8
techniques (Resnick & Fink, 2001; Resnick & Hall, 1998). Using what they called a
nested learning community approach over an 11-year period, this diverse urban district
amassed a strong record of improvement in test scores and a remarkable professional
spirit among the teachers, principals, and central office staff. This initiative included
peer collaboration and administrative support to solve problems related to student
learning, peer coaching, continuous learning opportunities for all professionals in the
schools, high levels of accountability for improvement in student achievement, and
continuous training for principals on research-based teaching practices and district
curricula so that they might serve as instructional leaders.
Research findings showed that in addition to establishing schools as learning
communities, attention to the manner in which PD was delivered was also required
(Resnick & Fink, 2001; Resnick & Hall, 1998). Smylie, Allensworth, Greenberg,
Harris, and Luppescu (2001) examined PD in Chicago’s public schools after 90% of
principals surveyed reported the lack of knowledge and skills among teachers was a
serious roadblock to school improvement. Sixty-one percent of teachers surveyed
reported they did not receive adequate PD to support school-wide improvement
changes. The researchers concluded that professional development programs (PDPs)
must address student needs, be sustained over time, connect to school improvement
plans, provide time for staff to reflect on what they learned, apply what they learned and
evaluate the effects of what was learned on student achievement, and include follow-up
activities that encourage peer interaction and support.
9
Similar characteristics of effective PD delivery were identified through an eval-
uation of the Eisenhower PDP, which focused on teacher learning and teaching prac-
tices related to PD. The evaluation suggested that staff development activities had to be
appropriate in duration, focus on subject-matter content, provide for active learning
among participants, relate to the needs of teachers, connect to student performance
standards, and encourage continuing communication among the participants (Birman,
Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Garet, Birman, Porter, Desimone, & Herman, 1999).
Additionally, findings from PD research conducted at three Midwestern urban
public elementary schools reflected on the importance of collective teacher efficacy and
concrete pressure and support (Gregory, 2002). School staff practicing collective
teacher efficacy believed in control over student achievement and viewed this commu-
nication as an important facet of instructional leadership and student learning. Synony-
mously, their view of concrete pressure and support was articulated by high expecta-
tions of students and staff, collegial support, and provision of resources to make a
difference in student learning.
Another study by Stewart (2003) on relationships among PD, teacher learning,
teaching practices, and student achievement indicated a positive and significant rela-
tionship. Findings suggested that the more teachers were given opportunities to learn
and understand through professional staff development (PSD), the more likely they
were to change their classroom teaching practices to impact student learning. Students
scored higher on some measures of achievement on state assessments. In a study em-
phasizing increased student achievement through staff development, researchers found
10
that sufficient training time allowing all teachers to practice their newly acquired skills
led to a restructure of the workplace to the extent that teachers could regularly work
together on implementation (Joyce & Showers, 2002). This practice resulted in 88% of
the teachers using the new strategies regularly and skillfully enough to impact student
achievement, yet a lack of time was cited by HP and LP schools as a drawback to effec-
tive PD (Brown, Anafara, & Roney, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
The achievement gap between underserved students and their more affluent
peers continues to exist, although a number of strategies have been deployed over the
years to combat it (Cowan et al., 2002; Goldberg & Traiman, 2001; NCES, 2003;
Pinkerton, 2002). This gap must be closed. The recent settlement of the Williams v.
California case heightens the urgency (as cited in Sack, 2004).
It is imperative that California educators and researchers examine the issue of
achievement levels of disadvantaged youth, particularly in light of the recent American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit filed on behalf of all California public school
students who lacked essential required for an opportunity to learn (Sack, 2004). This
case (Williams v. California) charged California with having violated state and federal
requirements that equal access to public education be provided without regard to race,
color, or national origin (Sack). Although California Governor Schwarzenegger an-
nounced settlement of the case on August 13, 2004, the issue of achievement gaps has
not been resolved.
11
According to data published in the state 2004 Accountability Progress Report,
24.6% of African American and 22.2% of Hispanic students scored at or above profi-
cient levels in English Language Arts, while 56.0% of Caucasian students were at that
level. In math, 23.0% of African Americans and 27.3% of Hispanic students scored at
or above the proficient level compared to 55.0% of Caucasian students. For socioeco-
nomically disadvantaged students, only 22.0% were proficient in English Language
Arts, and 27.7% were at that level in math. This percentage decreased even more for
English language learners (ELLs), with 17.9% at or above proficient in English Lan-
guage Arts and 26.9% scoring this level in math (California Department of Education
[CDE], 2004b).
A comprehensive PDP focuses on the school as a learning community, as well
as delivering high quality staff development activities. Although there is encouraging,
preliminary evidence of a relationship between the implementation of a comprehensive
PDP and demonstrated improvements in student achievement among a diverse popula-
tion, more data should be collected on this issue. Previous studies have focused on
improvement in one school or in one district and did not control for variations across
schools and districts for poverty, race, and language. Because of the diverse nature of
the student population in California, controlling for the variability of all three factors
associated with disadvantaged students is of particular interest to California educators,
policymakers, and researchers.
12
Purpose of the Study
Based on a review of the literature, a comprehensive PDP focuses on the organi-
zational climate of the school so that professionals engage in continuous learning. The
purpose of this research was to explore the characteristics of the PDPs in high-perform-
ing (HP) and low-performing (LP) California public elementary schools that served
large numbers of underserved students learning and the staff development programs
were delivered through use of specific structures and processes.
Using qualitative techniques, the HP and LP schools were contrasted for the
characteristics of a PLC, as well as their delivery of PDPs. Data were collected using
taped interviews of the principals and the teachers and related documents from each
school. More specifically, the investigation addressed the following research questions:
1.How are PDPs planned, delivered, and evaluated in HP elementary schools
with a high percentage of typically underserved students, as compared with LP schools
with a similar population of students?
2.What are the characteristics of the learning communities in HP schools with
a high percentage of typically underserved students, as compared with LP schools with
a similar population of students?
3.What strategies are employed by the principal to develop teachers and to
improve student learning in HP elementary schools with a high percentage of typically
underserved students, as compared with LP schools with a similar population of stu-
dents?
13
Importance of the Study
This study should significantly contribute to the knowledge of relationships
between the characteristics of quality PDPs and achievement levels of schools that
serve large numbers of underserved students. Researchers should be interested in this
investigation for two reasons. First, it was conducted in a state known as the home of
the nation’s most diverse student population (EdSource, 2001). In the 2002-2003
school year, California served 6,244,403 students: 45.2% Hispanics, 33.7% Cauca-
sians, 8.7% Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 8.3% African Americans and others
(EdSource, 2004). Additionally, California’s public school students speak more than
55 languages and dialects (EdSource, 2001). Second, the study compared schools that
served large numbers of underserved students using demographic factors identified by
the state of California through data collection from districts. These factors included the
mobility, ethnicity, SES, and dominant language of students; the percentage of accred-
ited teachers and the percentage holding an emergency credential; average class size per
grade level; and whether the school had a multitrack year-round educational program
(CDE, 2004b). However, predominant characteristics for participation in this study
were demographics, as described by Kober (2001) in her definition of “achievement
gap” (p. 7) being that of underserved students. Therefore, this study compared HP and
LP schools with similar demographics.
School leaders and teachers should find the results of this study useful as they
attempt to meet the annual yearly progress requirements of the NCLB regulations. If
14
PD characteristics differ between HP and LP schools, teachers and administrators will
potentially use research findings in planning PD to address the low achievement of
underserved students.
The findings of this investigation should be valuable to policymakers. Local
school boards may utilize findings to make decisions regarding funding allocations to
schools, and grant opportunities for school improvement initiatives may be impacted by
the results of this study. Funding allocation decisions are of particular interest to local
school boards in light of the recent lawsuit, Williams v. California. One of the issues in
this lawsuit was the belief that inequalities in sources of revenue for underserved stu-
dents led to inequalities in student achievement and educational outcomes (Goldberg,
2001). The conclusions of this study may help policymakers to distribute these funds
more equitably and target them toward specific types of improvement efforts, particu-
larly PD, at schools serving large numbers of underserved students.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
This study has several limitations including subject characteristics, school con-
dition and facilities, mortality, and instrumentation used to collect data:
Although a variety of school and demographic measures were controlled by
selecting HP and LP schools with African American, Latino, and low-SES students
representing a majority student population at each school, other characteristics of the
students, such as family values toward education, intelligence, and intrinsic motivation
to achieve, could not be controlled. Teacher variables, such as their feelings of efficacy
15
in terms of student achievement, intrinsic motivation, and commitment to the teaching
profession, could not be controlled in this investigation.
It was conceivable that principals and teachers at randomly selected schools may
not have served at that particular school for 2 or more years. Current research indicates
high turnover rates for staff serving this population of underserved students (Hollins,
2006; Keller, 2004).
The physical condition and general facilities of each school were also limita-
tions to this study. It was reasonable to assume that schools in this study came from
urban settings and that the facilities varied in terms of age, condition, maintenance, and
equipment. These factors could not be controlled in this investigation; however, any
serious deviations in these conditions that might have influenced the findings of the
study are noted.
Although every effort was made to include six randomly selected HP and LP
schools that qualified for this study, it was reasonable to assume that some would not be
willing to participate or would be excluded because of lack of permission from the
central office administration. Although additional schools could be randomly selected
from the qualified pool, there was a potential that data might be lost that might impact
the conclusions drawn. Also, it was not possible to interview all teachers at each school
site; therefore, this loss of data might also have affected the results.
The study was also limited by the reliability and validity of the state-wide tests
used in California to measure student achievement. Additionally, the small sample size
16
of two HP and two LP schools in California was a limitation. Readers of this study may
see the summary tables in the appendix for more details.
The investigation was delimited to HP and LP elementary schools serving large
numbers of disadvantaged students in the state of California. It did not include private
schools that served these types of students. It was also delimited to an examination of
the differences in the PDPs of these schools. Because this was a qualitative study, the
delimitations inherent in this type of research must also be noted. Because qualitative
studies are subject to researcher bias, triangulations of data using multiple data sources
were used, such as taped-recorded transcripts using verbatim responses of principal
interviews and teacher interviews, and document review. These interviews took place
in confidential spaces behind closed doors where only the researcher and interviewee
were present. Some of those locations included the principal’s office, the school library
after school had been dismissed for the day, and teacher classrooms during times with
no students.
Document analysis consisted of reviews of School Accountability Report Cards
(SARCs), school site plans for student achievement, PD agendas, staff meeting agen-
das, letters to staff announcing PD opportunities, letters to parents and community,
brochures, and other supporting documents. Also, informal observations of student
interactions took place during tours of the campus and classrooms. Students were en-
gaged in recess time activities, library cooperative group time, after-school programs,
and lunch or breakfast hours during the scheduled day.
17
This study was guided by emergent themes that surfaced from the data during
the literature review. A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach suggests
that providing a conceptual framework from the researcher’s lens might guard against
bias (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). Further assistance was derived from
recognizing complex ecological patterns, relationships, and connections between or-
ganisms and environments. Such recognition affords an opportunity to build upon
already existing beliefs, since evidence suggests seeking to change or destroy enduring
beliefs may prove futile for some (Wideen et al.). Thus, through the lens of this re-
searcher, a conceptual framework is presented with hopes of guarding against re-
searcher bias.
The Researcher
My professional and personal backgrounds are uniquely paralleled to the re-
search of increasing student achievement for underserved students in HP and LP
schools. I am an African American veteran educator of 28 years, serving 14 years as a
classroom teacher and more than 13 years as a public school administrator—a position
in which I currently serve. My specialty areas as both a teacher and administrator
provide focused attention to underserved student populations. Currently, that focus is
juvenile court and community school students. These youth are incarcerated and ex-
pelled from traditional comprehensive school settings.
Relative to my personal background, I grew up in the southern United States and
had the experience of participating in the integration of Black and White schools before
18
it was mandated by law. In my small southern town, a pilot program was initiated by
the school superintendent and school board that were responsible for administration of
both the Black and White schools. African American students were given an opportu-
nity to attend White schools at least 2 years before mandated integration. I was among
approximately 20 students grades K-8 who chose to participate in this choice; I was 8
years old at the time. Also, in the days of my youth, I participated in the Upward Bound
program throughout my high school experience. Upward Bound was a partnership
between the local high school and a nearby university that targeted underserved youth
for increased student achievement in math and English/language arts. During the
summers, I was introduced to a university setting each year by staying on campus for 6
weeks and, after 2 years of the program, participating in university classes on campus.
Thus, I have tried throughout this dissertation to present relevant studies and
expert opinions in an unbiased and objective manner. The goal of objectivity was of
particular concern to me for a number of reasons, but primarily because of the character-
istics, techniques, and procedures used in the basics of qualitative research as described
by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Although researchers need not begin their first study
having fully developed the five requisite skills presented by grounded theorists, the
researcher should be keenly cognitive with respect to what is heard and seen, according
to Strauss and Corbin.
Among characteristics described by grounded theorists as requisite skills for the
grounded theory approach, recognizing the tendency toward bias and sensitivity to the
words and actions of respondents was listed (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Other
19
researchers who examined 93 empirical studies posited that all researchers conduct
research using a particular lens (Wideen et al.,1998). Being more aware of the need for
skepticism and self-auditing can help reduce the influences of one’s own biases by
making known perspectives to readers, where possible (Wideen et al., 1998).
Therefore, I believe my life experiences, both personal and professional, make
me particularly cognizant of the sensitivities involving the literature and the confidenti-
ality requested by research participants. In today’s climate of federal and state account-
ability, some schools and school personnel expressed feelings of being publicly targeted
for underperformance. Additionally, cultural and ethnic sensitivities were heightened
in discussions of HP and LP schools. It was my intent to report truthfully, throughout
this study, in manners that were publicly unbiased and nonjudgmental. Further, I in-
tended to protect the confidentiality of those volunteers who participated in this study.
Ultimately, however, whether the goal of objectivity was accomplished will be deter-
mined by the reader of this study.
Conceptual Framework
As I reviewed and studied the literature for this dissertation, I came to realize
that the historical information to be shared would best be articulated through the posi-
tivist, progressive, and social critique traditions that were utilized in a study conducted
by Wideen et al. (1998). I have described the study in this chapter to help introduce and
frame my conceptual diagram for the dissertation, primarily because the patterns and
trends seen throughout the literature review could be associated with one or more of the
20
three traditions that guided the way this study unfolded. Integrations of positivist, pro-
gressive, and social critique traditions portrayed throughout the review of the literature
regarding HP and LP schools suggested a conceptual framework for this researcher.
A synopsis of the study is presented. Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of
93 empirical studies on learning to teach and determined three traditions that serve as
underpinnings for research in education (Wideen et al., 1998). These three traditions—
the positivist tradition, the progressive tradition and the social critique tradition—al-
lowed an in-depth review of the literature concerning HP and LP schools from this
researcher’s lens. The positivist tradition was infused in a review of pedagogy referenc-
ing knowledge, skills, and theory. The progressive tradition imparted innovative prac-
tices that may lead to increased student achievement. Social critique lent itself to
examination of historical perspectives that may contribute to belief systems and prac-
tices that hinder the transformation of LP schools to HP schools. It was noted by one
researcher that sometimes teachers harbor beliefs and practices that operate against
improving teaching for urban students (Hollins, 2006).
Integrations of these three traditions were used to provide a framework for
deeper and more meaningful explorations of the literature and the study. Such integra-
tions might reveal gaps in the knowledge base described by another researcher as “what
we . . . don’t know about improving low-performing schools” (Duke, 2006, p. 729).
This knowledge could be paramount to closing, and keeping closed, the achievement
gap between underserved students and their higher performing counterparts.
21
Chapter Introductions and Overviews
Chapter 1 of this study has introduced the study and its theoretical framework.
A statement of the problem, purpose of the study that shared the three investigative
research questions, importance of the study, limitations-delimitations-assumptions, the
researcher’s background and conceptual framework, and definition of key terms were
presented.
Chapter 2 explores relevant literature from databases and keywords searched,
including studies and expert opinions framed by the three research questions. It de-
scribes the concerns and systemic reform needed to remedy the achievement gap be-
tween HP and LP schools. Selected studies unique to HP and LP schools are presented
in tabular form at the conclusion of the literature review.
Chapter 3 provides the methodology used in selection of the sample and popula-
tion, instrumentation, research questions in detail, and how the data were analyzed.
Chapter 4 presents findings and analysis of the data and documents reviewed.
The chapter is structured in a manner congruent to interview questions asked. Verbatim
responses to questions along with the researcher’s analysis are presented. The appendix
contains Chapter 4 findings and summary tables of responses to research questions.
Chapter 5 summarizes emergent themes and shares the conclusions and implica-
tions of the study. Following that overview are more detailed conclusions and implica-
tions of the study in the areas of future research, PD practices, policy decisions by
districts, and preservice education program practices.
22
Definitions
The following operational definitions were used in this investigation:
Academic Performance Index (API)
This is a numeric index or scale that ranges from 200 to 1,000 that summarizes
the results of various student performance indicators for California schools and dis-
tricts; 800 has been established as a goal which schools should strive to meet (CDE,
2004a).
Delivery of PDPs
This refers to specific characteristics of how PDPs are organized and presented
to teachers, including the degree to which the program addresses student needs; is sus-
tained over an appropriate duration of time; is connected to school improvement plans;
allows time for teacher reflection, application, and evaluation; and includes follow-up
activities involving peer support and interaction.
Elementary School
This is a public school classified by the state of California as an elementary
school.
High-Performing School
A California public school performing in the top 10% of similar schools based
on the 2003 API.
23
Low-Performing School
This is a California public school performing in the bottom 10% of similar
schools based on the 2003 API base.
Positivist Tradition
This tradition is based on the assumption that learning is an additive process that
largely bypasses the person and the setting. Theory, skills, and knowledge are provided
through coursework. The field setting is provided for application and practice. Individ-
ual effort integrates theories and knowledge (Wideen et al., 1998).
Professional Development or Professional
Staff Development
PD trainings contain the four essential elements of staff development focused on
student achievement, as described by Joyce and Showers (2002). Essential elements are
the following:
1.There is a community of professionals who study together, put into practice
what they learn, and share the results.
2.The content of PD centers around curricular and instructional strategies with
a high probability of affecting student learning.
3.The magnitude of change generated is sufficient that the students gain
tangible knowledge and skills.
4.The processes of staff development enable educators to develop the skills to
implement what they learn.
24
Professional Learning Community
A PLC is a collaborative workplace environment (Smylie et al., 2001), with
reflective dialogue and shared norms focused on improving teaching and learning. A
PLC school exhibits five specific characteristics: (a) school administrators who partici-
pate democratically with teachers to share power, authority, and decision making; (b)
staff who share visions for school improvement that have an undeviating focus on
student learning and are consistently referenced for the staff’s work; (c) staff who
collectively learn and apply their learning by taking action to create high intellectual
learning tasks and solutions to address student needs; (d) peers who review and give
feedback based on observing one another’s classroom behaviors in order to increase
individual and organizational capacity; and (e) a school where conditions and capacities
support the staff’s arrangement as a professional learning organization (Hord, 1997,
2004).
Progressive Tradition
A shiftfrom what teachers should know and how they should be trained to
understanding what teachers actually know and how that knowledge was acquired
through innovative practices that led to establishing new directions for teacher training
(Wideen et al., 1998).
Social Critique Tradition
This tradition is concerned about broader issues in teacher education such as
multiculturalism, gender, and systemic reform. It recognizes that research must
25
sometimes view the traditional structures of learning to teach as problematic and at
times dysfunctional (Wideen et al., 1998).
Underserved Students
For the purposes of this study, underserved students are African American,
Latino, and low-SES students. African American, Latino, and /or low-SES students are
generally low-income minority students who experience economic and social handicaps
(Gage & Berliner, 1998). African American, Latino and low-SES students consistently
score lower than their higher performing counterparts on most mathematics and reading
standardized tests—a gap in test scores known as the “achievement gap” (Kober, 2001,
p. 7).
26
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Documentation
The focus of this review of the literature was the research on PD for teachers in
schools that enrolled a high percentage of underserved low income students and stu-
dents of color. Five databases and one search engine were used to locate relevant
books, empirical journal articles, and reports for this literature review: ECO, ERIC,
EUREKA, JSTOR, PsyInfo, and the Google search engine. Some keywords and de-
scriptors used were professional development, achievement gap, learning community,
student achievement, teacher learning, teacher efficacy, teacher quality, disadvantaged
students, staff development, high minority, low socioeconomic, minority education,
school finance, and high poverty. Additionally, some journals that were hand searched
for current articles included American Educational Research Journal, Educational
Research Journal, Educational Researcher, Harvard Educational Review, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Journal of Educational Research, Review of Educational
Research, Teaching and Teacher Education, Teacher Education Quarterly, and Phi
Delta Kappan.
Literature Review
Closing the achievement gap is a national imperative (NCLB, 2001). Research-
ers agree that PD, also called the missing link, is fundamental to increasing student
27
achievement necessary to close the gap (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Smylie, Allens-
worth, Greenberg, Harris, & Luppescu, 2001), yet not all of what is called PD will lead
to increased student achievement (Joyce & Showers, 2002). This is partially attribut-
able to the fact that not all PD addresses the changes in instructional practices that are
at the heart of improving achievement outcomes for underserved students (Hollins,
2006).
Effective PD with an ultimate goal of increased student achievement includes
affective and behavioral outcomes (Guskey, 2003). This type of PD includes learning
and practices (Hair, Kraft, & Allen, 2001) that exhibit four essential elements: planning
(Diamond & Spillane, 2004), content (Dana Center, 1999), delivery (Izumi, Coburn, &
Cox, 2002), and evaluation (Borke, Elliott, & Uchiyama, 2002). For optimal student
achievement, these four essential elements must be nested within a supportive school
culture that promotes development of communities of inquiring teacher (Joyce &
Showers, 2002). These systematic practices require commitment (Togneri, 2003).
Effective PD within supportive school cultures that promote learning communi-
ties can generate and sustain initiatives which raise student achievement (Hord, 2004;
Joyce & Showers, 2002). These PLCs share learning and practices, leadership, values,
and vision (Hord, 2004). This is necessary because closing the achievement gap re-
quires more than test scores and test preparation (Hunter & Bartee, 2003). However, a
need for understanding the gap is best comprehended through the lens of historical per-
spectives that integrate positivist, progressive, and social critique traditions, as de-
scribed by Wideen et al. (1998). Such an understanding clarifies the collective
28
responsibility to remove barriers and provide support to close the achievement gap
(Barton, 2004; Hollins, 2006).
The purpose of this literature review was to further describe the achievement of
underserved students and the characteristics of schools that are successful with them. A
thorough review of the literature concerning PD in HP and LP schools revealed emer-
gent themes across all studies that are categorized into four overarching key concepts
for the purpose of this literature review: collective learning and practice, supportive
school culture, capacity and sustainability, and historical perspectives.
A National Imperative
Closing the achievement gap has been prioritized as a national imperative by
researchers (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Smylie et al., 2001; Togneri, 2003) and by legal
mandate in NCLB (2001). Kober (2001) defined achievement gap as the finding that
African American and Latino students scored lower, on average, on most standardized
tests than Caucasian and Asian students. However, seeing the gap as a “minority prob-
lem” tends to ignore the educational underachievement of many students mentioned by
Singham (2003, p. 591). This observation was also mentioned in another study (Hollins
(2006, p. 48). Underserved students, identified as African American, Latino, and low
SES for the purposes of this literature review, receive a disproportionate amount of poor
teaching (Haycock et al., 2001), and they have persistently lower-than-average aca-
demic performance (Hollins, 2006; Smylie et al., 2001).
29
Of the roughly 20 million low-income children in K-12 public schools, 12
million cannot demonstrate mastery of most elementary skills (Carter, 2000). Sixty-one
percent of low-income eighth graders cannot do basic math, and 58% of low-income
fourth graders cannot read at grade level, according to Carter. Additionally, 77% of un-
derserved students are unable to perform at basic academic levels (Goldberg & Trai-
man, 2001). The math and reading skills of underserved students, as measured by state
examinations, are below the level of proficiency achieved, on average, by their higher
performing counterparts who are in seventh grade, according to Kozol (2005). None-
theless, the achievement gap between underserved students and their higher performing
counterparts must be closed. Hunter and Bartee (2003) expressed the concern as a
global one that threatens the ability of the United States to continue as a powerful
nation.
The Missing Link
Researchers have acclaimed that PD is the missing link needed to close the
achievement gap (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Smylie et al., 2001). In a 2-year national
qualitative study that examined the connection between higher student achievement and
teacher quality, several emergent themes were highlighted: first, effective PD can lead
to higher student achievement; second, investing in PD would help America produce
the kind of teaching and learning necessary to reform the school systems; and third,
helping teachers learn how they can construct “teachable moments” for student learning
is essential (Darling-Hammond, 1996).
30
Several years later, Smylie et al. (2001) examined PD in the Chicago public
school system and, similar to Darling-Hammond (1996), determined PD to be a national
imperative and a missing link to achieving America’s educational goals. The Chicago
study investigated schools throughout the city to determine whether effective PD was
experienced in these public schools and to what degree. Qualitative data collection
methods were used to survey more than 13,000 teachers in 1997 and more than 9,900
teachers in 1999. The demographics were comparable system-wide. Researchers
concluded that PD was positively linked to classroom instructional practices and to
school-level orientation toward innovation (Smylie et al.)
Joyce and Showers (2002) examined differences in PD for HP and LP schools.
The study examined 20 high schools, 20 middle schools, and 20 elementary schools that
were matched for SES with high and low academic performance for 3 successive years
on Georgia state standards achievement tests. Findings showed that both school sets
had approximately equal resources for PD and similar amounts of time available. HP
schools were found to generate a synergy that magnified the potential of content, while
LP schools differed in the degree to which certain practices were employed either more
or less. Motivation for participation in PD for LP schools centered more on certifica-
tion requirements or earning stipends, while HP school motivation was more often a
matter of participation in whole-faculty effort to improve student learning.
Smylie et al. (2001) found that reflective dialogue and interactive teaching
methods were used more frequently when more time was allocated for participation in
PD. Hollins (1996b, p. 11), in a discussion of culture in school learning, presented
31
seven categories of inquiry for teachers in reflective-interpretive-inquiry (RIQ) that
informs classroom practices and reveals deeper meaning about students’ cultures and
experiential background. The seven categories are (a) teacher beliefs about students, (b)
teacher beliefs about instruction, (c) social context of instruction, (d) students’ home
culture, (e) ethnic and cultural groups, (f) local community, and (g) societal context.
When used properly, the seven categories assist teachers to improve achievement.
In her study of improving teaching in urban schools to the degree that it trans-
forms teachers’ culture of practice, Hollins’s (2006) instrument of structured dialogue
among teachers led to measurable outcomes for students. Teachers were, on average,
able to foster an increase of 1.5 grade equivalents during the 3 year of the study.
rd
Hollins (2006) concluded that changing instructional practices is at the heart of closing
the achievement gap.
In the Dana Center (1999) study, nine HP schools from seven states exceeded
state reading and math averages on standardized tests for at least 3 years. Multifaceted
approaches to PD were utilized at these schools, and a system called “banked time” was
in place so that PD approaches could be delivered during the regular school schedule
(Dana Center, 1999, p. 7). Banked time meant that additional minutes were added at the
beginning or end of each day for an uninterrupted bimonthly allotment of planning time
among teachers. Without adequate time for collaboration on instruction, many improve-
ments would have never been implemented or conceived (Dana Center; Smylie et al.).
PD time is valued.
32
Datnow and Castellano (2000) examined the implementation of Success for All
(SFA), a research-based reading program, at two LP California schools in order to de-
termine why one school experienced implementation success and the other experienced
implementation difficulty. In a similar study of another reading initiative, Open Court,
a phonics-based reading curriculum, Izumi et al. (2002) investigated the type of PD
activities implemented at eight California HP public elementary schools. Qualitative
data collection methods for the two studies differed. Datnow and Castellano conducted
four 2-day classroom visitations at schools and interviewed principals, teachers, and
SFA facilitators, for a total of 47 interviews. Additionally, observations of English and
Spanish bilingual classrooms at all grade levels took place; some classes used the
Spanish version of SFA. Izumi et al. (2002) interviewed only the principals at the eight
schools.
The LP schools showed documented “buy-in” of the schools’ teaching staff, as
80% of them voted to implement the SFA program (Datnow & Castellano, 2000, p.
781). Open Court, on the other hand, was generally mandated by the district as its
reading program in HP schools, and some teachers complained that they had not been
given an opportunity for input. Researchers reported fewer discipline problems in high
student achievement environments (Izumi et al., 2002).
Regardless of the PD delivered and support for SFA, almost all teachers in the
LP schools made adaptations to the curriculum, in spite of close monitoring by SFA
facilitators (Datnow & Castellano, 2000). Initially, teachers in HP schools complained
that the curriculum was dull and repetitious, but later grew to accept the Open Court
33
program and made some positive comments about it (Izumi et al., 2002). Teacher per-
ceptions, beliefs, and attitudes were at the heart of modifying SFA implementation
approaches and some adaptations were significant (Datnow and Castellano). PD was
ongoing, goal oriented, and supported by SFA trainers and local networks. A major use
of PD days in HP Open Court schools was creation of standards-aligned activities
(Izumi et al.).
Common characteristics of PD in these two studies (Datnow & Castellano,
2000; Izumi et al., 2002) included coaching, mentoring, modeling (collective learning
and practice), preplanned lessons (planning and content), direct instruction (delivery),
continuous student assessment used to monitor progress of students and teachers (evalu-
ation), district and school-site administrative responsibility for ensuring all participants
were trained for monitoring implementation fidelity of the program (sustainability), and
shared vision and shared leadership (supportive culture and learning community). Both
the LP schools implementing the SFA reading initiative and the HP schools implement-
ing the Open Court reading initiative reported increased student achievement (Datnow
& Castellano; Izumi et al.). Reading growth was seen for students in both scripted
programs. This type growth closes the achievement gap.
No Child Left Behind
In an effort to close the achievement gap by increasing student achievement,
Title I, Section 1114 of NCLB mandates high-quality and ongoing PD for those schools
accepting Title I funds (NCLB, 2001, p. 51).
34
A review of the literature showed that the achievement gap between under-
served students and their higher performing counterparts was first unmasked in 1966
with the publication of the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966). Historians referred
to this classic study as “the most important education study of the 20 century” (Ed-
th
wards, 2000, p. 77). Researchers surveyed 570,000 students and 60,000 teachers,
nationwide. Their data analysis revealed an achievement gap that was present before
students started school and continued during their school career (Coleman et al.).
Since the Coleman Report, multiple strategies have been implemented to close
the achievement gap, including the NCLB of 2001, which gives students a legal right to
receive an education comparable to that of their state and national peers. Standardized,
norm-referenced, testing mandates were enacted for this federal law.
Other strategies employed to close the achievement gap included: legislation
(Hertert & Teague, 2003), litigation (Sack, 2004); equitable school finance (Picus,
Odden, Fermancich, 2001); and career and technical education (CTE; Veen, 2006;
Visher, Bhandari, & Medrich, 2004). Still, the gap persists.
Standardized Testing
NCLB’s mandated use of standardized tests and assessment creates discord
among experts and researchers (Boardman & Woodruff, 2004; Ferrera, 2005; Swope &
Miner, 2000). Although Swope and Miner posited that misuse of standardized tests can
distort learning, Ferrera warned that in an era where educators are struggling to maintain
credibility with the public, strong assessment techniques are crucial to produce account-
35
ability systems that work. There is, however, a distinction between standardized testing
and assessment.
Hollins (1996a) affirmed that testing is used to select, place, and predict learning
potential prior to instruction. Testing practices are generally biased in content and out-
comes support existing status quo, whereas assessment measures the outcomes of in-
structions and the outcome data can be used to improve classroom practice (Hollins,
1996a). When standardized tests become the engine of reform, the discussion of PD as
a vehicle to improve schools is narrowed, according to Swope and Miner (2000). High-
stakes, test-based reform is most often driven by state-level mandates and desires for
rapid, quantifiable results, as expressed by Thompson (2001).
Boardman and Woodruff (2004) attempted to measure the impact of high-stakes
standardized assessments on teachers and their subsequent PD. They asked teachers in
three urban schools in Texas, grade levels 4 and 5, to participate in a qualitative study.
Fifty-three percent of teachers, or 20 teachers from each grade level, participated in the
study. Schools were selected for demographic composition and willingness to learn and
implement a new approach to reading comprehension.
Data collection included interview transcripts, implementation logs, and field
notes. Teachers responded to five questions concerning PD implementation, indicating
which approaches were utilized and how many times per week. Results from analysis
of interview transcripts, field notes, and implementation logs suggested that high-stakes
standardized assessments had a significant impact on many teachers’ approaches to
teaching and to implementation of a new instructional practice (Boardman & Woodruff,
36
2004). Congruent with teachers in HP schools of the Dana Center (1999) study and
those of the SFA reading initiative (Datnow & Castellano, 2000), researchers found that
PD implementation was based on teachers’ perceptions of what was needed to help un-
derserved students achieve at high levels. A majority of teachers felt PD should con-
form to their perceived requirements for preparing students to raise their test scores on
standardized assessments (Boardman & Woodruff).
The common effect of standardized tests is to narrow curriculum and reduce
instruction to test “prepping,” asserted Thompson, (2001). Prepping for the test was
seen in research conducted by Kozol (2005). His research was based upon school ob-
servations of 60 schools in 30 districts, situated in 11 different states. Interviews were
conducted with students, educators, and stakeholders in primarily LP schools. Visits
took place between 2000 and 2005. Kozol concluded that accountability demands of
NCLB have intensified the pressure upon school principals to institute or reinforce
“rote-and-drill” instructional techniques that are closely aligned to state exams (p. 205).
Effective Professional Development
PD is central to effectiveness of high-achieving schools (Carter, 2000). NCLB
(2001) suggested that closing the gap may be accomplished by significantly elevating
the quality of instruction through use of PD opportunities. The National Staff Develop-
ment Council (NSDC) urged school leaders to focus PD on the goal of raising student
achievement (Archer, Hobb, & Manzo, 2001). Investing in teacher PD has been identi-
fied as an effective strategy in raising student achievement (Datnow & Castellano,
37
2000; Kober, 2001; Izumi et al., 2002). However, not all of what is called PD will lead
to increased student achievement (Guskey, 2003; Joyce & Showers, 2002).
The intended outcome of staff development is growth in student learning (Joyce
& Showers, 2002). In an attempt to gain consensus among practitioners and researchers
on the purpose of PD, Guskey (2003) analyzed 13 different nationwide lists of 21 dis-
tinguished characteristics of PD. He wanted to determine a consistent criterion for the
term effectiveness. Three years prior to his meta-analysis study, Guskey (2000) de-
scribed characteristics of effective PD as intentional, ongoing, and systemic. After
careful analyses, he concluded that characteristics that influence effective PD are highly
complex and numerous and it might be unreasonable to assume that a single list of
characteristics will ever emerge.
Guskey (2003) recommended that student learning outcomes should be broadly
defined with authentic assessments that include affective (attitudes) and behavioral
(practices) learning outcomes. Effective PD includes affective and behavioral learning
outcomes for the PLC. More specifically, Joyce and Showers (2002) asserted that
certain conditions of collective learning and practice, supportive school culture, and
capacity/sustainability must be present in order for the essential PD elements of plan-
ning, content, delivery, and evaluation to significantly impact student learning. Collec-
tive learning and practice is measurable.
38
Collective Learning and Practice
The literature concerning characteristics of HP schools with large numbers of
underserved students indicated that there were common characteristics of effective PD
utilized by these schools: collective learning and practice, planning and content, deliv-
ery and evaluation (Joyce & Showers, 2002). For optimal student achievement, these
elements are nested within learning environments that support effective PD and teacher
learning (Hord, 2004; Joyce & Showers, 2002). PD is necessary if most schools and
teachers are expected to produce the kind of teaching and learning outcomes stipulated
by NCLB. Improving learning outcomes requires changes in practice:
To truly improve teaching, urban schools need to transform their culture of
practice from one that assumes that barriers to learning reside in the students to
one that expects teachers to collectively assume responsibility for making sure
all students learn. (Hollins, 2006, p. 48)
The professional development schools (PDSs) was first designed in the late
1980s to examine instructional practice and innovative teacher preparation practices
(Edwards, 2000). Later, they were operated by universities to serve as research facili-
ties for K-12 laboratory schools (Marchant, 2002). In a study comparing PDSs and non-
PDSs, Marchant employed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of co-variance
(ANCOVA) to identify differences on achievement indicators between the schools.
Findings indicated a significant connection between PD, collective learning and prac-
tice, and student achievement. According to Marchant (p. 123), “the more focused and
relevant the PD, the better students were achieving.”
39
In another study that showed similar outcomes, two types of PD were compared
to determine whether there were differences in implementation results concerning
context, process, and content when teachers were engaged in systemic, rather than tra-
ditional PD (Wilkinson, 2003). Systemic and traditional PDPs were compared using
combined qualitative and quantitative methods. Teachers and students in two middle
schools participated in the study. In the Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP),
reading, writing, and mathematics test scores were examined for the participating
students entering fifth grade and again in eighth grade. The mean differences of the
scaled DSTP scores were analyzed for participating schools (Wilkinson).
DSTP scores for all three academic areas increased for both traditional and sys-
temic schools investigated. Although the gains of students of teachers participating in
systemic PD were higher in reading, the results were not statistically significant. How-
ever, based on the qualitative data, Wilkinson (2003) concluded that a systemic ap-
proach to PD could contribute to improved student achievement if there was a strong
commitment to collaboration among teaching staff, the administrative team, visiting
consultants, and if there was community support. Effective, systemic PD processes
include all staff, provide adequate time for learning, and have a data-driven design and
consistent follow-up.
This section of the literature review included research studies that related the
essential elements of sound PD practices. It was revealed that schools should ensure
that PD is an ongoing, seamless process that includes assessment of needs, specific
methods of delivery, and regular evaluation of the effects of training. Effective PD
40
focuses on pedagogical improvement that will lead to increased student learning;
provide follow-up and support to teachers; and provide adequate time for learning,
integration, and reflection. The entire PD system must be planned, delivered, and
evaluated to determine if there are positive effects on student learning.
The planning process must consider staff input as well as student achievement
and learning needs. This may include affective and behavioral outcomes described by
Guskey (2003) in effective PD characteristics.
Planning and Content
The first goal of effective PD is to design training that allows people to learn
new skills and knowledge and to transfer that knowledge and skill to active classroom
practice (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Training is designed to enable participants to be
more effective learners. It is important to develop an inclusive structure where diverse
groups experience equity in representation and power in determining the purpose,
values, and outcomes (Hollins, 1996a). Selection of content is directed by the need or
impetus for change perceived by a faculty (Hollins, 1996a; Joyce & Showers, 2002).
Generally, faculties use a combination of perceptions (i.e., “What do we feel are our
most pressing needs?”) and data (i.e., “What do our test scores tell us?”) to select targets
for improvement (Joyce & Showers, p. 60). A systematic inquiry approach that entails
multiple approaches and multiple sources to gather data is beneficial (Hollins, 1996a).
High-quality PD combines internal and external sources (Smylie et al., 2001).
41
In a study to determine the role of PD in attaining exemplary achievement for
schools with high percentages of underserved students, researchers selected 12 HP
schools based on standardized state tests in Louisiana. Also, the schools had 80-100%
eligibility rates for free and reduced-price lunches. Qualitative methodology used for
this study consisted of interviews of principals, focus group discussion with teachers,
and informal talks with stakeholders (Hair et al., 2001).
Findings revealed common success factors in all HP schools included shared
leadership, coaching, mentoring, examination and reflection around student work and
instructional practices, and visitation to other classrooms and other schools. High ex-
pectations with collaborative learning and practice were exhibited. There was a strong
sense of efficacy school-wide; instructional practices were varied; and a great deal of
time was spent on data analysis for student improvement (Hair et al., 2001).
Delivery and Evaluation
Evaluating the effectiveness of PD was the focus of a study involving a small K-
12 school district with a student population of 4,480 (Shaha, Lewis, O’Donnell, &
Brown, 2004). The researchers piloted and refined a methodology used to evaluate PD
offerings called a Generalizable, Balanced Metrics Methodology, which examined three
impacts of PD: learning impacts, attitudinal impacts, and resources impacts. Affective
outcomes of PD deal with attitudes and may be necessary to meet the goal of increased
student achievement (Guskey, 2003).
42
The study attempted to verify the three impacts using an experimental design.
Results indicated substantial and statistically significant gains in reading for the experi-
mental group of educators who engaged all three impacts during and after PD and no
significant improvement in any areas for the control group (Shaha et al., 2004). PD
should lead to measurable outcomes in teaching and learning. These three impacts may
be aligned with standards of PD.
In a qualitative study of six HP and LP schools in Tennessee with more than
90% minority and underserved students, researchers concluded that the HP schools had
a common set of characteristics. They had dedicated, hard-working teachers imple-
menting standards-aligned curriculum within school cultures of high expectations for
both teachers and students. Teaching and learning were the central focus with data used
to inform instructional decisions. Teaching strategies were differentiated used to meet
student needs. These characteristics were enhanced within a learning environment of
strong parental interest and community support (Appalachia Educational Laboratory,
2005).
Failure to monitor implementation results in the inability to interpret student
learning outcomes. The primary reason to monitor implementation of instructional
practices acquired through PD is to interpret the effect of PD on students (Joyce &
Showers, 2002).
In another qualitative, multisite case study of two types of schools, high per-
forming and low performing, , researchers sought to determine explanations for the dif-
ferences in student achievement (Brown et al., 2004). Six HP and six LP schools were
43
identified for participation in this study from results of state assessment scores and
information on Report Cards on the schools. Semistructured interviews were conducted
with two teachers from each of the six HP and six LP schools, for a total of 24 inter-
views that were recorded and transcribed. The theoretical framework was based upon
the concept that schools exert three levels of control over activities: technical, manage-
rial, and institutional. The technical level is concerned with delivery of educational
service, teaching, and learning. The managerial level motivates, mediates, and coordi-
nates the technical level. The institutional level connects the school to its surrounding
environment (Brown et al.). Aside from SES, test scores, and funding, findings showed
stark contrasts between the HP and LP schools in regard to technical, managerial, and
institutional levels.
The evaluation of effective PD is based on student growth. Steps include for-
mulating clear questions that reflect a faculty’s intentions with respect to student out-
comes, deciding on the number of students to be observed or measured to answer the
questions, collecting the data, analyzing data, and determining any modifications
needed (Joyce & Showers, 2002). One model of evaluation, the RIQ model, allows
teachers to collect data in seven domains: beliefs about students, about instruction,
students’ experiential background, ethnic and cultural group, local community and
societal contexts (Hollins, 1996).
Schulz and Mandzuk (2005) discovered that a commitment to RIQ or inquiry
could disrupt the status quo in schools and change the nature of the teacher’s role. The
RIQ model was supported in a 3-year study where preservice teachers (PSTs) neither
44
encountered a culture of inquiry nor support for inquiry in their K-12 practicum assign-
ments. The researchers defined teaching as an academic process and felt that PD train-
ing on inquiry and implementation was a part of that process. Researchers discovered
that a resulting commitment to the techniques of RIQ disrupted the status quo in schools
and changed the nature of the teacher’s role. Implementation of the RIQ model raised
PSTs’ level of awareness, and self-regulation increased.
Achievement data were used to improve instruction in the school (Dana Center,
1999). Student results from standardized state tests were used as a basis of PD. Teach-
ers practiced taking the performance assessments that they had created, scored them,
and then participated in reflective inquiry and questions (Hollins, 1996a). This activity
allowed teachers to identify common areas of academic strengths and needs of students
(Dana Center, 1999). Characteristics of this HP school were consistent with the four
essential elements of effective PD, as described by Joyce and Showers (2002), nested
within a PLC or environment, as described by Hord (2004).
Supportive School Culture
The literature clearly delineates characteristics of academically successful
PLCs: (a) supportive and shared leadership, (b) shared values and vision, (c) collective
learning and application of learning, (d) supportive conditions, and (e) shared practice
(Hord, 2004). Teachers and administrators worked together to understand precisely
what students were expected to know and be able to do (Dana Center, 1999). Collective
learning and practice were exhibited as teachers planned, learned, and worked together.
45
Time was structured to make collaboration around instructional issues. Teachers in
supportive school cultures took on leadership responsibilities. As mentioned by Hollins,
King, and Hayman (1994), a primary responsibility of effective teachers is they simply
refuse to allow students to fail.
Educators made efforts to win the confidence and respect of parents and com-
munity by improving achievement of students. Strong partnerships with parents and
community in support of student achievement were established. Additional time for
instruction usually before or after school is referred to as banked time (Dana Center,
1999).
Teachers in this study felt a collective sense of responsibility. Approaches to
learning were multifaceted and focused on increased student achievement, not on adult
conflicts. The mentoring program supported teachers’ work and planning and was par-
ticularly designed to support new teachers. Social activities, such as having lunch
together as a staff, helped to build a comfort level as a precursor to discussing teaching
practices (Dana Center, 1999).
In a study of a LP school in Texas that became a HP school, Pollard-Durodola
(2003) sought to describe characteristics of the school that made it successful using an
effective schools framework. Qualitative research methods included semistructured
and audiotaped interviews with the former principal of 16 years; three former teachers;
and reflections from the researcher, a former Title I/Reading Specialist at the school.
Media publications were reviewed to provide a reference for community perceptions.
46
During the initial stages of the reform, this LP school was described as having
fourth graders who were nonreaders and sixth graders who were 2 or 3 years below
grade level. Teachers were inexperienced, did not know how to teach reading, were
apathetic and not teaching at all, and had low expectations for students. The physical
conditions of the school were depressing. After 16 years of a progressive reform initia-
tives, teachers were innovative, making nightly phones calls to homes checking on
completion of homework assignments, and engaged in peer coaching (i.e., grade chair-
persons), mentoring, and team teaching. Instructional aides trained in reading mastery
retaught and reviewed reading or math concepts in small groups. The physical condi-
tions of the school were kept immaculately clean (Pollard-Durodola, 2003).
The underserved student population of African Americans (88%) and Latinos
(12%) consistently scored 85% at or above grade level on standardized tests by 1980.
Test score increases in the 1990s on the Texas state assessments prompted accusations
of cheating (Kozol, 2005), an allegation later dismissed after several investigations and
an apology from the school district’s superintendent (Pollard-Durodola, 2003).
The researcher found nine factors that significantly impacted the academic
success at this HP school: (a) strong instructional leadership, (b) basic skills focus on
core reading and math, (c) safe and structured school environment, (d) high expecta-
tions, (e) frequent and systematic evaluations, (f) curriculum that addressed student
needs, (g) innovative professional development, (h) an academic prevention plan, and
(i) a common vision. The school’s desire for self-determination, a collective
47
responsibility for student achievement, and researched-based curriculum were empha-
sized (Pollard-Durodola, 2003).
The researcher suggested the importance of schools creating their own cadre of
teacher leaders was crucial to increased student achievement. The educational reform at
this HP school was directly linked to improved reading instruction, according to the
researcher. The reading ability was a result of intensive, systematic, explicit phonics
instruction. Because the former principal of 16 years retired in April 2002, this HP
school had three different principals (Pollard-Durodola, 2003).
High achievement requires freedom, according to Pollard-Durodola (2003).
Principals must be empowered as instructional leaders to make decisions for their
schools. Carter (2000) examined 21 HP schools from 11 states to determine character-
istics of schools that were successful with underserved students. Students in the HP
schools of this study had building-wide median test scores above the 65 percentile on
th
national academic achievement tasks. Eleven of the HP schools scored at or above 80
th
percentile. Five key features of these HP schools were identified: (a) freedom to make
decisions, (b) freedom to set own budgets, (c) freedom to hire and fire staff as needed,
(d) freedom to influence selection of adopted curriculum, and (e) freedom from micro-
management. Thus, high-achieving schools require exceptional leaders with freedom to
empower the learning community through effective PD that leads to increased student
achievement (Carter).
In a study conducted to determine higher student achievement in literacy, the
researcher found characteristics of coordination of efforts by teachers. Teacher
48
participation in multifaceted PD, creation of activities that provided teachers and stu-
dents with a sense of agency or responsibility for their own learning, commitment to
teacher professionalism, a caring attitude, and deep respect for lifelong learning contrib-
uted to increased student literacy and learning (Langer, 2000). Similar characteristics
have been exhibited in studies by other researchers (Hord, 2004; Pollard-Durodola,
2003).
Many teachers in this study felt the SFA program constrained their autonomy
and creativity (Datnow & Castellano, 2000). Teachers who supported SFA felt that it
was beneficial to the students. Researchers found teachers supportive of the program
did not make significant changes to the program. Over 50% either supported or strong-
ly supported the program. Many teachers had reservations about SFA because it was a
specified program developed by an external group. Since teacher ideologies are rooted
in their life experiences and interactions, teachers’ responses to reform can be deeply
embedded within a larger societal context. In some cases, they are split into two fac-
tions, “old guard” versus “new guard” (Datnow & Castellano, p. 777).
A study of four urban elementary schools, two HP and two LP schools,
Diamond and Spillane (2004) sought to determine how the schools responded to high-
stakes accountability (tests) policies. Qualitative research methods used were inter-
views and observations. Tape-recorded interviews were conducted with principals and
teachers.
Findings showed that all four schools engaged in forms of explicit test prepara-
tion activities, some of which were sporadic and occurred more frequently just prior to
49
the testing period. Instructional content focus areas were reading and math; science
instruction was given lower priority. PD meetings for HP schools structured incentives
around rewards and self-applauds by sharing with parents. LP incentives were struc-
tured more around getting off probation and sometimes threats made to teachers about
job loss (Diamond & Spillane, 2004).
Both HP and LP schools used test score data to inform strategies of instructional
improvement. HP schools focused equally on mathematics and language arts instruc-
tion, emphasized improvement for all grade levels, and worked to enhance the learning
opportunities of all students. LP schools increased instruction focus but targeted certain
students, certain grade levels, and certain academic subjects—generally those to be
tested. The instructional focus was on students closer to making the cut-off for proba-
tion requirements, while the lowest performing students in the school received limited
assistance in improving scores. Professional development in HP schools had a global
instructional focus, while in LP schools, certain grades and certain subjects, reading/
language arts and math, were targeted. External partners focused energy on teachers in
the benchmark testing grades. HP schools adopted interventions for all students (Dia-
mond & Spillane, 2004).
In a meta-analysis of studies involving HP and LP schools between 1999 and
2004, Duke (2006) sought to determine commonalities among lists of characteristics
presumably associated in some way with the relative success of raising academic
achievement levels of underserved students in LP schools. The job of educational
researchers, according to Duke, is to understand the differences as well as similarities
50
across settings such as schools and communities. The researcher compared lists and
identified a number of characteristics common to three or more of the studies.
Findings from this study showed that four of five studies listed PD as a critical
element improving academic achievement for underserved students. Other critical
elements listed by four of five studies included collaboration, data-driven decision
making, leadership, organizational structure or planning, and content assistance for
students (Duke, 2006).
This section of the literature review has presented studies that described charac-
teristics of schools that were successful with underserved students. Integrations of all
support features indicated common supportive factors such as peer training, mentoring,
coaching, and others are needed to help students feel confident and comfortable sharing.
Sustainability
In order increased student achievement to have a meaningful impact, it must be
continuous and sustained. The researcher in this study explored how PD approaches in
five high-poverty districts located in five states contributed to improving student
achievement and instruction (Togneri, 2003). Public reporting of test data results that
reveal low achievement has driven districts to look at student achievement data in new
ways. Supporting increased student learning requires change.
Over a 7-year span, the achievement gap between underserved students and their
more privileged peers was almost eliminated in one district. Leaders realized that help-
ing students succeed meant creating a PLC that included district office and board
51
members’ support of teachers and more effective classroom practices. A coherent and
district-organized approach to PD was needed to improve instruction for underserved
students. Leaders determined that school flexibility and data-driven decisions about
teaching and learning improved school instruction. Making the data safe, usable, and
useful are key to changing classroom practices (Togneri, 2003).
Technology in the Classroom
Some experts have recommended CTE as avenues to motivate students and
bring relevance to the curriculum. Chambers, Lieberman, Kaleba, and Van Campen
(2000) conducted a study of six federal programs with grant funding in excess of $8
billion dollars to 14,000 school districts nationwide. An estimated $785 million was
provided for the 1997-98 school year to support PD to improve the skills of teachers and
other staff. Findings revealed that PD focused on curriculum and instruction specific to
reading or math. Workshops, conferences, and institutes were the most prevalent PD
type, and 84% of the districts nationwide reported using federal grant funds to increase
teachers’ and students’ access to computer technology. Consequently, 91% of the dis-
tricts indicated that knowledge in using technology in ways that enhanced teacher skills
and understanding was a major barrier.
The qualitative study seeking responses to questionnaires from HP and LP
schools sought to determine the uses of funds administered by each school program to a
study of seven CTE programs serving 5,372 students, ages 12-20 years old, examined
whether CTE in high school was an effective approach to current school reform that
52
focuses on increased student achievement (Visher et al., 2004). Findings showed aca-
demically at risk students with grades of Cs or Ds, and those considered high achievers
with grades of As or Bs were equally as likely to participate in CTE. Further, these
students were more likely to take college entrance exams and high-track honors courses.
High school participation in CTE courses increased from 38% in 1997 to 53% in
2000, including high achievers and academically at risk students. In addition, students
participating in high school CTE courses were more likely to attend a 2-year college
than a 4-year university (Visher et al., 2004). Thus, teachers of CTE classes such as
computer technology may utilize computers as tools to help close the achievement gap
(Veen, 2006). Although NCLB (2001) regulations stipulate that students should be
technology literate by completion of eighth grade, teachers appear to lack comprehen-
sive PD to maximize technology potential.
In an effort to contribute to the knowledge base of what worked to improved
academic achievement for underserved students, researchers from the American Youth
Policy Forum, a community-based organization, offered 20 models of excellence
(Jurich & Estes, 2000). Researchers used multiple measures to evaluate the programs
and to determine evidence of success: a review of test scores, high school graduation
rates, and college enrollment and retention. The 20 models of excellence were drawn
from 95 youth initiatives. Only quantitative measures of effectiveness were considered
for participation in the study. Study methodology included evaluations with a system-
atic process of comparison, such as pre- and posttest comparisons, baseline data, and
matched comparison or control groups (Jurich & Estes).
53
Researchers found successful youth programs shared common features, regard-
less of their purposes and focus. They held stakeholders to high standards and had high
expectations for all youth. Personalized learning environments were tailored to youth in
small learning communities. Youth programs were nontraditional, innovative, and
utilized researched-based practices. Learning was immediately applicable, and pro-
grams were grounded in long-term, stable relationships (Jurich & Estes, 2000).
This section demonstrated that sustainability must be a systemic process, a
systemic protocol in order to be effective.
Historical Perspectives
Positivist Tradition: Learning Is an
Additive Process
The positivist tradition has been described as the integration of knowledge and
its implementation (Wideen et al., 1998). This tradition is based on the assumption that
learning is an additive process that largely bypasses setting and person. These three
traditions are used to reflect on historical perspectives in this literature review. In the
1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the U.S. Supreme Court decision
unanimously declared that equal access to education was granted for all children (as
cited in Edwards, 2000). However, a 3-year longitudinal study of detracking reforms
that sought alternatives to tracking and ability grouping and that used choice as a mech-
anism to dismantle tracking in six California high schools was popular but unsuccessful
(Yonezewa, Wells, & Serna, 2002).
54
Students resisted entering higher tracked classes, seeking reasonableness instead
in lower tracked courses or ethnic studies courses perceived by them as places of respect
and human dignity, where they could learn (Yonezawa et al., 2002). The enduring fun-
damental search for human dignity and reasonableness remains open to searching
struggles, but their absence is glaringly widespread (Newland, 2006). These findings
were supported by researchers who visited multiple schools serving high percentages of
underserved students throughout the nation over various years (Elmore, 2005; Haycock,
2001; Kozol, 2005).
One researcher observed that students who had less to begin with in America’s
public schools were systematically given even less in schools (Haycock, 2001). An-
other researcher reported that art and music were excluded from the organized curricu-
lum of some schools serving underserved students not due to budget cutbacks, but
because these subjects are not tested by state examinations (Kozol, 2005). Still, a third
researcher expressed that America’s schools are hostile to learning of adults and of
students (Elmore, 2005). Guskey (2003) recommended that effective PD, broadly
defined to go beyond standardized testing, should include outcomes from affective
(attitudes) and behavioral (practices) dispositions. An impetus for change targets
improved academic outcomes.
55
Progressive Tradition: What Is Known and
How Was It Acquired?
Researchers investigating institutional barriers to determine why underserved
students in six California schools resisted entering high-track honors classes when the
schools dismantled their homogeneous, ability grouping program found institutional
barriers, classroom practices of teachers, and student perceptions of disrespectful places
to learn were among reasons cited by underserved students. Instead of high-track
classes, students sought low-level, nonhonors classes and multicultural education
courses where they reported feeling respect and valued by their teachers and peers
(Yonezawa et al., 2002). This search for human dignity and reasonableness is an endur-
ing fundamental that remains open and durable (Newland, 2006), in which case, stu-
dents were drawn to teachers whom they believed wanted to teach them and to a curric-
ulum in which they felt valued (Yonezawa et al.).
These findings suggested that supportive conditions described by Hord (2004)
as necessary for increased student achievement were not perceived by underserved
students to be present at the schools in this study. Such conditions include positive
teachers’ attitudes toward students, human capacities that encourage, and demonstra-
tions of respect and trust (Hord, 2004). Also, affective PD was warranted in an impetus
for change. Treatment of students impacts learning as demonstrated in Ogbu and
Simons (1998).
Ogbu and Simons (1998) studied voluntary and involuntary minorities in the
United States. Findings from their comparative study revealed that the achievement gap
56
persists due to of perceived treatment or mistreatment of underserved students by insti-
tutionalized educational practices and the students’ subsequent perceptions of responses
to schooling based upon that treatment. This finding seems to have been confirmed
when students in another study reported a need for “safe spaces” at school due to fear of
reprisal from other students and teachers when expressing their views in class (Yone-
zawa et al., 2002). Although structural barriers and school factors affect school perfor-
mance for underserved students, the students are autonomous human beings who
actively interpret and respond to situations, according Ogbu and Simons.
In a study framed around secondary analysis of data collected during the 1978-
1979 elementary school year with 54 interviews, ethnographic data analysis software
was used in a subjectivist approach to scrutinize each transcript to identify regularities
that occurred in terms of single words or phrases (Gentilucci, 2004). Additionally, a
focus group study was conducted in the fall of 2000 to determine whether a comparable
sample of students’ perspectives from 1978-1979 would be held by 12 participants in
cohort 2000.
Measures were taken to decontextualize the data, which were later recontextu-
alied as a part of the process to identify common or collectively held student perspec-
tives (68% or more respondents). Consistency of the data was tested under the null
hypothesis using a two-sample z test at the .05 level of significance. Stability of time
was also tested through a triangulated process. Results of the cohort 2000 focus group
study were subjected to an identical process of analysis. The measure of consistency
between classrooms indicated that findings were valid representations of the
57
perspectives held by at least 68% of the 1978-1979 cohort. Results of the 2000 focus
group study and subsequent comparison revealed initial perspectives by students in
1978-1979 remained stable across time to 2000 (Gentilucci, 2004).
Findings revealed that nearly all students reported unchallenging curriculum,
teacher misbehavior, overuse of cooperative learning, and inadequate instruction fre-
quently hindered learning (Gentilucci, 2004). Students are powerful determiners of
their learning that occurs in their classrooms. Understanding perspectives of student
learning is necessary to ascertain why students learn well or why they learn poorly,
according to Gentilucci. Classrooms can be places for serious intellectual energy,
personal engagement, and inquiry (Perrone, 1997).
Teaching is about knowing children and young people well (Perrone, 1997).
Gentilucci (2004) suggested that a subjectivist research model would provide an empiri-
cal basis that allows students to speak for themselves regarding learning and learning
outcomes. There is an impetus for change from an objectivist to a subjectivist para-
digm. Some researchers support effective PD that includes affective and behavioral
outcomes or authentic assessments (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Guskey, 2003). More
successful student achievement outcomes were attained in states that focused on broad-
er notions of accountability (Darling-Hammond, 2004).
Student responses to perceptions of treatment or mistreatment by school envi-
ronments and structural barriers in society are important determinants of low school
achievement among underserved students (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). The researchers
found that complex tracking hierarchies supported by interdependent structures
58
presented institutional barriers that should be first dismantled, if detracking initiatives
were to succeed (Yonezawa et al., 2002). Barton (2004) investigated the persistence of
the achievement gap and determined 14 factors that correlated to student achievement
found underserved students to have each one as a risk factor. He discovered the social
critique tradition of broader issues, in that the achievement gap mirrored inequalities in
those aspects of schooling. This finding was corroborated by Kozol (1991, 2005) and
Rothstein (2004). Rothstein purported that a collective responsibility to create condi-
tions that remove barriers to cognitive development and support learning in the home is
a self accountability measure for all (Barton, 2004).
Social Critique Tradition: Broader Issues
of Concern
For this reason, unintended consequences that undermine access to education
for low-achieving students have occurred. As a result of the standards-based reform
movement founded upon rewards and sanctions, coupled with tests as the basis for an
accountability system, there are unintended consequences (Darling-Hammond, 2004).
This misuse of standardized tests can distort learning, exacerbate true accountability,
and perpetuate inequalities, asserted Swope and Miner (2000). This misuse of standard-
ized tests can distort learning, exacerbate true accountability and perpetuate inequali-
ties, asserts Swope and Miner (2000). Further, retention in grade, assignment to low-
track classes, and holding students accountable for subject matter not yet taught may
have adverse effects, contributed Heubert (2003).
59
Issues of competition, class, and race seek to manifest best practices to produce
improved results (Swope & Miner, 2000). Ferrera (2005) warned that in an era where
educators are struggling to maintain credibility with the public, strong assessment tech-
niques are crucial to produce accountability systems that work. Paying close attention
to accountability alarms surrounding quality instruction, PD, and ethical behavior is
necessary, according to Ferrera. Assessment of effectiveness, as it relates to PD, is
needed to gain authentic learning outcomes, asserted Guskey (2003).
This section of the literature review presented studies that shared historical
background relative to underserved students, student achievement, classroom practices,
and impact on students. The section used the three traditions of the research of Wideen
et al. (1998) to reflect different assumptions about learning. Positivist tradition shared
knowledge and skills; progressive tradition determined how the knowledge was ac-
quired; and social critique tradition implied the detail of the broader issues, such as
treatment or mistreatment of a student and that student’s response relative to achieve-
ment.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the purpose of this study was to further describe the achievement
of underserved students and the characteristics of schools that were successful with
them. To that end, conclusions and implications of this literature review are presented.
Although many schools are focusing curricular PD in certain subject areas, usually
reading and math, educators should be aware that where student learning has reached
60
optimal levels, planning content delivery and evaluation have been nested within a
community where learning is ongoing and continuous (Hord, 2004; Joyce & Showers,
2002). Affective and behavioral outcomes are necessary to change practices.
Effective PD consists of collective learning and practice, planning, content,
delivery, and evaluation, nested within a supportive school culture that shares values,
vision, knowledge, and skills. This support yields the best opportunity for closing the
achievement gap by increasing academic achievement, particularly for underserved
students. PD must consider affective and behavioral learning outcomes that yield au-
thentic assessments with the power to change practices, attitudes, and ways of thinking.
A review of the literature concerning PD in HP and LP schools suggests that
commonalities and differences occur but that those differences are primarily in the areas
of degrees. For example, researchers from Chicago showed teachers at LP schools
attended PD more frequently, but the quality was lower. All of the studies addressed the
elements of effective PD nested within some degree of PLC characteristics. Each
school offered some level of support.
Four of five studies examined between 1999 and 2004 listed PD as critical to
their schools increased student achievement (Duke, 2006). Among some commonali-
ties and differences, two very noteworthy occurrences during this literature review were
that the Coleman Report created an impetus for change, leading to results of value-
added to the level of one’s classmates. NCLB (2001) has created a similar impetus for
change relative to equal access by adding statewide assessments as the benchmark.
61
This literature review has introduced an impetus for change. Students in the
study of Yonezawa et al. (2002) and research models presented in the Gentilucci (2004)
study offers reasons for change that should lead to improved PD. Researchers reported
observations from their visits to classrooms and confirmed what some students re-
ported: that some school environments were disrespectful (Yonezawa et al.). Accord-
ing to Gentilucci (2004), students reported that some adults in some classrooms misbe-
have toward them. Historical perspectives suggest that researchers have known about
the achievement gap for at least 4 decades, yet no significant strategies have thwarted
the gap. It is known that new learning experiences and challenging critical thinking
activities stimulate the brains of underserved students and increase their capacity for
higher levels of achievement, yet researchers report rote-and-drill exercises provided by
educators are commonplace practices in classrooms of underserved students. Effective
PD has a component of affective and behavioral outcomes (Guskey, 2003) that can
assist in changing beliefs (Elmore, 2005) and classroom practices.
Table 1 contains a summary of the studies selected for this literature review. In
conclusion, a review of the literature suggested that America has the knowledge, skills,
and ability to close the achievement. This knowledge, skill, and ability have fallen short
over the years because the most important ingredient to solving the equation is missing.
That ingredient is the student, as Gentilucci (2004) suggested. Engaging the students in
their own plan for learning and action, teaching them real-life democratic protocols of
advocacy and justice, will instill within them self-regulated practices that protect human
dignity and aspire for reasonableness. In more than 4 decades have elapsed since the
62
63
64
65
66
achievement gap was first unmasked, and multiple strategies have failed to close the
gap. Perhaps the subjectivist model recommended by Gentilucci, which actively in-
volves students in their own learning experience, should be embraced, and the objec-
tivist model, which treats students as outsiders, should be set aside.
Implications
Implications for future research should include using PD training to empower
students and teachers to become self-regulated learners. PD should be explored as an
avenue for understanding children of poverty, children of color, and underserved stu-
dents as a whole. High achievement requires freedom to be actively involved in the
decision-making process. Researchers should continue to explore classroom practices
through the lens of students.
The subjectivist research model should be examined more closely for possible
use in developing ways for students to become more actively engaged in planning their
own learning outcomes with teachers. Students should learn how to use democratic
principles to become actively involved in societal issues. Opportunities should be pro-
vided for students to advocate and practice democracy within their schools. Educators
should continue to explore computer technology and how best to implement it in a
manner whereby all students reach proficient levels of mastery. More research is
needed on individual teacher efficacy and how one teacher’s beliefs can hinder learning
for underserved students for years within the American public schools. More research
is needed in the areas of district support for turnaround schools.
67
Effective PD in HP and LP schools with large numbers of underserved students
is a key element to changing collective learning, beliefs, and practices that are not
aligned to increase student achievement in supportive school cultures. It is a mandatory
component for sustainability of practices that will help close the achievement gap.
68
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Research methodology used in this study consisted of a qualitative, multisite
case study. Strauss and Corbin (1998) defined qualitative research as the type of re-
search that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of
quantification. Data may consist of interviews and documents. The three major com-
ponents of qualitative research are data from various sources, procedures used for orga-
nizational and interpretive means, and verbal or written reports (Strauss & Corbin).
When collecting and coding qualitative data, repeated instances are essential to the
process. Regularity in the patterns across groups and across time is a source of general-
ization, and the goal of qualitative research remains that of identifying generalized
patterns (Shavelson & Towne, 2002).
The purpose of this study was to explore characteristics of PD and PLCs in two
HP and two LP California elementary schools with high percentages of typically under-
served students. More specifically, the design and execution of this research investi-
gated possible explanations for the difference in student achievement between HP
schools and LP schools.
Based on a review of the literature, a comprehensive PDP focuses on the organi-
zational climate of the school so that teachers engage in continuous learning and the
staff development activities are delivered using specific structures and processes.
Further, the literature revealed strong evidence that LP schools could overcome barriers
69
and increase student achievement when the teachers and administrators were actively
engaged in seeking knowledge and applying that knowledge to their work.
Using qualitative techniques, the HP and LP schools were compared and con-
trasted for delivery of PDPs, as well as their characteristics of a PLC. Data were col-
lected using individual interviews of the principals, interviews of teachers, and analysis
of related documents from each school. Table 2 provides a listing of the three overarch-
ing research questions and subsets of discussion questions.
Theoretical Framework of the Research Design
Strauss and Corbin (1998) defined theory as a set of well-developed concepts
related through statements of relationship, which together constitute an integrated
framework that can be used to explain or predict phenomena. Grounded theories are
drawn from data, are likely to offer insight, enhance understanding, and provide a mean-
ingful guide to action. Although a grounded theory methodology is used by some re-
searchers to discover theory, Strauss and Corbin noted that creativity of researchers also
is an essential ingredient that manifests itself in the researcher’s ability to ask stimulat-
ing questions and make comparisons. Procedures to help provide some standardization
and rigor to the grounded theory process were designed not to be followed dogmatically
but rather to be used creatively and flexibly by researchers as they deem appropriate.
Thus, the selected research design for this study incorporated a combination of
research methods and utilized multiple sites in a multiple-case study design (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). A qualitative methodology utilizing individual interviews and
70
Table 2
Three Overarching Research Questions and Discussion Topics
Question # Questions/topics
1 How are PDPs planned delivered, and evaluated in HP and LP elemen-
tary schools that serve large numbers of underserved students. (Teachers
and principals respond.)
1.1What were the topics of the PDPs provided to the staff of your school in
the past 3 years?
1.2What type of needs assessment process is in place to assist in the decision
making regarding what programs to deliver to the staff?
1.3What data are reviewed as part of this process, and who is involved in the
planning of the programs?
1.4Describe two PDPs in the past 3 years that you felt were particularly effec-
tive.
1.5What were the goals of the program?
1.6What were the activities of the program?
1.7How long was the program?
1.8What types of follow-up activities and support, if any, were provided to
the teachers as they attempted to apply what they learned?
1.9How are PDPs evaluated?
1.10Who reviews that evaluation information, and how is it used?
2 What are the characteristics of the PLC in HP schools with a high per-
centage of typically underserved students as compared with LP schools
with a similar population of students? (Teachers and principals respond.)
2.1How are teachers involved in decision making at this school?
2.2Tell me about school improvement initiatives at this school and how
teachers have been involved in those efforts.
2.3What types of discussions occur during your faculty meetings?
2.4What other meetings do teachers attend at this school, and what is the
content of those discussions?
2.5Do teachers visit each other’s classroom and share their observations?
2.6How often does this occur, and how does the principal facilitate this pro-
cess?
2.7Overall, how would you describe the interactions and relationships among
the teachers and between the teachers and principal in this school?
71
Table 2 (continued)
Question # Questions/topics
2.8Is there a feeling of openness, trust, and collaboration?
2.9What does the principal do to facilitate interactions among teachers at this
school?
2.10What, if anything, is getting in the way of more positive interactions?
3 What strategies are employed by the principal to develop teachers and to
improve student learning in HP and LP elementary schools that serve
large numbers of underserved students? Teachers and principals respond.
3.1What does the principal/teacher do to facilitate the professional develop-
ment of teachers in this school?
3.2How does the principal/teacher facilitate the orientation, mentoring and
development of new teachers to this school?
3.3How does the principal/teacher meet the professional development needs
of your more experienced teachers?
3.4What does the principal/teacher do to keep this school focused on im-
provement in student achievement?
3.5What does the principal/teacher do to motivate teachers to improve stu-
dent achievement?
Note. PDP = professional development program; PLC = professional learning com-
munity; LP = low-performing; HP = high-performing.
content analysis of documents was selected for this study. This qualitative approach
was selected based on the guidelines suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1998), Hakim
(2000), Marshall and Rossman (1999), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Shavelson and
Towne (2002). Overall, designs for the conduct of scientific research in education
require different types of inquiries and methods in order to generate a rich source of
72
scientific knowledge in education that is refined and revised over time (Shavelson &
Towne, 2002).
Process
A theoretical framework utilizing Joyce and Showers’s (2002) four essential
elements of student achievement through PD and Hord’s (2004) changing schools
through PLCs made up the qualitative base. After participants signed the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) Informed Consent forms, interviews with one principal and two
teachers from each site, for a total of four principals and eight teachers, were conducted
and tape-recorded by this researcher. The assistance of a retired secretary was solicited
to help type the transcripts. All interviews were held in confidential spaces like the
principal’s office, teachers’ vacant classrooms, and the after-school library. Originally,
three HP and three LP schools had volunteered to participate in the study; however,
later one set of schools rescinded the agreement after learning that the central office
required a 1-year approval process for studies in the district, regardless of willingness to
participate by school principals and teachers. Initial volunteerism was based upon what
principals believed to be past practice.
Thus, two HP and two LP schools from four districts, three in northern Califor-
nia and one in southern California, ultimately participated in this study. Similar to
selection and identification of the sample population that the Dana Center (1999) re-
searchers disclosed, when seeking HP and LP high-poverty and high-minority or under-
served students for a comparison study, it was a difficult task for a number of reasons.
73
Data compiled on the California Department of Education’s (2004a) Dataquest System
with API rankings were most helpful. Other factors beyond the researcher’s control
included difficulty matching high numbers of pairs with similar demographics of under-
served students to one HP and one LP school, getting appropriate permissions from
schools and central offices, and willingness of a larger number of teacher participants
—ideally one teacher from each grade level at the school—to respond to questions.
One principal and two teachers from each school participated, for a total of 12
interviews included in this study. In addition, three pilot interviews of one principal and
two teachers from a LP school in Sacramento County were conducted to pilot both the
questions and the process. As a result, one question was altered. In addition, a commit-
tee of three experts reviewed and made suggested modifications for interview questions
before and after the pilot interviews. Prior to the tape-recorded interviews, all partici-
pants signed IRB informed consent agreements.
A review of the literature indicated that a comprehensive PDP focuses on the
organizational climate of the school, helping teachers engage in continuous learning,
and the staff development activities are delivered utilizing specific structures and
processes. There was strong evidence in the literature that LP could overcome barriers
and increase student achievement when the teachers and administrators were actively
engaged in seeking knowledge and applying that knowledge to their work. Using
qualitative techniques, the HP and LP schools were compared and contrasted for deliv-
ery of PDPs, as well as their characteristics of a PLC.
74
The research design, which incorporated a combination of research methods,
used multiple sites in a multiple-case study design (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A qual-
itative methodology utilizing individual interviews and content analysis of documents
was selected for this study. A qualitative approach was selected based on the guidelines
suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1998), Hakim (2000), Marshall and Rossman (1999),
Miles and Huberman (1994), and Shavelson and Towne (2002). In addition to tape-
recorded and verbatim transcribed interviews of principals and teachers, informal ob-
servations of student interactions were conducted during tours of the school site. Other
data were collected using individual interviews of the principals, interviews of teachers,
and analysis of related documents from each school.
Additionally, a review of documents provided by the schools was completed.
Documents reviewed by the researcher for this study included School Plans for Student
Achievement, SARCs, staff meeting agendas, schedules of PDPs already conducted,
letters to staff announcing plans for PDPs, letters to parents and community, and school
brochures and booklets. Other documents provided by principals were school mission
or vision statements developed by the staff, PD evaluation forms and evaluation results;
policies or procedures regarding decision-making structures that existed; staff schedules
reflecting time to interact; schedules of meetings at the school; minutes of faculty,
grade-level, and committee meetings; and newsletters and memos regarding activities at
the school.
75
Sample and Population
The population of this study included four schools classified by the state of
California as public elementary schools with a high percentage of typically underserved
students. Specific factors used in this study to identify underserved students were eth-
nicity (i.e., African American and Latino) and low SES. Although the state of Califor-
nia reports these factors, among others, in its similar schools ranking, matching HP and
LP schools with these factors was a limitation of the study. Other factors reported by
California in its similar schools rankings included, but were not limited to, mobility,
dominant language of students, and average class size per grade level (CDE, 2004a).
Additionally, the CDE ranks the performance of schools using the API, a nu-
meric index or scale ranging from 200 to 1,000 that summarizes the results of various
student performance indicators for California schools and districts; 800 has been estab-
lished as a goal which schools should strive to meet CDE standards (CDE, 2004a).
Each school is placed into 1 of 10 performance groups based on the API, ranked from
highest performing (10) to lowest performing (1).
Two schools from the highest performing pair, with a ranking of 7 or better, and
two schools from the lowest performing pair, with a ranking of 1, were selected and
served as the sample for this investigation. These four schools were qualified for inclu-
sion only if a majority of the student population represented African American and/or
Latino ethnicities and if the school’s poverty level, based upon student participation in
free or reduced-price lunches, was higher than 40% for the entire student population.
76
Additionally, principals and teachers interviewed must have worked at the school for at
least 1 year. Every effort was made to solicit participants who had been at the school
more than 1 year. The principals must have been employed at the schools longer in
order to improve the probability that they would be able to describe accurately the
PDPs, as well as the PLC characteristics of the school. However, one principal in this
study was in a 1 -year position; the other three had been at their schools for 2 or more
st
years.
Telephone calls were made to the appropriate district office personnel, if per-
ceived by the principal to be appropriate protocol, of selected schools to obtain their
willingness to participate and secure necessary central office approvals. In all districts
except one, principals had the decision-making autonomy to decide if their schools
could participate in the study. Approximately eight schools and two pairs of schools
were eliminated from participation in one large urban district. The procedure for re-
search in the district required 1 year’s advance notice and approval, according to one
central office director. If a school was not eligible or otherwise declined to participate,
then another school was selected to replace it. Inclusively, at least 20 schools statewide
were eliminated by this process.
The search started at a local Sacramento County level for three pairs, then
moved to a northern California level and lastly to a statewide level seeking schools with
large numbers of underserved students of low SES and/or African American or Latino
heritage. One school in southern California agreed to participate but had a predominant
student population of Asian heritage and was therefore eliminated. The next step was to
77
communicate by phone and by letter with the principal of each selected school to de-
scribe the purpose of the study, the selection process used for schools, and confirm will-
ingness to participate. Following confirmation, appointments were scheduled for the
convenience of principals and teachers being interviewed. Two teachers from each
selected school were interviewed on a voluntary basis. It should be noted that the spring
semester was a busy time at school sites with state-mandated testing, end-of-the-year
reports, and other activities. This factor may have contributed to more than 20 declines
to participate in the study. Also, one principal, who requested anonymity, expressed
that there was much sensitivity around high-stakes testing and the public’s perception of
how well schools are doing.
Instrumentation
Semistructured individual interviews with principals, interviews with teachers,
and content analysis of documents constituted the three major instruments of this study.
The interview formats were semistructured dialog, as proposed by Spradley (1997).
The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and to
guard against researcher bias. documents were reviewed from each school to determine
supporting evidence of interviews. Each participant was assured anonymity. The inter-
view formats for principals and teachers were parallel.
The questions detailed in Table 2 were initially piloted with a group of one ele-
mentary principal and two teachers at the same school. At their request, responses from
those three interviews were not in the data analysis for this study; however, they did
78
sign the IRB Informed Consent, and their input for question modifications and process
was utilized with their permission. Each set of questions was clearly linked to the re-
search questions. Research questions 1 and 2 followed the qualities of exemplary PD,
as identified through a review of the literature and described more specifically in chap-
ter 2. Research question 3 utilized the framework of a PLC, as proposed by Hord (1996,
2004).
This researcher worked with a committee of experts to design and implement
the study. Before research questions were used to collect data for the study, each ques-
tion was reviewed, critiqued, modified, and/or approved by a committee of experts in
the fields of research design, PD, and schools as learning communities. Questions were
validated for content, relevance, clarity, and ambiguity of wording. Items were dis-
carded or revised to reflect these comments.
The interview questions were then piloted in Sacramento County at a LP school
with similar demographics. A principal and two teachers were interviewed. Results of
these pilot interviews were not included in this study at the request of the school.
However, during this pilot study, participants were asked to answer the interview ques-
tions and to critique them for clarity, ambiguity of wording, and overall interview
format for length and order. Additional revisions were made based on input.
Data Collection
Shavelson and Towne (2002) emphasized the importance of repeated instances,
more than one observer, and multiple raters when collecting qualitative data for
79
scientific research in education. A selection of four elementary schools, two high
performing and two low performing, for investigation lends itself to a demonstration of
qualitative data convergence or synthesis (Shavelson & Towne). Bogdan and Biklen
(1998) discussed qualitative research as being descriptive, with data being in the form
of words.
Interview transcripts of principals and teachers, as well as relevant documents
such as School Plans for Student Achievement, SARCs, agendas for PDPs, staff meet-
ing agendas, announcement letters or flyers about PDPs, communications to parents or
community concerning PDPs at the school and how parents could assist with their
student’s education, school brochures, and student plan books were among documents
reviewed at each school. However, not all items were available at every school. Inter-
view transcripts for principals, for teachers, and document review were the three major
sources of data for this study. Additionally, onsite tours of each school and the informal
observations of student interactions among other students and with teachers and princi-
pals were a most rewarding experience for this researcher. Miles and Huberman (1994)
also described qualitative research as focusing on the perspectives of participants who
were the data sources.
This study attempted to determine the perspectives of the principal and teachers
at each site with respect to the characteristics of their schools as learning communities;
how PDPs were planned, delivered, and evaluated; and the strategies employed by the
principals to maintain the teachers’ focus on student achievement and motivation to
improve student learning.
80
Hakim (2000) suggested that descriptive studies be exploratory when relatively
little previous research exists on the topic. The case studies in this investigation were
descriptive and exploratory because little, if any, research exists on PDPs, learning
community characteristics, and strategies employed by principals in elementary schools
with a high percentage of typically underserved students.
Combinations of research methods were used for each site in this multiple-case
study, including semistructured individual interviews with principals, interviews with
teachers, and document analysis, as previously described. Fraenkel and Wallen (2002)
emphasized that triangulation, or the use of multiple methods, to collect data enhances
the validity and reliability of qualitative research designs. In order to confirm the qual-
itative data collected through semistructured interviews of principals and teachers, an
analysis of the content of documents at each site was conducted.
This analysis focused on documents including, but not limited to, school mis-
sion or vision statements developed by the staff; school improvement plans; school
report cards; PDP brochures or announcements; PD evaluation forms and evaluation
results; policies or procedures regarding decision-making structures that existed; teach-
er evaluation guidelines; staff schedules reflecting time to interact; schedules of meet-
ings at the school; minutes of faculty, grade-level, and committee meetings; newsletters
or other communications with students’ homes; and memos of principals.
Content analysis of documents examined specific themes of professional devel-
opment delivery. These included specific characteristics of how PDPs were organized
and presented to teachers, including the degree to which the program addressed student
81
needs; was sustained over an appropriate duration of time; was connected to school
improvement plans; allowed time for teacher reflection, application and evaluation; and
included follow-up activities involving peer support and interaction.
School documents identified specific themes of a PLC. These themes included
school administrators who participated democratically with teachers to share power,
authority, and decision making; staff who shared visions for school improvement that
had an undeviating focus on student learning and were consistently referenced for the
staff’s work; staff who collectively learned and applied their learning by taking action to
create high intellectual learning tasks and solutions to address student needs; peers who
reviewed and gave feedback based on observing one another’s classroom behaviors in
order to increase individual and organizational capacity; and a school where conditions
and capacities supported the staff’s arrangement as a professional learning organization.
Data Analysis
The data collection process included audio taping, verbatim transcribing of
interviews, and content analysis. Initial codes were derived from the literature review.
However, a computer program called The Ethnograph© v5.07 (Qualis Research Associ-
ates, 1998) was used to assist with coding, searching, and analyzing the data for pat-
terns, themes, and topics using inductive and logical analysis in a constant comparison
(Bogdan & Biklin, 1998; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Use of ethnographic accounts
was one example of conceptual ordering (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This researcher
used a hands-on approach to review the well-developed and ordered ethnographic
82
themes by reviewing sentences and paragraphs of the verbatim transcripts of partici-
pants. Central ideas in the data represented as concepts were categorized in a manner
that could explain and predict (Strauss & Corbin).
Initial codes deriving from the literature review included qualities of effective
PD, as described by Joyce and Showers (2002), the five characteristics of a learning
community (Hord, 1996, 2004), as well as other themes that emerged around these
topics. These were repeatedly reanalyzed, revised, and collapsed as necessary (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The findings from each school were coded, analyzed, and sorted to
answer each research question. Themes that emerged from the interviews of principals
and teachers at the HP and LP schools were compared for similarities and differences.
Detailed field notes and transcripts were reviewed by a variety of neutral debriefers who
possessed doctoral degrees, both PhDs and EdDs, from accredited doctoral programs.
They made themselves available to this researcher for discussions, questions, coaching,
and challenging the analyses of data. Their objectivity served to minimize investigator
interference and bias (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).
A content analysis was conducted of documents at each school related to staff
development and the PLC. Documents included the following but were not limited to
school mission or vision statements developed by the staff; school improvement plans;
PDP brochures or announcements; professional development evaluation forms and
evaluation results; policies or procedures regarding decision-making structures that
existed; staff schedules reflecting time to interact; schedules of meetings at the school;
83
minutes of faculty, grade-level, and committee meetings; newsletters or other commu-
nications with the home; and memos of the principal.
Each document obtained was carefully reviewed for the themes of effective staff
development and PLC. Sample quotes from documents were identified and reported to
support each primary theme from selected schools. In chapter 4, data analysis is pre-
sented in relation to the research questions of the study.
84
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The design of this chapter was to report the results of the visitations,
interviews, and review of school documents at two HP and two LP schools with
large numbers of underserved students. The overall purpose of this research was
to determine characteristics of PD and PLCs that led to increased student
achievement that closed the achievement gap between underserved students and
their higher performing counterparts. Differences and similarities in HP and LP
schools were found in areas of collective learning and practice, supportive school
culture, and sustainability of school practices. Themes and findings that cut
across all schools, all HP schools, and all LP schools are identified and discussed
throughout this chapter. A summary of findings detailing differences and simi-
larities is provided in tabular form at the conclusion of this chapter for the conve-
nience of the reader.
Overview
A thorough description of the analysis of transcript data and related documents
are presented. Two HP and two LP schools participated in this study. For each HP and
LP school, the principal and two teachers were interviewed. An analysis of their re-
sponses and school documents are presented in order to determine how PDPs are
85
planned, delivered, and evaluated; the characteristics of the learning communities in
these schools; and the strategies employed by the principal to develop teachers and to
improve student learning.
The chapter begins with an overview of the characteristics of the schools, in-
cluding enrollment, student performance, and selected demographic information about
the student body. Each school is then presented in a case study analysis, thoroughly
describing the PDP, the school’s characteristics of a learning community, and the strate-
gies employed by the principal to develop teachers and to improve student learning.
Excerpts from the data record itself are included to illustrate interpretations and to
logically support the analysis. After the presentation of all four case studies, a summary
of the findings for research questions 1-3 is offered at the end of the chapter, along with
what the data might be suggesting related to the differences between the HP and LP
schools.
HP School Set A summarily represents two HP schools, A1 and A2, while LP
School Set B represents two LP schools, B1 and B2. In an effort to provide confidenti-
ality, instructional leaders from each school set referred to as principal and teachers are
referenced by specific school designation. For example, teachers from HP School
Set A are referenced as Teacher A1 or A2, and teachers from LP School Set B are ref-
erenced as Teacher B1 or B2. Such designations, seeking to protect identity and confi-
dentiality of participants, are supported by qualitative research (Shavelson & Towne,
2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
86
Characteristics of the HP and LP Elementary Schools
Table 3 displays the characteristics of the four elementary schools selected for
participation in this study. In 2004, the HP schools had API scores of 768 and 763,
compared to 610 and 618 for the LP elementary schools. On a 10-point ranking system,
with 10 being the highest level, the HP schools had state-wide ranks of 7, while the LP
schools had state-wide ranks of 1. Within their similar school category, the HP had
ranks of 8 and 10 and the LP schools had ranks of 2 and 5.
The percentage of students within each ethnic and racial subgroup is also pre-
sented in Table 3. Both HP and LP schools had student populations that consisted
predominantly of minority students. At the time of this study, School A, denoted as
high performing, was comprised of 87% minorities, with African American and Latino
students representing 80% of that total. School B, denoted as low performing, had a
minority student population of 83%, with African American and Latino students com-
prising 65% of that total.
With the exception of School A1 in the HP School Set, Hispanic or Latino
students comprised the largest percentage within each school population. For School
A1, this subgroup (30.38%) was second to the African American population (33.23%).
Caucasian students comprised 25% of the student body in one HP and one LP school;
there were less than 1% reported Caucasian students in the other HP school and less
than 10% in the second LP school. These schools served few, if any, American Indians,
Filipinos, or Pacific Islanders.
87
Table 3
Characteristics of the High- and Low-Performing Elementary Schools
H P S c h o o l Set A L P S c h o o l Set B
_____________________________________
CharacteristicSchool A1School A2School B1School B2
Enrollment497574438536
Student performance
2004 API768763610618
2004 state rank7711
2004 similar school rank81025
Ethnic/racial subgroups
African American33.23%47.60%18.50%11.90%
American Indian0.32%0.00%1.40%0.40%
Asian7.91%0.26%3.20%13.80%
Filipino2.53%0.00%1.60%0.20%
Hispanic or Latino30.38%51.60%46.80%59.90%
Pacific Islander0.32%0.00%0.90%1.10%
Caucasian25.00%0.54%27.60%11.60%
Socioeconomically disad-
vantaged52.85%55.32%100.00%99.68%
English language learners11.00%42.00%38.00%56.00%
Student mobility15.00%13.00%40.00%31.00%
Parent educational level2.922.142.071.61
Credentialed teachers100.00%74.00%100.00%93.00%
Average class size
Grades K-322.0019.0020.0020.00
Grades 4-630.0025.0024.0028.00
Note. HP = high-performing; LP = low-performing. API = Academic Performance
Index.
88
Socioeconomically disadvantaged students comprised nearly the entire student
body within the LP group and more than half of the HP population. There were also
significant numbers of ELLs in three of the four schools. Within the LP schools, these
students represented 38% and 56%, respectively, of the enrollment; for the HP schools,
ELLs comprised 11% and 42% of the population, respectively.
It is important to note that there was a difference in student mobility rates be-
tween the four schools. The HP schools had less than half the mobility of the LP
schools. According to the 2004 API base School Report (CDE, 2004a), mobility repre-
sented the percentage of students who first attended the school in the current year.
Students in the lowest grade were excluded. Therefore, within the LP group, approxi-
mately a third of the students were new to the school in 2004, compared to 15% and
13%, respectively, in the HP schools.
Another difference between the two groups of schools was the level of educa-
tion of parents, with the HP schools having more parents with a high school education.
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents not a high school graduate and 5 represents
graduate school, the average scores for the HP schools were 2.92 and 2.14, respectively,
indicating that parents exceeded high school graduation to attend graduate school. For
the LP schools, the scores were 2.07 and 1.61, respectively, indicating that parents were
high school graduates and below.
High rates of fully credentialed teachers were employed at three of the four
schools, although one of the HP schools had 26% who were not fully licensed by the
state. Class sizes were also similar across all the schools with K-3 at or below 20
89
students. Class sizes in Grades 4-6 were higher in all the schools, ranging between 24
and 30 students.
High-Performing School Set
HP School A1
Planning, delivery and evaluation of the PDP. The principal and two
teachers at HP School A1 all reported that PDPs had been developed and delivered in
literacy, specifically related to two programs the school was using: Accelerated Reader
and Writing Without Tears. All interviewees also reported that some math inservice
had been conducted, but it was less an emphasis compared to the literacy initiatives.
The principal commented that there was some training in handling behavior problems,
developing the school improvement plan, and implementing a program for ELLs
(Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development [CLAD]), but this was not
mentioned by the teachers. A review of the school’s Single Plan for Student Achieve-
ment (SPSA; December 3, 2004) confirmed these PDPs.
The principal and teachers agreed that staff had considerable input into the
planning of PD activities related to the school’s instructional programs. Teacher A1
pointed out that “our leadership committee gets input from the teachers so we can come
up with what our needs are.” Teacher A2 added that “in the past year, it’s gone site
based, so we have had quite a bit more of input.”
The school’s SPSA (December 3, 2004) also stated that “staff chooses, through
a Needs Assessment Survey, to learn strategies and implement strategies that are proven
Because the actual names of the schools discussed in this paper are not used,
1
documents authored by the schools are not listed in the reference list.
90
to increase student performance in the standards, and add to professional knowledge”
(p. 3). The principal and one of the teachers reported that the survey data and teacher
1
input were supplemented by student test scores. The SPSA document further stated,
“When developing staff development training, we begin with assessing student perfor-
mance and movement toward proficiency in the standards” (p. 3).
The teachers and principal reported that the principal, the leadership group, and
the presenters were involved in the actual planning of the PDPs. The principal also
noted that district administrators were involved, particularly the Director of Elementary
Education, but emphasized that “the whole staff, I would say [is involved], because they
give ideas on what they want to have presented and then we go and find either people in
our district or outside to provide the inservice.”
Regarding the analysis of data related to the delivery of PDPs, transcript data
and documents were analyzed for four themes: (a) goals focused on student learning;
(b) activities focused on pedagogical improvement; (c) follow-up and support activities;
and (d) adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection. At this HP school, the
principal clearly saw that the goal of each PDP was to improve student achievement.
The principal emphasized the desire for every child to read more and to increase fluency
and comprehension. But this contrasted with the teachers’ perceptions that the PDPs
were more focused on pedagogical improvement. One teacher stated that “the goal of
Accelerated Reader was to get everybody using it next year, to get the teachers to
91
actually see it on the computer” (Teacher A2). Teacher A1 confirmed this perception,
stating that the purpose of the inservice “was for teachers to walk away with an under-
standing of the program and how it worked.”
Several other comments by the interviewees also reaffirmed that PD activities
often focused on pedagogical improvement. One of the teachers reported that when the
staff was trained in the Saxon Math program, “we went in and got our hands involved
with it and found out things we could use within the next week in our classroom”
(Teacher A1). Referring to the CLAD training, a program designed to help ELLs, the
principal stated, “One teacher walked away from CLAD and said it changed her whole
teaching style.”
This HP school provided follow-up and support activities for teachers. Regard-
ing the Accelerated Reader program, one of the teachers indicated that she and two
other staff members are resources for the entire faculty because they received advanced
training by the company that produced this program. The principal confirmed this fact,
stating that he sent three staff members to advanced training so that they could become
“kind of our experts on staff that will help teachers more individually or as groups.”
The principal of this HP school conducted personal follow-up. The principal
reported that “I am always asking if people need more training or more ideas.” This was
confirmed by one of the teachers, who said, “The principal asks us what else we need,
how is it going” (Teacher A2).
An important element of effective PD programming is that it provides adequate
time for learning, integration, and reflection. The transcript data revealed only a few
92
comments related to this but suggested that the Accelerated Reader program so fre-
quently cited by the interviewees was not a 1-day workshop. The teachers indicated that
there was an initial training program in September with follow-up sessions in January
“so we could come back and try it again and ask questions” (Teacher A2). The principal
added that the school will be working on this program “for the next couple of years.”
Each interviewee was also asked to describe how PDPs were evaluated at the
school. At this particular site, the teachers and principal reported that at the end of each
session, participants completed an evaluation form to rate the program. The principal
stated that the form asks the teachers to “tell us how valuable was it, what did you learn,
what would you like to see different next time.” But the evaluation form was only one
piece of information used to evaluate the programs. Both the principal and one teacher
indicated that there were follow-up discussions with staff both informally and during
leadership team meetings about the effectiveness of the PD experience and future needs.
One teacher stated, “The principal asks probing questions within the leadership team-
what’s needed by different teachers, different grade levels” (Teacher A1).
It was not clear exactly what happened to the evaluation information once it was
collected. The principal indicated that results of the PD evaluations were shared with
the staff and the school site council; however, Teacher A1 stated, “I assume the princi-
pal reviews the evaluation information but I honestly don’t know—that’s a large, nebu-
lous part of all this for us.” When the school used staff as trainers, the principal indi-
cated that staff reviewed the evaluation forms in order to obtain feedback about how
they did. Teacher A2 confirmed that, stating, “When I do my own workshops, I am
93
provided that [evaluation forms]—I can look at the evaluations.” However, Teacher A1
had a different experience, asserting that “when I asked to see those evaluations, to
improve my practice, I had no response back, so I don’t know what happens with them.”
Teacher A2 and the principal indicated, however, that the intention of the evalu-
ation data was “to use the information to improve the programs and make changes the
staff suggest” (Principal) and that “the district summarizes the data to see how effective
things were and what needs to happen next” (Teacher A2).
PLC characteristics. The five characteristics of PLCs proposed by Hord
(1996, 2004) were used as a framework to analyze the transcript data. These character-
istics include supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective
learning and application, shared practice involving feedback, and supportive conditions.
Regarding supportive and shared leadership, teachers were very involved in the
decision-making processes at this school. The school had a leadership team that met
twice a month with a representative from each grade level and one person who repre-
sented other teachers without grade-level responsibilities, such as special education.
Teacher A1 stated that the entire staff had input into important decisions through their
representatives, who take staff input and concerns to the principal and leadership team.
The principal encouraged teacher leadership as a tool to gather input from staff on im-
portant school matters that were related to improving student achievement. He com-
mented:
I like to see teachers who take a leadership role, and I like to support that. I have
a variety of people in leadership roles. . . . If a teacher or a group of teachers
94
come and say we think if we do this . . ., I really want to listen to that, because if
they are excited about a program or doing something and feel it’s going to move
kids, I think they’re going to make it work.
In fact, the principal and teachers noted that the Accelerated Reader program
was proposed and discussed by the staff and, as a faculty, they decided to go ahead and
implement it. The principal also used staff meetings to talk about problems and chal-
lenges and how to address them, getting feedback from the teachers and making deci-
sions through consensus.
A shared set of values and vision was clearly present at HP School A1, and that
focus was on improving student performance, specifically as measured by standardized
test scores. The principal indicated, “That’s our whole focus, to improve and to get
students up into the proficient standards.” The teachers’ comments supported this
common vision. Teacher A1 indicated that the staff regularly reviewed standardized
test data provided by the central office so that the teachers could improve deficient
areas. Teacher A2 clearly indicated that this focus on improving achievement was a
school-wide mission in the following statement:
What is it we’re going to do for kids? What do we want, how are we going to
increase their things [test scores]? We look at how many have passed bench-
marks each trimester and pull it together with the SIF plan; the whole school is
involved.
This focus on improvement of test scores is also evident on the School Account-
ability Report Card (SARC; 2002-2003). The mission statement indicated that one of
the eight cores values of the school was “expecting excellence encourages excellence”
and that “reading, writing and mathematics are essential skills for learning” (p. 1). This
95
school had experienced growth in standardized test scores. According to the SARC, the
API score for the school increased 64 points from 2001 to 2003.
The school staff felt a sense of pride about the fact that they were pushing them-
selves in terms of student performance and doing this collaboratively. The principal
stated that “the teachers feel good that they are working at a nationally recognized
school and new teachers come in and they think, ‘I have to work at a high level, too.’”
Teacher A1 reported hearing conversations among the staff about how positive the
school was, “how we’re always pushing to do things better,” and that there was a “sense
of pride about doing the very best we can with what little we have.” This teacher also
stated that the principal would recognize staff members who had worked positively to-
gether and with the students.
HP School A1 engaged in many varied activities where staff were learning to-
gether and applying what they were learning. Overall, the principal believed that “in-
teractions among the teachers are very good, and they are willing to help and support
each other” and that the team approach “becomes self-motivating.” Staff meetings held
every other week focused on discussions about school improvements, how programs
were working, and next steps in the process to improve student achievement. A review
of the agenda for the November 17, 2004, staff meeting confirmed this. The agenda
items included “Celebrations and Positives,” “API and CST Test Results/Data,” “Con-
clusions from Student Performance Data,” and “Action Planning Teams and Next
Steps.”
96
Shared practice involving feedback is another characteristic of the PLC where
teachers observe one another and discuss their insights. At this school, this practice was
not happening very frequently and, if it happened, occurred on an informal basis. The
principal admitted that shared practice was “not [occurring] as often as I would like.”
Both teachers indicated that the idea of sharing practice and giving one another feed-
back was given consideration by the staff at one time, but it did not materialize because
it “did not fly with a lot of teachers here” (Teacher A2).
Regarding supportive conditions that promoted a PLC at this site, the interview-
ees reported that the relationships and interactions among the staff were positive and
supporting. They stated that there was a feeling of openness, trust, and collaboration
and that the staff had a good working relationship with one another. The teachers and
principal also reported that they wished they had more time to interact and collaborate
because “time is the biggest barrier to positive interactions” (principal) and teachers
were “meeting as a grade level during their own lunchtime or mornings” (Teacher A1).
The principal admitted that the school schedule was arranged so that teams could meet
over lunch “so they can discuss things; they often collaborate at that time.” The princi-
pal also supported the need for more time and reported that teachers were given released
time to get together. Teacher A2 confirmed this, stating, “The principal offers time to
collaborate if you want it; he’ll hire subs or whatever.”
Strategies employed by the principal to develop teachers and improve
learning. The principal of this school developed teachers and improved student
97
learning by building a learning community, encouraging and supporting additional PD
and meeting the needs of new and experienced teachers.
The principal of HP School A1 facilitated a system whereby the teachers worked
together to gather and analyze student data: “We also look at kids and their progress
from year to year, and we do that as a part of writing our [school improvement] plan,
and we look at our total school and individuals.” Focusing on the progress of individual
students occurred on a trimester basis. As discussed earlier concerning shared values
and vision, the purpose of this process was to improve student achievement. The prin-
cipal asserted: “Each trimester I ask that teachers are looking at kids’ scores, that they
develop a plan to help that child.” Teacher A2 stated: “We look at how many kids have
passed the benchmarks each trimester and gather the data to look at from the school
improvement plan.”
This initiative appeared to be district-wide. According to the SARC (2002-
2003), one of the district’s objectives was to “see an improvement in results from mul-
tiple measures that collectively indicate that students are learning how to learn” and that
“all students will meet or exceed grade/age level expectations for communicating effec-
tively and solving problems” (p. 8). The SPSA (December 3, 2004) also indicated that
“state assessment results are discussed at the grade level, school level and district level
for all groups with the goal to further enhance student achievement. Local assessments
provide a school-wide picture of student achievement” (p. 4).
The principal stated that teachers frequently “talk about how they’re meeting
kids’ needs and making decisions about meeting kids’ needs.” The principal reported
98
that despite budget cuts, it was important to encourage the teachers to “think out of the
box, how can we reach Johnny’s needs?” As Teacher A1 stated, the staff wanted to
“show them [those schools with more resources] we can do it, and we can do it usually a
bit better than they can . . .”
Another strategy to develop teachers related to the teacher evaluation process.
Although the teachers did not mention this, the principal reported meeting regularly
with staff on professional goal development, evaluation conferences, and less formally
when other issues arose.
In addition to building a learning community that focused on the analysis of
student achievement data and the development of strategies to improve the performance
of students, this principal encouraged and supported additional PD outside the school
and district by sending “a team of teachers out and bring that information back to us.”
Teacher A2 also perceived this push from the principal when she stated, “The principal
encourages us to go to anything we can. He is very supportive of me.”
The principal reported that new teachers were supported with an orientation
program before school began that focused on school programs such as math, reading,
and writing. The school also relied heavily on Beginning Teacher Support and Assess-
ment (BTSA); the principal believed that the mentors were actively working with the
new teachers, observing or meeting with them on almost a weekly basis. The teachers
also confirmed that BTSA providers were onsite. Teacher A2 indicated that other staff
at the grade level “kind of take them [new teachers] under their wing.” The principal re-
ported that a buddy system was used to “kind of watch over them.”
99
The principal stated that he asked the new teachers “how things are going, if
they have any questions, walk them through the evaluation process, verbally go over
other procedures with them.” He further indicated that he had been “successful [in]
hiring people who are motivated to get kids up there” and that “some teachers move out
who were not being successful.” More importantly, the principal thought that the
school’s test scores reflected that fact.
The principal actively supported experienced teachers. He encouraged them to
get out of their classrooms and to attend PDPs outside the district. He reported that he
talked individually to staff about their needs and made arrangements or suggestions to
get them assistance. This was confirmed by the two teachers interviewed. Teacher A1
stated: “The principal questions us—how we’re feeling with our programs, do we feel
comfortable, would we like more training.” Teacher A2 noted that the principal met the
varying needs of staff because “he structures things so there are different levels of
things [PD] so people can utilize what they know and support others.”
HP School A2
Planning, delivery and evaluation of the PDP. The principal and two
teachers at HP School A2 all reported that PDPs had been developed and delivered in
the areas of literacy and mathematics, with an emphasis on the collection and analysis
of student achievement data. The teachers elaborated that writing had been a particular
focus, training teachers in writing strategies and the writing process in general. This
was confirmed in the school’s SPSA (March 7, 2005):
100
Identified areas for 2004-2005 are in the area of writing, specifically covering:
(1) writing to respond to literature, (2) writing stories with all essential elements,
(3) writing summaries of fiction/non-fiction selections, (4) strategies for “cold
writes” similar to those required of students in test situations, and (5) informa-
tion on state rubrics. (p. 6)
The teachers had considerable input into the planning of PD activities related to
the school’s instructional programs. The administration utilized a questionnaire that
was sent to the staff for input on what topics they would like to see covered in the 2
different staff development days on site. Both teachers confirmed the school site and
district needs assessments. Teacher A2 stated, “We’re provided with a list of different
professional activities for different areas, and then we pick the top three and give it to
our administrators.” The SARC (2002-2003) stated that “the school plans activities
each year based upon its ‘Annual Needs Assessment’” (p. 4). The school’s SPSA docu-
ment (March 7, 2005) also stated that “staff development to address the identified needs
of students [are] based on multiple assessments” (p. 5) and that “specific staff develop-
ment activities designed each year are based on staff needs” (p. 6).
The school used test data as part of the multiple-assessment approach to plan-
ning programs. Teacher A1 stated that the staff focused on curriculum assessments
such as “performance tests, Open Court unit assessments, district-wide assessments,
and the student portfolio.” The principal confirmed the use of local assessments, par-
ticularly “a beginning inventory assessment in language arts and math”; he stated that
the data from this assessment “is accumulated, analyzed and presented to the staff.”
The principal also reported that CAT-6 and CST scores are reviewed, if they are avail-
able, and used to steer staff development to weak areas.
101
The principal indicated that “grade-level chairs, a principal advisory committee,
and my assistant principal and I do the program planning.” The teachers confirmed that
the staff had considerable input into the PD planning process, but the administrators
made the final decisions.
Regarding the delivery of PDPs, transcript data and documents were analyzed
for four themes: (a) goals focused on student learning; (b) activities focused on peda-
gogical improvement, (c) follow-up and support activities, and (d) adequate time for
learning, integration, and reflection.
The transcript data revealed two comments that the goals of PD were focused on
student learning. Teacher A2 stated that after the teachers examined student data, they
were guided on how they could improve the data results and increase student achieve-
ment. The principal noted that a team-building activity helped change people’s focus to
the bottom line, which was “being there for the students.”
Several documents indicated that professional development activities were de-
signed to improve student achievement. The SARC (2002-2003) stated that the “con-
tinuing focus is training, as required by the State Department of Education, to better
meet the language acquisition needs of English Language Learners” (p. 4). The report
card also stated that the school was committed to “professional development for the
adopted programs in the core curriculum alignment, classroom management, and Cali-
fornia Content Standards” (p. 4). The SPSA (March 7, 2005) reported that “teachers
will continue to participate in standards-based conferences and workshops to enhance
student achievement” (p. 5).
102
Although the principal of the school did not describe any PD activities that
focused on pedagogical improvement, the teachers did provide examples of how train-
ing improved their instruction. Teacher A1 reported how training programs “helped
teachers recognize strategies that were effective,” and Teacher A2 stated “they took us
through the writing process and taught us different ways to teach students.”
The SPSA (March 7, 2005) supported the teachers’ comments, stating that the
school would implement “professional development to improve student achievement
based on research indicating best practices” (p. 6). The SARC (2002-2003) also indi-
cated that “staff development activities to improve instruction are offered throughout
the year” (p. 4).
There is evidence in the transcript data that coaching and advising are the pri-
mary follow-up and support activities for teachers. Both teachers reported that the prin-
cipal and assistant principal coached teachers; the principal indicated that he used other
district personnel to “observe, give pointers, do demo lessons . . .”
The SARC (2002-2003) indicated that a part-time reading coach worked with
teachers to ensure that the Open Court Reading program was properly implemented.
The SARC (March 7, 2005) stated that one of the barriers to improvements in student
achievement was the “lack of sufficient funding to provide funding for a full time
literacy coach . . . ” (p. 8).
Effective PDPs provided adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection.
The transcript data offered limited evidence for this characteristic. Teacher A1 reported
attending a training program based on the research of Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock
103
(2001) that was delivered over 9 different days, while Teacher A2 stated that the staff
had 4 hours of training in technology over 2 different days. The principal indicated that
a team-building activity ran the entire year and that the school was trying to carry it over
this year.
The SARC (2002-2003) stated that the total number of days devoted to PD de-
clined from 7 days in 1996-1997 to 3 days in 2002-2003. The report further stated,
“The School Site Council voted not to allocate any pupil free development days for the
current school year” and that “staff development activities take place, for the most part,
after the school day” (p. 4).
Each interviewee was also asked to describe how PDPs were evaluated at the
school. At this particular site, the teachers and principal reported that at the end of each
program, participants completed an evaluation form to rate the program. These data
were then reviewed by administrators and teachers to make decisions about future

programming.
PLC characteristics. The five characteristics of PLCs proposed by Hord
(1996, 2004) were used as a framework to analyze the transcript data: supportive and
shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared
practice involving feedback, and supportive conditions.
Regarding supportive and shared leadership, teachers and parents at HP School
A2 were very involved in the decision-making processes. The principal reported that
the school had a school council which was comprised of parent and teachers and that
104
they met monthly to discuss the school goals. The SARC (2002-2003) confirmed that
the school had a School Site Council, School Advisory Committee, and English Learn-
ers Advisory Committee which meet regularly during the year.
In addition to the formal structures, the teachers were clear about the quality of
communication at the school between the principal and the staff. They stated that “the
principal always asks for teacher opinions and values what we have to say” (Teacher
A1) and that the “principal is not on a power trip like you hear many times; it’s not like
a dictatorship here” (Teacher A2).
A sense of real empowerment was found at this school site. As one teacher
stated, “We have different committees that do everything, so that’s one relief for the
principal because he has other items that need to be addressed. You just keep the ad-
ministrators informed so there are no surprises” (Teacher A1). The SARC (March 7,
2005) also stated that the school supported the major thrust in Goals 2000: “Real edu-
cational improvement happens when the teachers, principals and parents in each school
are given the authority and responsibility to make important decisions about how the
school will operate” (p. 3). The document also indicated that one of the reasons that the
school was successful was because it had “an environment in which stakeholders are a
vital link to our success” (p. 3).
There was also a clear, shared value and vision at this HP school, and it revolved
around student achievement, particularly teachers going above and beyond what was
expected to get high-level results. The principal reported that “my teachers have grown
accustomed to being in the top three; they’re very competitive against each other, other
105
schools.” He also indicated that the teachers “always strive to put out their best; it’s a
love in the heart that they believe.” This passionate mission was reinforced by Teacher
A2: “Teachers at this school go beyond what is required of them and that’s the corner
right there. If they’re not hard-working teachers, they often leave because they don’t fit
in the culture.” This teacher elaborated that the staff carefully evaluated student teach-
ers at the school “to see if they were one of us.” They wanted teachers that were known
as hard workers, dedicated, committed, and not afraid to go beyond the basic expecta-
tions.
The SARC (2002-2003) stated that the school followed a School-Wide Asser-
tive Discipline Plan that was consistently followed and that positive behaviors and aca-
demic accomplishments were recognized each week. The principal mentioned this
assembly in the interview and used this opportunity to recognize staff and reinforce the
school’s value system:
I will be the first one to stand up at an awards assembly and tell those kids that
we went up 3 points and to give your parent a big round of applause—your
parents, your teachers, me, and you got those 3%. It’s a joint effort.
High expectations for all students were evident at the school. The principal
stated that the overall plan here was that every child was college bound. In second
grade, students sat in groups based on names of universities to get them thinking about
college at a young age. The principal related an interesting story about how he and the
assistant principal treated students referred to the office for disciplinary action:
My assistant and I will tell them that the greatest gift I can give you is choice. I
don’t care if you choose to sit home and eat hot Cheetos and watch Oprah every
106
day, or if you become a doctor. But I’m going to ride you like there’s no tomor-
row so you have that choice when you’re 20.
The teachers confirmed this when they reported that “the focus is on increasing test
scores” (Teacher A1) and “we know that we are preparing the children to become better
citizens in society” (Teacher A2).
There was also considerable collective learning at HP School A2, where teach-
ers worked collaboratively to learn from each other and to improve student achieve-
ment. The principal and teachers reported that when staff came back from conferences,
they were expected to share what they learned and to support other faculty members.
The principal asserted that when such sharing occurred, “my API is going to rise.”
The teachers and principal reported that staff met on a regular basis to discuss
areas of improvement that were needed and what was working and not working about
their curriculum, as well as individual student performance. These conversations oc-
curred formally twice a month in grade levels and at staff meetings. The teachers re-
ported that these meetings focused on curriculum, assessment data, and how to improve
students’ achievement: “Staff meetings focus on school improvement needs. We talk
about ways to improve state test scores, how to individualize instruction, and how to
meet students’ needs in the Open Court reading program” Teacher A1). The SARC
(March 7, 2005) confirmed the transcript data, stating that the school has “grade level
meetings to analyze assessed student performance and develop new instructional strate-
gies and interventions as needed” (p. 6)
107
Regarding shared practice where teachers observe one another and offer feed-
back, the interviewees reported that this was not typical practice, although it did occur.
The principal stated that “we do that to a small degree”; Teacher A1 reported that “we
normally don’t do that but new teachers do it more often . . . ”; and Teacher A2 stated
that it happened “constantly.” The principal did suggest that he was interested in im-
proving this area and would like to see it happen on a regular basis next year.
The interviewees cited a number of supportive conditions that created a PLC at
this HP school. Despite some turnover in administrators, both the teachers and princi-
pal confirmed that the relationships among staff were very positive, both onsite and
offsite. They described themselves as “a very cohesive group” (Teacher A2) and “a big
family” (principal).
The teachers reported that the principal was approachable, willing to listen, had
an open door policy, and encouraged staff to say what was on their minds. In fact, the
principal stated, “I know that when they come to me, it is a legitimate need.”
The principal recognized that budget cuts have negatively impacted the school.
He reported that one of his goals was to “get out into the community, talk to merchants,
and maybe solicit some financial support” so that he was able to continue sending the
teachers out to conferences. Teacher A2 confirmed this, noting that the school staff was
“starting to go out to the community, networking, socializing, going to businesses be-
cause we need the money to buy materials and books.”
108
Strategies employed by the principal to develop teachers and improve
learning. The principal of this school developed teachers and improved student learn-
ing by building a learning community, encouraging and supporting additional PD, and
meeting the needs of new and experienced teachers.
The principal of HP School A1 facilitated a learning community by implement-
ing and monitoring a system of data collection and analysis for use by individual teach-
ers, by grade levels, and by the whole staff. The SPSA (March 7, 2005) stated that “the
principal, during the first two trimesters, meets individually with each teacher to discuss
their progress towards covering the California Content Standards, as well as related
teaching strategies” (p. 5). This document also stated that “teachers are provided with a
standards checklist to monitor objectives taught” (p. 5) and to conduct “grade level
meetings to analyze assessed student performance and develop new instructional strate-
gies and interventions as needed” (p. 6). During the interview, the principal stated that
he and the assistant principal collected local assessment data and analyzed it for each
teacher. He further emphasized that he prompted teachers to develop plans to improve
student learning. He pointed out that
Open Court has assessments every 6 weeks, and math gets assessed every chap-
ter. The assistant principal and I collect all the data and compile it by grade and
by teacher. We ask the teachers, for the students not doing well, “What is your
plan for intervention?” Then we get other teachers to help. or I help with math
and the assistant principal with language arts.
The principal and Teacher A1 also noted that there were grade-level articulation
meetings where teachers met with staff at grades above and below them to better com-
109
municate “their programs and their goals . . . what the California standards are showing
we need more support in, more front loading in . . . ” (principal).
The principal stated that he encouraged and supported additional PD for the
staff. The SARC (2002-2003) noted that “as funds are available, teachers and admin-
istrators attend conferences and workshop” (p. 4). Teacher A1 reported that “the prin-
cipal encourages teachers to attend training sessions and conferences onsite and
offsite”; Teacher A2 stated that the principal “provides equal opportunity to go to PD
seminars and meetings, not just here but outside.”
The principal supported both new and experienced teachers. For new teachers,
Teacher A1 stated that the principal encouraged new teachers to attend inservice and
other offsite conferences, to bring back what they had learned, and to share the tech-
niques acquired. Teacher A2 indicated that, when a new teacher came in, a buddy
system was in place and that “we take them under our wings.” The principal reported
that the grade-level chairs mentored the beginning teachers and trained them in curricu-
lum and instructional matters. Teacher A1 stated that new teachers would participate
more in peer observations, so that they could get comfortable with the curriculum. The
principal indicated that the grade-level chairs would come to him and ask for release
time to go in and observe the new teachers and to support them. Finally, the principal
reported that the school would use BTSA if the teacher was qualified to be registered
for that program.
110
In terms of supporting experienced teachers, the principal and teachers reported
that this was mainly in the form of encouraging and allowing veteran teachers to attend
training and seminars “to rejuvenate their teaching strategies” (Teacher A2).
Low-Performing School Set
LP School B1
Planning, delivery and evaluation of the PDP. The principal and two
teachers at LP School B1 all reported a number of PDPs had been developed and deliv-
ered in literacy, specifically Step Up to Writing, AB466 Training, Systematic Instruc-
tion in Phonics and Sight Words (SIPPS), and the Houghton-Mifflin language arts
program. One of the teachers and the principal reported that some training had been
conducted in High Point, which was recently brought into the school for the fourth- and
fifth-grade students. One teacher also indicated that the staff had much technology PD
but that these sessions were mostly offsite. The principal and the other interviewee did
not mention technology PD, and none of them cited PD in mathematics.
All the interviewees, however, cited training in the Positive Behavior Support
(PBS) system, which is intended to bring about greater consistency in the management
of student discipline. The principal saw PBS as “one focus of this school” and Teacher
B1 felt that the training was important “so we are all on the same page.”
The principal reported that the school was looking at Lambert’s work on leader-
ship capacity for lasting school improvement and that each teacher got a copy of Lam-
bert’s book on the day prior to the interview. The purpose of this future activity was to
111
guide work in improving collaboration at the school. None of the teachers, however,
mentioned this initiative.
Relative to the planning of PD, this school was undergoing a transition from an
authoritarian style of leadership to a more collaborative one. The principal reported that
“this school was kind of told how to do it, when they’re going to do it” and, therefore, a
“needs assessment is really an emergent piece.” Teacher B1 was very clear about the
leadership style of the former principal. She commented that “the staff had a history of
having a dictatorial leader. That’s probably a little too strong, but that kind of leader-
ship where it’s not collaborative. Things just came from the top, and people didn’t feel
supported.” However, the current principal, who was completing her 1 year as princi-
st
pal at this school site, was making efforts to solicit more input from the teachers regard-
ing their PD needs. The principal indicated that emails were sent out asking for input
concerning staff needs, and both teachers confirmed these efforts. Teacher B1 stated
that teachers shared needs at grade-level meetings through notes and email. Teacher B2
reported the use of surveys to assess the PD needs of faculty.
The school was also in the process of forming a leadership team, which is dis-
cussed in more detail later in this chapter related to the characteristics of a PLC. The
principal indicated that one of the responsibilities of this team would be to begin formu-
lating 18 hours of training using information from staff surveys and other needs assess-
ments.
Teacher B1 and the principal reported that student test data were examined as
part of the needs assessment process. The principal stated that “a lot of our work has
112
focused around how do we take the data, how do we take what we’re doing with
reading,” and Teacher B1 mentioned that the staff “work collaboratively with each
grade level to look at our data and see what kinds of things we need to address.”
The analysis of test data was a new process for the teachers at LP School B1.
The principal suggested that a system of data collection, analysis, and reporting had to
be created:
The teachers had never assessed their own children in reading; it was done by
the SSA coordinator. So that was a huge shift for the teachers to do their own
DTST, phonic skills assessment . . . we had to figure out what is the matrix
going to be for the data, how are we going to input the data to sort it by grade
level, and how are we going to assess these kids’ needs according to their in-
structional level.
From the comments of the teachers, the system was in place for the Houghton-Mifflin
program at the time of this study. Teacher B1 reported that the theme tests “are put into
a system online; we can look at our data and see what kinds of things we need to ad-
dress, where our low scores, and do action plan.” Teacher B2 confirmed this, stating
that the teachers review the Houghton-Mifflin summative assessments so that “you can
see how your class compares to other classes and talk to each other about strategies.”
Regarding participants in the needs assessment process, the teachers reported
that the reading coaches, language arts coordinator, and principal were the main individ-
uals who made decisions about program planning. However, all three interviewees
stated that this process would change next year as the new leadership team would be
elected and begin to work. The principal said, “The leadership team will be responsible
for surveying, for bringing it back, the whole survey process to build collaboration so
113
we can move forward.” Both teachers reported that the leadership team would set the
PD agendas for the next year and making important decisions about the training pro-
grams at the school.
Regarding the analysis of data related to the delivery of PDPs, transcript data
and documents were analyzed for four themes: (a) goals focused on student learning;
(b) activities focused on pedagogical improvement; (c) follow-up and support activities;
and (d) adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection.
At this LP school, the principal and teachers clearly saw that the goal of each
PDP was to improve student achievement. The principal reported that the goal of
Reading First is “to get our kids reading.” Approximately 8% to 13% of the children
were proficient in reading, and that was not acceptable; the goal was to get them all
literate. The teachers mentioned the SIPPS program and how the training they received
had promoted student learning. They emphasized the systematic phonics, frequent
assessment of progress, and how the program “gives them [students] strategies that have
really improved my kids in fluency and decoding” (Teacher B2).
The SARC (2003-2004) supported the comments of the teachers that PD fo-
cused on the improvement of student learning: “Teachers and administrators receive
on-going training to improve delivery of instruction, data analysis and intervention
techniques to improve student achievement” (p. 12).
The teachers and principal provided rich descriptions of a variety of high-quality
activities that occurred during PD, all focusing on their pedagogical improvement.
Teacher B1 stated that she was impressed with the Reading First training and that she
114
believed that they were “going to see some excellent teaching next year with that [Read-
ing First].” The principal described in detail how the teachers learned about focus
walls, sound spelling cards, and other tools to help children read more fluently and to
improve comprehension. The principal viewed Reading First training as “universal
access” and noted that teachers were taught about “differentiated instruction that allows
kids to have access to the core curriculum.” Teacher B1 explained how the SIPPS
program taught teachers to recognize different levels of phonics development among
students.
A number of follow-up and support activities were made available to the staff
after training. Teacher B1 and the principal reported that the coaches were critical re-
sources for PD follow-up, particularly for the Reading First program. Teacher B1, a
coach herself, said, “If the teachers are unclear on something, it’s our job as coaches to
go in and demonstrate that lesson—how they can be more successful, how they might
deliver it.” According to the principal, the reading coach worked with individual
teachers, with groups at grade level meetings, and coached on Thursdays and in the
summer for advanced training.
Other PD trainers made themselves available to staff, too, particularly the PBS
and SIPPS trainers. Teacher B2 indicated that the SIPPS trainer is “very accessible”
and that follow-up discussions were conducted at grade-level meetings. This teacher
also reported that follow-up sessions to PBS were conducted during the summer. The
principal also reported that she provided follow-up to training activities:
115
As a follow-up to the training on the six comprehension strategies, on one of the
Thursday out days I gave them a homework assignment on one of the strategies.
We had a conversation about what it looked like [at different grades] and what
were the downfalls, what did they struggle with?
Although the teachers did not mention the role of the principal in follow-up activities, a
memo from the principal supported her claim. The memo, dated April 19, 2005, and
sent to all certificated staff, directed the staff to review a specific lesson plan from one
of the training sessions to determine what material would be appropriate for introducing
the strategy and to implement it with the whole class. The memo further directed the
teachers to bring to their next PD session three different pieces of student work from the
lesson, each representing a different level of quality. At the meeting, the staff would
“discuss among your partners the results of this lesson, what you learned from doing it,
what your children learned . . .”
LP School B1 provided staff adequate time for learning, integration, and reflec-
tion. The school dedicated18 hours of PD outside the teaching year. In addition to
those hours, each Thursday the students were released early from school and the staff
members gathered for PD activities. The total time for this activity was 75 minutes per
week. Staff members were also released from teaching for training and advanced,
week-long sessions were provided during the summer.
The principal stated that the Reading First initiative had been going on for a year
and a half; the teachers had completed 5 days of training, and advanced training was
planned for the summer. Teacher B1 reported that the school had a 3-year grant and that
regarding the coming summer, the entire K-3 staff was committed to going.
116
The teachers indicated that the planning of some of the training programs al-
lowed for integration and reflection of what was learned:
Houghton-Mifflin training has a real nice way of building on the teachers’
knowledge, and not bring them too much, too fast, so they become comfortable
with one component and then as they become more expert, adding more infor-
mation. (Teacher B1)
The PBS training was about 18 hours at the beginning of the year, and then we
trained throughout the year in different meetings, so we could get more informa-
tion as we went along. (Teacher B2)
The process for evaluating PD was more informal at LP School B1. The princi-
pal noted that whoever worked on the program evaluated it. Teacher B1 reported that
“we always have evaluation sheets so individuals who are involved evaluate,” but also
stated, “I don’t always have a formal written evaluation, but we talk about it in our
meetings—what did we do well and what could’ve been done better?” Teacher B2
indicated that she relied on conversations with other teachers about PDPs’ effective-

ness.
PLC characteristics. The five characteristics of professional learning commu-
nities proposed by Hord (1996, 2004) were used as a framework to analyze the tran-
script data: supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective
learning and application, shared practice involving feedback, and supportive conditions.
Shared leadership at this school was in a formative stage. According to the
principal, collaboration within grade levels “didn’t completely get off the ground until
the contract issues were settled this year.” A leadership team had recently been formed,
and the principal stated that “it will be very different next year as we review all the joint
117
communications from the district and union about leadership and responsibilities, what
it will look like, how we do it.” Teacher B2 indicated that there had been many meet-
ings throughout the year, discussing what they wanted leadership to look like next year,
and she was hopeful that it was going to look different than what it looked like cur-
rently.
The principal recognized that the involvement of the staff in decision making
was going to be a major shift for this school but that significant progress was being
made in this area. Teacher B1 indicated that teachers are very involved; the principal
had many committees and was always asking staff to volunteer. There was already a
PBS committee in place that met a regular basis and involved many staff members who
“look at our data and . . . how we’re doing” (Teacher B1).
The values and vision of the school were also beginning to shift and take form.
The principal was attempting to merge the school as a social and academic institution
and regularly promoted that vision:
One of the first things I said when I came here was that I wanted to see a return
to an academic institution. These children can learn—they will learn. You’ve
got to give it to them. That’s my continuing message, although it’s not always
highly accepted, but it’s getting better. (principal)
The teachers noticed these efforts. Teacher B1 said, “The principal is really into the
kids—are they under control and happy with themselves and are they ready to learn—so
that’s usually her first priority.” Teacher B2 confirmed this passion and reported that
“the principal really gets excited for the students when they reach their [academic]
goals, and she’ll come in and recognize them.”
118
Many comments in the transcript data indicated that LP School B1 was a place
where collective learning and application occurred. According to Teacher B2, the
principal expected grade levels to meet once a week, where staff collaborated and “dis-
cussed academics and problems in general.” Teacher B1 noted that the staff was “very
data driven” and were working together to analyze and discuss student achievement
levels in order to set goals. Teacher B2 said, “I feel we are always in high-level conver-
sations about curriculum and what really works for kids . . . there are always opportuni-
ties for collaboration.”
Staff meetings occurred every other week. The teachers perceived these meet-
ings to be more informational sessions, but the principal reported that she did a weekly
bulletin “to fit in as much as possible the nuts and bolts and not take the time at the staff
meeting.” A review of two staff meeting agendas and minutes (January 18, 2005;
March 1, 2005) tended to confirm the teachers’ perceptions. These documents included
procedures for a Dr. Suess day; school procedures; attendance reporting; parent confer-
ence schedules; and various announcements about school clubs, school rules, and due
dates for report cards. Only a few topics directly related to curriculum and instruction,
and they were labeled as handouts with no discussion items: a board presentation as a
program improvement school and test results for individual teachers.
Regarding teachers observing one another and providing feedback, the principal
reported that “teachers don’t visit and share observations, but that piece will change.”
She hoped that the leadership team would consider this and use release time so that
teachers could observe one another, but she admitted that this process was “scary for
119
teachers.” She suggested that this was just another area for improvement and another
obstacle to be overcome: “We’re just knocking away little bits of the wall all the time
and that’s what we need to do.” Teacher B1 stated that the teachers were just starting to
observe each other and also admitted that “a lot of teachers don’t like to be watched, and
they just say, ‘Don’t watch me.’” Teacher B2 confirmed this observation, simply
stating, “A lot of the teachers would rather stay in their classrooms and shut the doors.”
PLCs have supporting conditions that promote collegiality and collaboration.
The relationships at this school were developing in a positive manner between the prin-
cipal and the teachers, and the transcript data suggested that the transition had been a
significant change for the school. The principal reported that she had an open door
policy: “At one level, people are polite, me included, and I am seeing more people walk
through my door.” The teachers had noticed the principal’s efforts. Teacher B1 said,
“The principal is building a staff where there’s a lot of trust developed . . . she has man-
aged a way to get the staff to believe that.” Teacher B2 indicated that the principal led
the school through “a huge culture change” with her “honesty and strong personality”
and that these traits “gained our [the teachers’] loyalty.” This teacher explained that
“the teachers went from resenting everything to all of a sudden seeing maybe we’re
pretty cool . . . leadership is everything.”
The principal and teachers reported that the school had an assembly every Friday
morning where students and staff were recognized for achievements. Teacher B2
120
stated, “When the principal recognizes the students for their achievements, it motivates
the teacher to bring it into their classrooms.”
Strategies employed by the principal to develop teachers and improve
learning. The principal of this school developed teachers and improved student learn-
ing by building a PLC, encouraging and supporting additional PD, and meeting the
needs of new and experienced teachers.
In this principal’s 1 year at this school, she focused her energies on building a
st
PLC, and there were numerous comments in the transcript data to support this perspec-
tive:
We had an incredible exchange on one of the Thursday out days about compre-
hension strategies in K-5; very rarely has this staff ever had a cross grade level
conversation about strategies. (principal)
I think everything we’ve done has really brought this staff to one place all to-
gether, the more time we spend together doing staff development, the more
we’re all working as a collaborative team. (Teacher B1)
Our principal encourages collaboration here; we just had a meeting with other
grade level teachers to compare writing samples and expectations; we do a lot of
that. (Teacher B2)
The principal encouraged these conversations around student learning and best prac-
tices. According to Teacher B1, “She is always bringing it back to the children, which
is huge.” The principal indicated that during grade-level conversations she would ask,
“How do you build fluency? What does the research say about building fluency? What
can we go back and try? How are we going to change these kids?” She concluded,
“We’ve got a lot of work to do.” But she also felt encouraged when she heard staff say,
121
“I don’t know how to do that; I need help,” because she believed that the teachers were
“finding it safer to say that.”
The principal also encouraged and supported additional PD with book studies,
professional growth hours, and extra assignments. She believed that such encourage-
ment and support gave people passion, and that passion encouraged them to keep
learning. The principal insisted, “My role needs to shift from manager of the plant and
budget to that of instructional leader.”
The principal reported that new teachers were specifically assisted and devel-
oped with BTSA support providers, reading coaches, and “other people I consider to be
leaders.” New teachers were also required to complete the AB466 training and to re-
ceive assistance from the reading coach on the fundamentals of the program. Teacher
B1 confirmed the BTSA support, stating that every time the BTSA person came to the
school, she met with the principal to go over how the teachers are doing and what their
needs were. Teacher B2 said that there was “a buddy classroom system that new teach-
er can go to” and that the new teachers would need continued training in reading. The
principal also reported that she allowed beginning teachers to attend conferences, if they
ask, and that she had fought for them to be able to go. The principal believed that an-
other support for new teachers was their work with experienced teachers on district
committees, assessing students in reading, and general discussions at the grade-level
meetings.
Regarding experienced teachers, the principal was somewhat relieved that the
veteran staff members had the option to “surplus out because they did not want to
122
commit to the required professional development.” Apparently, some teachers did
leave the school, and the principal believed that “this has allowed a shift of mentality
—you are here for the long haul, and you are committed.” Teacher B1 indicated that
many experienced teachers did not “want to be told what to do” and that the principal’s
diplomacy had given her the time “to figure out all their different personalities and ways
to support them.”
LP School B2
Planning, delivery, and evaluation of the PDP. The principal and two
teachers at LP School B all reported that PDPs had been developed and delivered in
literacy, specifically the Open Court reading program. The Open Court training in-
volves voluntary after-school sessions as well as week-long summer institutes.
The principal and teachers related that the school was participating in English
Learners Language Arts training. Although the teachers did not mention it, the princi-
pal also indicated that the staff had training in specific pedagogy, including the direct
instruction model, the use of visual graphic representations, identifying special educa-
tion problems, and parent communication.
The principal and one teacher reported that the staff had participated in character
education program training. The principal stated that this 2-year initiative involved
training in “conflict resolution, personality styles, and character education develop-
ment.” Teacher B2 confirmed this PD activity, stating that the principal was responsi-
ble for bringing the program into the school. The principal reported that the staff
123
development efforts also included collection and analysis of data in language arts and
math, but this was not reported by the teachers.
The procedures to identify PD needs at LP School B2 were not clear based on
the interview data. The principal reported the use of surveys, but the teachers did not
mention this at all. In fact, Teacher B2 insisted that she never saw a needs assessment
survey: “I haven’t seen any flyers for us to pick what training we’re interested in.”
Teacher B2 believed the opinions of coaches, resources teachers, and administrators
were key components of the needs assessment process. The principal also mentioned
this and pointed out that the training offered “was based upon what reading coaches,
resource teachers, and administrators identified as the areas to be focused on.”
Analysis of student achievement data did play a role in assessing PD needs.
Teachers reported that they used trimester assessments in reading comprehension,
vocabulary, writing, and analyzed the data every 3 weeks. The principal indicated that
these curricular assessments were used to identify training in reading and math. Al-
though the teachers did not mention data related to the character education program, the
principal commented that “we reviewed student discipline and behavior problems like
suspensions, office referrals, and attendance problems.”
Both the teachers and the principal perceived that the major participants in the
needs assessment process and the planning of programs were administrators and read-
ing coaches. The principal specifically identified the Director of Mathematics and the
Director of Reading/Language Arts as the individuals “mostly responsible for planning
things.” Teacher B2 suggested that “the reading coaches, superintendents, and
124
definitely the principals are involved in the planning.” Although the teachers did not
mention it, the principal indicated that at the site level, he and the leadership team
planned PD. He cited the character education program as an example.
Regarding the analysis of data related to the delivery of PDPs, transcript data
and documents were analyzed for four themes: goals focused on student learning;
activities focused on pedagogical improvement; follow-up and support activities; and
adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection.
At LP School B2, when asked about the goals of the PDPs, the principal’s com-
ments related more to knowledge, pedagogy, and accountability than to student learn-
ing:
The goals of the reading program were for the administrators to be knowledge-
able of the reading, language arts program. The goals of the district staff devel-
opment forums were more specific. One was to become fluent in the direct
instruction model, and we wanted to hold them [teachers] accountable for the
presenting of it, of implementing it.
One teacher indicated that the goals of the PDP were focused on student learn-
ing, but the other perceived a more pedagogical intent. Teacher B1 said, “The goal of
the Open Court program was to increase children’s achievement because the children
were really not scoring high in the STAR test.” Teacher B2 never mentioned student
learning as a goal of any PDP and instead focused on the development of teaching
strategies to be applied in the classroom.
The teachers and principal reported that the reading coaches were the primary
sources of follow-up and support activities at this school site. The principal stated that
each school has a full-time reading coach, and “they follow up with the different grade
125
levels as far as what they learned.” Teacher B1 indicated that the coaches “come to the
classroom and show you how to do it or talk to you after school, so there’s always
support, constant support.”
The school’s SPSA (December 6, 2004) supported the interviewees’ comments,
as it stated, “Reading coaches will provide feedback to classroom teachers regarding
differentiating the curriculum for EL students” (p. 11).
Although the teachers did not comment on the role of the principal in terms of
follow-up and support, the principal indicated that “because I was the trainer here on
site and I knew it well, the monitoring and follow-up on it was better.” He also sug-
gested that formal and informal classroom observation was used to see whether teachers
were transferring the training into classroom practice.
The PDP at this school site provided adequate time for learning, integration, and
reflection. The SARC (2003-2004) reported, “The district offered 5 staff development
days during the 2003-2004 school year” (p. 7).
Several examples of adequate time were found in the transcript data. The prin-
cipal stated that the English Language Arts (ELA) training involved “18 hours from
3:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the evenings over six sessions,” and this was supported by the
comments of Teacher B2: “We’ve had several series on the ELA. The last four staff
development training has been on ELA. It was good because we worked in smaller
groups and we get more personal and really get some questions answered.”
The principal reported that the Open Court training was a full week, about 40
hours in duration, and that many had gone for 3 years and had advanced. Teacher B1
126
supported this and added, “Open Court training is an ongoing process including sum-
mertime and after school.” Teacher B2 said, “The High Point training was spread out
over 3 weekends, allowing for ample opportunities to tell the trainer how it went, what
wasn’t working, or whether there was an area for improvement.”
The transcript data included a number of comments as evidence that PD activi-
ties were evaluated and that this evaluation data were used for program improvement.
All interviewees reported that evaluation feedback forms were used at the end of each
training session. The evaluation form determined the quality of the training and what
future presentations teachers might like scheduled.
Because several of the training programs are voluntary, the principal and one of
the teachers commented that attendance was also an indicator of program quality. Each
principal received information about teacher attendance at the voluntary programs.
Other forms of data were used to supplement the evaluation forms. The teachers
and principal reported that student discipline, behavior records, and test scores were
reviewed to indicate the effectiveness of programs offered. The principal emphasized
the review of student discipline records as a method to evaluate the character education
program; Teacher B2 stated that test scores, particularly with the Open Court program,
were used to assess student progress.
The data appeared to be used for program improvement, as evidenced by the
comments of the teachers. Teacher B1 said that the presenters reviewed the evaluation
information, “and they take it very seriously because sometimes they plan next year’s
staff development programs based on the opinions that the people give.” Teacher B2
127
felt that the trainers used the evaluation data “to see if we kicked that back in the class-
rooms and used it or if we should have more training.”
PLC characteristics. The five characteristics of professional learning commu-
nities proposed by Hord (1996, 2004) were used as a framework to analyze the tran-
script data: supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective
learning and application, shared practice involving feedback, and supportive conditions.
Regarding supportive and shared leadership, teachers were very involved in the
decision-making processes at LP School B2. The principal stated, “I am very much
strongly in favor of site-based decision and quality management strategies which put
decision making at the very lowest possible level.” Both the principal and teachers
reported that “we have different committees and they have a lot of power” (Teacher B1)
and that “they work with the principal and various teachers to make different decisions”
(Teacher B2). One of the teachers commented that the committees presented ideas to
the rest of the staff and that the entire faculty voted on some issues. The principal clari-
fied that all the decisions reported back to him and then it was his job to communicate
back out to the total group; “I become the funnel and then the fountain.”
Based on the comments of the principal, teachers, and a review of the principal’s
staff bulletins, some of the major committees included a School-wide Effectiveness
Committee, a Character Education Team, a School Site Council, and a Leadership
Team. The Leadership Team, which met twice a month, was an important shared
decision-making body at the school. The SARC (2003-2004) referred to the Leadership
128
Team as “the primary body assigned to developing, refining, and implementing the
school plan. This team is responsible for planning and monitoring the effectiveness of
the school curriculum” (p. 7). The SPSA (December 6, 2004) stated that “the Leader-
ship Team will be responsible for monitoring the implementation and evaluating the
effectiveness of this plan” (p. 13). According to the principal, the leadership team “has
a representative from each grade and from support staff.”
The principal reported that he valued open communication about issues facing
the school, and this was confirmed by the teachers. The principal noted that “if I see a
problem, it’s going to be opened in the next weekly bulletin, because I want everyone to
know about the problem.” Teacher B2 said that the principal will often encourage
teachers to take back issues to the grade-level meetings in order to gather more input
from colleagues before deciding on solutions or taking any action. The principal added
that, if teachers were going to make decisions, then they had to be informed. Therefore,
he believed his “job is to keep everybody informed; I’m a big communicator.”
Regarding shared values and vision, the principal reported that the staff felt
pressure about the academic performance of students and the threat that they might be
targeted by Title I for improvement: “It’s not hard to keep us focused because we’re
under the spotlight . . . everyone is acutely aware that we are under major pressure to get
student test scores up.” In an effort to relieve some of this pressure, or at least to bal-
ance it, the principal and one teacher reported that the school purposely planned activi-
ties to enhance student motivation and to make school a fun place to be:
129
Students and parents get bombarded with the message that we’re not good
enough. So we do a lot more to make students love school, to make learning
fun, and have fun activities for school make this more of a community school,
because they get discouraged, too. (principal)
We have a couple of things that maybe motive teachers to help motivate chil-
dren, like today we went on a field trip that only certain students could go on,
based on academics, attendance, and attitude. (Teacher B2)
The principal summarized his philosophy quite clearly:
The pressure is so heavy on test scores [that] it prevents us from spending the
time we need to adjust the whole child. Attitude and attendance and things like
that are just as critical as bringing the test scores up. Achievement is just one
avenue, just one issue.
LP School B2 was a place where collective learning and application occurred.
There was ample evidence in the transcript data for this characteristic of a PLC. Each
trimester, grade-level team meetings focused on examining how students were perform-
ing and progressing and developing plans for continued improvement. Although
teachers concentrated on their current students, the analysis also included former stu-
dents in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of academic progress over time.
Staff meetings focused on a wide range of topics, and the teachers described the
meetings as comfortable, open, and participatory. However, based on the comments of
the principal, the staff meeting discussions were limited by time constraints. The prin-
cipal reported that the meetings focused primarily on information items or matters “that
I am communicating to them or that committees are reporting out.” He further stated
that “there’s not a lot of time at full faculty meeting for big discussion items” and that
he sometimes set time limits on the discussions “because it can go on and on and take
up the whole staff meeting.”
130
Regarding shared practice and feedback where teachers observe one another,
this activity had recently occurred at the prompting of the principal. He reported that he
hired 7 days of substitute time and gave every grade level a substitute for the day so that
the observing and sharing could take place. He also indicated that he gave the new
teachers a day each so that they could observe one another, as well as other grade-level
teachers. The principal stated, “I made them discuss it with me, and I had a meeting
with the grade-level teams, and they sort of discussed what they learned and saw in each
other’s notes.” The teachers confirmed these arrangements and related that the princi-
pal was very supportive of this activity and would get additional coverage if they
wanted to go out and observe one another.
Teacher B1 commented that the experience “was interesting because you get a
lot of input.” This individual also cited that the reading specialists frequently invited
staff to visit classrooms “to see how they’re implementing it [reading program], to see if
there are any differences or you can apply your own ideas and try theirs, too.”
PLCs have supportive conditions that facilitate organizational communication.
At this school site, the relationships between the principal and the teachers were still
forming, although they were generally positive. The principal described his relation-
ships with the staff as a “love-hate thing” and that it had taken him 3 years to “get this
staff and build them so that right now our culture and climate is pretty good; they’ve
learned my style and I’ve learned theirs.” The principal added that the relationship was
still evolving “like a marriage” and that the staff offered him feedback regarding areas
131
of strength and need. He saw this as a healthy development, concluding, “You have to
listen to each other.”
A number of teachers’ comments from the transcript data supported the princi-
pal’s perspectives on his relationships with the staff. Teacher B1 felt “the atmosphere is
very good” and that the majority of the staff “get along with the principal.” Teacher B2
reported that the principal has “an open door policy” and “you can go in there and make
any comment you have.” Generally, the teachers felt there was a climate of “openness,
trust, and collaboration,” although “the staff is still adjusting to the principal and getting
used to his ways” (Teacher B2). The principal reported that “we’re not spending very
much time arguing about things; we’re pretty much on the same page . . . ”
Strategies employed by the principal to develop teachers and improve
learning. Three themes emerged from the transcript data regarding strategies em-
ployed by the principal to develop teachers and improve learning: building a learning
community, encouraging and supporting additional PD, and meeting the needs of new
and experienced teachers.
Although Teacher B1 reported that there was a grade-level meeting every 2
weeks and a monthly staff meeting, the principal commented that several staff were
requesting more frequent staff meetings to allow additional time for discussions. The
principal stated that he delegated work out to the staff that they accomplished at the two
monthly grade-level meetings and that most of them met much more frequently than
that. He further tried to build a learning community by improving staff motivation
132
through recognition of their accomplishments and giving teachers positive messages
and build on their strengths, but he readily admitted that “I need to be better about that.”
The transcript data for teachers did not refer to staff recognition, however.
The primary strategy used by the principal to promote PD and to build a learning
community was that he facilitated a process of data collection, analysis, and planning,
and the teachers frequently cited these activities. According to the teachers, they com-
pleted this activity every 3 weeks on a trimester basis within their grade levels and then
shared the data at staff meetings so that the faculty could see progress for the entire
school. The school’s SPSA (December 6, 2004) supported the transcript data. It stated
that the school would “conduct at least three Academic Alignment Conferences per year
with each K-6 Grade Level Team” (p. 7).
The principal also supported new teachers with a variety of strategies. He re-
ported that new teachers received a full week of training in the district’s programs and
curriculum and that they also participated in the week-long summer reading institutes.
The principal depended on the more experienced teachers at a grade level to support and
mentor the beginning teachers. Teacher B2 felt that the new teachers “are placed under
the wing of the reading coach” and that the principal is always checking in with the
beginning teachers to make sure that they were receiving the assistance they needed
from the coaches and grade-level teammates.
There was limited evidence that the principal encouraged the staff to participate
in additional PD outside of the district. Many of the onsite PDPs were voluntary, and
the principal reported that he spent time monitoring attendance and encouraging staff
133
participation. He then discussed their attendance during their evaluation conferences.
The principal reported that some voluntary programs, such as the summer reading insti-
tutes, were strongly encouraged and that teachers could be reassigned to another grade if
they did not participate: “The district says if primary teachers don’t [attend], then they
could just reassign them to an upper grade.”
The principal also conferred with staff members and recommended certain
training “when I have concerns about what I see happening or not happening in our
classrooms.” Regarding experienced teachers, the principal commented that, because
many of the PDPs were voluntary, “more experienced teachers don’t go.” However, he
tried to offer programs that he believed met their needs and increased their professional
knowledge: “I offer some variety of training that’s new for them [experienced teachers]
like character education, parent involvement, conflict resolution, and even the most
experienced teachers can benefit from those kinds of things.”
Summary of Findings Relative to Research Questions
This section summarizes the similarities and differences between the HP and LP
schools, HP School Set A and LP School Set B, for each of the three research questions.
Question 1 focused on the similarities and differences related to the planning, delivery,
and evaluation of PD. Question 2 compared and contrasted the PLC characteristics
across the two school sets. Question 3 concentrated on similar and dissimilar strategies
employed by the HP and LP school principals at HP School Set A and LP School Set B
as they supported teachers and promoted student learning.
134
Research Question 1
How are PDPs planned, delivered, and evaluated in HP elementary schools
with a high percentage of typically underserved students, as compared with LP schools
with a similar population of students?
Planning of PDPs. The teachers in the HP schools, HP School Set A, had
considerably more input into the planning of their PD activities, and there were estab-
lished procedures at the school level for that process. Specifically, both HP schools,
School A1 and School A2, had a formal, annual needs assessment survey that teachers
completed. This survey included research-based strategies and programs, and it enabled
teachers to indicate the ones they needed. In both HP schools, School A1 and School
A2, there was an established leadership team that specifically reviewed this information
and assisted in the development of the programs offered to the staff members based on
their responses and input.
In the two LP schools, School B1 and School B2, one school was in a leadership
transition, moving from a history of experiencing an authoritarian leadership style to
one that was more participatory. A needs assessment process was, as the principal
noted, “an emergent piece,” because PD planning had previously been a more top-down
process. In the other LP school, a formal, annual needs assessment process that in-
volved all staff could not be confirmed. The principal stated that the district had used
such an instrument, but the teachers did not mention it, and one of the teachers emphati-
cally did not recall ever seeing one. LP School B1 had just established a leadership
135
team that would plan PD in the future; LP School B2 relied more on reading coaches,
resource teachers, and administrators to identify and develop training activities.
All four schools supplemented teacher input with test data analysis. The analy-
sis of both state and local assessments was established in all four schools, although LP
School B1 had just created and implemented a system of collecting and analyzing data
for each grade level during the past year.
Delivery of PDPs. Four themes for the delivery of programs were analyzed:
(a) goals focused on student learning; (b) activities focused on improving pedagogy; (c)
follow-up and support; and (d) adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection.
Regarding goals focused on student learning, both principals of HP School Set
A identified improvement in student learning as the goal of the PDPs, but only one of
the principals of the LP school group did so. The principal of LP School B2 indicated
that the goals focused on pedagogy, teacher knowledge, and teacher accountability.
Teachers in both groups varied in their perceptions, with some perceiving the goals as
focused on students and others believing that the primary purposes revolved around
improvement of pedagogy. Evidence in documents and transcript data for all four
schools revealed that PD activities addressed pedagogical improvement. Teachers and
principals shared specific activities that were engaging and hands-on in nature. Spe-
cific, research-based literacy strategies were most frequently cited by the interviewees,
with many of these having immediate application to the classroom upon their return.
136
Follow-up and support activities were also evident in all four schools. The
support was frequently in the form of teachers who held positions as coaches or who
served as a resource to other staff members because they received advanced training. It
was interesting to note that in all four schools, HP School Set A and LP School Set B,
the principals played a role in the follow-up and support activities. These roles varied,
including serving as advisors to staff, assigning “homework” to staff with follow-up
discussions and assuming the role of trainer during selected programs.
More evidence for adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection in the
PDPs was found at the two LP schools (LP School Set B) than at the HP schools (HP
School Set A). Each Thursday, LP School B1 released students early from school so
that teachers could engage in professional development and dialogue. These sessions
were structured and organized by the principal. At both LP schools (LP School Set B),
there were ongoing after-school sessions in addition to 3-5 full days of PD. The pro-
grams at these schools were long term, occurring over more than 1 school year and
focused on literacy achievement. The after-school and summer sessions at School B2
were voluntary, and the school administration carefully monitored who attended. In the
words of the principal, attendance was “strongly encouraged” and there were potential
consequences for those who did not attend, such as reassignment of grade level.
At least one HP and one LP school respondent cited implementation of the Open
Court reading program at their schools. This program meets all the themes of PD, in-

cluding a pacing guide to allow adequate time for learning.
137
Evaluation of PDPs. Transcript data were analyzed for two themes: (a)
evaluation procedures and (b) data used for program improvement. Three of the four
schools reported consistent use of an evaluation form at the end of each PDP. LP
School B1 was not consistent in the use of this form to collect feedback from teachers.
All schools reported that the evaluation instrument examined the overall value of the
PD experience, what teachers learned, and suggestions for improvement. The HP
school interviewees (HP School Set A) commented that the evaluations forms were
supplemented with follow-up discussions within grade levels and leadership commit-
tees. LP School B2 also had follow-up discussions to evaluate the effectiveness of its
PD experiences, but these types of conversations were not mentioned by LP School B1
staff. The LP School B1 principal admitted that there was a need to build more evalua-
tion processes into the program.
The LP schools (LP School Set B) used student data as part of the PD evaluation
process. This factor was not mentioned at the two HP schools (HP School Set A).
Interviewees at both HP School Set A and LP School Set B stated that they reviewed
student behavior and discipline records to determine whether PD was having an impact,
and LP School B2 reported the use of test scores, too. All four schools, HP School Set
A and LP School Set B, indicated that the primary use of the evaluation data was to
improve the delivery of future programs and that the trainers were the individuals most
interested in this information.
138
Research Question 2
What are the characteristics of the professional learning communities in HP
schools with a high percentage of typically underserved students, as compared with low
performing schools with a similar population of students?
The five characteristics of PLCs proposed by Hord (1996, 2004) were used as a
framework to analyze the transcript data: (a) supportive and shared leadership, (b)
shared values and vision, (c) collective learning and application, (d) shared practice
involving feedback, and (e) supportive conditions.
Supportive and shared leadership. All four principals indicated that they
were supportive of shared leadership, and in three of the four schools there was ample
evidence that this was practiced. Each school had a leadership team or school site
council and multiple other committees that involved teachers in decision making. In LP
School B1, the process of shared leadership was in the formative stage. A new leader-
ship team was recently formed with elected representatives from the various grades and
departments. The principal, completing her 1 year at the school, commented that the
st
establishment of this process was a “huge shift for this school.”
Shared values and vision. The HP schools, HP School Set A, reported a
shared set of values and vision that revolved around high expectations for students and
staff, continued improvement in test scores, and a sense of pride about accomplishing
more with less. The teachers and principal in these schools reported that they were
“always pushing to do things better” and, more importantly, “with what little we have.”
139
The interviewees expressed a sense of pride in working at their schools because of their
reputations of holding high expectations. Several interviewees expressed that teachers
who fit into their school culture were recruited; those who did not fit left
The principal of LP School B1, however, reported that she was trying to lead
this school to become an academic institution where all children could learn; she con-
veyed that message whenever possible, although she conceded that the message was not
always accepted. The principal of LP School B2 indicated that the staff and students
felt tremendous pressure to increase test scores and that this scrutiny was preventing
them from addressing the needs of the whole child, insisting that “achievement is just
one avenue.” To relieve this pressure, the school purposely planned activities to moti-
vate the children and to make school an enjoyable place.
Collective learning and application. There was ample evidence of collective
learning and application among the staff members at all the schools. These interactions
occurred at both grade-level and staff meetings. Collegiality was particularly focused
around the analysis of data, student progress, and strategies to improve achievement at
all four schools. HP School A and LP School B collected data every trimester, and this
information guided the grade level conversations.
HP School A2 also had an expectation that any teacher who attended an offsite
workshop or conference must report back what he/she learned to the entire faculty. LP
School B1 staff met every week to discuss the academic program and student
140
achievement and to follow up on previous PD when students were released early from
school on Thursdays.
The transcript data and school documents did reveal that staff meetings at LP
Schools B1 and B2 were more focused on communicating information than on discuss-
ing curriculum and instruction. HP School A1 and A2 interviewees cited discussions of
student progress, teaching strategies, and plans for improvement during staff meetings
more often than the teachers and principals in LP School Set B.
Shared practice involving feedback. Collegial observation was not common
practice in any of the schools, although the teachers and principal at LP School B2 did
report that each teacher had this opportunity recently. The principal hired substitute
teachers, and each teacher was scheduled to observe a colleague. They shared their ob-
servations with the principal and with each other during their grade-level meeting. All
the principals indicated that this was a PD activity that they wanted to encourage, and
all the teachers reported that the principals were supportive of such an activity, if a
request was made.
Supportive conditions. The teachers and principals in both HP School Set A
and LP School Set B reported that relationships between staff and school administrators
were generally positive and that the principal had an open door policy and was viewed
as supportive. All interviewees conceded that there were some teachers who disagreed
with the principal or school policies from time to time; however, these issues were not
141
interfering with the school’s progress or negatively impacting the overall climate of
mutual respect and trust that were characteristic of all four schools.
The overall learning community of HP and LP schools in this study appeared
supportive, positive, and student focused. However, it should be noted that there ap-
peared to be differences in the shared mission and values of the schools. Interviewees
from HP schools, HP School Set A, expressed pride and a strong sense of efficacy or
responsibility, as well as high student expectations. Those interviewing from LP
schools, LP School Set B, appeared extremely concerned about student test scores and
the political pressure of being a LP school.
Research Question 3
What strategies are employed by the principal to develop teachers and to im-
prove student learning in HP elementary schools with a high percentage of typically
underserved students, as compared with LP schools with a similar population of stu-
dents?
The transcript data and school documents were analyzed for three thematic
strategies: (a) building a learning community, (b) encouraging and supporting addi-
tional PD, and (c) supporting new and experienced teachers.
Building a learning community. A common strategy employed by all the
principals to build a learning community was facilitating the ongoing collection and
analysis of student performance data and developing plans for improvement. These
activities occurred typically at grade-level meetings at each school site. Three of the
142
four principals indicated that they also used teacher evaluation and selection to also
build a learning community. They met with teachers individually on PD goals and to
discuss student progress. The principal of LP School B1 stated that she was using the
interviewing process to prevent teachers from transferring to her school who did not
have high levels of commitment to training and PD. The interviewees at LP School B2

did not cite the use of the teacher evaluation process in building a learning community.
Encouraging and supporting additional PD. With the exception of the prin-
cipal of LP School B2, all the principals commented that they encouraged teachers to
attend offsite PD activities. The LP School B1 principal also suggested that she encour-
aged book studies and assigned teachers extra professional responsibilities in an effort
to build passion among her staff members. LP School B2 was the only school where
interviewees did not mention that additional offsite PD was supported and encouraged.
Supporting new teachers. Three of the four schools reported that new teachers
attended an orientation program that trained them in school programs and curriculum.
HP School A2 did not mention this as a support to new teachers.
One HP and one LP school commented that BTSA was a valuable support pro-
vider to the new faculty members. All four schools indicated that they had an informal
mentor or buddy system in place for new teachers, where the novice teachers could
work with and be guided by more experienced members of the staff.
143
Supporting experienced teachers. The HP schools’ (HP School Set A) inter-
viewees emphasized the important role of providing offsite PD training to the experi-
enced staff members and how this benefited them, as well as others, when they reported
the new learning back to the rest of the teachers. The LP schools’ (LP School Set B)
interviewees did not mention this at all. LP School Principal B1 expressed some relief
that a number of experienced teachers transferred out of the school due to the change in
leadership and direction at the school. Another teacher indicated that the new principal
at this school was learning the various personalities of the veteran staff and how to best
support them. LP School B2 principal’s strategy for experienced staff involved offering
a greater variety of onsite voluntary PD opportunities in an effort to attract them to
attend.
A summary of findings, categorized by collective learning and practice, sup-
portive school culture, and sustainability are presented in Figures 1 and 2 for the con-
venience of the reader. The following chapter 5 will provide conclusions drawn from
evidence presented from the findings. Implications for future research are suggested
based on findings from the study, as well as the overall literature review.
144
Collective Learning and Practice
•HP schools had more input into planning.
•HP schools had established procedures (i.e., needs assessments).
•HP schools had established leadership teams that reviewed and assisted PD.
•LP schools were establishing process or relied on few options to planning.
•HP schools identified student achievement as the goal of PD.
•Only one LP school identified student achievement as the goal of PD.
•Teacher accountability and pedagogy were identified by one LP school.
•HP schools consistently evaluated PD and had follow-up grade-level discus-
sions.
•Only one LP school indicated an evaluation process.
Supportive School Culture
•HP schools reported that shared values and vision revolved around high ex-
pectations for students and staff, continued test score improvement, and sense
of pride about accomplishing more with less.
•This set of values and vision was less evident in LP schools.
•HP schools discussed teaching strategies and plans during staff meetings.
•LP schools focused staff meetings more on communication than curriculum.
Sustainability
•Principals of HP schools utilized the teacher evaluation process to build PLC,
as they met individually on PD goals and student progress.
•Only one LP school principal reported the use of this technique.
•The HP schools emphasized offsite PD for experienced staff members.
•The HP schools expected reports back from staff attending offsite PD.
•LP schools did not mention this at all.
•LP schools were more focused on student behavior and discipline records as
PD.
•HP schools did not collect and analyze these types of data.
Figure 1. Summary of findings: Differences in HP and LP schools. HP = high-
performing; LP = low-performing; PD = professional development.
145
Collective Learning and Practice
•Both schools utilized test data analysis as part of the PD needs assessment
process.
•State and local assessments were established in all four schools.
•PD addressed pedagogical improvement
•PD activities were engaging and hands-on.
•Research-based literacy strategies with immediate application were fre-
quently used.
•Follow-up and support activities were evident in both sets of schools.
Supportive School Culture
•Teacher coaches or other resource personnel were evident.
•There was ample evidence of collective learning and practice among all
staff.
•Collegiality particularly focused around analysis of data, student progress,
and strategies to improvement achievement.
•Collegial observation was not common practice in any of the schools.
•Principals indicated that collegial observation was a PD activity they would
encourage.
•All teachers reported that principals were supportive of collegial observa-
tion, if such a request was made.
•Relationships among teachers and principals were positive.
•Principal was viewed as a supportive leader.
Sustainability
•Principals played a role in the follow-up and support activities.
•Principals maintained an “open door” policy.
•Principals facilitated ongoing collection and analysis of student perfor-
mance data.
•Principal facilitated development of student improvement plans.
•Grade-level meetings were used to collect and analyze student data.
•All schools had informal mentor or buddy systems in place for new teach-
ers.
Figure 2. Summary of findings: Similarities in high- and low-performing schools.
PD = professional development.
146
CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The findings discussed in the previous chapter resulted from an investigation of
the characteristics of PD programs in HP and LP California schools that enroll large
numbers of underserved students. Effective PD has been referenced throughout the
literature relative to both HP and LP schools. In some cases, teacher PD has been
associated with increased student achievement; in other cases, it has not. In those cases
where student achievement has been attained, PD was structured and student outcomes
were measurable. For example, teacher collaboration helped urban teachers transform
their practice through structured dialogue as an instrument that fostered systematic
problem-solving techniques (Hollins, 2006). Results for measurable student learning
outcomes, at the end of 3 years of teacher PD using structured dialogue, showed average
gains in reading scores of more than 1.5 grade equivalents (Hollins, 2006).
According to Duke (2006), there remain gaps in the knowledge base on how to
turnaround LP schools that demand further investigation. He surmised that narratives
of school improvement might have characteristics of conflict, confrontations, and au-
thoritarian measures that are rarely, if ever, mentioned in research on school turn-
arounds of LP schools.
The goal of teacher PD seeks to increase student achievement and sustain those
learning outcomes for both HP and LP schools, to the degree necessary for closing the
achievement gap. However, actual measurable evidence of increased student
147
achievement was rarely seen in a review of the literature, and evidence of sustainability
generally required continued research on implementation of successful practices. This
observation appears to support Duke’s (2006) concern regarding gaps in the knowledge
base for the turnaround of LP schools. Examples of this can be seen in the studies of
Datnow and Castellano (2000) and Izumi et al. (2002). In these two reading initiative
models, ongoing and sustained teacher PD were integral to the fidelity of program
implementation.
The programs were structured with scripted lesson plans and provisions of men-
toring/modeling components, among other PD support (Datnow & Castellano, 2000;
Izumi et al., 2002). Increased student achievement was reported for both schools using
the models, yet quantifiable data was mentioned in only one of these particular studies.
For example, Datnow and Castellano focused their study on fidelity of program imple-
mentation and teacher responses to the reading initiative model, Success For All (SFA).
They determined that adaptations to implementation of SFA were inevitable and that
these adaptations took place in the presence of vigilant monitoring and ongoing profes-
sional development support by SFA trainers and other teacher accountability measures.
Although researchers inferred that numerous quantitative studies of SFA found consis-
tent positive effects on student reading achievement, this particular qualitative based
study did not show that data. Instead, results showed that SFA should determine wheth-
er some level of adaptations was necessary to engage teacher support and ensure sus-
tainability for increased student achievement (Datnow & Castellano).
148
On the other hand, after implementation of the Open Court reading initiative
model, researchers reported that standardized test scores for underserved students in
first grade in the Los Angeles Unified School District improved 14 percentile points
from the 42 percentile in 2000 to the 56 percentile in 2001 (Izumi et al., 2002). How-
nd th
ever, sustainability of increased student achievement was referenced in terms of “Open
Court pioneers” or schools using the program long before current popularity (p. 47).
Data were not provided in this particular study to show sustainability of increased
student achievement linking the pioneer days referenced to present test score data,
although implied (Izumi et al.). Gaps in the knowledge base for turnaround of LP
schools rest with sustainability of evidence.
Further review of the literature showed that other gaps in the knowledge base
relative to PD and turning around LP schools included (a) planning and content selec-
tion of PDPs that were more likely to focus on teacher learning outcomes than on class-
room practices and student learning outcomes (Joyce & Showers, 2002); (b) supportive
school cultures described by Hord (2004), as well as district office support or lack of
support for self-regulated instructional leadership and teacher leader empowerment that
turn around LP schools (Pollard-Durodola, 2003); and (c) the impact of affective and
behavioral aspects of teacher PD, discussed by Guskey (2003), on teacher beliefs about
student abilities and classroom practices that impede students’ opportunity to experi-
ence high levels of learning and to access high-level curriculum (Brown et al., 2004;
Diamond & Spillane, 2004). These gaps in the knowledge base are, among others,
requiring further investigation to turn around LP schools.
149
In brief, researchers acknowledge gaps in the knowledge base of PD and its
impact on increased student achievement (Duke, 2006; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Areas
of gaps in the knowledge base that warrant further investigation include (a) planning
and content (Joyce & Showers, 2002); (b) supportive school cultures that foster and
maintain district office support (Hord, 2004; Pollard-Durodolla, 2003); and (c) affective
and behavioral aspects of PD that transfer to classroom practices in ways that enhance
student learning (Brown et al., 2004; Diamond & Spillane, 2004). High-quality infor-
mation gained by filling the gaps in the knowledge base on turning around LP schools is
essential (Duke, 2006), if closing the achievement gap is to be accomplished.
Conclusions
The findings from this study indicated differences related to PD among HP and
LP schools. These findings are a significant contribution to the knowledge base for
teacher PD, which holds potential for improving academic performance for underserved
students. The findings contribute to the knowledge base on closing the achievement
gap among underserved students and their higher performing counterparts.
Selected findings have been determined for discussion. A finding that teachers
in HP schools have considerably more input in the planning of their PD activities and
established procedures followed at the school level for that process was seen throughout
the literature review. Teachers of HP schools were proactively involved in curricular
planning, implementation, and assessment while those in LP schools reported curricu-
lum standards and PDPs were imposed on them by the school district (Brown et al.,
150
2004; Izumi et al., 2002). One HP school used a democratic voting process to deter-
mine adoption of a reading initiative program, allowing teachers to vote for adoption,
although buy-in and fidelity of implementation were not congruent (Datnow & Caste-
llano, 2000).
Findings of this study also showed HP schools identified improved student
learning as their PD focus, whereas the LP schools focused on teacher knowledge,
pedagogy, and teacher accountability. Guskey (2003) suggested that effective PD
should lead to increased student achievement and may include affective and behavioral
learning outcomes that are necessary to enhance student achievement. This means that
pedagogy may be a necessary topic of effective PD when teachers in LP schools have
emergency credentials, as mentioned in the study by Izumi et al. (2002), or when many
teachers are teaching subjects outside their area of certification (Guskey, 2003).
HP schools in this study were found to consistently use an evaluation form to
assess PDPs, while only one LP school indicated such an evaluation process. The lit-
erature showed that HP schools measured success of PD by student learning outcomes,
emphasized the importance of multifaceted approaches to PD, and used a global in-
structional focus for curriculum delivery (Dana Center, 1999; Diamond & Spillane,
2004). LP schools, however, utilized PD with a focus on certain grade levels, certain
subjects, and targeted students who were in danger of failing standardized tests (Dia-
mond & Spillane).
Results of this study indicated that shared leadership, shared vision, and other
collaborative processes were primary characteristics found to create the learning
151
community necessary for optimal student achievement. These characteristics, as de-
scribed by Hord (2004) and Joyce and Showers (2002), were seen throughout the liter-
ature, in one form or another, in every school that was inclusive, respectful, and suc-
cessful with underserved students. However, one study that illuminated all the essential
elements of effective PD, including encouragement of teacher leaders to expand their
knowledge base through self-regulated learning processes, was conducted by Hollins
(2006). Teachers assumed leadership positions that monitored, mentored, and modeled
successful teaching behaviors that led to measurable learning outcomes for students
(Hollins, 2006).
In brief, findings in this study were supported by findings of the literature
review. Both similarities and differences among HP and LP schools serve to provide
discussion topics that will lead to implementation of strategies to increase student
achievement. Ultimately, increased student achievement is the only thing that can close
the achievement gap between underserved students and their higher performing coun-
terparts. The achievement gap is a national imperative.
The purpose of this study was to add to the knowledge base of practices that will
close the achievement gap between underserved students and their higher performing
counterparts. An investigation of PD in HP and LP schools was conducted in an effort
to reveal differences that might impact improvements in teacher performance and im-
provements in student academic achievement. This study has provided evidence that
implies significant conclusions, subject to the limitations, delimitations, and assump-
tions described in chapter 1 of the study.
152
Eight important conclusions focus on differences between HP and LP schools.
These differences involve teacher input into PD planning, leadership focus on improv-
ing student learning, ongoing evaluation of PD, a culture of high expectations and a
mission of improving student achievement, a focus on teaching and learning during
faculty meetings, integration of teacher evaluation with PD and student learning, and
offsite training to extend PD opportunities.
The teachers in the HP schools studied had considerably more input into the
planning of their PD activities, and established procedures were followed at the school
level for that process. Specifically, both HP schools had a formal annual needs assess-
ment survey that teachers completed. This survey included research-based strategies
and programs, and the survey enabled teachers to indicate the ones they needed. In both
HP schools, there was an established leadership team that specifically reviewed this
information and assisted in the development of the programs offered to the staff mem-
bers based on their responses and inputs. The teachers in the LP schools were either in
the process of establishing such a process or relied on a few options to plan PD activi-
ties for the entire staff.
Regarding goals focused on student learning, both principals of the HP schools
identified improvement in student learning as the goal of the PD programs, but only one
of the principals of the LP schools did so. The principal of one LP school indicated that
the goals focused on pedagogy, teacher knowledge, and teacher accountability rather
than improved student achievement. During the PD evaluation process, the LP schools
were more focused than the HP schools on improving student behavior and school
153
discipline. The LP schools reviewed student behavior and discipline records as part of
this process, but HP schools did not collect and analyze these types of data; their efforts
focused on analysis of academic achievement data.
Both HP schools reported consistent use of an evaluation form at the end of each
PD program that was also supplemented with follow-up discussions within grade levels
and leadership committees. Only one of the LP schools indicated the use of such an
evaluation process.
The HP schools report a shared set of values and vision that revolved around
high expectations for students and staff, continued improvement in test scores, and a
sense of pride about accomplishing more with less. This set of values and vision were
less evident in the LP schools.
The HP schools discussed student progress, teaching strategies, and plans for
improvement during staff meetings more often than the LP schools. Staff meetings in
the LP schools were more focused on communicating information than discussing cur-
riculum and instruction.
The principals of the HP schools utilized the teacher evaluation process more
consistently as a strategy to build a professional learning community as principals met
with teachers individually to discuss PD goals and student progress. Only one of the LP
school principals reported the use of this technique.
The HP schools emphasized the important role of providing offsite PD training
for the experienced staff members and how this benefitted them as well as others when
154
they reported that new learning back to the rest of the teachers. LP school interviewees
did not mention this at all.
The HP and LP schools also had similar characteristics. Both groups utilized
test data analysis during the PD needs assessment, addressed pedagogical improvement,
provided follow-up activities after training, engaged in collective learning concerning
the application of sound pedagogy, did not conduct peer observations, had positive
relationships between teachers and administrators, used grade-level meetings to analyze
data and create collegial relationships, and mentored beginning teachers.
Both groups utilized test data analysis as part of the PD needs assessment pro-
cess. The analysis of both state and local assessments was established in all four
schools, although one LP school just created and implemented a system of collecting
and analyzing data for each grade level.
The PD activities of both groups addressed pedagogical improvement. Teachers
and principals reported specific activities that were engaging and hands-on in nature.
Specific, research-based literacy strategies were most frequently cited by the interview-
ees, with many of these having immediate application to the classroom.
Follow-up and support activities were also evident in both HP and LP schools.
The support was frequently in the form of teachers who held positions as coaches or
who served as a resource to other staff members because they received advanced train-
ing. It is interesting to note that in all four schools, the principals played a role in the
follow-up and support activities.
155
There was ample evidence of collective learning and application among the staff
members at all the schools. All the principals indicated this was a PD activity they
would like to encourage, and all the teachers reported that the principals were support-
ive of such an activity, if such a request was made.
The teachers and principals in both the HP and LP schools reported that relation-
ships between staff and school administrators were generally positive and that the prin-
cipal had an open door policy and was viewed as a supportive leader.
A common strategy employed by all the principals to build a learning commu-
nity was facilitating the ongoing collection and analysis of student performance data
and the development of plans for improvement. All four schools indicated that they had
an informal mentor or buddy system in place for new teachers so that novice teachers
could work with and be guided by more experienced members of the staff.
Implications
The conclusions of this study have implications for PD practices in public
schools, policy decisions by districts, and practices in preservice education programs
and future research.
Implications for PD Practices
The results of this study have a number of implications for the PD practices of
public schools, particularly those with high populations of underserved students.
Schools should establish a comprehensive needs assessment process, clearly connect
PD activity with improvement in student achievement, and consistently evaluate PD
156
programs. School leaders also need to unite the school community around a common
vision of increased student achievement, use faculty meetings and teacher evaluation
more effectively, and support teacher participation in offsite training opportunities.
A comprehensive needs assessment process must include both teacher input and
student achievement data. HP schools regularly collect and value teacher opinions re-
garding needed professional training—a process that is site based and specific to the
needs of the school. Teacher input is supplemented with a thorough analysis of student
achievement data, identifying specific strengths and weaknesses on both state and local
assessments. The needs assessment process is ongoing, systematic, and integral to the
entire PD program.
Although PD hopefully improves pedagogy, leaders of HP schools understand
that the goal of training activities is to increase student achievement. Public school
principals need to communicate to staff that the activities planned are intended to
address the achievement weaknesses identified in the needs assessment process and
how the pedagogical changes will positively impact student learning. The results of this
study indicated that teachers did not always understand the relationships between
student achievement, pedagogical improvement, and PD.
PD activities must be consistently evaluated, using both formal and informal
processes to assess training programs. In addition to the traditional paper-and-pencil
format, teachers and principals need to discuss the effectiveness of the PD activities
during team and faculty meetings so that future programs may be readjusted to meet the
needs of teachers and students.
157
HP schools have a shared, clear mission to improve student achievement.
School leaders need to consistently build support for this mission among staff and the
entire school community. Communicating high expectations for students and staff and
connecting this mission to PD efforts is a critical strategy for school leaders. HP
schools openly accept accountability for improving test scores and strive to meet the
challenge.
School leaders need to incorporate more discussions about student achievement
and plans for improvement during faculty meetings. HP schools minimize agenda items
related to the communication of information in order to provide more time to discuss
student progress, teaching strategies, and plans for improvement. Faculty meetings are
probably an untapped PD resource in most schools, and principals need to carefully
scrutinize the agenda items.
Teacher evaluation, particularly individual conferences with teachers, offers
school leaders another opportunity to promote PD. School principals should meet with
teachers individually on PD goals and how they can support the staff members’ needs.
These conferences should also include specific review of student progress on state
standards and discussions about strategies to improve student learning.
Individual conferences with teachers also help principals to understand unique
needs of staff members that may need to be accommodated with offsite training. School
leaders need to encourage attendance at regional and national conferences and other PD
workshops. Upon their return, principals should require teachers to report what they
learned and to share new instructional strategies with the entire staff.
158
Affective (attitudes) and behavioral (classroom practices) learning outcomes
should be considered where applicable in planning content that leads to increased
student achievement. If students feel that they are being inappropriately treated in the
learning environment, PD that leads to changes in attitudes, thinking, and behaviors
should be explored for adoption. A learning community that embraces the essential
elements of PD has a higher possibility of sustainability and building capacity within
the school.
Policy Decisions by Districts
In light of the findings of this study, districts should review policies related to
PD. District policies should describe a PD philosophy focused on improvement in
student achievement and delineate expectations of school administrators in terms of
staff involvement in the needs assessment process, program development, and evalua-
tion.
Policies and budget resources related to individual PD, such as staff attendance
at offsite conferences, should be reviewed. Although district resources are limited, the
principals and teachers in the HP schools in this study valued these opportunities, par-
ticularly because the staff could share what they learned with the entire faculty. The
cost effectiveness of this approach compared to traditional onsite programs could be
explored by the policy makers.
Teacher evaluation policies should also be reviewed. Important components of
the process for HP schools include principal/teacher discussions of individual PD goals
159
and regular review of classroom achievement data. District policy makers need to
review the degree to which principals have the time and training required to engage in
these types of conferences.
Preservice Education Program Practices
The results of this study have implications for preservice education program
practices, including dispositions toward PD as well as skills and knowledge related to
research-based pedagogy and data analysis.
Preservice education programs should promote the idea that PD is an ongoing
process throughout one’s teaching career. In this study, formalized, ongoing needs
assessment procedures included significant teacher input regarding their perceived
needs. Therefore, preservice candidates must regularly engage in reflective practice so
that they are more able and willing to identify their own PD requirements. They must
develop a belief that they are active participants in their own professional growth; it is
not externally imposed.
Preservice programs must continually connect pedagogy to student achieve-
ment. This study revealed that teachers did not always connect PD with pedagogical
improvement and student achievement. Preservice training should include a review of
the research connecting student learning with the pedagogical theories explored in the
classroom and eventually practiced in the field. Candidates need to understand and
believe that sound pedagogy is not an end, but rather a means to improve student learn-
ing, and that these practices should be regularly reviewed for effectiveness.
160
All of the schools in this study required teachers to regularly collect and analyze
student achievement data. This is a critical skill that must be learned during the pre-
service phase of a teacher’s development. Accountability at all levels requires that
teachers be able to gather student achievement information, identify strengths and
weaknesses, and engage in discussions with colleagues and administrators concerning
plans for improvement.
161
REFERENCES CITED
Ali, R., & Jerald, C. D. (2001). Dispelling the myth in California: Preliminary find-
ings from a nationwide analysis of “high-flying” schools. Palo Alto, CA: Educa-
tion Trust-West.
Appalachia Educational Laboratory. (2005). A case study of six high-performing
schools in Tennessee. Charleston, WV: Edvantia.
Archer, J., Hoff, D. & Manzo, K. (2001, December 5). Staff-development guidelines
emphasize student achievement. Education Week, 21(14), 16.
Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the gap persist? Educational Leadership, 62(3), 9-13.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing profes-
sional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Boardman, A. G., & Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Teacher change and “high-stakes” as-
sessment: What happens to professional development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20, 545-557.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An intro-
duction theory and method. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Borke, H., Elliott, R., & Uchiyama, K. (2002). Professional development: A key to
Kentucky’s educational reform effort. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 969-
987.
Brown, K. M., Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Roney, K. (2004). Student achievement in high
performing, suburban middle schools and low performing, urban middle schools:
Plausible explanations for the differences. Education and Urban Society, 36, 428-
456.
Burr, E., & Fuller, B. (2000). Early education and family poverty. In E. Burr, G. C.
Hayward, B. Fuller, & M. K. Kirst (Eds.), Crucial issues in California education
2000: Are the reform pieces fitting together? (pp. 9-22). Berkeley, CA: Policy
Analysis for California Education.
California Department of Education. (2004a). School report: 2003-2004 academic
performance index (API) growth report. Sacramento: Author. Retrieved October
1, 2004, from http://api.cde.ca.gov/api2003/API/
2004Grth_Sch.asp?SchCode=6033989&DistCode=67439…
162
California Department of Education. (2004b). State report: 2004 adequate yearly
progress (AYP). Sacramento: Author. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://
ayp.cde.ca.gov/apr2004/API/2004API_Progress_state2.asp
Carter, S. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
schools. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
Chambers, J., Lieberman, J., & Parrish, T., Kaleba, D., & Van Campen, J. (2000).
Study of education resources and federal funding: Final report executive sum-
mary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Cowan, K. T., Manasevit, L. M., Edwards, C. J., & Sattler, C. L. (2002). The new Title
I: Balancing flexibility with accountability. Tampa: Thompson.
Dana Center. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing,
high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Austin: University of Texas at Austin,
Charles A. Dana Center. Retrieved June 4, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/pub/
urbanhope/
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future.
New York: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers
College Record, 106, 1047-1085.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How
beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 37, 775-799.
Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elemen-
tary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record,
106, 1145-1176.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 729-734.
EdSource. (2001). Resource cards on California schools. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2004). Resource cards on California schools. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
Edwards, V. B. (Ed.). (2000). Lessons of a century: A nation's schools come of age.
Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
163
Elmore, R. F. (2005). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and perfor-
mance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ferrera, R. (2005). Accountability alarms. Leadership, 35(2), 24-25.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2002). How to design and evaluate research in
education (5 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
th
Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1998). Classroom teaching: The orchestration of
methods. In L. Wolozin & L. Mafrici (Eds.), Educational psychology (pp. 603-
624). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., & Herman, R. (1999). De-
signing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower pro-
gram. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Gentilucci, J. L. (2004). Improving school learning: The student perspective. The
Educational Forum, 68, 133-143.
Goldberg, M., & Traiman, S. L. (2001). Why business backs education standards. In
D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 2001 (pp. 75-129). Wash-
ington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Goldberg, M. F. (2001). An interview with Henry Levin: A concern with disadvan-
taged students. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 632-634.
Gregory, V. H. (2002). A study of professional development at three midwestern,
urban, public elementary schools with increased student achievement in reading
(Doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, 2002). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 63(2A), 441. (UMI No. 3041694)
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta
Kappan, 84, 748-750.
Hair, D., Kraft, B., & Allen, A. (2001). National staff development council project
advance mini-grant: Louisiana staff development council’s end of grant report.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Hakim, C. (2000). Research design: Successful designs for social and economic re-
search. London: Routledge.
164
Haycock, K. (2001). Helping all students achieve: Closing the achievement gap.
Educational Leadership, 58(6), 1-7.
Haycock, K., Jerald, C., & Huang, S. (2001). Closing the achievement gap: Done in a
decade. Thinking K-16, 5(2), 3-21.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications
and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research.
Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137-150.
Hertert, L., & Teague, J. (2003). A review of research, policies, and issues: Narrowing
the achievement gap. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
Heubert, J. (2003). First, do no harm. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 26-30.
Hollins, E. R. (1996a). Culture in school learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hollins, E. R. (1996b). Transforming curriculum for a culturally diverse society.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hollins, E. R. (2006). Transforming practice in urban schools. Educational Leader-
ship, 63(6), 48-52.
Hollins, E. R., King, J., & Hayman, W. (1994). Teaching diverse populations: Formu-
lating a knowledge base. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hord, S. (1996). School professional staff as learning community. Austin: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Labora-
tory.
Hord, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together leading together: Changing schools
through professional learning communities. New York: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Hunter, R. C., & Bartee, R. (2003). The achievement gap: Issues of competition, class,
and race. Education and Urban Society, 35, 151-160.
Izumi, L. T., Coburn, K. G., & Cox, M. (2002). They have overcome: High-poverty,
high-performing schools in California. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute.
165
Jacobson, J., Olsen, C., Rice, J. K., Sweetland, S., & Ralph, J. (2001). Educational
achievement and black-white inequality. Washington, DC: National Center for Ed-
ucation Statistics.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development:
Fundamentals of school renewal. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development
(3 ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
rd
ment.
Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2000). Raising academic achievement: A study of 20 successful
programs. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Keller, B. (2004, September 15). Model districts embed professional development
schools in system. Education Week, 24(3), 12.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Arguelles, M. E. (1999). Sustaining
researched-based practices in reading: A 3-year follow-up. Remedial and Special
Education, 20, 263-274.
Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. Washing-
ton, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more
holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77-
97.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York:
Crown.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: Confections of apartheid. Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 87, 265-283.
Langer, J. A. (2000). Excellence in English in middle and high school: How teachers’
professional lives support student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 397-439.
Marchant, G. J. (2002). Professional development schools and indicators of student
achievement. The Teacher Educator, 38(2), 112-125.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3 ed.).
rd
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
166
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The nation's report card: Reading
highlights 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The im-
perative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Newland, C. C. (2006). Facilitative governance organizations and networks: Disag-
gregated and offloaded government and aggregated response to onloaded stress.
Public Administration Review, 66, 469-472.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001, December 13). Title I: Improving the aca-
demic achievement of the disadvantaged [107 Congress, 1 Session]. Washing-
th st
ton, DC: George Washington University, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A
cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for educa-
tion. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29, 155-188.
Perrone, V. (1997). Reflections on teaching: Learning to teach and teaching to learn.
Teachers College Record, 98, 636-652.
Picus, L., Odden, A., & Fermancich, M. (2001). Assessing the equity of Kentucky’s
SEEK formula: A ten-year analysis. Frankfort: Kentucky Department of Educa-
tion.
Pinkerton, E. (Ed.). (2002). The CAASFEP handbook: The ABC’s of categorical
programs. Auburn, CA: California Association of Administrators of State and
Federal Education Programs.
Pollard-Durodola, S. (2003). Wesley Elementary: A beacon of hope for at-risk stu-
dents. Education and Urban Society, 36(1), 94-117.
Qualis Research Associates. (1998). The Ethnograph v5.0 [Computer program].
Denver: Author.
167
Resnick, L. B., & Fink, E. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82, 598-606.
Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organization for sustainable education
reform. Daedalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 127, 89-
118.
Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (2000). The 32 annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the
nd
public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 41-58.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic and educational
reform to close the Black-White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy/Teachers College.
Sack, J. (2004, September 1). With $1 billion pledge, California settles lawsuit. Edu-
cation Week, 24(1), 24, 31.
Schulz, R., & Mandzuk, D. (2005). Learning to teach, learning to inquire: A 3-year
study of teacher candidates’ experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
315-331.
Shaha, S. H., Lewis, V. K., O’Donnell, T. J., & Brown, D. H. (2004). Evaluating pro-
fessional development: An approach to verifying program impact on teachers and
students. Journal of Research in Professional Learning, n.v., 1-18.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
Singham, M. (2003). The achievement gap: Myths and reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 83,
586-591.
Smylie, M. A., Allensworth, E., Greenberg, R. C., Harris, R., & Luppescu, S. (2001).
Teacher professional development in Chicago: Supporting effective practice.
Chicago: Consortium in Chicago School Research.
Spradley, J. P. (1997). The ethnographic interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stewart, B. J. (2003). Relationships among professional development, teacher learn-
ing, teaching practices, and student achievement in writing in four middle schools
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, 2003). Disser-
tation Abstracts International, 64(03A), 472. (UMI No. 3085873)
168
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory (2 ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
nd
Swope, K., & Miner, B. (2000). Failing our kids: Why the testing craze won’t fix our
schools. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Thompson, S. (2001). The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82, 358-362.
Togneri, W. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve
instruction and achievement in all schools—a leadership brief. Baltimore: Learn-
ing First Alliance.
Veen, C. (2006). Technology and the three R’s: Can high-tech tools rally improve
academic performance. Government Technology, 19(6), 14-24.
Visher, M. G., Bhandari, R., & Medrich, E. (2004). High school career exploration
programs: Do they work? Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 135-138.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research
on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 130-178.
Wilkinson, S. D. (2003). Systemic and traditional professional development program:
The effects on staff perceptions and student achievement in middle school (Doc-
toral dissertation, Wilmington College, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 64(02a). (UMI No. 3079199)
Yonezawa, S., Wells, A. S., & Serna, I. (2002). Choosing tracks: “Freedom of choice”
in detracking schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 37-67.
169
APPENDIX
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY TABLES
Summary tables with verbatim comments to research interview questions have
been provided as a convenience to the readers of this study. Responses are organized to
demonstrate the four essential elements of PD, as described by Joyce and Showers
(2002), and PLCs (Hord, 2004).
170
Table A1
Professional Development Needs Assessment Processes Reported by Teachers and
Principal for High-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions
Principal’s perceptions
Procedures to identify needs
Needs assessment runs through our school site
council. Our leadership committee gets input
from the teachers so we can come up with what
our needs are. (Teacher A)
In the past year it’s gone site-based so we have
had quite a bit more of input into what it is we
wanted and basically it’s been our leadership
team that does that We did Accelerated Reader in
services. (Teacher B)
About a year and half ago an assessment was
done where it was, what do you want in, as a dis-
trict, there was about 12 items on the survey We
did Accelerated Reader in services. (Teacher B)
We also use teacher input, what they feel they
would like to have more emphasis on or what pro-
grams they think we need.
Six Traits, one of the workshops that all the teach-
ers have been involved in, that came from the
teachers and they heard about the program and
said, this is something we can really use.
We sent out surveys to staff about what they per-
ceive as a need and what they would like to see.
We've done that at the school and district level to
see what elementary teachers would like to see
provided.
Data reviewed
I’m not sure what data is used; I have not been a
part of that decision making. (Teacher A)
Student data is used to an extent, but it is more
what the teachers are feeling they need because
we are implementing the new programs.
(Teacher B)
The data that we use is taking a look at our student
scores, how our students are progressing and what
we would like to see happen to get them to all be
proficient in the standards. [See Carter, 2000.]
We look at the survey data across all the schools
to see what elementary teachers say they need.
171
Table A1 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Participants in needs assessment process
Our principal, the leadership group, typically the
presenters and they discuss it with the principal as
what their needs are. (Teacher A) [See
Pollard-Durodola, 2003.]
Basically, the leadership team is involved. We
pull in the people that we need to work with and
there are four or five different things going on so
people had choices. (Teacher B)
Some of our programs we use staff from the dis-
trict, administrators are involved, the district of-
fice staff, two directors who are in charge, one is
in charge of elementary education, one in second-
ary education, so they are involved in that also.
To a large degree, the whole staff I would say be-
cause they give ideas on what they want to have
presented and then we would go and find either
people in our district or outside the district to pro-
vide the inservice.
Note. ELL = English Language Learner; CLAD = Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Develop-
ment.
172
Table A2
Characteristics of Effective Delivery of Professional Development, as Reported by
Teachers and Principal: Effective Professional Development Characteristics for
High-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions
Principal’s perceptions
Goals focused on student learning
The goal of Accelerated Reader was for teachers
to walk away with an understanding of the pro-
gram and how it worked, how to go and find the
different parts online, how to test their students,
how to look at the results and how to fill out the
different forms. (Teacher A)
The goal of Accelerated Reader was to get every-
body using it next year, to get the teachers to ac-
tually see it on the computer. (Teacher B)
No reference made
No reference made
The goal of the Accelerated Reader is that we
want to have every kid reading more, doing more
pleasure reading, so it’s a motivational thing. We
also want them to increase their fluency and com-
prehension and that program is geared to do that.
We are finding that the kids are reading so much
more than they used to read; they are just wanting
to read.
Six Writing Traits, the goal of that program was
to help kids do a better job with their writing but
also get more consistent throughout the class-
rooms and throughout the grade levels and the
program has been able to do that.
The CLAD program was to give teachers strate-
gies, skills and techniques they can use in the
classroom to not only address the ELL but also all
the kids and it seems to be working well.
173
Table A2 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Activities focused on pedagogical improvement
I have done Accelerated Reader and I stepped up
to the plate because I wanted it done in a certain
way, lots of applicability, not just discussion,
where people could get their hands involved with
the program. (Teacher A)
The teachers were turned loose on the computers
and got them involved with the actual workings
of the program so they could use the tool them-
selves. (Teacher A)
The Accelerated Reader program was done by
someone in Wisconsin over the phone, so she
could do a PowerPoint® and show everyone how
to use the program and people got a chance to try
it. (Teacher B)
When we did the Saxon Math program, we went
in and got our hands involved with it and found
out things we could use within the next week in
our classroom. (Teacher A)
No reference made
No reference made
We had three full-day workshops on Renaissance
Place which has three components: Accelerated
Reader, Read Now, and Early Literacy.
The teachers had hands-on activities where they
actually had a computer in front of them and
could use the computer and by having outside ex-
perts who either are here presenting or present
over the Internet, where they are on the speaker-
phone and we're in a room and they are control-
ling the computer that's flashed up on a screen we
can watch. [See Veen, 2006.]
No reference made
Several years ago we trained a lot of teachers, ev-
eryone from Grades 2 to 5, on the Six Writing
Traits. Everyone, even the new teachers that have
come on board, are getting the training.
One teacher walked away from CLAD and said it
changed her whole teaching style.
174
Table A2 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection
The first session of Accelerated reader was in
September, and then we had a follow up in Janu-
ary and so we could come back and try it again
and ask your questions. (Teacher B)
No reference made
One program we’re working on and will be work-
ing on for the next couple of years is Renaissance
Place.
We’re getting there, and so I see in the next year
or two, we will be much farther along because we
already have the inservices planned for next year.

Note. CLAD = Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development.
175
Table A3
Evaluation of Professional Development Programs Reported by Teachers and Prin-
cipal for High-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions
Principal’s perceptions
Program evaluated for effectiveness
I heard back from the staff and they found that
Accelerated Reader] to be outstanding and I felt I
delivered something we could all have a tangible
use from afterwards. (Teacher A)
At the end of each session, we fill out a form to
rate the program. Did we find it useful, what was
the professionalism of the presenter. (Teacher A)
Teachers fill out written evaluations at the end of
each day, every time. (Teacher B)
The principal asks probing questions within the
leadership team, what's needed by different
teachers, different grade levels. (Teacher A)
I assume the principal reviews the evaluation in-
formation, but I honestly don't know, that's a
large nebulous part of all this for us. (Teacher A)
I did a presentation and when I asked to see those
evaluations, to improve my practice, I had no re-
sponse back. So I don't know what happens with
them. (Teacher A)
When I do my own workshops, I am provided
that—I can look at the evaluations. (Teacher B)
Some of the staff are into it, using it [Renaissance
Place] quite nicely; some are still progressing.
[See Datnow & Castellano, 2000].
Each time we have a program, we have a form
that we usually ask the teachers to fill out and tell
us how valuable was it, what did you learn, what
would you like to see different next time, would
you like more of this, what didn't you learn that
you wished you had, how valuable was it to you.
We talk informally with the staff to get a sense of
what we need more of, what teachers are not com-
fortable with, that sort of thing.
I review the information here at the site, and then
I send copies of it over to the person in charge of
elementary education who evaluates it district-
wide. Then I share the results with the staff and
the school site council.
When we have our own teachers do the training,
we let them look at the evaluation forms so they
can have feedback about how they did.
Data used for improvement
The district summarizes the data to see how
effective things were and what needs to happen
next. (Teacher B)
We try to use the information to improve the pro-
grams and make changes the staff suggest.
176
Table A3 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supporting experienced teachers
Sometimes the principal talks to you about
whether we are willing to share ideas with other
staff or with other teachers from other schools;
constantly he’s doing that. (Teacher A)
Open Court is new so the more experienced
teachers are still interested in the training because
they want to make sure how to get everything in.
Since it’s a new curriculum, its new for every-
body. (Teacher B) [See Izumi, Coburn, & Cox,
2002.]
There’s a lot of voluntary training here that the
more experienced teachers don’t go to.
I offer some variety of training that’s new for
them like character education, parent involve-
ment, conflict resolution and even the most expe-
rienced teachers can benefit from those kinds of
things. [See Dana Center, 1999.]
177
Table A4
Professional Learning Community Characteristics, as Reported by Teachers and
Principal for High-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supportive and shared leadership
Our leadership group meets regularly, and each
grade has a representative. Our rep will come by
and ask me if I have input on different decisions
that need to be made or concerns that the staff
have, she’ll take that to the group and present it to
the principal or the group will make the decision.
Many things are also run by our site council.
(Teacher A)
No reference made
People will look for something they’d like to
have and encourage our principal or our school to
get it. (Teacher A)
The Accelerated Reader is an example. We lob-
bied our principal for it; we saw it was something
we could afford; it wouldn’t be a huge undertak-
ing to get started, and as a staff we decided to go
ahead and implement it. It’s usually a fairly dem-
ocratic process. (Teacher A)
At staff meetings, he gets teacher inputs, how to
spend money—everybody has a say to put it all
together. (Teacher B)
I try to have collaborative decision making as
much as possible, team building. But I reserve
the right to veto things or to say no, but I do try to
listen very much to the staff. I use a lot of collab-
oration. [See Dana Center, 1999.]
The leadership team meets twice a month, and I
have a person from each grade level and then one
person who represents special ed and other people
who don’t fall into a grade level.
I like to see teachers who take a leadership role,
and I like to support that. I have a variety of peo-
ple in leadership roles such as ELL lead teachers,
two lead teachers, and we have a leadership team.
If a teacher or a group of teachers come and say
we think if we do this we’d be able to do this, I
really want to listen to that because if they are ex-
cited about a program or doing something and
feel its going to move kids, I think they’re going
to make it work. [See Datnow & Castellano,
2000.]
That’s what happened with Accelerated Reader. It
began with a teacher saying I heard about this and
so we investigated it, presented it to the staff, and
they said they wanted to know more.
We talk about problems/challenges at staff meet-
ings, how to address them. Sometimes I get input,
feedback and sometimes we make decisions, com-

ing up with a consensus.
178
Table A4 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Shared values and vision
All our standardized testing is run through differ-
ent computerized models so we get our results
back. They [central office] will tell us we have
low scores within math or reading, which groups
of students may do well in those areas and en-
courage us to bring those up. (Teacher A)
What is it we’re going to do for kids? What do
we want, how are we going to increase their
things? We look at how many have passed
benchmarks each trimester and pull it together
with the SIF plan. The whole school is involved.
(Teacher B)
So the plan is how to make your plan of attack,
how to help the kids progress, the data that’s col-
lected to do that would be a lot of the trimester
assessments that are done. (Teacher B).
When I hear staff talk about our school, I hear
how positive the school is, how we’re always
pushing to do things better and I think there is a
sense of pride about doing the very best we can
with what little we have. (Teacher A)
The principal will applaud people who have done
neat activities or had positive involvement with
each other, with the kids. (Teacher A).
That’s our whole focus, to improve and to get stu-
dents up into the proficient standards so not only
do we focus on the inservice, but each trimester I
ask that teachers are looking at kids’ scores, that
they develop a plan to help, what are they going to
do next trimester to help that child meet the
scores.
I think the teachers feel good that they are work-
ing at a nationally recognized school and new
teachers come on and they think, “I have to work
at a high level too.”
I think my pushing, or keep saying about the team
concept and encouraging that. I complement the
staff on how nice you guys are helping one an-
other because that’s what it’s all about.
179
Table A4 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Collective learning and application
At staff meetings we meet every other week. We
discuss school improvements, school concerns,
how programs are working, where we need to
take this or that. (Teacher A)
Staff meetings we discuss how things are going to
get spent. We’ve had people bring in new things.
Many times it is analyzing data that we’ve gath-
ered for the kids. (Teacher B)
Sometimes grade levels meet and they do plan-
ning and how they can work with the GATE
teachers. (Teacher B)
Generally, this is a real positive place where peo-
ple say how can we, I’m doing this neat thing,
let’s try this out (Teacher A).
There are GATE meetings to talk about how the
program is working, and ELAP to discuss how
are going to meet the needs of the kids (Teacher
B).
No reference made
When you develop a team approach, it kind of
becomes self-motivating and everybody’s helping
each other and looking at kids in their grade level.
They’re looking at kids in their classroom; they’re
just looking at the kids and saying, “What can we
do to improve achievement?”
I try to have people say, we’re part of the team of
[school name], and we need to look at what’s best
for the total population, but then look at what’s
best for each individual child and meet each
child’s needs.
Sometimes at staff meetings the grade levels di-
vide up and either have a task or are working on
something as a team together.
The interactions among the teachers is very good
and they are willing to help and support each
other.
Our GATE classes meet here and those teachers
meet periodically to discuss the program and how
to handle issues such as articulation from grade to
grade.
I meet regularly with the staff on professional
goal development, evaluation conferences, and
less formally when they are having trouble with a
youngster or they have other issues that come up
[See Duke, 2006].
180
Table A4 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Shared practice involving feedback
People are not observing each other in a formal
manner. As far as peer review, sitting down and
observing another lesson, it rarely happens.
(Teacher A)
If it happens, it happens on our own. The princi-
pal really doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s
something we brought up from time to time and
like many other things, it falls to the wayside. I’m
sure he’d be amenable to it but there’s too many
things on his plate. (Teacher A)
No, there is no peer help here. We thought about
it once but it did not fly with a lot of teachers
here. If a teacher wanted it to happen, it would be
arranged (Teacher B).
Teachers observe each other’s classrooms but not
as often as I would like. It just comes down to
time, and we don’t put enough money into release
time for staff to do it. But I certainly want to sup-
port that, so if a teacher came to me, I would try to
find out how to do that.
Supportive conditions
Relationships here are very positive. (Teacher A)
The interactions among the teachers is very posi-
tive and supportive. There is a feeling of open-
ness, trust, and collaboration. (Teacher B)
People get frustrated like they would in any job
but those personality issues, and the person who
is grumpy with the principal is grumpy with every
other aspect of their life. (Teacher A)
I feel good about this staff and the relationship I
have developed with them. I do listen to them,
and if they tell me we’re going down the wrong
path, I’ll say “Okay, let’s change direction here.”
I feel open and trusting of the staff, and I think
most people would say that they do, too. There
are always some people who are less complimen-
tary or negative in their lifestyles, but I think that
most teachers feel it is an open, trusting, working-
together type of relationship.
181
Table A4 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supportive conditions (continued)
The principal does not have a lot of time and
lacks administrative support. We need a vice-
principal. If you were a fly on the wall, you
would see nothing but a string of kids coming in
and out and the teachers with an occasional ques-
tion about how to handle a student. (Teacher A)
We have an anemic amount of time to meet with
staff; typically people are meeting as a grade
level during their own lunchtime or in the morn-
ings. (Teacher A)
The principal offers time to collaborate if you
want it; he’ll hire subs or whatever (Teacher B)

I think time is the biggest barrier to positive inter-
actions. Teachers need more time to meet with
one another and the principal, perhaps like half
days a couple of times a month.
I set up times that the teachers can meet as teams
and schedule lunch hours together so they can
discuss things. They often collaborate at that
time.
I’ve given release time for teachers to collaborate
and I encourage people to communicate back and
forth.
Note. ELL = English Language Learner. SIF = School Improvement Funds. GATE = Gifted &
Talented Education. ELAP = English Language Acquisition Program.
182
Table A5
Principal’s Strategies to Develop Teachers and Improve Student Learning, as Re-
ported by Teachers and Principal: Strategy Themes for High-Performing Group,
Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Building a learning community
And as much as anything, that’s to take our dis-
trict schools that are the haves and show them we
can do it, and we can do it usually a bit better than
they can, so I think it’s a matter of teacher pride
(Teacher A). [See Izumi, Coburn, & Cox, 2002.]
Sometimes grade levels meet and they do plan-
ning . . . (Teacher B)
We look at how many kids have passed the
benchmarks each trimester and gather the data to
look at from the SIF plan (Teacher B).
Whenever I see things that seem to fit for our
school, I will get it, send it out to either certain peo-
ple or the whole staff, and then we explore whether
or not we think that’s something that we need to
take part in or not because it fits in with our plan.
Although we have had budget cuts, I ask the teach-
ers to think out of the box, how can we reach
Johnny’s needs?
I have days built into our schedule where grade lev-
els can meet and collaborate and so that’s another
way they are learning from each other and being
able to talk about how they’re meeting kids’ needs
and making decisions about meeting kids’ needs.
Each trimester I ask that teachers are looking at
kids’ scores, that they develop a plan to help, what
are they going to do next trimester to help that child
meet the scores. We also look at kids and their
progress from year to year, and we do that as a part
of writing our plan and we look at our total school
and individuals.
I encourage teachers to look at individual students
and as a grade level, not just teacher A, but look at
the total grade level and say, “These are our kids
—how can we improve their education?”
183
Table A5 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Encouraging and supporting additional professional development
The principal encourages us to go to anything we
can. He is very supportive of me and giving me
comp time if I need it to plan things. There’s op-
portunities; he puts things around. (Teacher B)
I let them know of professional development op-
portunities that are coming up that fit in with what
we’re doing with our plan.
I like to send a team of teachers out and bring that
information back to us so I send out notices, hoping
enough people will sign up so I can select one from
each grade level.
Supporting new teachers
Ideally, the principal is in their classrooms, look-
ing at what their doing, meeting with them for
observation goals, but I don’t know how much of
that goes on anymore because we used to have an
assistant principal and he’s not afforded that op-
portunity as much as he could be. (Teacher A)
We have BTSA providers onsite. (Teacher B)
No reference made
Teachers at the grade levels kind of take them
under their wing. (Teacher B)
We have a couple of days before school begins
where they are oriented to the district as well as
some of the programs we have. We give the new
teachers an orientation program for math and read-
ing and Six Writing Traits.
We have the BTSA program so that’s a real sup-
port, too. The mentor meets with them, observes,
almost on a weekly basis.
We have tapes of teachers doing good Open Court
lessons so they can see the variety and different
aspects of the program. They can check those out
of the library.
I assign each new teacher a buddy that is kind of
watching over them. I also ask each team to in-
clude all new staff members and make them feel
comfortable.
184
Table A5 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Supporting new teachers (continued)
No reference made
No reference made
When I speak to the new staff, they tell me how
much the grade-level teachers are helping me and
how they feel supported and helped.
I check out periodically, just ask them how things
are going, if they have any questions, walk them
through the evaluation process, verbally go over
other procedures with them.
I have been successful hiring people who are
motivated to get kids up there. I have had some
teachers move out who were not being successful,
and I think our scores reflect that.

Supporting experienced teachers
The principal questions us—how we’re feeling
with our programs, do we feel comfortable,
would we like more training. (Teacher A)
He [principal] structures things so there are dif-
ferent levels of things so people can utilize what
they know and support others. (Teacher B)
No reference made
We talk individually, use surveys, talk at staff
meetings. They usually come to me if they see
something they want to attend.
If I see something that somebody needs to be in-
volved in or they are having trouble in a certain
area, then I make arrangements or suggestions.
I encourage people to get out of their classrooms,
go and observe other classes.
Note. BTSA = Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment; SIF = school improvement funds.
185
Table A6
Professional Development Needs Assessment Processes, as Reported by Teachers
and Principal, for High-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Procedures to identify needs
The district has a needs assessment, and we have
also done some technology and school site as-
sessments. (Teacher A).
The administrators want to hear the teachers’
words. We’re provided with a list of different
professional activities for different areas and then
we pick the top three and give it to our adminis-
trators. (Teacher B)
We send out a questionnaire, needs assessment, to
all the teachers and they have input as to what top-
ics they would like to see covered in the two dif-
ferent staff development days here on site.
The district identifies other areas we need for ad-
ditional staff development.
Data reviewed
The administrators review the results of the needs
assessments. (Teacher A)
We focus on the assessments that are in the cur-
riculum and the test scores like performance tests,
unit assessments from Open Court, district-wide
assessments, and the student portfolio that starts
in kindergarten and goes on. (Teacher B).
Every year we have a beginning inventory assess-
ment in language arts and math, and that data is
accumulated, analyzed and presented to the staff.
[See Jurich & Estes, 2000.]
If they are available, we review CAT-6 of CST
scores and so the staff development is steered by
the results and the weak areas.
186
Table A6 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Participants in needs assessment process
The administrators ask input from teachers for the
onsite programs, but then they make the decisions
based on the requests. (Teacher A)
Everyone is involved in planning the programs
because we all have a say in what ones we have
but it’s the principal who decides which area to
focus on. But it’s one of the top three we picked.
(Teacher B)
I have grade-level chairs, a principal advisory
committee, and my assistant principal and I do the
program planning.
Note. CAT-6 = California Achievement Test 6; CST = California Standards Test.
187
Table A7
Characteristics of Effective Delivery of Professional Development, as Reported by
Teachers and Principal: Effective Professional Development Characteristics for
High-Performing Group, Elementary School B
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Goals focused on student learning
After we examine the data, we were guided on
how we can improve the data results, help our
children boost the data. (Teacher B).
The Fish program helped change people’s focus,
to help them focus on the bottom line, that we are
here for the kids and this is a fun place to work.
Activities focused on pedagogical improvement
I thought Marzano’s training was particularly
good; it helped teachers recognize strategies that
were effective to teach content using lecture for-
mat. (Teacher A)
We teach the material, retest the children, and
then go back and examine the data again. So we
focus on both analysis and instructional strategies
to improve our results. (Teacher B)
They took us through the writing process, taught
us different ways to teach students how to brain-
storm, like with a web or clustering, and then how
to do an outline and the five-paragraph essay like
on standardized tests. So I model the writing for
the children. (Teacher B) [See Diamond & Spil-
lane, 2004.]
We focus on instructional strategies. (Teacher B)
We had hands-on technology training on how to
set up email accounts for themselves and students
as well as web sites we could use to integrate into
our lessons. (Teacher A) [See Veen, 2006.]
We watched the video about the fish market and
broke down into groups to analyze different facets
of the fish philosophy and how it could apply to
our school.
188
Table A7 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Activities focused on pedagogical improvement (continued)
We had a technology program where we broke
the teachers down into groups and brainstormed
ideas and then we took the top items and went
over the strategies we need to work on; we also
went over some web sites we could use. (Teacher
B) [See Veen, 2006.]
I learned the things the kids are learning— Ex-
cel© spreadsheets, how to do graphs and other
technology standards. (Teacher B)
No reference made

Follow-up and support activities
District administrators came to the classrooms
and made observations of teachers, and student
feedback was provided at the staff meetings.
(Teacher A)
We take our kids to the technology teacher, and
I’m allowed to sit and learn with the kids. She’s
teaching them but I’m a student, too. (Teacher B)
I have an adviser; the vice principal advices me.
(Teacher B)
I feel the Fish program is starting to fizzle out, so
we need to put a booster shot back into the pro-
gram and get it back on line.
If I or my assistant principal can’t coach them,
then I will bring in someone who can. District
people will observe, give pointers, do demo les-
sons in a very humorous and engaging way.

Adequate time for learning and reflection
We had 4 hours of training in technology over 2
different days. (Teacher B)
The Marzano program ran for 9 days. (Teacher
A
)
The Fish program ran the entire year, and we’re
trying to carry it over this year.
189
Table A8
Evaluation of Professional Development Programs, as Reported by Teachers and
Principal for High-Performing Group, Elementary School B
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Program evaluated for effectiveness
The programs are evaluated through feedback
from the teachers using scaled measures. (Teach-
er A)
The teachers are provided evaluation sheets and
we examine the information, the data from them
so we can see what areas we felt weren’t as ex-
pected. (Teacher B)
We hand them staff evaluation forms: What did
you like about the program? What would you like
us to never ever present again to you? [See
Smylie, Allensworth, Greenberg, Harris, & Lup-
pescu, 2001.]
Data used for improvement
Administrators and committees review the evalu-
ations and share the results with the staff to make
decisions on future professional development
activities. (Teacher A)
The evaluation information is given to the princi-
pal, who goes over it with the people who did the
program. Then we bring in more people so to-
gether they decide what’s the next step. (Teacher
B)
The evaluation data is reviewed by the assistant
principal and me, and then it’s forwarded to the
district office, and then they give us feedback.
They tell us if we are on target, off target, what
they liked, what they didn’t like about our two
days of onsite staff development. [See Togneri,
2003.]
190
Table A9
Professional Learning Community Characteristics, as Reported by Teachers and
Principal for High-Performing Group, Elementary School B
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Supportive and shared leadership
The principal always asks for teacher opinions,
and I feel he values what we have to say. (Teach-
er A)
It’s not like a dictatorship here. I’ve heard stories
in other schools where it’s my way or the high-
way for you; our principal is not on a power trip
like you hear many times. (Teacher B)
That’s one of the unique things about this school
— everyone has a say so. If the communication
is not there, then you’re going to have a hard
time. (Teacher B) [See Hair, Kraft. & Allen,
2001)
We have a school site council where parents are
involved and informed. (Teacher B)
We have different committees that do everything,
so that’s one relief for the principal, because he
has other items that need to be addressed. You
just keep the administrators informed so there are
no surprises. (Teacher B)
We want our parents to be constantly involved so
we can help them so they can help their children.
(Teacher B
Teachers have input at grade-level meetings about
what they are going to discuss. They discuss
reading comprehension, writing strategies, what
works and what doesn’t.
We have a school counsel which is made up of
parents and teachers. We meet monthly to discuss
our school focus and goals. Parents came in re-
cently and wanted to know why we don’t have as
many tutors after school.
We have a school advisory committee and they
discuss curriculum, facilities, and parents are in-
volved with that. Parents will come up to me and
say, “We noticed you dropped 18 points on the
AT last year. What are you doing to bring us back
up?” And I will go to them and say, “Homework
is slipping.” So it’s a partnership.
191
Table A9 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Shared values and vision
Everything is standard driven here. Focusing on
teaching that standard—teachers can teach them
however she wants, because she knows her chil-
dren, her students. But you have to make sure
you teach those standards. (Teacher B)
We do the best we can because we know that we
are preparing the children to become better citi-
zens in society. (Teacher B)
Teachers at this school go beyond what is re-
quired of them and that’s the corner right there.
If they’re not hard working teachers, they often
leave because they don’t fit in the culture.
(Teacher B)
We will work with student teachers to see if they
are one of us. We want teachers that we know are
going to work hard, they’re dedicated, they’re
committed, and they’re not afraid to go beyond.
(Teacher B) [See AEL, 2005.]
If the principal says jump, we jump and even
higher. Because we’re so dedicated and commit-
ted to making sure the children excel. Even if the
money is not there. (Teacher B)
The focus is on increasing test scores. (Teacher
B)
My teachers have grown accustomed to being in
the top three. They’re very competitive against
each other, other schools, and always strive to put
out their best. It’s a love in the heart that they be-
lieve.
I will be the first one to stand up at an awards as-
sembly and tell those kids that we went up 3
points and to give your parents a big round of
applause—your parents, your teachers, me, and
you got those 3%. It’s a joint effort.
The overall plan here at [name of school] is that
every child is college bound. In second grade,
they sit in groups based on university. We want
them to start thinking about college at a young
age.
192
Table A9 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Shared values and visions ( continued)
My assistant and I, when we discipline our kids,
we tell them that the greatest gift I can give you is
choice. I don’t care if you choose to sit home and
eat hot Cheetos and watch Opra everyday. Or if
you become a doctor. But I’m going to ride you
like there’s no tomorrow so you have that choice
when you’re 20.
Collective learning and application
New teachers come back and share what they
have learned in areas like ELL, math, reading,
and science. (Teacher A)
Whoever goes to an outside seminar or meeting
brings back what they learned to the school and
shares with the rest of the staff, so we have the
support we need. (Teacher B)
We discuss issues at our grade level meetings,
particularly areas of improvement that are
needed. (Teacher A)
We meet as grade levels and compile the data and
talk about how the kids are doing in different ar-
eas; we have our own assessments and district
assessments to assess the different types of learn-
ing we have in children. (Teacher B)
We’re constantly collaborating at our grade level
meetings and communication is constantly open.
(Teacher B)
I know that when a teacher comes back from a
conference or workshop, they will work with the
rest of the teachers either through staff meetings
or one on one and my API is going to rise.
The teachers meet by grade levels twice a month,
and they talk about what’s working, what’s not
working. They’ll share kids if one teacher thinks
they can help a student overcome a difficulty.
193
Table A9 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Collective learning and application (continued)
Staff meetings focus on school improvement
needs. We talk about ways to improve state test
scores, how to individualize instruction, and how
to meet students’ needs in the Open Court reading
program. (Teacher A)
At staff meetings we talk about our school behav-
ior system—the citation system, our next profes-
sional development, and teachers have input on
that. (Teacher B)
Staff meetings focus on areas of curriculum and I
also feel that my staff needs an opportunity to
vent. So after school business is done, we talk
and work out our problems.
Shared practice involving feedback
We don’t normally do that [observe each other],
but we do have that option. New teachers do it
more often so they can get comfortable with the
curriculum. (Teacher A)
Teachers here are constantly like observing other
teachers, and we share at our grade level meet-
ings the new information you use in your class-
room. (Teacher B) [See Pollard-Durodola,
2003.]
We do that to a small degree but I think we’re go-
ing to need to improve it. It’s mostly volunteer
but I would like to see it happen on a regular basis
next year.
194
Table A9 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supportive conditions
Relationships with the principal vary like any
workplace. But the principal tries to accommo-
date and be fair whenever (principal) has the op-
portunity. (Teacher A)
Teachers are provided with positive feedback on
what is being observed in the classroom to en-
courage teachers and to improve student achieve-
ment. (Teacher A)
We are a very cohesive group. (Teacher B)
Teachers get recognized for doing an exceptional
job during our morning assemblies; it’s not mate-
rialistic but it’s the action that counts. (Teacher
B)
Off site, we have Happy Hours, Christmas Par-
ties, End of Year celebration. We mingle and talk
among each other. (Teacher A)
We have Happy Hours, baby showers, Christmas
parties, celebrations for retiring teachers, a mem-
ory book of teachers, and teachers get together;
we have Teacher Appreciation days. We know
our principal and administrators care.
Teachers at this school feel the principal is ap-
proachable and will always be willing to listen.
(Teacher A)
The principal has an open door policy. If some-
thing is on your mind, go in and say it. (Teacher
B)
They have the respect for me that I’m principal
and sometimes I need to make decisions that are
not very popular. And they trust me enough to
follow through on the decision.
I keep my teachers happy; they will continue to
put forth that positive energy, and my kids will
have that positive energy, and we’ll continue to
grow. And that’s the truth.
This school is a big family. There’s no I’m a 30
year teacher and you’re a 30 minute teacher- we
all teach.
There’s a feeling of trust and openness here. I put
a lot of trust in my teachers because they’re pro-
fessionals.
My door is always open for my teachers. I know
that when they come to me, it is a legitimate need.
195
Table A9 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supportive conditions (continued)
Whatever we need of materials, books, if the
money is there, we ask and we get. But it has to
help improve children’s scores. (Teacher B)
Because our budget has been cut, we’re starting
to go out to the community, networking, socializ-
ing, going to businesses because we need the
money to buy materials and books. (Teacher B)
For the year that’s coming up, my budget has been
severely cut. One of the areas that’s beginning to
suffer is staff development. But we’re still going
to seek opportunities. I’m making it my goal to
get out into the community, talk to local
merchants, and maybe solicit some financial sup-
port so that I’m able to continue sending the
teachers out.
Whatever goes on in the faculty meeting stays in
the faculty meeting. It’s not for open discussion
on your way to the car, at the grocery store. They
understand that.
There are more demands on teachers today and
they have to prove themselves with fewer re-
sources, like large class sizes and no aides and
more severe special education students in the
classroom. My challenge is to help the teachers
be prepared to meet these challenges.
Note. AEL = Appalachia Educational Laboratory; ELL = English Language Learner.
196
Table A10
Principal’s Strategies to Develop Teachers and Improve Student Learning, as Re-
ported by Teachers and Principal: Strategy Themes for High-Performing Group,
Elementary School B
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Building a learning community
The principal makes it a priority to have many
staff meetings that are used for professional
growth, which is based on school vision, self-
assessment and needs of the students. (Teacher
A)
We’ve used some of our professional develop-
ment days for grade level articulation. (Teacher
A) [See Dana Center, 1999.]
The administrators are constantly present at all
our staff development; they have to be there be-
cause if they’re not, the teachers frown upon that.
You’re not being a part of us and we need you to
be here with us. (Teacher B)
Open Court has assessments every 6 weeks, and
math gets assessed every chapter. The assistant
principal and I collect all the data and compile it
by grade and by teacher. We ask the teachers,
“For the students not doing well, what is your plan
for intervention?” Then we get other teachers to
help, or I help with math and the assistant princi-
pal with language arts.
I will bring in district people to work with my
teachers to help them develop plans to work with
their struggling students, if I feel we can’t help.
We got more aggressive with having articulation
meetings, where kindergarten meets with first and
explains their programs and their goals. The first-
grade teachers will focus on what the California
Standards are showing we need more support in,
more front loading in kindergarten.
197
Table A10 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Encouraging and supporting additional professional development
The principal encourages teachers to attend train-
ing sessions and conferences onsite and offsite.
(Teacher A)
The principal provides equal opportunity to go to
professional development seminars and meetings,
not just here but outside. (Teacher B)
I encourage staff to seek as many opportunities as
possible. Our computer teacher went to a major
conference and brought back a lot of information
and is now planning staff development for the
staff.
Supporting new teachers
The principal encourages new teachers to attend
inservice, seminars, conferences, and workshops
and then they bring back what they have learned
and share techniques acquired. (Teacher A)
We have a buddy system in place so you have
someone to go for help; we take them under our
wings. (Teacher B)
If a teacher is nervous, I will model a lesson for
the teacher about a week before the principal
came in and did the evaluation. (Teacher B)
New teachers do it [observing/being observed]
more often so they can get comfortable with the
curriculum. (Teacher A)
No reference made
New teachers are mentored by our grade-level
chairs, who are outstanding. They go over our
program, how it runs, how we teach it, and help
the new staff member with lesson plans.
New teachers can ask anyone on the team, and
they know that they will get the help they need
with lesson ideas.
The chairs will come to me and ask for release
time to go in and observe our new teachers and to
support them. The assistant principal or I will go
in and cover for the chair to make it happen.
We also use BTSA if they are qualified to be reg-
istered for that.
198
Table A10 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supporting experienced teachers
Veteran teachers are released to attend training
session and if they feel they need extra training,
they approach the principal for approval. (Teach-
er A)
Experienced teachers are sent to seminars and
workshop. They need to go out there and acquire
new ideas and techniques, to rejuvenate their
teaching strategies. (Teacher B)
I support my experienced teachers if they want to
attend outside conferences or workshops. But
one of the budget cuts has been staff development
so that may suffer, but we will continue to seek
opportunities to support teachers to attend.
Note. BTSA = Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment.
199
Table A11
Professional Development Needs Assessment Processes, as Reported by Teachers
and Principal for Low-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Procedures to identify needs
We work collaboratively with each grade level to
look at our data and see what kinds of things we
need to address. (Teacher A)
The staff can identify things they need, and they
can either write us a note, send us an email, or tell
us verbally what they need at the grade level. It’s
a collaborative effort. (Teacher A)
The teachers are free to state their opinions about
what we want. We stated we wanted more tech-
nology to bring into the classroom. (Teacher B)
There are surveys that go out to see what our
school needs. (Teacher B)
No reference made
The staff had a history of having a dictatorial
leader. That’s probably a little too strong, but
that kind of leadership where it’s not collabora-
tive. Things just came from the top and people
didn’t feel supported. (Teacher A)
A lot of our work has focused around how do we
take the data, how do we take what we’re doing
with reading, with Reading First, with the OARS
data from the county.
I put out emails to people asking them what are
your needs? Where do you see the needs coming?
I expect the leadership team to begin formulating
our 18 hours of training from that information.
For our fourth- and fifth-grade teachers, how do
we use the electronic portfolio that I’m part of a
pilot on and move the school in looking at data,
looking at actual events, coming back, revising,
where we are, and that constant recycling through
of learning.
This school was kind of told how to do it, when
they’re going to do it, so the culture of coming in
and doing needs assessments is really an emergent
piece.
200
Table A11 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Data reviewed
We’re doing monthly, not monthly, theme tests,
so each of the themes in Houghton-Mifflin and
those are put in to a system online. We can look
at our data and see what kinds of things we need
to address. Where our low scores are, do action
plans. And we do it as a district, we do it as a
school, and we do it per grade levels. (Teacher
A)
We look at the [district-level data base] after each
theme. In the upper grades look at California
Summative Tests, and decide where we need to
focus and how we’re doing from that data.
(Teacher A)
We review Houghton-Mifflin summative assess-
ments so you can see how your class compares to
other classes and talk to each other about strate-
gies. (Teacher B)
The teachers had never assessed their own chil-
dren in reading. It was done by the SSA coordi-
nator. So that was a huge shift for the teachers to
do their own DTST, phonic skills assessment.
But how do you get it done?
Then we had to figure out what is the matrix going
to be for the data, how are we going to input the
data to sort it by grade level, and how are we go-
ing to assess these kids’ needs according to their
instructional level.
So we looked at fluency and comprehension
which are embedded in Reading First and that
data drove us into using SIPPS.
Participants in needs assessment process
I make a lot of the language arts decisions myself.
The coaches and coordinator look at what the
needs are of the schools, and they put some things
together that’s similar for all the schools. (Teach-
er A)
Whatever kind of staff development we need, it
depends on our grade level as well as what the
principal feels that we need. (Teacher B)
The reading coach and myself at this point do the
needs assessment.
201
Table A11 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Participants in needs assessment process (continued)
We have a leadership team that is going to be
elected; they’re just starting that. So there will be
three people on leadership along with [principal],
and they will be setting a lot of the staff develop-
ment agendas for next year—hoping to do a year-
long plan. (Teacher A)
Next year we will have a leadership team that will
be making those decisions and taking ideas from
us; they will work on our professional calendar.
(Teacher B)
In the next few weeks, it will be a core of three
teachers who are elected and myself. That leader-
ship team will be responsible for overseeing
what’s needed for surveying, for bringing it back,
the whole survey process to build collaboration so
we can move forward.
Note. BTSA = Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment; SSA = School Site Agreement; SIPPS =
Systematic Instruction in Phonics and Sight Words.
202
Table A12
Characteristics of Effective Delivery of Professional Development, as Reported by
Teachers and Principal for Low-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Goals focused on student learning
The goal of the grant is definitely No Child Left
Behind. So we’re meeting our neediest kids.
(Teacher A)
The SIPPS program is great because the kids
master something and they move on. And there’s
a lot of flexibility in the groups, we reassess them
continually. (Teacher A)
SIPPS helps ELL students how to read through
systematic phonics and gives them strategies that
have really improved my kids in fluency and de-
coding. (Teacher B)
The goal of PBS was to help students through
positive reinforcement system and to help teach-
ers be proactive in dealing with behavior prob-
lems. (Teacher B)
The goal of Reading First is to get our kids read-
ing. About 8 to 13% of our children were profi-
cient in reading and that’s not acceptable. Our
goal is to get them all literate.
No reference made
No reference made
Activities focused on pedagogical improvement
It is doing some amazing things, and I think we’re
going to see some excellent teaching next year
with that (Reading First). (Teacher A)
SIPPS program has just taken off, and it’s cer-
tainly meeting the needs of our low-achieving
students and phonics instruction. (Teacher A)
The advanced Reading First training helps them
understand focus walls, sound spelling cards, and
how you teach children to use these tools.
Being able to use the universal access piece of
Reading First and really training teachers on what
that is—differentiated instruction that allows kids
to have access to the core curriculum.
203
Table A12 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Activities focused on pedagogical improvement (continued)
The teachers need to be familiar with all three
levels of SIPPS: beginning, extension and chal-
lenge level. The trainer gave us an overall train-
ing, and then each of the three trainings sepa-
rately, and the teachers picked the two that were
most in their grade level. (Teacher A)
The whole staff went to a comprehension work-
shop last month and there was an amazing speak-
er there. (Teacher B)
The PBS training made a huge difference on my
classroom management and how I handle situa-
tions outside my classroom; it’s helping me be
more successful. (Teacher B)
We did a lot of role playing with PBS so that we
all understood what to do. (Teacher B)
The teachers had training in SIPPS which later al-
lowed us to stratify kids in grade levels and give
them 30 to 40 minutes of intensive work in pho-
netic structures of words and get them reading.
We had a training program on the super six com-
prehension strategies. The whole staff went
through that training, and she presented six com-
prehension strategies that are easy to use, walk
into the classroom and use.
No reference made
Follow-up and support activities
If the teachers are unclear on something, it’s our
job as coaches to go in and demonstrate that les-
son. How they can be more successful, how they
might deliver it. (Teacher A)
We [coaches] go to the training with the teachers,
we hear what they’re hearing. So that we can then
address their questions when they get back in
their classroom. (Teacher A)
The coaching piece the teachers have gotten as a
result of the Reading First program has been in-
credible.
Our coach is funded by Reading First and Title I.
She coaches individual teachers, works with
groups at grade level meetings, coaches on Thurs-
days and summer for advanced training. The
SIPPS trainer did a follow up session once the
teachers started the training. He’s going to con-

tinue to work with us next year.
204
Table A12 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Follow-up and support activities (continued)
The SIPPS trainer will come back anytime. He’s
very accessible. You can email him; you can call
him. He makes a point of coming back and
checking the teachers. (Teacher A)
We discussed SIPPS at grade-level meetings, and
the teacher came back and we could contact him
if we didn’t understand something. (Teacher B)
The PBS trainers were available if we had ques-
tions and we also followed up with a PBS team
meeting that summer so you could contact your
site coordinator. (Teacher B)
No reference made
No reference made
As a follow-up to the training on the six compre-
hension strategies, on one of the Thursday out
days, I gave them a homework assignment on one
of the strategies. We had a conversation about
what it looked like in kindergarten and in fifth
grade—what were the downfalls, what did they
struggle with?
Our reading coach will do things on comprehen-
sion as a follow-up to the training, and we’ll do
that at grade levels.
Adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection
Houghton Mifflin training has a real nice way of
building on the teachers’ knowledge, and not
bring them too much, too fast, so they become
comfortable with one component and then as they
become more expert, adding more information.
(Teacher A)
We have early out Thursdays where students
leave at 1:00, so we try to get a lot of staff devel-
opment in. I usually get between an hour and an
hour and 45 minutes.. (Teacher A)
No reference made
We’ve dedicated 3 days before school starts next
year to the 18 hours of professional development
outside the teaching year.
205
Table A12 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection (continued)
We have professional Thursdays and that’s just
over an hour when we go over some kind of mate-
rial we’re learning; the principal has a whole pre-
sentation ready for us. (Teacher B)
The Reading First training is always five days.
And it’s five days a year. We have a three year
grant. (Teacher A)
I’m really looking forward to our summer train-
ing, a full week, and the whole staff of K-3 is
committed to going to it. (Teacher A)
For SIPPS, everyone went to the general one and
then two more. So each person probably put in 6
or 7 hours. And then it was follow up, and that
was an hour, I think, for each of the levels. So
maybe eight hours. (Teacher A)
We have early out Thursdays, professional devel-
opment which consists of 75 minutes.
Reading First has been going on for a year and a
half. Teachers each got 5 days, and they will have
more advanced training this summer.
The SIPPS training did three different training
sessions, depending on what levels the kids would
be, so in some cases the teachers received all
three sessions which were 2 to 3 hours in length.
Note. SIPPS = Systematic Instruction in Phonics and Sight Words, ELL = English Language Learner,
PBS = Positive Behavior Support.
206
Table A13
Evaluation of Professional Development Programs, as Reported by Teachers and
Principal for High-Performing Group, Elementary School B
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Program evaluated for effectiveness
They did PBS last year, but they weren’t using it
completely, and they weren’t really happy with
the system, the Positive Behavior System. So
now that they’ve had some staff development on
that, they’re doing pretty well, and they’re a lot

happier. (Teacher A)
Teachers who have been here for years have said
that PBS has made a huge difference, so I think
we will see big improvements over the next few

years. (Teacher B)
We always have evaluation sheets so individuals

who are involved evaluate. (Teacher A)
No reference made
No reference made

Whoever works on the program evaluates it.
Regarding SIPPS, being able to go into class-
rooms and grade levels and see across what’s be-
ing implemented, and it’s being implemented the
way it was taught.
Data used for improvement
I don’t always have a formal written evaluation.
But we talk about it in our meetings. What did
we do well, what could’ve been done better?

(Teacher A)
There is also data for our PBS system. We can
see where the hot spots in the school are—where
we need to emphasize more training for the kids
or for the staff. (Teacher A)
I need to build into the calendar day, what and
when are you going to do it again [professional
development training], how did this work, what

does it look like?
No reference made
Note. PBS = Positive Behavior System; SIPPS = Systematic Instruction in Phonics and Sight Words.
207
Table A14
Professional Learning Community Characteristics, as Reported by Teachers and
Principal for Low-Performing Group, Elementary School A
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Supportive and shared leadership
Teachers are very involved. They’re a vocal
group, and [principal] has a lot of committees,
always asking staff to volunteer. (Teacher A)
The teachers also saw that the whole staff was
responsible for making the decisions and being
part of leadership; it’s an open meeting and any-
body can come. (Teacher A)
Sometimes at staff meetings the principal will just
blatantly say there’s a problem, and we all need to
acknowledge it—we all need to address it.
(Teacher A)
We have had a lot of meetings about what we
want leadership to look like next year, and it’s
going to look way different than what it look like
now hopefully. (Teacher B)
We have PBS meetings every other Tuesday mor-
ning, and there’s a big group of people who work
on that. We look at our data and we look at our
behavior problems and how we’re doing.
(Teacher A)
True collaboration—grade levels didn’t com-
pletely get off the ground until the contract issues
were settled this year.
The fact that we have a leadership team that is just
now, according to contract, being formulated that
is going to be addressing all of this [needs assess-
ment]. It’s going to be a huge shift for this school.
It [shared leadership] will be very different next
year as we review all the joint communications
from the district and union about leadership and
responsibilities, what it will look like, how we do
it.
The Positive Behavior and Support team has been
meeting every 2 weeks to determine behavior ex-
pectations, basic school rules, and how to teach
expectations. How do we look at behavior data
like playground referrals?
208
Table A14 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Shared values and vision
[Principal] is really into the kids—are they under
control and happy with themselves, and are they
ready to learn, so that’s usually her first priority.
(Teacher A)
[Principal] reiterates, “Why are we here, what are
we doing? Let’s not lose our focus. [Principal]
always brings us back to why are we doing this.
(Teacher A)
All the teachers had to work together to believe in
the program (PBS), put it into place; we had to
have it in our minds and have ownership. (Teach-
er B)
The principal really gets excited for the students
when they reach their [academic] goals, and
she’ll come in and recognize them. (Teacher B)
There is a lot of recognition for academics—
reading achievement, math achievement, honor
roll students. (Teacher B)

One of the first things I said when I came here was
that I wanted to see a return to an academic insti-
tution. These children can learn; they will learn.
You’ve got to give it to them. That’s my continu-
ing message, although it is not always highly ac-
cepted but it’s getting better.
This school has a history of being an environment
that supports its families. At times, it’s much more
of a social support rather than an academic envi-
ronment.
Collective learning and application
I also go to their grade level meetings, which we
have collaborative meetings, team meetings every
Monday after school. (Teacher A)
We have grade-level collaboration every Monday
to discuss academics and problems in general.
(Teacher B)
Grade levels are expected to meet once a week,
and we’ll get better at those meetings as well.
209
Table A14 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Collective learning and application (continued)
Sitting in a meeting with the data is motivating
enough because you sit there and talk about it.
We’re very data driven, and just seeing what the
needs are, and then goal setting. (Teacher A)
We review Houghton Mifflin Summative Assess-
ments so you can see how your class compares to
other classes and talk to each other about strate-
gies. I feel we are always in high-level conversa-
tions about curriculum and what really works for
kids. (Teacher B)
We work as a staff during grade-level meetings
and professional development; there’s always
opportunities for collaboration. (Teacher B)
Every other Tuesday morning is a staff meeting
before school. That’s mostly information sharing
from the administration. (Teacher A)
At staff meetings we talk about events going on,
problems on campus that involve everyone, more
an informational session. (Teacher B)
Staff meetings meet the first and third Tuesdays
for about 30 to 35 minutes. I do a weekly bulletin
to fit in as much as possible the nuts and bolts and
not take the time at the staff meeting.
210
Table A14 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Shared practice involving feedback
We’re very involved with each other. We make
sure the teachers are able to go observe each
other teach, to observe each other at other sites
that we’re doing it effectively; we encouraged the
teachers at any time to share with each other and
to observe each other. (Teacher A)
Teachers are just starting to observe each other.
A lot of the teachers don’t like to be watched, and
they just say don’t watch me. (Teacher A)
I don’t see it. (Teachers observing each other)
very much. A lot of teachers would rather stay in
their classrooms and shut the doors. (Teacher B)
No reference made
No, teachers don’t visit and share observations,
but that piece will change.
Leadership team will look at that and see if we
can get release time to get in and do that. It’s
scary for teachers to do that. We’ve got to—we’re
just knocking away little bits of the wall all the
time, and that’s what we need to do.
Note. PBS = Positive Behavior and Support.
211
Table A15
Principal’s Strategies to Develop Teachers and Improve Student Learning, as Re-
ported by Teachers and Principal: Strategy Themes for Low-Performing Group,
Elementary School A

Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Building a learning community
I think everything we’ve done has really brought
this staff to one place all together. The more time
we spend together doing staff development, the
more we’re all working as a collaborative team.
(Teacher A)
The principal expects the support staff to be
available for grade-level meetings. Anything
they need, we’ll be there. (Teacher A)
Our principal encourages collaboration here. We
just had a meeting with other grade level teachers
to compare writing samples and expectations; we
have a lot of that. (Teacher B)
The principal gives us a chance to come together
and makes it a priority how to improve test scores
by sharing with the teacher right next you.
(Teacher B)
The principal pulls grade levels together and
works with them to improve instruction and
makes sure we are working together for the kids.
(Teacher B)
[Principal] tries to get more and more into the
classroom as [principal] is getting the school un-
der control. So [principal] can see what the
teachers need. (Teacher A)

As a group we sit and decide what we can do to
help each child, especially the ones who are
struggling. She is always bringing it back to the
children, which is huge. (Teacher A)
One teacher in one grade level saw tremendous
growth in vocabulary. Why do you think you saw
this growth but your colleagues didn’t? It leads to
a conversation about practices, which then leads
to what we need to do, what research we need to
look at to further enhance those strategies.
We had an incredible exchange on one of the
Thursday out days about comprehension strate-
gies in K-5. Very rarely has this staff ever had a
cross-grade-level conversation about strategies.
So next year we will be buying everyone that
book, and we will be implementing the strategies
next year.
I leave teacher notes—things I’ve seen when I
visit their rooms, the good stuff. It’s taken time to
just get them comfortable with me coming in. It’s
a growing place for adults as well as kids.
We have grade level conversations on how do you
build fluency? What does the research say about
building fluency? What can we go back and try?
We’ve got a lot of work to do.
212
Table A15 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Building a learning community (continued)
There was a lot of negative pressure that was
coming because we’re a program improvement
school, and if you don’t get your scores up, they
felt very threatened. I think changing the cul-
ture’s thinking of the school has brought it
around, and [principal] has been instrumental in
that. [Principal] takes things that come from the
district and the state and says this is the way it is.
Now, here we are and have all these talents and
skills—how can we make it better? (Teacher A)
Gradually people are saying, “I don’t know how
to do that; I need help.” That’s huge. They’re
getting there and finding it’s safer to say that.
Before teachers can surplus into this school as a
result of closing schools in the district, we will be
interviewing those who may want to come here.
We’ll ask them those tough questions about pro-
fessional development, commitment to training.
Encouraging and supporting additional professional development
We’ll bring things to staff meetings, or we’ll get
flyers or emails that things are available and then
just within our site, we decide what we want to
focus on, who we want to send to it, and how
we’re going to pay for it. (Teacher A)
We try to augment professional development days
with book studies, professional growth hours, and
extra assignments to give people passion. Passion
takes them so far to keep learning.
I need to encourage book study, I need to encour-
age us to get into research. My role needs to shift
from manager of the plant and budget to that of
instructional leader.
213
Table A15 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supporting new teachers
[Principal] works closely with BTSA so we have
one BTSA person here this year who’s working
with three new teachers. Every time she comes in
she meets with (principal) and they go over how
the teachers are doing and what their needs are.
(Teacher A)
We have a BTSA support person and a buddy
classroom system that new teachers can go to.
(Teacher B)
We have a lot of new teachers and they will need
continued training in reading. (Teacher B)
No reference made
No reference made
They’re supported with BTSA support providers.
The reading coach will work with new teachers
too on the AB466 fundamentals, and there may
very well be a lot of them next year. It’s a con-
stant cycle of training.
New teachers are linked up with people I consider
to be leaders and our reading coach.
New teachers will be required to complete AB466
training.
I allow them to go to conferences, if they ask and
have fought for them to be able to go.
They have had wonderful experiences working
with experienced teachers on district committees,
assessing students in reading, discussions at grade
level meetings.
214
Table A15 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supporting experienced teachers
A lot of them [experienced teachers) don’t want
to be told what to do. [Principal] is very diplo-
matic. It’s taken her a while to figure out all their
different personalities and ways to support them.
(Teacher A)
They [experienced teachers] need to know that I
am not a spy and they’re concerned when I come
to watch them. We do have conversations with
things that I just see, not specifically, but things I
think are a need. (Teacher A)
The experienced teachers have been vocal about
their technology needs so the principal is trying to
get them equipment and training. (Teacher B)
Our experienced teachers had an opportunity that
if they wanted to for a certain window of time to
surplus out because they did not want to commit
to the required professional development, they
could do that. That has allowed a shift of mental-
ity—you are here for the long haul and you are
committed. That has taken some of that off me.
I sent out surveys regarding technology because
my experienced teachers don’t know how to open
emails. Some of it is very fundamental.
Note. BTSA = Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment. AB466 = Assembly Bill 466 mandating
teacher professional development.
215
Table A16
Professional Development Needs Assessment Processes, as Reported by Teachers
and Principal for Low-Performing Group, Elementary School B

Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Procedures to identify needs
The district—they check all their districts in the
area and just take what they think is the best out
of all those programs. (Teacher A)
I haven’t seen any flyers for us to pick what train-
ing we’re interested in. (Teacher B)
That’s done through some of the trainers, reading
coaches, when they visit or talk to various staff
members they can get a feel and see what our
needs are, and they can base the training around
that. (Teacher B)
The district did staff surveys regarding for the
teachers to select different kinds of training they’d
be interested in for the following year.
I gave the teachers some options to write in other
things they’d be interested in on the district sur-
veys.
There’s just curriculum and instructional training
based upon what our own coaches and resource
teachers and administrators are identifying the
areas that we want to focus on.

Data reviewed
We use the student assessments. Every trimester
in all areas in reading comprehension, vocabu-
lary, writing. We analyze the data every 3 weeks.
(Teacher A)
We analyze data and compare to other schools in
the district and to other schools in other districts.
(Teacher A)
Test scores, or sometimes we’re asked to bring
various test scores so we can prop them and get
back and take that information to the classroom.
(Teacher B)
No reference made
We assess reading, language arts, and math every
3 weeks, and that data goes into report cards and
these curricular assessments are used to identify
training in reading and math.
For district core curriculum training, they’re pri-
marily based on the curriculum assessments done
every 3 weeks in the district.
For the character education program, we re-
viewed student discipline and behavior problems
records like suspensions, office referrals, atten-
dance problems.
216
Table A16 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Participants in needs assessment process
There are some people in the main offices that are
in charge of developing the curriculum or devel-
oping the tests. (Teacher A)
The reading coaches, superintendents and defi-
nitely the principals. (Teacher B)
No reference made
There are two key individuals—a director for
math and one for reading, language arts. They are
mostly responsible for planning things. There is
also their supervisor, the assistant superintendent.
At the site level, myself and the leadership plan
those, like the character education program.
Note. BTSA = Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment.
217
Table A17
Characteristics of Effective Delivery of Professional Development, as Reported by
Teachers and Principal: Effective Professional Development Characteristics for
Low-Performing Group, Elementary School B

Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Goals focused on student learning
The goal of the Open Court training program was
to increase children’s achievement because the
children were really not scoring high in the STAR
test, and we were really at the bottom of the pile
and now we’re coming up slowly. (Teacher A)
The goals of High Point and ELLA were to give
us training we could actually take back into the
classroom the next day and try it out and bring it
back next time to training or to your reading
coach. (Teacher B)
The goals of the reading program were for admin-
istrators to be knowledgeable of the reading, lan-
guage arts program.
The goal of the district staff development forums
were more specific. One was to become fluent in
the direct instruction model, and we wanted to
hold them accountable for the presenting of it, of
implementing it.
Activities focused on pedagogical improvement
We went through the whole process as if we were
the children to really experience what they go
through and make presentations to other teachers.
(Teacher A)
The High Point training was good because we
met with a trainer who was an expert using the
program and then show us what we should be do-
ing and how we’re supposed to do it. (Teacher B)
We worked on different methods to improve class
fluency and activities for active participation, to
get everyone involved. (Teacher B)
I went to 80 hours of training in the Open Court
reading program, so to me as instructional leader,
that was most powerful for me to become knowl-
edgeable in the curriculum.
I have been training our staff with our reading
coaches, so I really had to learn the stuff to pres-
ent it to my own teachers.
218
Table A17 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Follow-up and support activities
No reference made
No reference made
We have reading specialists at every school site
that help with any doubts that you have or any
questions. They come to the classroom and show
you how to do it or talk to you after school, so
there’s always support, constant support. (Teach-
er A)
The reading coaches know or train the same way,
and they can help you with questions, too.
(Teacher B)
I’ve had the reading coach come in and demo a
lesson for me, to show me how it’s supposed to
be done and for me to take what I saw and go
back and do it. (Teacher B)
Because I was the trainer here on site and I knew
it well, the monitoring and follow-up on it was
better.
For the one day, district professional development
days, mostly the follow-up is the principal doing
informal and formal classroom observation to see
if we saw the direct instruction model in practice
in the rooms.
For the summer reading institutes, the Open Court
Reading, each school has a full-time reading
coach, and they follow up with the different grade
levels as far as what they learned. Many of the
coaches were the summer trainers.
219
Table A17 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Adequate time for learning, integration, and reflection
We’ve had several series on the ELLA. The last
four staff development training has been on
ELLA. (Teacher B)
ELLA training was good because we worked in
smaller groups; we get more personal and get
some questions answered. (Teacher B)
The Open Court training is an ongoing process—
summertime, after school. (Teacher A)
I enjoy the reading training programs, not just
during the summertime but after school because
they give you a lot of ideas and the reading teach-
ers present the program. (Teacher A)
During the summer training, we had teachers
from other districts in [city], so it made it more
interesting because people share their expe-
riences, frustrations and accomplishments.
(Teacher A)
The High Point training was on the weekends, so
we got to learn what we did and tell the trainer
how it went, what wasn’t working, or I’m having
trouble and she could help us. (Teacher B)
High Point was 40 hours over 3 weekends and
ELLA was one big one and four separate ones.
(Teacher B)
The ELLA training is 18 hours from 3:00 to 6:00
p.m. in the evenings over six sessions.
The summer Governor’s Reading Institute is a full
week long, about 40 hours. Many have gone for
3 years, so they have had advanced training and
training in other grade levels.
The district has monthly after-school staff devel-
opment programs that are grade level specific
taught by the district’s leading coaches so teach-
ers from all over the district go together and study
their Open Court curriculum.
The direct instruction model has a presentation
component where information is begin presented,
then it has a practice component from highly
structured practice to guided practice to more in-
dependent practice. We tried to use the same
model when we presented it to the teachers.
Note. ELLA = English Learner Language Arts.
220
Table A18
Evaluation of Professional Development Programs, as Reported by Teachers and
Principal: Effective Professional Development Characteristics for Low-Performing
Group, Elementary School B

Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Program evaluated for effectiveness
At the end of every presentation, they have a form
where you write how you feel about it, what you
liked about it, what you didn’t like, what would
you like to have in the future to be presented.
(Teacher A)
With High Point, we had a survey but with ELLA
we didn’t have a survey or anything. We talked
about it at staff meetings, so more word of mouth.
It’s not mandatory, so you can see who likes it or
not if they show up or not. (Teacher B)
No reference made
We look at test scores for the school across the
board and we talk about how before we got Open
Court, I couldn’t see where students were but
now I can see they’re improving and making
great strides. (Teacher B)
At every training, these teachers are filling out
evaluation feedback forms as to the quality of the
training. That information is given to the present-
ers and reviewed by district administration.
Principals get information about our teachers,
how many of them are going to the voluntary
training offered after school.
For the character education program, we re-
viewed student discipline and behavior problems
records like suspensions, office referrals, atten-
dance problems.
I think the staff development programs are evalu-
ated more so in improvement in test scores and in
teacher evaluations, to see if we’re seeing the re-
sults of training and implementing in classrooms
221
Table A18 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Data used for improvement
The trainers review it; the superintendents or peo-
ple over language would review it. I assume they
want to see if we kicked that back in the class-
rooms and used it or if we should have more
training. (Teacher B)
Presenters review the information; they take it
very serious because sometimes they plan next
year’s staff development programs based on the
opinions that the people give. (Teacher A)
I would say more various levels of administration
are reviewing the evaluations of staff develop-
ment, from the principal level up to the district
level.
Teachers have a role and receive feedback as to
how different staff development programs were
rated.
Note. ELLA = English Learner Language Arts.
222
Table A19
Professional Learning Community Characteristics, as Reported by Teachers and
Principal for Low-Performing Group, Elementary School B

Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Supportive and shared leadership
We have different committees, and they have a
lot of power because people from that committee
can make decisions, and then they present ideas
to the rest of the staff and we vote. (Teacher A)
We have lots of different committees that meet
for various reasons, and they work with the prin-
cipal and various teachers to make different deci-
sions. (Teacher B)
I’m on the Leadership Team, and we meet and
talk about activities for the students to motivate
them. (Teacher B)
The principal might say, “Let’s take this back to
your grade level and see what the rest of your
teammates want, and we’ll see what we can do
about it or what needs to be done.” (Teacher B)
I am very much strong in favor of site-based deci-
sions and quality management strategies which
put decision making at the very lowest possible
level.
I have a lot of subgroups set up at this school that
make decisions, and it all reports back to me. My
job is to communicate back out to the total group.
I become the funnel and then the fountain.
We have a leadership team and a School-Wide
Effectiveness Committee that meet each month.
There’s a cost team, a coordination of services
team, student study team meetings, and several
other adjunct committees.
The leadership team meets twice a month and has
a representative from each grade and from sup-
port staff.
If I see a problem, it’s going to be opened in the
next weekly bulletin because I want everyone to
know about that problem. For school-wide issues
I want them to be involved in, I’m going to com-
municate it.
If I am going to delegate them the right to make a
lot of decisions, they got to be informed or they
don’t make good decisions; so my job is to keep
everybody informed. I’m a big communicator.
223
Table A19 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supportive and shared leadership (continued)
No reference madeThe trick is keeping the teachers motivated and
not becoming discouraged and disheartened when
they—we continue to make slow, steady progress,
but we still don’t have adequate number. Teach-
ers make that comment frequently, that nothing
we ever do is good enough. Gains we do make
are not appreciated or recognized. We just get
constant bombardment of we’re not good enough,
and so I do a lot of battle with discouragement.
Shared values and vision
No reference made
No reference made
No reference made
Once a month I have a school culture and climate
team, and it plans one fun activity. Once a month
there is some activity that people can attend, join
in on to take the pressure off of just constantly fo-
cusing on the test scores.
It’s not hard to keep us focused because we’re
under the spotlight. We’re considered an under-
performing school and one that may be identified
for Title I Program improvement. So everyone is
acutely aware that we are under major pressure to
get student test scores up.
Increasing parent involvement is a big part of our
plan that I brought into this school, to make this
more of a community school.
224
Table A19 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Shared values and vision (continued)
We have a couple of things that maybe motivate
teachers, to help motivate children, like today we
went on a field trip that only certain students
could go on. It was based on the three As: aca-
demics, attendance, and attitude. The whole
school was involved, but you had to follow those
guidelines to go. (Teacher B)
We [leadership team] meet and talk about activi-
ties for the students to motivate them. If they per-
formed well to our standards, took their time,
double-checked their work, looked like they gave
110% effort on the CAT-6 test, then they’ll get to
go another trip, and come everyday prepared and
not miss. (Teacher B)
We do practice lessons and teach kids about be-
ing trustworthy and respect. We recently re-
named the corridors of the school names like Av-
enue of Respect. We talk about that every morn-
ing throughout the whole year. (Teacher B)
Students and parents get bombarded with the mes-
sage that we’re not good enough. So we do a lot
more to make students love school, to make learn-
ing fun, and have fun activities for school to make
this more of a community school because they get
discouraged too.
The pressure is so heavy on test scores it prevents
us from spending the time we need to adjust the
whole child kind of thing. Attitude and at-
tendance and things like that are just as critical as
bringing the test scores up. Achievement is just
one avenue, just one issue.

Collective learning and application
At staff meetings we discuss budgets, decisions
about new programs, every issue really. (Teacher
A)
Staff meeting discussions focus on everything
from curriculum to discipline. The principal
brings in a list of what we’re going to go through
and we talk about those hot topics. If anybody
has anything else pressing, we address it if we
have time. (Teacher B)
Mostly our staff meetings involve information
items that I am communicating to them or that my
committees are reporting out. There’s not a lot of
time at full faculty meetings for big discussion
items.
What I do say at staff meetings is that we’re going
to talk about this for the next 15 minutes, and then
we’re going to have to cut it off after that because
it can go on and on and take up the whole staff
meeting.
225
Table A19 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Collective learning and application (continued)
Staff meetings are a comfortable and open envi-
ronment. If you have a question or comment, ev-
erybody feels they can go ahead and put it out
there. (Teacher B)
We always analyze data and look at what’s new
and what has changed and constantly evaluating
those and comparing to the rest of the schools. At
the end of every trimester we share the data.
(Teacher A)
Every trimester we meet in grade levels and go
over students’ test scores to see how they’ve pro-
gressed through the year. We look at other
grades and kids we had last year. (Teacher B)
We share how we are going to make the kids
improve. Grade levels meet and we share that
information with the whole staff. (Teacher A)
We have grade-level meetings and we plan for
the whole week and a lot of teachers do that now.
(Teacher A)
We meet in grade levels and make sure we’re all
on the same page. We do a lot of planning and
meeting with bilingual teachers. (Teacher B)
No reference made
I am trying to teach them by modeling it, talk to
each other, and I will participate in these discus-
sions. I’ll start a discussion and then sit down in
the middle of my staff so they can’t just talk to
me.
We just completed a round of academic confer-
encing where we had met with every grade level
team, analyzed their data and wrote action plans
for the next quarter that they will be implementing
in their classrooms.
I wanted grade level teams to share with each
other the basic action plans they developed. They
needed to share with each other.
I assign them [teachers] things to do so it forces
them to communicate. I assign the grade-level
teams tasks. For example, in your next meetings I
want you guys to talk about dismissal procedures
because I saw the other day this happening.
I also set up cross-grade-level meetings. For ex-
ample, I want you to get together and decide what
to do for end of year trip.
226
Table A19 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Shared practice involving feedback
The reading specialists invite you to visit class-
rooms or other schools to see how they’re imple-
menting it [reading program] to see if there are
any differences or you can apply your own ideas
and try theirs too. (Teacher A)
Recently we had 2 days. We were released from
the classroom and on a schedule to visit other
classrooms or classrooms from other schools, and
that was interesting because you get a lot of input.
(Teacher A)
A month ago the principal got a sub for the day
and we got to pick which day we wanted and we
split it amongst our teammates and got to go to
each other’s classroom. (Teacher B)
If you talk to the principal, it could be two or
three times a year if you wish—he will make sure
it happens. (Teacher A)
He’s very supportive, so if you want to go out to
another classroom and see what you’re curious
about in action or to master classrooms in the dis-
trict, he’ll get you subs. (Teacher B)
Our reading coach will take a teacher’s class so
the teacher can go next door and observe.
I hired 7 days of sub time and gave every grade
level a sub for a day. They developed a schedule
where they could use the sub to release them and
they could go observe each other.
I gave new teachers a day, and they observed each
other and other grade-level teachers.
I offered a half-day substitute for observing and
they never did it, so this year I got the sub and
they all did it. I made them discuss it with me,
and I had a meeting with the grade-level teams,
and they sort of discussed what they learned and
saw in each other’s notes.
Supportive conditions

We seem to have a very together group; the atmo-
sphere is very good and I feel we get along with
the principal, the majority of us. (Teacher A)
There’s a friendly relationship at the school, and
grade levels work hard and are pretty close knit.
(Teacher B)
The relationships here are a love-hate thing. It
has taken me 3 years to get this staff and build
them, so that right now our culture and climate is
pretty good. They’ve learned my style and I’ve
learned theirs.
227
Table A19 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supportive conditions (continued)
I feel I feel that way—that there is a feeling of
openness, trust, and collaboration. (Teacher A)
People are respectful and open with each other.
The principal has an open door policy, and you
can go in there and make any comment you have.
(Teacher B)
The principal tries to listen and be open to what
the staff was saying at our staff meetings.
(Teacher B)
The staff is still adjusting to the principal and get-
ting used to his ways. (Teacher B)
No reference made
I think there is a feeling of openness, trust, and
collaboration. When I put out my weekly bulle-
tin, a small line forms out my door. Lots of peo-
ple say we like that we can come and tell you I
didn’t like this or I like this.
My relationship with the staff is evolving much
like a marriage. I’m constantly hearing their feed-
back, wanting me to be stronger in this area and
maybe not so busy in that area. You have to listen
to each other.
We’re not spending very much time arguing about
things, we’re pretty much on the same page as far
as where we’re going and who’s doing what to get
us there.
We’re very limited on the amount of time we have
to meet. Teachers are saying they want two staff
meetings a month so we can have more discussion
time at our staff meetings.
Note. CAT-6 = California Achievement Test-6.
228
Table A20
Principal’s Strategies to Develop Teachers and Improve Student Learning, as Re-
ported by Teachers and Principal: Strategy Themes for Low-Performing Group,
Elementary School B

Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions

Building a learning community
We have staff meetings every 2 weeks and grade-
level meetings where we share ideas or [are] con-
stantly presenting what is available and what
should be attained. (Teacher A)
At the end of every trimester we share the data,
the scores of how we are doing to make the kids
improve, and then we present that information to
the whole staff. (Teacher A)
We meet every trimester by grade level and go
over students’ test scores to see how they’ve pro-
gressed. We look at other grade levels and see
the whole school across the board. (Teacher B)
No reference made
Much of the work I delegate out to the teachers is
done in their grade-level teams, and I provide
them opportunity for two grade-level meetings a
month. Most of them meet much more frequently
than that.
We do some more things at this school to keep
staff, motivation, and staff appreciation and rec-
ognizing our accomplishments. Those kinds of
things are important.
I try to give teachers lots of positive messages and
build on their positives, but I need to be better
about that.
229
Table A20 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Supporting new teachers
Prior to new teachers starting, they have to attend
a few days of workshops in the summer, and on
top of that the principal meets with them con-
stantly and helps them on whatever they need
help with. (Teacher A)
The new teachers are placed under the wing of
the reading coach. (Teacher B)
The principal is always asking new teachers how
you’re doing, and he’s very supportive and makes
sure the reading coach checks in on you and that
your teammates are supporting you. (Teacher B)
New teachers get about a full week of this or that
kinds of understanding of the district and pro-
grams and curriculum training.
New teachers take the week-long summer insti-
tutes as well.
I sort of depend on the more experienced teachers
at a grade level to let the newer teachers know
what they need to know.
I refer new teachers to go and check with a grade
level colleague about this information or that.
Encouraging and supporting professional development
There are some courses offered to the teachers,
but it’s on a voluntary basis. He [principal] tries
to make those available to anyone. (Teacher A)
No reference made
No reference made

Voluntary participation in the Open Court sum-
mer program is strongly encouraged. For exam-
ple, the district says if primary teachers don’t,
then they could just reassign them to an upper
grade. But most have gone every summer for 3 or
4 years.
Number one, I monitor who is going to what train-
ings and then I do discuss it with teachers during
their evaluations about ongoing staff develop-
ment.
One of the California Standards for the teaching
profession is professional development, so I am
able to communicate with them about who is go-
ing to what training, who is signed up for the sum-
mer training, who attends the district trainings.
230
Table A20 (continued)
Teachers’ perceptions Principal’s perceptions
Encouraging and supporting professional development (continued)
No reference madeI frequently talk to the teachers when I have con-
cerns about what I see happening or not happen-
ing in our classrooms and recommend certain
trainings for them to go to.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and some state laws have mandated increased student achievement by 2014 to levels of proficiency in reading and math for all students attending American public schools, the achievement gap between underserved students and their higher performing Caucasian peers con-tinue to widen. In spite of some federal and state resources to public schools and efforts to close the academic achievement gap, researchers seek to ascertain why the gap persists.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Closing the achievement gap in a high performing elementary school

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Overcoming a legacy of low achievement: systems and structures in a high-performing, high-poverty California elementary school

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

Cultivating motivation and persistence for urban, high achieving, low-SES African American students

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

School-wide implementation of systems and structures that lead to increased achievement among students of color: a case study of a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

PDF

Motivational differences of high-ability high-performing (HAHP) and high-ability low-performing (HALP) high school students

PDF

Doubling student performance through the use of human capital at high-performing high-poverty schools

PDF

Factors that contribute to high and low performing Vietnamese American high school students

PDF

Organizational structures and systems in high-performing, high-poverty urban schools: the construct of race and teacher expectations as mediating factors in student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

Cross-case analysis of the use of student performance data to increase student achievement in California public schools on the elementary level

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

Effective leadership practices of principals of low socioeconomic status high schools consisting of predominantly African-American and Latino students showing sustained academic improvement

PDF

School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

Asset Metadata

Creator Henry-Bell, Mary Ruth (author)

Core Title Professional development in high- and low-performing elementary schools serving large numbers of African American, Latino, and low-socioeconomic students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/14/2006

Defense Date 07/18/2006

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

Tag achievement gap,high/low performing schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,Professional Learning Community,underserved students

Language English

Advisor Keim, Robert G. (committee member), Newland, Chester A. (committee member)

Creator Email NubianStrength@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m134

Unique identifier UC1119614

Identifier etd-HenryBell-20061114 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-22507 (legacy record id),usctheses-m134 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HenryBell-20061114.pdf

Dmrecord 22507

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Henry-Bell, Mary Ruth

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