University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A benchmark analysis of Hardy Brown College Prep

(USC Thesis Other)

A benchmark analysis of Hardy Brown College Prep

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 1
A BENCHMARK ANALYSIS OF HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP
by
Howana Lenise Lundy
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2013
Copyright 2013 Howana Lenise Lundy
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my son, Derick Lundy, who has inspired me to
keep traveling on this journey. He is the reason I exist and strive to be the best me.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 3
Acknowledgments
First, I give honor to God for giving me the strength to keep going, even when at
first I did not succeed. I thank my family, Mom, Dad, and sisters, who continued to
encourage me and pray for me even when I wanted to quit. The inspirational CD by
MARY MARY kept me going. My best friend, Majadi, helped me to see that the process
was manageable and gave me assistance and support. Dr. Escalante has always inspired
me with his cool exterior and practical life applications that he shared in his leadership
class. Dr. Fortune and the Fortune school gave me the opportunity to be a part of a phe-
nomenal experience that inspired this work. Dr. Hentschke has been the most calm and
honest dissertation chair a woman could have. Finally, my best friends, Dr. Turley and
Dr. Gates, pushed me to get it done. I express my appreciation to each of them for their
support.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 8
Background 10
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 17
Research Questions 18
Limitations and Delimitations 19
Definitions of Key Terms 20
Organization of the Dissertation 21
Chapter Summary 21

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature 23
History of African American Education in the United States 25
The Achievement Gap 28
Genetic and Cultural Inferiority 31
Bourdieu’s Concept of Social Capital 32
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory 33
African American Academic Disengagement 35
Summary 36
The Charter School Difference 37
Student Achievement in Charter Schools 38
Successful Charter School Model: KIPP School 41
High Expectations 43
Choice and Commitment 47
More Time 52
Power to Lead 55
Focus on Results 56
St. Hope Public School 7 65
Chapter Summary 65

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 67
Problem and Purposes Overview 67
Research Questions 67
Population and Sample 68
Setting 68
Participants 69
Data Collection and Instrumentation 70
Data Analysis 72
Chapter Summary 72
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 5

Chapter 4: Results 74
Research Questions 74
Sample Characteristics 74
Findings 76
Research Question 1: Five Pillars 76
Research Question 2: Student Achievement 77
Research Question 3: Summary 79

Chapter 5: Discussion 81
Overview of the Study 81
Findings 82
Implications for Education 83
Limitations of the Study 88
Developing Alternative Educational Settings 89
Suggestions for Further Research 89
Conclusion 90

References 91
Appendix: Parent Interview Questions 115
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 6
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Sample Characteristics 75
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for the Five Pillars 77
Table 3: Spring 2012 Proficiency Rates for Hardy Brown College Prep School
and Comparison Schools 79
Figure 1: KIPP leadership competency model 56
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 7
Abstract
Student achievement data from the California Department of Education clearly
show that a severe and persistent achievement gap exists for African American students
across the United States. This achievement gap can be defined as the difference between
African Americans’ and White students’ proficiency on the California Standards Test.
Many parents and educational reformers have looked to the charter school structure as a
viable alternative to the traditional public school offerings. Charter school supporters
hold that charter schools can and will be the answer to the achievement gap.
This study examined parent choice related to charter schools, performing a
benchmark analysis of a newly formed charter school in San Bernardino County, Califor-
nia, to determine whether the parents’ choice of an alternative educational model for their
African American children was beneficial for their children’s academic progress. School
success was investigated through the lens of a heavily researched model of academic
excellence that is implemented at the school.
This study investigated how parents think their children are performing academ-
ically in the identified charter school setting. The researcher compared student data on
standardized tests for these African American students to data for similar students
throughout California. Results suggest that parents perceived high levels of each of the
Five Pillars. Analysis of student achievement data indicated that levels of student profi-
ciency in Language Arts and Mathematics were significantly higher than in matched
comparison schools throughout California.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 8
Chapter 1
Introduction to the Study
Historically, African American students have consistently underperformed White
American students (Anderson, J. D., 2007). Since the passage of Brown v. Board of Edu-
cation in 1954, there has been significant educational advancement but there still exists
an overwhelming number of African American students who fall prey to academic
underperformance and failure in American schools (Anderson, J. D., 2007). For example,
special analyses by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2009 and
2011 showed that African American students trailed their white peers by an average of
more than 20 test score points on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) mathematics and reading assessments at Grades 4 and 8—a difference of about
two grade levels (NCES, 2009, 2011).
The idea of the achievement gap has been well researched and documented and
has been on local and national agendas for many years. However, the problem of the
achievement gap still exists (Braun, Wang, Jenkins, & Weinbaum, 2006; Campbell,
Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000; Education Trust, 2003; Jencks & Phillips, 1998). Many
researchers have raised the question, “Why does the gap does still exist?” Early research-
ers argued that some groups of people are biologically inferior intellectually and socially.
In short, these researchers concluded that African American students were intellectually
inferior and would never be able to compete academically with their White counterparts
(Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1969); other early theorists such as Bourdieu (1977)
and Bowles and Gintis (2002) looked to the idea of economic and social reproduction
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 9
theories as a potential explanation. They argued that schools tend to serve the interests of
the dominant classes by reproducing the economic and social relations of society, that
schools thus help to create and maintain these inequalities. More modern researchers
have looked to social and cultural disconnects between home and school culture as a pos-
sible lens by which to view the discrepancy in achievement (Boykin, 1986; Noguera,
2001). Unfortunately, despite the political attention, judicial laws, and academic research,
the reality of high academic failure still exists for African American students (Braun et
al., 2006; Campbell et al., 2000; Education Trust, 2003; Jencks & Phillips, 1998).
The grave challenges that continue to exist within the public school setting have
caused many Black parents in inner cities to seek alternative educational opportunities
(Freedman, 2004). Many middle-class Black parents have chosen to send their children to
private schools for a more rigorous education because of their dissatisfaction with the
public school system (Freedman, 2004; McKinnon, 2003). Many middle-class Black
families are drawn to independent schools because of the offer of small student-teacher
ratio, a sense of caring, and a perceived high-quality education (Dubow & Ippolito,
1994). Unfortunately, low-income African American parents have been at the mercy of
the public educational system to educate their children. Research by The Education Trust
research and advocacy organization has shown that students in poverty and students who
are members of racial minority groups are overwhelmingly concentrated in the lowest-
achieving schools. In California, African American students are 6 times more likely than
White students to attend one of the bottom third of schools in the state (Education Trust
West, 2010). Given the lack of economic resources, combined with growing
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 10
dissatisfaction with the public school offering, many inner-city parents are looking to the
charter school setting as a viable educational alternative.
This study was designed to look at the parents’ power to choose. The charter
school option provides a new innovative way for African American parents to participate
actively in their child’s educational acquisition. The charter school option seems to be
attractive to many African American parents, particularly in improved areas, because the
option is free. Unfortunately, given the nuances of the charter system, all charters are not
successful. In fact, research on charter school achievement is very mixed. Thus, the goal
of this study was to determine whether, in a particular inner-city setting, the parents’
decision to choose a charter school was a better choice for their child’s academic
achievement.
Background
A McKinsey & Co. report (2009) asserted that the United States fails to realize
the full human potential of its citizens because of the failing K–12 schooling system. The
report noted that, by the time of high school graduation, the American students’ problem-
solving and critical thinking abilities are very far behind those of economic competitors
such as Canada, the Netherlands, Korea, and Australia (McKinsey & Co., 2009). While
this information is independently disturbing, gross underperformance by low-income
minority students is even more disheartening. According to Cholewa and West-Olatunju
(2008), the U.S. educational system is consistently failing the nation’s low-income, cul-
turally diverse students, as revealed in the achievement gap. Across all socioeconomic
levels, according to the U.S. Department of Education (2007), African American students
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 11
consistently attain lower scores on all reading and mathematics standardized tests com-
pared to European American students. The U.S. Department of Education reported that 1
in 10 African American students dropped out of high school (Cholewa & West-Olatunju,
2008). In addition, according to Cholewa and West-Olatunju (2008), nearly half the
schools attended by African American students were economically disadvantaged. The
United States had the greatest global achievement gap between low-income African
American students and middle- and upper-income European American students of all
industrialized nations.
The reality that the U.S. educational system was not designed for the cultural
interest of low-income, culturally different students (Cholewa & West-Olatunju, 2008) is
perhaps the root cause for underachievement. In fairness, the problem of the
miseducation of the African American child is not a new phenomenon (Woodson, 1998).
Unfortunately, despite civil rights actions and equal educational opportunities and legis-
lative measures, African American students are still systematically underperforming (Pai
& Adler, 2001). A sympathetic President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Great Soci-
ety programs, which included educational measures such as the Economic Opportunity
Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The idea
of the Great Society programs was for America to become a society in which all groups
have parity in power. Social, political, and economic equality was to be achieved by
providing equal educational opportunities for all races of people. Public education was
intentionally a significant part of the Great Society programs. The purpose of the Great
Society programs was to lift African Americans from low socioeconomic status (SES)
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 12
and help them to find better-paying jobs. The goal was to provide African American
students with the same kinds of educational experiences that enable middle-class White
students to acquire skills and attitudes that are necessary to achieve success in America. It
was a means to eradicate low SES (Pai & Adler, 2001).
Later in history, President Bill Clinton introduced legislation known as Goals
2000 (H.R. 1804) Educate Americans Act of 1993 as an attempt to reinvigorate the
nation’s K–12 education system. Clinton’s plan created incentives for states to voluntar-
ily identify content standards and assess student progress. Unfortunately, this legislation
did not yield the academic achievement that the government had hoped for.
In 2001, under a more aggressive Bush administration, the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) replaced Clinton’s voluntary system of standards-based education (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002). The new legislation mandated states to develop content
standards and public schools to make annual assessments of student learning toward
those standards. However, critics argue that NCLB focuses on lower-level thinking
(memorization) of traditional subject matter (Wagner, 2008). The higher level skills of
analysis and problem solving that characterize the global society are not addressed in
NCLB’s mandates. Further, NCLB fails to require competency in world languages, mul-
ticulturalism, or international issues. The NCLB legislation has forced the American
public school system to become more intentional about ensuring that students are learn-
ing. There now exists a more intentional look at how schools are educating children.
Although NCLB mandates that every child have access to a high-quality teacher,
this is not reality for many African American students, particularly those in urban schools
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 13
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Thompson, 2004). In reality, 8 of every 10 new teachers are
assigned to high-minority schools, where 60% of core courses are taught by teachers
lacking the qualifications to do so (Education Trust West, 2006; Sunderman, 2006).
Although civil rights actions and equal educational opportunities are in place,
African American students are still not developing well in these programs (Pai & Adler,
2001). Past and current socioeconomic conditions, including inadequate funding, inap-
propriate governance, and lack of cultural knowledge, have contributed to substandard
annual yearly progress (AYP) for African American students who attend public schools.
Consequently, politicians such as George Bush have begun to question the current
organizational construct of the traditional school as a viable option for America’s
children.
This climate of accountability and mistrust of current educational practices has
fostered support for the burgeoning of charter schools. Charter schools are public school
entities that have been established in response to criticisms and concerns that the tradi-
tional public school system was not meeting the educational needs of its students. The
original advocates of the charter school concept argued that these needs could be met in a
school system that had substantial autonomy from various policies and procedures that
control the traditional public school system. The charter school was first established in
1991 in Minnesota. Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools
that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other
public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results,
which are set forth in each charter school’s charter.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 14
The National Education Association (NEA; 2012) has contended that charter
schools and other nontraditional public school options have the potential to facilitate edu-
cation reforms and develop new and creative teaching methods that can be replicated in
traditional public schools for the benefit of all children. Whether charter schools will
fulfill this potential depends on how charter schools are designed and implemented,
including the oversight and assistance provided by the charter authorizer.
The charter school movement has been supported as a means to improve student
learning through unique organizational structures that support pedagogical innovations
(Bulkley, 2004). Since 1991, the number of charter schools has grown exponentially. As
of December 2011, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS; 2012)
reported that there were approximately 5,600 public charter schools in the United States.
While the popularity of charter schools is growing rapidly, data on the success of the
charter school compared to the traditional public school are mixed. For example, charter
schools vary greatly from site to site in terms of teacher training, grade configurations,
ethnic make-up of student populations, and SES of students (Hassel, 2005). Charters tend
to have a niche or a target population. Given the great diversity among charters, Hassel
(2005) argued, “Asking about the quality of charter schools as a group is a bit like asking
about the quality of new restaurants or American cars—any overall generalization will
mask the great diversity within” (p. 3).
By definition, the charter school was developed to provide choice and autonomy
to parents and school children and to ensure school accountability. However, the conse-
quence of a public school system that traditionally has underserved minority populations
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 15
establishes the charter schools as an attractive option for racial and ethnic minorities. The
bottom line is that the charter school industry is a relatively new entity. To date, the
schools that fall under the umbrella of charter are so diverse that it is difficult to create a
blanket assessment of charter school effectiveness. The laws that each state creates to
authorize and govern charter schools are very different (Center for Education Reform,
2011; Mead & Rotherham, 2007). In a growing number of studies the achievement
results for charter schools are mixed (Berends, Watral, Teasley, & Nicotera, 2006;
Bifulco & Ladd, 2006; Center for Research on Education Outcomes [CREDO], 2009;
Dobbie & Fryer, 2009; Gill, Timpane, Ross, Brewer, & Booker, 2007; Imberman, 2007;
Rattermann & Reid, 2009). Some studies show positive effects for charter schools, while
others show no differences or a negative effect.
Statement of the Problem
Ladson-Billings (1994) asserted that the burdens of a history that has denied Afri-
can Americans education or offered it only under circumstances of separate and unequal,
particularly in unsafe and substandard schools, have made African Americans’ quest for
quality education an elusive dream. History has shown that legislators have attempted to
formulate methods for African American students to achieve, yet academic performances
continue to trend in the wrong direction (Hoffman & Nottis, 2008; U.S. Department of
Education, 2002). “Our nation is now facing the results from a history of under-educating
its minority population that will become the majority population by the middle of the
century” (Rousseau, 2007, p. 50). The United States, for many generations, has viewed
public education as a vehicle to drive social and political replication of mainstream
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 16
middle-class culture. The nation has consistently provided cookie cutter educational
opportunities for diverse ethnic groups without much consideration for changing
traditional public education (Pai & Adler, 2001). However, while the American educa-
tional system was not designed for the educational and cultural interests of African
American students (Boutte & Strickland, 2008; Cholewa & West-Olatunju, 2008;
Shockley, 2007; Swartz, 2007), Americans can no longer afford to ignore the problem of
poverty, underachievement, and disparity. The educational system must be transformed
to meet the cultural needs of African American students if they are to be successful in
school (Shockley, 2007).
While the charter school structure was not originally designed to remedy racial
disparities in education or to serve minorities, trends in African American parental satis-
faction surveys indicate that parents have rated charters as superior to their children’s
previous schools in important attributes such as school and class size, quality of instruc-
tion, and curriculum (Bulkley & Fisler, 2002; Gleason, Clark, Tuttle, & Dwoyer, 2010).
However, given the great diversity and autonomy of charter school offerings, a plausible
question is, Why do some charters schools work well with certain populations and under
what conditions do charter schools work (Berends, Kirby, Naftel, & McKelvey, 2002)?
According to charter school advocates, charter schools are shattering low expec-
tations and breaking through longstanding barriers that have prevented large numbers of
students from underserved communities from achieving educational success (NAPCS,
2012). Some critics of public schools suggest that charter schools help families to escape
poorly performing schools and provide opportunities for an equal education by allowing
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 17
families to cross class and neighborhood lines (Nathan, 1996). In addition, some view the
development of charter schools as the potential resolution to challenges experienced in
traditional public schools (Manno, Vanourek, & Finn, 1999; Nathan, 1996). One may
posit that the answer to the achievement gap consists of customized educational offerings
that seek to meet the individual needs of the students whom they are designed to serve.
Some detractors contend that charter schools have the potential to become elite
organizations by “creaming,” or selecting only higher achieving students. Similarly, the
schools may admit only certain racial, ethnic, or less disadvantaged groups of students
(Collins, 1999; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2011). Charter school critics also
contend that the idea of choice is often diluted because some parents do not choose
schools based solely on academics; instead, parents also factor in items such as the loca-
tion of the school, work schedules, and after-school care (Bell, 2009; Collins, 1999). The
idea of choice is also diluted because the parents who have access to information and
seek outside educational opportunities are typically more involved parents and more
affluent parents.
Purpose of the Study
African American students are not doing well academically. However, interesting
models show promise for economically disadvantaged students. The purpose of this study
was to look at the idea of parent choice and determine whether the parents’ decision to
choose an alternative educational model for their African American children was benefi-
cial for their children’s academic progress. The researcher looked at a heavily researched
model of academic excellence being implemented within a newly formed charter school
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 18
within a low-performing school district. The study tests the presumption that the five
pillars of excellence that have been successful in other charter schools can be applied in a
charter school setting that serves predominately African American students.
This study investigated how parents thought their children were performing aca-
demically in this charter school setting. The researcher compared student data for these
African American students to data for similar students on standardized tests. The intent
was to identify means for charter schools to become effective organizations as they seek
expansion.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this benchmark evaluation study:
1. What impact do the five pillars of academic excellence have on African Ameri-
can student academic achievement, as perceived by the students’ parents?
2. How does the academic achievement of African American students at HBCP
compare to the achievement of similar students in California as measured by standardized
test data?
3. How do the parents’ perceptions of student achievement compare to the
achievement outcomes reflected by test scores?
This study has educational, economic, and social implications that can be consid-
ered locally and nationally. Properly implemented and directed, charter schools have the
potential to positively affect African American students’ academic achievement and their
future in general. A favorable academic outcome for the African American student pop-
ulation will have long-term beneficial implications for all people.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 19
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are important as they address the issue of internal validity and the
basis for the researcher’s inferences made from the study (Creswell, 2009). The limita-
tions of this study relate to conditions that were beyond the control of the researcher. The
researcher had no control over the truthfulness or accuracy of the information provided in
the interviews. The researcher assumed that the information gathered through the data
collection process was truthful. Further, the information about the success of the school
came from the perspectives of the parents. Some limitations are common to the bench-
mark assessment model, which provides a relatively narrow but in-depth overview of the
topic being studied. Access to the school and information was limited to the openness and
accessibility granted by the school’s administration.
Delimitations are the chosen limits of a study. The target school was a charter
school that served African American students. Assuming that there are common themes
and patterns, this benchmark assessment was intended to result in a valid conceptual and
theoretical framework that may be applied to the study of other schools that seek to
eradicate the achievement gap for African American student populations in urban com-
munities.
Definitions of Key Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): A numeric index (or scale) that ranges from
200 to 1000. A school’s score on the API serves as an indicator of its performance level.
The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A school’s growth is
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 20
measured by extent to which it moves toward or past that goal (California Department of
Education, 2009).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
of 2001 required California to implement a system to evaluate the progress of public
schools, districts, and county offices of education toward achieving 100% student profi-
ciency in key subject areas. AYP criteria encompass four areas: participation rate, percent
proficient, API, and graduation rate (California Department of Education, 2009).
California Standards Tests (CST): The California Standards Tests evaluate
students’ proficiency in the areas of English Language Arts, mathematics, science, and
history/social science. The tests are developed under the supervision of the California
Department of Education and are administered only to students in California public
schools. Except for a writing component of the fourth- and seventh-grade English Lan-
guage Arts tests, all questions on the CSTs are presented in an objective multiple-choice
format. These tests were developed to assess students’ performance on California’s Aca-
demic Content Standards. The California Board of Education adopted these standards to
specify what all California children are expected to know and to demonstrate in each
grade (California Department of Education, 2009).
Charter school: Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary
schools that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply
to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain
results, which are set forth in each charter school’s charter (California Department of
Education, 2009).
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 21
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to the theme of underachievement and intro-
duction of the charter school system and outlines the importance of the issues as they
relate to society at large. Chapter 2 extensively reviews the existing scholarly literature
on the topic of African American student achievement and education. Chapter 2 also
describes the function of charter schools and explores how they are different from tradi-
tional public schools. Chapter 2 looks intently at the five pillars of excellence that rest at
the core of the schools foundation and identifies other successful school models that have
utilized this foundational philosophy.
Chapter 3 explains the methodology and the research design used in this qualita-
tive case study that sought to determine whether the model of excellence set forth by
other successful charters can be replicated successfully with African American students.
Through these methods, the researcher sought to determine whether African American
parents of HBCP students collectively indicated that the five pillars of excellence imple-
mented at HBCP had a positive impact on student achievement.
Chapter 4 presents and analyzes the findings. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions
of the study and recommendations for future research and pedagogical practice.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 1 provided an overview of this study in an effort to establish a back-
ground regarding the importance of sound education for children. The current state of the
U.S. educational system is not meeting the needs of the entire student population. Con-
sistently ignoring the problem of the African American child will result in nationwide
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 22
negative effects as these children represent a greater and greater proportion of the student
population. “Our nation is now facing the results from a history of under-educating its
minority population who will become the majority population by the middle of the
century” (Rousseau, 2007, p. 48 ).
An overview of the research on school reform efforts reveals that the charter
school option, as it relates to choice and customization of the public school system, may
be a viable solution to the ongoing achievement gap. The potential of the charter school
movement, if properly implemented and directed, can positively affect African American
students’ academic achievement and their future in general. A favorable academic out-
come for the African American student population will have long-term beneficial impli-
cations for all people. This study has educational, economic, and social implications that
can be considered locally and nationally.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 23
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
Education in America has always been a struggle for access and equality for the
African American student, since the days of slavery. Despite good intentions of
antidiscriminatory legislature, students of color still consistently underperform their
White counterparts. Chapter 1 provided a background regarding the emergence of charter
schools as a potential urban education reform option.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision of a community to dis-
engage from their traditional public school offerings and choose a homogenous charter
school setting as a viable option to educate their children effectively. Chapter 2 examines
the existing literature on African educational acquisition and performance in three
sections. First, the literature review provides an overview of the history of African
American educational experiences and policies that have affected African American edu-
cation since the slave era. The study looks specifically at U.S. legislation and educational
policy, beginning with the Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954 and continuing
through the implementation of NCLB in 2001. This brief background of the history of
African American education illuminates the growing focus on academic inequalities and
the achievement gap in American schools over the past several decades (Anderson, J. D.,
2007).
Second, the literature review examines the well-documented achievement gap and
explores reasons that have been offered as the cause of the continual gap in academic
achievement between African American students and White American students. The
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 24
review examines theories of genetic and cultural inferiority, or the idea that students of
racial minority and economically poor backgrounds are genetically or culturally inferior.
(Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1969). In response to the idea of genetic inferiority,
the review also applies the lens of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986)
and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (Moll, 1994) as a theoretical framework to under-
stand the possibility of African American student disengagement, as described by Ogbu
(2004).
Third, the review focuses on the charter school concept as a possible alternative to
the traditional public school for disengaged African American students who continually
fall victim to the ever-present achievement gap. The review examines theoretically five
well-documented pillars of excellence that have been held as key components to a suc-
cessful school model, describing how each works to eradicate low student achievement.
The goal of this study is to determine whether African American parents feel that the
choice that they have made to move their child to charter is in fact yielding better aca-
demic results for the child.
A few major themes have emerged regarding African American student education
and the possibility of customization within the public school system. This chapter begins
with the historical context of American schooling for African American students. This
exploration includes a discussion of historical exclusion and sabotage of African Ameri-
can education, an overview of educational policy, and the development of accountability
measures as they relate to the existing achievement gap. The review then explores the
charter school option and the notion of choice as a potential solution to the persistent
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 25
achievement gap. Within the context school choice, this literature review delves into core
values of the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) school system (a successful charter
school system) to explore its potential for replication. An extensive look at this model is
important because the KIPP schools have demonstrated documented success in urban
settings. This study looks at a successful school model as a potential reform model that
can positively affect schools nationwide.
History of African American Education in the United States
Educating the African child has always been a challenge. During the slave era it
was a crime to teach an enslaved child to read or write. African descendants of slaves
were generally disfranchised and forbidden access to education by law.
With support from the Freedmen’s Bureau and northern missionary societies,
African Americans were moderately successful in establishing their own form of an
organized school system. In fact, for a brief period in the 1860s and 1870s, with support
from these external sources, African Americans established their own educational system,
staffed by African American teachers (Anderson, J. D., 1988). Within this African-
centered system, African American educators sought assistance rather than control.
These African-centered schools were made possible by labor and monies contrib-
uted by ex-slaves, as well as by the committee that they organized to supervise the
schools. African Americans themselves were the major proponents of establishing and
maintaining a successful school model, even if only for a brief time in history, and the
Union Army and Freedmen’s Bureau helped both new immigrants and ex-slaves to obtain
educational independence (Anderson, J. D., 1988).
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 26
Between 1863 and 1875 each of the border and southern states established sepa-
rate state school systems for Negroes (Knox, 1974). Structurally, the separate schools for
African American children in the United States were inferior to schools maintained for
White children. Black schools received far less financial support than did White schools.
Black schools had fewer books, more rundown buildings, and fewer well-paid teachers
(Bond, 1939).
Due to the gross difference in facilities and quality of education between the
White and Black schools, there was much discontent on the part of national Black lead-
ers. Finally the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
made a concerted effort to end this segregation and to allow equal access to education
opportunities for African American students.
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the
“separate but equal” doctrine affirmed in Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) was unconstitu-
tional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The decision in Brown
dealt only with segregation in the public schools, not in every aspect of life, but it laid the
foundation for future decisions and laws that eventually culminated in an end to legal
segregation.
In an effort to accelerate the civil rights movement, President Lyndon B. Johnson
introduced the Great Society programs, which included the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964 and the ESEA of 1965. The Great Society programs promised to provide social and
economic equality through equal educational opportunities. America was to become a
society wherein all ethnic groups had equal power. Although these civil rights measures
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 27
and equal educational opportunities were put in place, African American students still are
not developing well in these programs and remain culturally deprived throughout their
schooling process (Pai & Adler, 2001).
Unfortunately, the promise made for America to become a great society did not
materialize for African American children, as these special provisions had no impact on
their cognitive growth, the image of their own ethnic identity, or how public schools met
their distinct learning needs (Pai & Adler, 2001). In response to these dismal and alarm-
ing facts, in 2002 the ESEA of 1965 was amended to become the current legislation,
NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The aim of NCLB is to ensure that all
students receive a meaningful and just opportunity to receive a high-quality education
and meet the challenging state standards and assessments.
The marginalized status of African Americans and Latinos in American society
has contributed to their limited educational opportunities, as the term achievement gap
suggests. Nieto (1999) maintained that the poor academic achievement and minimized
learning by individual students often correlate to their identification with marginalized
groups whose race, ethnicity, and/or social class are undervalued in the larger society. If
this were not the case and unless one subscribes to the genetic inferiority theory, the dis-
proportionate and consistent educational failure of African Americans, American Indians,
Latinos, and poor students of all backgrounds would not be a recurring phenomenon
(Nieto, 1999). Schools tend to reproduce, fairly consistently, the inequalities that exist in
the larger society. The inequitable practice of public schooling is currently being
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 28
manifested in the educational phenomenon known as the opportunity gap, also called the
achievement gap.
The Achievement Gap
The U.S. Department of Education defined the achievement gap as the difference
in academic performance between ethnic groups. According to the National Governors’
Association (Ladson-Billings, 2006), the achievement gap is a matter of race and class.
Across the U.S., a gap in academic achievement persists between minority and disad-
vantaged students and their white counterparts. Nationally, Blacks and Latinos are
overrepresented among low-scoring students and underrepresented at the top according,
to the NAEP. NAEP, referred to as the Nation’s Report Card, is used to measure how
much students know (McKinsey & Co., 2009).
Underachievement by African American students has been a recurring theme in
U.S. history since the integration of schools. The goal of Brown was to eliminate segre-
gation in schools and allow African American and White children equal access to
resources (Anderson, J. D., 1988). Allowing African American children entrance and
access to White school facilities, resources, and teachers was the civil duty of the courts
to end inequality and improve the self-esteem of Negro students. However, access with-
out a plan is just exposure.
President Johnson sought to answer the call to action through the 1965 ESEA (Pai
& Adler, 2001). This reform effort introduced standards-based testing as a measurement
tool to gauge student academic success. Since the Act’s introduction, accountability and
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 29
testing have become a government initiative and part of a massive educational reform
throughout the country.
The government’s involvement in public education sought to “provide compen-
satory educational services for economically disadvantaged school districts” (Orfield,
Sunderman, & Kim, 2005, p. ix). President Johnson’s intention was to provide additional
resources and support to schools that served students in low-economic areas. The Presi-
dent looked to provide additional resources for areas where there was a clear correlation
between students’ economic status and academic performance (Pai & Adler, 2001). Aca-
demic performance in Johnson’s plan was measured using standardized test data. Under
the legislation, schools that served impoverished students were designated Title I schools,
representative of Title I of ESEA that outlined criteria for these schools to receive federal
funding (Feikens, 1967).
This initiative was taken a step further by the Clinton administration through
Goals 2000, which added a level of monetary incentives at the state and district levels to
implement standards-based testing. Under the Clinton Administration, Title I schools had
the option to voluntarily “show progress by means of tests, annual student progress
toward . . . educational proficiency” (Peterson & West, 2003, p. 7). Goals 2000 devel-
oped much of the framework for NCLB because, while the act was voluntary, the gov-
ernment attached monies and incentives to student achievement (Superfine, 2005). NCLB
and Goals 2000 shared similar ideologies around standards-based education and attaching
federal dollars to local accountability with regard to public education. Like Goals 2000
and the 1994 version of Title I, NCLB aims at standards-based education reform on a
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 30
national scale and relies on accountability mechanisms to reach this goal (Superfine,
2005). However, under the Bush Administration, NCLB extended the reach of the federal
government and strengthened the definition of accountability of schools as it relates to
the academic performance of all students (Fuhrman, 1994).
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed NCLB into law (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002). This is the most aggressive form of Johnson’s early educational
reform. Under NCLB legislation, school districts in all states must implement a
standards-based test accountability program that ensures AYP by all schools
While NCLB has done very little to actually close the gap, it has been very suc-
cessful in identifying and highlighting the gross disparities in public education in the
United States. NCLB most notably provided the framework for state accountability sys-
tems. The demographic characteristics of schools identified for improvement are those
that enroll a substantially higher percentage of minority students. In California, for
instance, improvement schools serve a student body that is more than 75% to 85% Black
or Hispanic, while schools that made AYP serve a student body with less than 40%
minority students. Under NCLB, segregated minority schools are often labeled as failing,
suggesting that segregation may impede progress toward federal educational goals
(Owens & Sunderman, 2006). The implementation of NCLB highlights discrepancies and
shortages in the educational system. While the intention of the legislation is questionable,
the reality is that it exposed the state of education as it relates to African American
student performance. The literature suggests several possible reasons for the aforemen-
tioned gap.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 31
Genetic and Cultural Inferiority
Some recent researchers have suggested that test score gaps are rooted in chil-
dren’s experiences before entering school. Jencks and Phillips (1998) argued that family
experiences and preschool are key to creating (or limiting) the achievement gap; they
identified a gap that is already significant when students enter kindergarten (Lee, V. E., &
Burkam, 2002). Still other scholars have identified motivation and parenting styles as
potential causes for the gap. However, this idea suggest that there is little hope for the
child who was born in poverty. This idea also takes the responsibility away from the
power of public education to educate in spite of circumstance. While they are different in
nature, these ideas give relevance to the ideas of inferior intelligence introduced by
Jensen in 1969
In 1969, Jensen published an article in the Harvard Educational Review that
determined, based on his statistical analysis of IQ test scores, that African Americans
were genetically inferior to Whites in general intelligence. Jensen argued that general
intelligence is largely genetically determined, with cultural forces shaping it only to a
small extent. He argued that compensatory education programs such as Head Start are
doomed to fail (Jensen, 1969). His idea that intelligence ran along racial lines is referred
to as Jensenism. Jensen’s ideas about race and the heritability of intelligence were used as
a catalyst for the controversial “bell curve” idea outlined by Herrnstein and Murray
(1994). Murray and Herrnstein used Jensen’s research to call for an end to affirmative
action, Head Start, college preferences for minorities, and other programs, such as
welfare. They asserted that there is a place for everyone, a valued place. This idea of
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 32
inherent intelligence based on race has been heavily argued and debated. While many
modern educators deny heartily that all children are equal, these studies and their
influence have had a dramatic effect on the perceptions that people have about minority
groups and their potential, and even their right to a quality education.
Bourdieu’s Concept of Social Capital
Another lens to view the cause of the achievement gap can be the framework of
Bourdieu’s concept of social capital, which emphasizes the inequalities in the amount of
capital that individuals are able to obtain. Habitus can be defined as one’s way of think-
ing and acting based on experiences and social training (Lareau, 2001). A field is a
system of social relations at the micro or macro level (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). When a
person’s habitus is in line with his/her field, the person receives a social advantage or a
social privilege. Historically, European American students have experienced a social
advantage because their way of “knowing, preferring, and experiencing a lifestyle” is
congruent with the culture that is dominant within most American schools (Lee, J., &
Bowen, 2006, p. 198). This can be seen as “pathways of privilege and power” due to
access to and opportunity within mainstream education (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 4).
According to Bourdieu (1977), in order to reduce the achievement gap that exists
for African American students, their fund of knowledge should be intentionally aligned to
the dominant culture prior to entering school. Another way to challenge the gap using
Bourdieu’s theory as a framework would be to insist that those who work in education
engage in a re-acculturation process. Fullan (1993) defined re-acculturation as changing
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 33
the “norms, behaviors, language, expectations, and modes of interaction among the
people who work in schools” (p. 46).
It would seem obvious that teachers should undergo this process, when 76.5% of
all urban public school students are from non-White ethnic groups and the teaching force
can be considered primarily European American (Murtadha-Watts, 1998). However,
many have found that postsecondary schools have done little to address the mismatch
between the culture of the student and the culture of the school. “Teacher education
departments have been extremely successful at what they do: reproduce mainstream
values and knowledge, maintain hegemonic competition and hierarchicalization, and
assimilate or devaluate differences” (Yeo, 1997, p. 132).
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory
In addition to Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of social cultural capital, Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory can be used as a tool to investigate the persistent disconnect between
school culture and home culture for the African American student. According to
Vygotsky (1986), there are three ways a cultural tool can be passed from one individual
to another: (a) imitative learning, when one person tries to imitate or copy another; (b)
instructed learning, which involves remembering the instructions of the teacher and then
using these instructions to self-regulate; and (c) collaborative learning, which involves a
group of peers who strive to understand each other and work together to learn a specific
skill (Tomasello, Kruger, & Ratner, 1993).
According to sociocultural theory, children will acquire the ways of thinking and
behaving that make up a culture by interacting with a more knowledgeable person.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 34
Vygotsky (1986) maintained that social interaction will lead to ongoing changes in a
child’s thought and behavior, which vary according to culture (Berk, 1994).
Keeping in line with Vygotsky’s (1986) framework that social behavior is learned
though imitation, history and research on African American culture suggest that African
American students may not see the value of behaving in class. They may see this action
as “behaving White” (Ogbu, 2004). Socially, African American males often receive more
attention and greater satisfaction from misbehavior. For example, in analyzing the rela-
tionship between self-presentation and power, power is given by misbehaving. Socially
within African American culture, to be bad is good (West, 1994). It allows the African
American child to be set apart from the group and sought after for protection and other
friendship in social settings outside the classroom by the other students. Therefore, the
African American who does not see the value in behaving appropriately may choose not
to engage in it.
Within the integrated classroom setting, the African American student is often
regarded as the problem child and is ignored when exhibiting proper classroom behavior.
Teachers who lack social cultural awareness of urban African American culture tend to
form a lack of expectations based on students’ characteristics. Because of these different
expectations, teachers behave differently toward these students. Teachers often become
annoyed by behavior, which causes students who traditionally get in trouble to reinforce
negative behaviors, eventually leading to students being dismissed due to disruptive
behavior.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 35
Many teachers in urban settings do not have the cultural knowledge to understand
how to punish African American students, particularly boys. Often, when Black children
engage in play fighting and ritualized insults for amusement or self-defense, teachers per-
ceive these actions as authentic aggression (Hanna, 1988). A teacher’s mistaken under-
standing of the intent behind the students’ actions often results in referrals for Black
boys.
At many traditional integrated public school settings, the teacher population is
disproportionately composed of White professionals, many of whom have a limited
understanding of Black culture. There is a strong tendency to sanction African American
children both recurrently and inappropriately. Unfortunately, there exists a shortage of
high-quality teachers within the urban school system due to distributional inequalities in
the hiring of teachers (Peske & Haycock, 2006; Wenglinsky, 2000).
When combined, these issues for minority students in urban schools can easily
lead to poor academic achievement. The benefit of the charter school is that it has the
flexibility to try new approaches that could specifically seek to address the aforemen-
tioned mismatches.
African American Academic Disengagement
Ogbu elaborated on the early ideas of Vygotsky and Bourdieu. Ogbu introduced
the idea of Black student disengagement in a study supported by the community and local
school district in Shaker Heights, Ohio (Ogbu, 2003). He focused on the academic per-
formance of Black American students in a heavily White suburban neighborhood . He
suggested that Black students in predominately White schools subscribe to a “norm of
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 36
minimum effort” (p. 23), positing that the “low-effort syndrome”—defined as low
engagement in schoolwork and homework—contributes Black student disengagement.
African American students in the study attributed their minimum effort to boring and
uninteresting classes, a lack of motivation by school personnel, poor study habits, other
priorities that derailed academic effort (such as part-time jobs), and peer pressures (i.e.,
“it’s not cool to work hard or show you’re smart”). The data also showed that Black
students believed that they were intellectually inferior to Whites and harbored feelings of
self-doubt. Ogbu found that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about Black students con-
tributed to these feelings of inferiority. The teachers’ attitudes of low expectation and
tracking are consistent with similar findings on teacher beliefs and stereotypes about
Black students, particularly in lower-level courses (Irvine, 2003; Nieto, 2004; Oakes,
1985). This study contribute to the idea that, even in affluent neighborhoods, the problem
of the achievement gap and low academic progress still exists.
Summary
The cultural disconnect that many African American students experience within
the traditional public school setting ultimately sets the stage for a demand for more cul-
turally responsive teaching that seeks to meet the specific needs of African American
learners. From this demand have emerged an increasing number of racially focused
charter schools that assert that they can do a better job of educating African American
students than the traditional public schools.
This growing trend is important because parents of African American students are
actively looking for alternative school settings to educate their children. While charter
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 37
schools are a viable option, they have not lived up to their full potential. Instead, they
exist as pockets of good practice that have not done well enough to decrease the
achievement gap significantly.
The Charter School Difference
A charter can be defined as a contract between a state school board and a local or
county board of education to meet the particular needs of its targeted population. Charter
schools, for the most part, are granted more autonomy than traditional public schools in
exchange for the promise of better educational outcomes (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003). The
concept of charter schools began in the 1960s when Milton Friedman introduced a
market-based approach to education at the same time that the United States was imple-
menting reforms for school desegregation (Stillings, 2005).
Charter schools were created to promote educational choice with the promise of
improving public education through choice and competition. The charter school concept
provides an educational alternative that promotes a level of free-market competition to
assure improvement in public schools. Charter schools are public-private hybrids that
provide a smaller learning environment but are publicly funded and face fewer govern-
mental sanctions (Cooper, B. S., & Randall, 2008; Hunter, 2009). Proponents of charter
schools assert that the schools can improve student achievement through innovation,
competition, and choice (Zimmer et al., 2009).
Charter schools can be closed due to various problems, including poor student
attendance and performance. Therefore, regardless of autonomy, charter schools still
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 38
have the same performance responsibilities and requirements as any public school that
receives federal and or local monies (Vergari, 2007).
A variety of bodies—educators, parents, community leaders, and educational
entrepreneurs—design and operate charter schools. Each charter school operates inde-
pendently, so there are wide variations from one school to another (Henig, 2009). Charter
schools are unique in that they vary in student population, curriculum focus, and organi-
zation. Moreover, charter schools do not have set enrollment boundaries such as those
that exist within the traditional public school system; this condition allows parents to
choose freely a school based on the needs of their children (Lacireno-Paquet & Holyoke,
2007).
Student Achievement in Charter Schools
The major challenge in charter schools is to improve student achievement. Buck-
ley and Schneider (2005) reported that charter school students have a lower achievement
level than students in traditional schools. Charter schools in the southern states receive
annual accountability ratings based on state test results and dropout rates. A study by
Vergari (2007) indicated an absence of structures, traditions, and effective policies in
some charter schools that created a negative atmosphere for student learning, thereby
resulting in poor performance. Therefore, while many minority parents are proponents of
charters, there are no data to support the idea that the charter school structure is actually
more beneficial for the child than the traditional public school setting. In fact, the NAEP
conducted a pilot study in 150 charter schools throughout the United States. The fourth-
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 39
grade mathematics results disclosed that the students did not perform as well as their
counterparts in regular public schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).
Similarly, Buddin and Zimmer (2005) conducted a comparison study of the test
scores of students in charter schools and traditional public schools in Michigan and found
no significant differences between the two systems. The researchers reported difficulty in
tracking the progress of students because most charter schools were newly established.
Maloney (2005) reported that charter schools typically record poor performance in the
first year of existence but test results improve as the schools gain experience and students
are enrolled for longer periods. Zehr (2010) reported that, despite academic challenges in
charter schools, students with special needs performed better over time in charter schools.
In contrast, Toney (2009) reported that, according to a study conducted by the
California Charter School Association, charter school students in the Oakland Unified
School District outperformed traditional public schools in the same district on API. The
results indicated that 5 of the top 10 highest-performing public schools in Oakland were
charter schools.
The National Center for Education Statistics (2008) conducted a study of success-
ful charter schools and found the same trend of high performance nationwide. Lubienski
and Lubienski (2006) reported that charter schools are particularly beneficial for minority
and poor students, and an average student attending a charter school would have a higher
achievement than the student’s prior academic performance in the public school system.
Likewise, a recent study conducted by Gleason et al. (2010) led to the conclusion that
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 40
charter schools that serve predominantly minority students had a significant impact on
student achievement.
Bulkley and Fisler (2003) reported that evidence of academic effectiveness of
charter schools is varied. The researchers advised charter school researchers to focus on
why students in some charter schools have better academic achievement than others,
rather than solely on test scores.
Overall, the performance of charter schools varies, and research has not identified
the factors that distinguish effective charter schools from unsuccessful charter schools
(Zimmer et al., 2009). Vergari (2007) asserted that some authors advocated that charter
schools provide quality education to disadvantaged students despite reports of under-
achievement. Rapp and Eckes (2007) reported conflicting results on student achievement
in charter schools, without conclusive evidence of the potential of charter schools.
While these and other studies are insightful, they do not focus particularly on
African American academic achievement, which makes it difficult to generalize the per-
formance of charter schools as an option for African American students. The research on
student achievement in some charter schools is general. Therefore, more research is
needed, particularly research that will shed more light on successful schools with African
American students.
Given the great diversity of charter schools throughout the United States, KIPP
schools have emerged as exemplary charter schools. Many hold these schools up as a
model—not just as an interesting exemplar, but as a prototype that others should dissect
for lessons about improving both charter schools and traditional school systems (Henig,
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 41
2008). KIPP began in 1994 and now comprises a national network of almost 50 middle
schools and a small but growing number of high schools and elementary schools. Under
the umbrella of KIPP, the schools operate independently in low-income communities. All
are public schools, and almost all are charter schools. KIPP has attracted considerable
attention in the past few years. The media laud it for the higher-than-expected test scores,
for the dramatic increase in instructional time, and for its goal of preparing students for
college (Woodworth, David, Guha, Wang, & Lopez-Torkos, 2008).
Successful Charter School Model: KIPP School
Several schools have been highlighted by researchers as islands of academic
excellence for disadvantaged students. The KIPP Academy is one group of schools in
particular that has received recognition throughout the United States for its success in
improving academic achievement by disadvantaged children. “KIPP is a national network
of free, open-enrollment, college-preparatory public schools with a track record of pre-
paring students in underserved communities for success in college and in life” (KIPP,
2012, para. 1). There are currently 109 KIPP schools in 20 states and the District of
Columbia serving more than 32,000 students. Writers and researchers have argued that,
although KIPP schools enroll students who are typical of urban, regular public schools,
the students’ scores are typically higher after just a few years than scores for Black and
Hispanic urban children generally in regular public schools (Education Trust, 2003;
Fuller, 2001; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2004; Wilder & Jacobsen 2010). Researchers
affirm that KIPP schools do well because faculty and staff make no excuses about student
performance as it relates to socioeconomic background or circumstance (Wilder &
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 42
Jacobsen, 2010). Test score data support the assertion that KIPP schools perform well in
educating disadvantaged students. The majority of KIPP schools produce positive gains
in student achievement as measured by average percentile rankings on the Stanford
achievement test. The mission of the KIPP School is to serve children who are tradition-
ally underserved.
Each school in the KIPP system is run independently by a KIPP-trained leader
and governing board. Each school has the power to locally control itself and inde-
pendently make decisions on curriculum and instructional strategies based on location
and student population. What ties all KIPP schools together is the implementation of the
five pillars of academic excellence.
Every KIPP school operates according to a set of principles called the five pillars,
which define the KIPP approach. The first three pillars are as follows: (a) KIPP’s high
expectations for academic achievement and a culture that includes a system of rewards
and consequences for behavior; (b) choice and commitment from the students, parents,
and faculty who choose KIPP and commit to its program; and (c) more time. Within the
KIPP school model, more time is essential instructional practice that requires all schools
in the model to offer an extended school day of at least 9 hours, augmented by school on
Saturday and in the summer. The fourth pillar is that school leaders have the power to
lead, with total control over their budgets and personnel. The fifth pillar is an expectation
that KIPP schools will have a singular focus on results, demonstrated by student per-
formance on standardized tests and by preparation of students for success in high school
and college (Woodworth et al., 2008).
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 43
High Expectations
High expectations for students, teachers, staff, administrators, and parents are
nonnegotiable characteristics of high-achieving schools, according to Fortune’s (2010)
in-depth study of what high-achieving schools do to achieve success in high-poverty,
high-minority schools. According to the California Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development (2009), in Australia the term expectation can be defined as the
strong belief that somebody will achieve something. High expectations for children
encompass the belief that children will achieve their full potential. High expectations
from both early childhood professionals and parents can enhance children’s resilience,
achievement, motivation, and self-belief (Ahmed, Minnaert, Van Der, & Kuyper, 2008;
Gizir & Aydin, 2009). Educators, particularly in high-needs areas, have the responsibility
to ensure that all students are expected to do their best regardless of economic, racial, or
social conditions. Unfortunately, low expectations are common in high-poverty, pre-
dominantly minority schools (Thompson, 2004). Researchers have found that, even in
some high-achieving schools, Black, Latino, and low-income students may be subjected
to low expectations through tracking, which disproportionately places them in low-level
classes (Landsman, 2004; Oakes, 1999).
Research indicates that children achieve better outcomes in learning environments
where educators have high expectations for every child (Halvorsen, Lee, & Andrade,
2009). This is especially true for children who are considered at risk (Hinnant, O’Brien,
& Ghazarian, 2009). High expectations are crucial for student success. High expectations
from both early teachers and parents can greatly improve resilience, achievement,
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 44
motivation, and self-belief (Ahmed et al., 2008; Gizir & Aydin, 2009). Educators’ low
expectations for their students directly affect students’ self-confidence, belief in their own
abilities, sense of agency, and academic outcomes (Rubie-Davies, Hattie, & Hamilton,
2006). High expectations can be achieved by (a) believing that each child is capable of
learning, (b) communicating high expectations to children and parents, (c) taking respon-
sibility for children’s learning, and (d) reflecting on teaching practice (Ireson, 2008;
MacNaughton, 2003).
Student academic support is easily seen through positive relationships that learn-
ers form with trustworthy and admirable teachers. If the child regards school as a safe
haven rather than an institution that judges the family, home, and community harshly, this
positive affect can build and sustain a commitment to academic pursuits, despite limited
family support (Nieto, 2005).
Some may argue that becoming overly concerned with the affective may have an
impact and inadvertently lower student expectations. However, attention to the affective
domain is not in opposition to higher academic standards. Rather, it is the only reasonable
route to attaining them (Egertson, 2004). Ultimately, if attainment of higher standards is
the goal, the affective domain cannot be overlooked (Naceur & Schiefele, 2005). High
expectations from parents, professionals, and peers are linked to self-esteem, children’s
sense of agency, and academic motivation. These factors, in turn, lead to educational
success (Ahmed et al., 2008; Patrick, Mantzicopoulos, Samarapungavan, & French,
2008).
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 45
High expectations promote resilience in children who are considered to be at risk.
Resilience can be defined as children achieving goals and outcomes despite being at risk
of disadvantage (Brooks, 2006). High expectations from teachers have the most impact
on children considered to be at risk. A study conducted in Turkey on potential individual
characteristics and environmental protective factors that promote academic resilience
among impoverished eighth-grade students revealed that home high expectations, school
caring relationships and high expectations, and peer caring relationships were the promi-
nent external protective factors that predicted academic resilience (Gizir & Aydin, 2009).
Professionals who have high expectations for every child are also more likely to
take responsibility for students’ learning. Professionals who have low expectations of
their children’s abilities are often reluctant to take responsibility for children’s learning.
This dynamic can ultimately lead to low achievement and poor outcomes for children.
Professional responsibility includes “how willing teachers are to hold themselves
accountable for the learning of all their students” (Halvorsen et al., 2009, p. 182).
Teacher self-personal high expectations refer to professionals’ beliefs in their own
abilities to be effective educators (McLeod, 1995). Early childhood professionals who
feel a strong sense of responsibility for children’s learning are more likely to find ways to
support diverse learners and achieve positive outcomes for children (Halvorsen et al.,
2009; Wilkinson, 2005). Jordan and Stanovich (2001) found that educators with a high
sense of responsibility spent more time interacting at an academic level with all of their
students; children with learning disabilities and gifted students were challenged and
engaged in their learning.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 46
Teachers must expect each child to succeed and must work consciously not to
label learners on the basis of race, gender, SES, ability, or other difference. Evidence
shows that educator expectations can heavily affect students’ self-concept and influence
self-efficacy if the expectation of the adult/educator in front of them is in complete
contrast to their own self-image (Madon et al., 2001). Early childhood professionals are
in an influential position to instill in each child the self-belief necessary for success in
later schooling. High expectations for all recognize that each child’s level of understand-
ing and pace of learning may be different. Some children will require additional resources
and support to enable them to reach their full potential.
Teachers of elementary-age children should regularly express their high expecta-
tions to all children and engage positively with them to achieve the best learning out-
comes. Brown and Medway (2007) found that, when educators had high expectations of
every child and communicated these expectations on a daily basis, children’s expecta-
tions of themselves were raised. Educators can regularly strengthen student efficacy by
offering encouragement for effort and setting challenging but achievable goals
(Halvorsen et al., 2009).
Parent and family expectations can also influence children’s perceptions of their
ability and performance (Archambault, Eccles, & Vida, 2010; Benner & Mistry, 2007;
Neuenschwander, Vida, Garrett, & Eccles, 2007). Teachers who are invested in ensuring
that students can succeed invest time in communicating the importance of high expecta-
tions from families. Benner and Mistry (2007) advised that professional and parent
expectations are important, both independently and as a combined effect. Similarly, Gizir
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 47
and Aydin (2009) found that high expectations in the home were the most important pro-
tective factor in predicting academic resilience. It is essential for early childhood profes-
sionals to promote high expectations with parents and families and to encourage parents
to communicate these expectations to their children.
Choice and Commitment
According to the KIPP school model, students, parents, and the faculty of each
KIPP school choose to participate in the program. No one is assigned or forced to attend
a KIPP school. Everyone must make and uphold a commitment to the school and to each
other to devote the time and effort required to achieve success. Henderson and Mapp
(2002) found that, regardless of income or background, students with involved parents
attended school regularly and were more likely to earn high grades, improve on test
scores, and enroll in higher level programs. Student academic achievement is strength-
ened when parents commit to meaningful involvement in the learning process. Wherry
suggested four methods of getting parents involved: (a) Empower parents to set and carry
out goals, (b) focus on the needs of both parents and children, (c) adjust to the needs of
the specific parents in the program, and (d) incorporate parent discussion as a part of all
school programs.
The educational aspirations of a child can be predicted by parent involvement at
both the elementary and secondary levels (Overstreet, Devine, Bevans, & Efreom, 2005).
Ingram, Wolfe, and Lieberman (2007) concluded that investing resources into developing
and encouraging effective parenting and home learning can yield results in high-
achieving schools that serve low-income, at-risk students.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 48
According to Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997), parents’ notions about their
parenting role affect their beliefs, which then guide their behavior regarding their chil-
dren’s education. Kreider, Mayer, and Vaughan (1999) reported that, when schools
choose to believe that parents can participate in the total school process, regardless of
social, economic or cultural conditions, authentic partnerships between the school and
parents are often formed. Yet, very few public schools’ practices or programs produce the
desired results of increased parental involvement. Unfortunately, many parents feel
excluded because they have no working knowledge of public school operations and pro-
cedures.
Family involvement is positively correlated to student achievement and other
favorable educational outcomes (Comer & Poussaint, 1992; U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, 2001). There exists a growing need for African American parents to become more
involved at home and in their child’s education. Unfortunately, many African American
parents have to overcome distrust for the educational system before they can establish
effective school and family collaborations. Abrams and Gibbs (2002) found that African
American parents were often more alienated from public school institutions than were
White parents. With this disconnection arises the assumption by many educators that
African American parents do not value education. In the case of children of color, edu-
cators often associate low parent involvement with lack of interest in their child’s
education because these parents may not attend school functions (Delpit, 1995; Flores,
Tefft-Cousin, & Diaz, 1991; Poplin & Weeres, 1992; Thompson, 2002). However, con-
trary to popular opinion among educators, researchers have found that African American
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 49
parents are indeed concerned about their children’s education (Cook & Ludwig, 1998;
Thompson, 2002). The reality is that African American parents have been historically
marginalized, maligned, and misunderstood by educators (Thompson, 2002). Further, the
lack of participation in school activities by the African American parent is actually
symptomatic of a larger problem. This alienation highlights the social and physical dis-
connect from public schools that most African American parents feel (Thompson, 2002).
Strong partnerships between parents/guardians and educators can greatly improve
African American students’ academic achievement. Strengthening ties between these
groups will require ongoing two-way communication that honors the voices of African
American parents and guardians. In short, in order for NCLB to succeed, educators and
policymakers must reverse the historic trend of excluding African American parents and
guardians from discussions about what is necessary to increase African American student
achievement. These discussions must begin with listening to the parents’ and guardians’
concerns (Thompson, 2004).
A successful school parental involvement plan should promote empowerment and
build on several of the basic strengths of the African American community while devel-
oping rapport with parents who often feel disenfranchised. One of the most successful
strategies for parent involvement was meeting parents where they were and using avail-
able resources within the family and community (Abdul-Adil & Farmer, 2006). Inner-city
African American parents responded in a positive manner when afforded the opportunity
to improve reading skills, participate in readiness program training, and receive support
with homework (Castro, Bryant, Peisner-Feinberg, & Skinner, 2004). Whether systemic
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 50
poverty, poor language skill development, or knowledge of school programs, the con-
sistent theme within urban African American communities emerges that urban inner
cities do little to advance academic success and greater economic opportunities for
African American children.
African American parents often experience difficulty in communicating effec-
tively with public school programs. Minority parents view language barriers, time con-
straints, and general feelings of not being welcome as primary reasons not to participate
in public school offerings and not to serve as advocates for their children’s academic
careers (Alldred & Edwards, 2000). Even more disturbing, as African American children
grow older, African American parents often do not push their children into more chal-
lenging classes or to achieve higher academic grades (Johnston & Videro, 2000). The
more involved the parents, the stronger the connection between the school and the sur-
rounding school community (Driessen, Smit, & Sleegers, 2005). According to Abdul-
Adil and Farmer (2006), even African American parents who have academically gifted
students display low levels of school involvement .
Thompson (2004) concluded that, while African American parents should seek
better communication and encourage school administrators and teachers to develop new
methods of fostering parental relationships, African American parents must still take the
initiative to become more involved in the lives of their children. According to Wilson,
Cordry, and King (2004), there is a growing need for African American parents to
become more involved at home and in their child’s education. The responsibility of being
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 51
involved in a child’s education cannot be the sole responsibility of the school; the parent
must also be held accountable for engaging the school on behalf of the child.
The idea of the charter school has provided the vehicle for connectivity and
accountability for the inner city child. Charter schools have allowed parents to bypass
perceived poor-performing schools in the process of school improvement, under the pro-
tection of legal transfers approved by the state. While parental involvement is generally
optional in traditional public schools, nearly all charter schools demand parental
involvement and impose rigid guidelines for levels of parental participation. KIPP
schools and other charters require parents to commit to a set number of hours in the class-
room and make no exception for single parents. Parents are required to participate at
school workdays and fundraisers, attend all school meetings, and submit documentation
of their participation to school administration.
A summary of research concludes that the evidence is consistent, positive, and
convincing that families have a major influence on their children’s achievement in school
and throughout life. Whether it addresses systemic poverty, poor language skill develop-
ment, or knowledge of school programs, a consistent theme in urban African American
communities is that urban inner cities do little to advance academic success. However,
when schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning,
children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and enjoy school more
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 52
More Time
More time is another essential component of the KIPP school model. Research
indicates that more time alone is not enough to impact student learning. Effective use of
the time allocated to sound instructional practices helps students to achieve (Quartarola,
1984). Timely and specific feedback, attention to what a student already knows, and
active participation by the teacher are key factors to be coupled with more time. Research
in general education reveals that time-related instructional variables (e.g., time allocated
for instruction and learner engagement) are predictive of academic achievement (Good,
Grouws, & Ebmeier, 1983; Latham, 1985).
Researchers have concluded that more time in school is a weak instructional
strategy. Early researchers concluded that more time in no way affected student achieve-
ment. This type of assertion and data has been used as a catalyst for politicians in their
argument against increasing spending to increase time spent in school. While this state-
ment is true on the surface, these researchers have often looked primarily or exclusively
at the amount of time spent in school, rather than the use of time spent in school, simply
because it is easier to identify and measure than quality of time. Obviously, this level of
research reveals little or no relationship between time spent in school and academic
achievement. In looking at the benefits of a longer school day or year, one must look at
how schools, teachers, and students are using time and the quality of instructional activi-
ties that occur throughout the day (Aronson, Zimmerman, & Carlos, 1998).
Understanding the research on the impact of time requires a clear definition of
different kinds of educational time with which researchers are concerned. These
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 53
definitions are taken from work by L. Anderson (1983) and Bloom (1976). The most
basic concept of time is allotted time. Allotted time is the amount of time specified for an
activity or the total number of days or hours students are required to attend school
(Moore & Funkhouser, 1990). When educators and educational researchers speak of allo-
cated time, they are referring to both instructional time and noninstructional time. Within
the subset of instructional time is a term known as engaged time, which refers to time in
which students are participating in learning activities. Engaged time is also referred to in
the literature as time-on-task. This excludes time spent in socializing, daydreaming,
engaging in antisocial behavior, and so forth. Dead time refers to periods of classroom
time during which there is nothing that students are expected to be doing, that is, time
that the teacher has failed to manage in any way. A specific part of engagement time
includes academic learning time (ALT).
The concept of ALT has emerged from a large-scale research effort called the
Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES) conducted in the 1970s. ALT refers to that
portion of engaged time that students spend in working on tasks at an appropriate level of
difficulty for them and experiencing high levels of success (excluding time spent engaged
in tasks that are too easy or too difficult). ALT is the precise period when an instructional
activity is perfectly aligned with a student’s readiness and in which learning occurs
(Aronson et al., 1998).
Unfortunately, simply because a student is engaged in instructional activities does
not necessarily mean that the student is learning. Using Zimmerman’s model as a guide,
true learning occurs during ALT. Thus, schools should ensure that the majority of the
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 54
time that students spend in class involves instructional activities (Aronson et al., 1998).
From a school site policy perspective, this means ensuring that adequate allocated time is
devoted to instruction in core academic subjects in which improved student performance
is sought. Further, school administrators must find ways to minimize activities that
reduce the potential for engaged time in any class, such as the public address system
announcements that interrupt learning time (Aronson et al., 1998).
There is ample evidence that time plays an important role in student learning out-
comes. However, the quality of education is the critical determinant of how much stu-
dents learn. When combined with good and effective instruction, time becomes an
important variable in student learning. To the extent that students spend more time
actively engaged in learning activities, particularly at an appropriate level of difficulty,
their achievement will increase (Aronson et al., 1998).
Year-round schedules, for example, have been demonstrated to shorten the long
summer of forgetting, reducing the amount of time needed for review each fall (Bradford
1990; Funkhouser, Humphrey, Panton, & Rosenthal, 1995). The periodic vacation breaks
in a year-round schedule, known as intersessions, can be used for remediation or accel-
eration activities, thereby accommodating students’ differing needs (Cooper, H., Nye,
Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996). Research has also shown that scheduling can
potentially maximize instructional time, allowing for more in-depth instruction and inter-
disciplinary instruction.
There is an important interactive effect between time allocated to instruction and a
student’s initial ability. The elasticity of allocated time is decreased with increases in a
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 55
student’s starting score. Thus, a given increase in time adds more to the score of a lower-
ability student than to that of a higher ability student.
In conclusion, there is little or no relationship between allocated time and student
achievement but there is some relationship between engaged time and achievement.
There is a larger relationship between ALT and achievement (Moore & Funkhouser,
1990). With allocated time, one simply needs to determine the length of the school year
and day. When looking at a more refined measure of time, such as engaged time or ALT,
one must systematically observe classrooms and carefully estimate the amount of time
spent on various activities, which varies by classroom, by teacher, and even by student.
Power to Lead
According to the KIPP leadership competency model, effective KIPP leaders
drive results, build relationships, and manage people to accomplish what is best for
students. An effective school leader must be an effective academic and organizational
leader who understands that great schools require great school leaders. According to
published KIPP school philosophy, a school leader should have control over the school
budget and personnel. KIPP leaders are given the freedom to move dollars or make
staffing changes swiftly, allowing them maximum effectiveness in helping students to
learn (Figure 1).
According to the KIPP effective school model, principals must be free to make
choices independently. Effective leaders have the freedom to decide how to spend their
money, whom to hire, and what to teach. Unless principals are free to establish their own
curricula, seek their own facilities, and teach as they see fit, their teaching will not be
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 56

Figure 1. KIPP leadership competency model. Source: KIPP Leadership Competency
Model, by Knowledge Is Power Program, 2012, retrieved from http://www.kipp.org/
index.cfm?objectid=90C94FD0-B493-11E1-A076005056883C4D
at its best. According to KIPP school philosophy, without freedom, a school principal is
powerless.
Focus on Results
KIPP schools focus on high student performance on standardized tests and other
objective measures. Their published motto is, “Just as there are no shortcuts, there are no
excuses. Students are expected to achieve a level of academic performance that will
enable them to succeed at the nation’s best high schools and colleges” (KIPP, 2012,
para. 14).
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 57
High expectations for learning are essential for student academic achievement;
however, an unyielding focus on measurable excellence is key. High expectations
without a means to measure success are merely rhetoric. Student academic excellence
requires frequent assessment and accountability. Testing is a diagnostic tool that best
predicts student achievement. According to Whitman (2008), principals can eliminate all
excuses for failure by taking personal responsibility for the success of their students. In a
results-driven environment, accountability for student performance is held for all stake-
holders in the education process. Principals can develop a culture of data-driven instruc-
tion through teacher accountability and visibility in the learning environment. Teachers
can use test data to create instruction and dictate the direction of the student lessons, and
students can use data to measure progress and set personal goals.
The pillar “focus on results” implies a need for effective data-driven practices for
schools to achieve improvement in teaching and learning. Administrators and teachers
must create a school culture that supports use of data while offering various techniques in
addressing challenges and barriers to using data to improve instruction. Relying on data
to form instruction has to be the driving force behind school improvement. Research
shows that the greatest area of need is for schools to learn how to connect data to instruc-
tional practice (Means, Padilla, Gallagher, Department of Education Office of Planning
Evaluation Policy Development, & SRI International, 2010). Therefore, in this era of
accountability, schools have come to the realization that they must collect, analyze, and
interpret key data. This process sets the stage for a data-driven environment (Johnson,
1997).
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 58
Traditionally, educational researchers have argued that teachers and administra-
tors have based decisions on, or relied on, subjective opinion and intuition to make deci-
sions (Blankstein, 2004; Heritage & Chen, 2005; Shen & Cooley, 2008). However, more
current research shows that decisions based on the use of data (known as data-driven
decision making) have much potential to drive school improvement and provide a
framework for raising student achievement, determining areas of improvement, and
improving program effectiveness (Wohlstetter, Datnow, & Park, 2008). Teachers play an
important role in the data collection process. Teachers must ask themselves how they
should interpret the data (Hojnoski, Gischlar, & Missall, 2009).
Involvement and inclusion of others in the analysis and interpretation of data can
develop shared ownership, commitment, and collective meaning (Earl & Katz, as cited in
Sutherland et al., 2004). The U.S. Department of Education and state and local systems
concur that data should be used frequently to identify and address areas of students’ aca-
demic strengths and weaknesses to create next steps for improving learning.
An extensive study completed by Shen and Cooley (2008) indicated that ongoing
efforts to close the achievement gap must be linked to the use of data. However, while
data collection and analyzing are important, this process cannot occur in isolation of other
components of school factors such as “curriculum, instruction, remediation, acceleration,
teacher professional development, and human and fiscal resources for school
improvement” (Shen & Cooley, 2008, p. 320). Schools must look beyond disaggregated
data by subgroups and take into consideration factors external to the school (Armstrong
& Anthes, 2001; Hess & Fullerton, 2009). Student achievement data are not enough to
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 59
make decisions that drive improvement, especially in low-income, high-poverty school
environments (Hess & Fullerton, 2009). Some researchers believe that schools should go
beyond test scores and look at underlying factors that may contribute to poor test scores.
Among the conditions to consider are student demographic data, such as race, gender,
ethnic group, and attendance; school staff; and perceptions of parents, students, and the
community. However, taking these factors into consideration is not an excuse for student
failure, but rather a framework for understanding the conditions that must be remedied.
Researchers such as Thernstrom and Thernstrom (2004) coined the term no
excuses in their argument that test scores matter. According to Thernstrom and
Thernstrom, assessments provide educators with the information required to reform edu-
cation and close the racial gap in academic achievement. Good tests measure the
knowledge and skills that demanding jobs and college courses require. Many Black and
Latino students leave high school barely knowing how to read, and this is not acceptable.
KIPP schools emphasize frequent testing and a relentless focus on mathematics
and reading achievement (Carter, 2000; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2004; Whitman,
2008). Thernstrom and Thernstrom stated that “No Excuses” schools are more effective
due to more instructional time, a zero tolerance disciplinary code, high academic expec-
tations for all students, and an emphasis on teaching basic mathematics and reading skills
(Whitman, 2008). Like many others, they argued that adherence to the so-called “No
Excuses” paradigm can account for nearly all of the urban advantage (Carter, 2000;
Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2004). Carter (2000) similarly argued that “No Excuses”
schools succeed due to empowered principals, the use of interim assessments to measure
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 60
student progress, frequent and effective professional development, aggressive parent
outreach, and a relentless focus on achievement by all students, regardless of background.
It is important to recognize that schools that do well focus on student outcomes.
Whitman (2008) described the effective inner city school as the surrogate parent. The
school may be responsible for ensuring the academic success of its students. Based on his
survey of effective principals, Carter (2000) noted that educators must understanding that
students have difficulties but by no means can this interfere with expectations for their
performance. This cannot become an excuse for failure. Good schools require all students
to perform well while they are given the tools to overcome economic and social barriers
that may otherwise prevent them from reaching their academic goals.
In keeping with the KIPP Leader Competency model, the organization identifies
an effective leader as a good decision maker, critical thinker, and problem solver. An
effective leader constantly uses data to inform teachers on how to plan and improve
future lessons. Ultimately, a good leader is achievement oriented. The industrious leader
sets challenging goals, takes initiative, and follows through to get results. A virtuous
leader demonstrates resilience and flexibility in practice and thinking. A good principal is
results oriented and effectively manages time and resources, prioritizing efforts according
to organizational goals.
In accordance with the KIPP philosophy, an extensive review of research supports
the idea that the critical role of the school leader is to be the visionary who drives the
school. The principal plays a key role in developing and retaining teachers, creating a
culture of learning within the school by establishing a clear school vision, and leading
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 61
reform initiatives that improve student learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Effective
schools require instrumental management in the form of good planning, sound manage-
ment practices, efficient follow-through, political sensitivity, and practical engagement
skills (Sergiovanni, 2000).
Sustaining a healthy, self-renewing organization requires a culture ready to
embrace the responsibility to self-monitor and critically reflect on data, especially disso-
nant data. School leaders and teachers who analyze the outcomes of student learning and
work as a professional learning team produce coherent action plans by reflection (Fullan,
2001).
Research suggests that principals who seek to influence learning should (a) focus
on values and goals that improve conditions for student learning and protect what is
important; (b) seek cooperation of others to provide mutual influence as the principal’s
leadership is mediated by context, people, and work processes; (c) build capacity of
others within the school; (d) develop leadership strategies that match the context of the
school; and (e) appropriately choose the right time and context to share leadership
responsibilities with others (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). According to Darling-Hammond
and Richardson (2009), principals must develop strong school cultures that focus on high
expectations for student learning, then organize structures that allow teachers to work
collaboratively.
According to the KIPP Leadership Competency model, an effective leader is a
good communicator who listens, writes, and speaks effectively. An effective leader is
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 62
also self-aware and identifies strengths and weaknesses. Consistent self-monitoring iden-
tifies powerful opportunities for adult learning (Peterson & Deal, 1998; Reeves, 2006).
Another important characteristic of an effective leader is the presence of cultural
competence; the leader is knowledgeable and respectful of the cultures of the communi-
ties that are served and actively adjusts behavior according to cultural norms and cues.
Peterson and Deal (1998) asserted that effective school leaders must learn to read and
understand their school and community culture. The leader must hear the history of the
school, including past challenges, successes, ceremonies, and celebrations. Reflective
leaders understand that past experiences exist in the present culture.
Effective school leaders understand that isolated school environments contribute
to ingrown, self-indulgent solutions. Stakeholders require reciprocal relationships in
order to develop a strong sense of purpose and a shared vision. Personal conversations,
professional articulation, shared work, and shared responsibilities are the ingredients for
developing authentic, trusting relationships. Trusting relationships between stakeholders
are the foundation for honest analysis of school practices and student achievement.
Enhancing the lives of students is the measure of success for learning communi-
ties and the moral purpose of education (Peterson & Deal, 1998; Fullan, 2008; Kouzes &
Posner, 1992).
According to the KIPP Leadership Competency model, the effective leader
actively engages in stakeholder management through developing strong, trusting, respect-
ful relationships with others. It can be concluded that principal effectiveness is higher in
institutions where the school leader acts as a manager of school improvement. The
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 63
principal actively engages in leading the reform process, takes ownership for developing
the school vision and extensively uses and understands data.
By practicing collaborative decision making and sharing leadership roles, effec-
tive school leaders set a clear sense of direction while enabling others to see and to expe-
rience future possibilities (Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Sergiovanni, 2000). Relationships,
networking, interdependence, and shared leadership among stakeholders transform the
school from a prosaic organization to a resonant, successful learning community (Peter-
son & Deal, 1998; Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2000).
School leaders who are dedicated to enhancing learning facilitate teachers’
opportunities to interact with each other. It is essential to enhance student achievement, to
ensure that stakeholders have opportunities to articulate across content area boundaries,
to experience the intellect of peers, and to build a safe climate in which to confront col-
lectively any barriers to student achievement. Relationships within the learning com-
munity move people toward creating a moral culture in which they demonstrate caring
(Peterson & Deal, 1998; Reeves, 2006). Effective leaders seek opportunities for collabo-
ration, nurture long-term relationships, and model ethical principles.
The KIPP school leader model posits that an effective leader is a visionary who
inspires others effectively. An effective leader encourages collaboration and grows
leadership skills among teachers. An effective leader is an instructional leader who has a
strong foundation in instructional development, effectively secures and manages
resources, makes sound financial decisions, builds and sustains a viable organization, and
continually develops the board.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 64
Leaders in educational research such as Marzano (2003) have noted that leader-
ship is an overarching variable that influences the effective implementation of school-
level factors, teacher-level factors, and student-level factors that make schools that work.
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) conducted a 35-year meta-analysis that indicated
that school leadership had a considerable effect on student achievement. They concluded
that it is a school leader’s responsibility to establish strong lines of communication with
and among teachers and students. In addition, leaders should monitor the effectiveness of
school practices and their impact on student learning. These characteristics help to foster
a climate of academic achievement.
Great school leaders use measurable goals to establish a culture of achievement.
Once the principal sets a clear vision for the school, every teacher must be held person-
ally responsible for enforcing the vision. According to the KIPP school model for effec-
tive leadership and school development, school leaders should be trained to become
effective academic and organizational leaders who understand that great schools require
great school leaders. However, ultimately, the chosen leader must have exclusive control
over the school budget and personnel. School leaders must be afforded the freedom to
move dollars or make staffing changes swiftly, allowing them maximum effectiveness in
helping students to learn.
Consistent with the KIPP school model, highly effective principals either are
given freedom or take it. Principals whose schools develop a reputation for academic
achievement usually are left alone; however, in order to get there, great principals often
are mavericks who challenge the system or “low flyers” who get the job done quietly.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 65
Schools that serve low-income children are often poorly funded.. Great leaders are
afforded the liberty to be innovative and flexible.
Finally, the KIPP leadership model asserts that, unless principals are free to spend
their budgets as they see fit, their schools will be compromised. Stakeholders’ intercon-
nected relationships generate a commitment to creative initiatives. To move the organi-
zation forward, an effective leader facilitates relationships between stakeholders who will
be true to the school’s shared vision, even when challenged (Bolman & Deal, 2011).
St. Hope Public School 7
St. Hope Public School 7 (PS7) is a K–8 charter school in the Sacramento School
District. This school is a unique example of the KIPP school principles being used to
address the specific needs of African American students in an urban and economically
challenging environment. PS7 has an enrollment of approximately 375 students (75%
African American, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian). In 2009 PS7 ranked ninth statewide and
10th in similar school ratings. PS7 has managed to erase the achievement gap for their
African American students (Fortune, 2010). The success of the school and its ability to
reach ethnic minorities hinge on the school’s founding principle of implementation of the
five key pillars that were adopted from the KIPP school model.
Chapter Summary
A synthesis of the literature reveals historical inequalities in education for African
American children. Advocates for equitable education look to the charter school as a
potential answer to the problem. Unfortunately, research on the impact of charter schools
on student achievement is inconsistent. Despite a growing number of studies, the
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 66
achievement results are mixed (Ratterman & Reid, 2009). Due to the autonomy offered to
charters, it is difficult to assess their academic effectiveness. In the K–12 sphere, the
nature of the change in the demand for education is as qualitative as it is quantitative. The
lack of definitive achievement outcomes, criticisms of existing studies, and the continued
popularity of charter schools have contributed to the increased need to study charter
school achievement. Few current studies have been successful in examining what is
taking place inside these schools. A report on charter school outcomes provided by the
U.S. Department of Education was inconclusive regarding why charters were having
positive effects and called for additional studies (Gleason et al., 2010). RAND research-
ers concluded that “future research should not only examine the effects of different
charter policies, but should also seek to get inside the black box of charter school
operations to learn what explains differences in effects for different schools” (as cited in
Gill et al., 2007, p. 110).
This research was designed to look at parents’ perceptions of a successful school
model and to assess student success under the model in an attempt to create a template for
success that could eradicate the achievement gap.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 67
Chapter 3
Research Design and Methodology
Problem and Purposes Overview
This chapter describes the research design and methodology to be used in the
study. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of five core principles on
academic achievement by African American students in an urban charter school as per-
ceived by the students’ parents. The five principals of academic excellence are high
expectations, choice and commitment, more time, citizenship, and focus on results.
The overall goal of the study was to look at the program model through the eyes
of parents and evaluate the program model’s impact on African American student
achievement. This research could ultimately provide a set of accommodations and rec-
ommendations for the chartering organization as they replicate this model throughout
California in an effort to eliminate the achievement gap for African American students.
Research Questions
Research questions are critical to the inquiry process because they ultimately
direct the study. The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. What impact do the KIPP five pillars have on African American student aca-
demic achievement, as perceived by the students’ parents?
2. How does the academic achievement of African American students at HBCP
compare to the achievement of similar students in California as measured by standardized
test data?
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 68
3. How do the parents’ perceptions of student achievement compare to data the
outcomes reflected by the data?
Population and Sample
Setting
The target of this benchmark assessment was HBCP, an urban charter school in
San Bernardino, California. HBCP receives operational support from the Fortune School
of Education based in Sacramento under the direction of Margaret Fortune, president-
CEO of Fortune School. This charter school opened August 12, 2010, with 235 students
in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third grade, and sixth grade. The school oper-
ates on a modified year-round calendar. The growth model of the school was to add two
grade levels each year until the school reached a fully functioning K–8 school. Unfortu-
nately, given the space and resources of a new school, the plan to integrate new sixth
graders into a charter school environment did not prove successful. In its second year of
operation, the current demographics of the target school, according to CBEDS, include
95% African American students and 85% students who receive free or reduced-price
lunches.
HBCP operates with one principal who is intended to be the instructional leader.
The school has 14 fully credentialed teachers and two credentialed special education
teachers.
This school was an ideal site for a benchmark assessment because the school’s
mission is to target the lowest-performing students in San Bernardino city schools. This
lowest-performing subgroup in San Bernardino and surrounding counties consists of
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 69
African American students. The school’s mission is “to graduate high-achieving students
of good character prepared for college and citizenship in a democratic society” (HBCP,
2009, p. 1). The significance of studying a school that focuses on African American
students in San Bernardino can ultimately affect the state achievement gap in California
because San Bernardino has the second largest African American enrollment in Califor-
nia. The school promised in its charter petition to eliminate the achievement gap for Afri-
can American students. This task is significant because many schools throughout the state
and the nation have failed to educate African American children adequately.
Participants
This study used a quantitative approach, with an emphasis on qualitative data. The
researcher hoped to gain insight into the parents’ perceptions of the impact of the KIPP
five pillars on the African American student learner. Quantitative data were gathered
through surveying interviews (Appendix A) with 20 parents whose children had com-
pleted at least 1 year at a traditional public school and at least 2 consecutive years at
HBCP. This criterion allowed parents to provide a clear comparative analysis based on
varied experiences. The researcher also collected quantitative data, such as student stand-
ardized test scores, number of teachers, length of school day, and student demographic
percentages. These data were compiled and analyzed and reported in the narrative form
of a benchmark assessment in an attempt to describe how the KIPP five principles of
excellence are influencing African American student achievement, as perceived by their
parents. Utilizing this quantitative approach allowed the researcher to interpret the data in
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 70
context and to understand how students at HBCP perform overall compared to students in
similar public schools in the same school district (Creswell, 2009).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Research question 1 asked, What impact do the KIPP five pillars have on African
American student academic achievement, as perceived by the students’ parents? The
researcher identified 28 parents from a pool of parents who had at least one child who
had attended HBCP. The researcher developed a relationship with teachers to identify
parents who fit in this category and who would be willing to participate. The researcher
administered a survey in groups of three to ensure that parents completed the survey in its
entirety and took time to think critically. The researcher provided a monetary gift to
parents who participated.
Research question 2 asked, How does the academic achievement of African
American students at HBCP compare to the achievement of similar students in California
as measured by standardized test data? Information to address this question was col-
lected from the website of the California Department of Education. The researcher dis-
aggregated AYP data for the 2011-2012 school year. The researcher looked at similar
schools and extracted the African American student achievement in both English Lan-
guage Arts and mathematics and completed a comparative analysis of the standardized
test results for African American students who attended HBCP.
Research question 3 asked, How do the parents’ perceptions of student achieve-
ment compare to data the outcomes reflected by the data? The researcher sought to gain
information to address this question by analyzing the parents’ interview responses to
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 71
determine whether the parents’ perceptions of student achievement aligned to their
child’s progress and to overall student progress at the school as measured by standardized
test data in Mathematics and English Language Arts.
Data Analysis
For Research Question 1, the researcher computed descriptive statistics that sum-
marized the central tendency and variability of parent ratings in terms of the mean and
standard deviation. In addition, inferential tests were conducted to determine whether
parental ratings of some of the pillars were significantly higher than ratings of other
pillars. Specifically, to determine whether mean ratings differed significantly depending
on the pillar that was assessed, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted. The null hypothesis for this test was that the sample was drawn from a popu-
lation in which mean parental ratings for the pillars were equal; the alternative hypothesis
was that mean parental ratings for some pillars would not be equal to ratings for other
pillars. The F statistic was used to test the significance of differences in ratings between
pillars at the .05 alpha level. Where the repeated measures ANOVA indicated significant
differences between ratings of pillars, post-hoc analyses were conducted to determine
which pillars were rated higher than others. Specifically, a series of paired-samples t tests
was utilized to test the significance of differences in mean ratings between pairs of
pillars.
For Research Question 2, the researcher obtained data from the California
Department of Education website for schools in the SBUSD that serve student popula-
tions that are similar to HBCP in terms of race and poverty levels and that provide
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 72
instruction at similar grade levels. For HBCP and for each comparison school, the
number of students at Grades 2, 3, and 4 who attained proficiency or who did not attain
proficiency in the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Language Arts tests was
tallied by grade level for HBCP and for the comparisons schools. Similarly, the number
of students who attained proficiency or who did not attain proficiency on the STAR
Mathematics test was tallied by grade level and school for HBCP and for the comparison
schools. In order to determine whether a higher proportion of students at HBCP attained
proficiency relative to the comparison schools, a chi-square test was employed to
compare proficiency rates in HBCP and the comparison schools at each grade level for
each subject. The null hypothesis was that the proportion of students attaining proficiency
at HBCP and the comparison schools would be equal, while the alternate hypothesis was
that the proportion of students attaining proficiency at HBCP would not be equal to the
proportion at the comparison schools.
Research Question 3 was addressed by tabulating parental reports of their per-
ceived impact of HBCP on their child’s achievement from the quantitative survey and
comparing those parental perceptions with the results of the analysis of student achieve-
ment performed to address Research Question 2.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of the study was to explore the effectiveness of HBCP in educating
traditionally underperforming students through the use of rigorous qualitative benchmark
assessment research. The study of this institution can provide a springboard for change in
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 73
unsuccessful school systems. HBCP has the opportunity to improve African American
student achievement in the district and eventually reduce the statewide achievement gap.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 74
Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this study was to analyze how a small charter school in San Ber-
nardino, California, was implementing the five pillars of academic achievement borrowed
from the successful KIPP school model and to assess the impact on student achievement
as perceived by parents. This chapter presents the findings for each of the research ques-
tions stated in Chapter 3. Survey data were used to describe the parents’ perception of
how the pillars were affecting their individual child’s performance. The data were
reviewed to gain an overall impression of success.
Research Questions
1. What impact do the KIPP five pillars have on African American student aca-
demic achievement, as perceived by the students’ parents?
2. How does the academic achievement of African American students at HBCP
compare to the achievement of similar students in California as measured by standardized
test data?
3. How do the parents’ perceptions of student achievement compare to data the
outcomes reflected by the data?
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 presents descriptive information about sample characteristics. In the
sample of 29 nine parents, the median number of years attending HBCP was 2. All but
one of the parents and all but one of the children were African American. Slightly more
than two thirds of the children (69%) had never attended a traditional public school. With
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 75
Table 1

Sample Characteristics

Characteristic and category n %

Years attending Hardy Brown College Prep (HBCP)
1.0 11 37.9
1.5 1 3.4
2.0 7 24.1
2.5 0 0.0
3.0 9 31.0
3.5 1 3.4

Parent’s ethnic background
African American 28 96.6
White 1 3.4

Child’s ethnic background
African American 28 96.6
White 1 3.4

Child’s grade level
K 8 27.6
1 5 17.2
2 6 20.7
3 1 3.4
4 3 10.3
5 5 17.2
6 0 0.0
7 0 0.0
8 1 3.4

Parental education
High school 2 6.9
Some college 17 58.6
College graduate 8 27.6
Master’s degree 2 6.8

Child ever attended traditional public school
Yes 9 31.0
No 20 69.0

Number of children attending HBCP
1 25 86.2
2 4 13.8

BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 76
few exceptions, the parents only had one child attending the school. The median grade
level of children attending the school was second grade. The median educational attain-
ment of parents was some college.
Findings
Research Question 1: Five Pillars
Research Question 1 asked, What impact do the KIPP five pillars have on African
American student academic achievement, as perceived by the students’ parents? Parental
ratings of the five pillars are shown in Table 2. In order to increase the reliability of
scores, analyses were performed on scale scores averaged across items rather than on
individual items. For example, a composite score for High Expectations was computed by
finding the average rating that a respondent gave for the items that assessed high expec-
tations. Scales were scored so that higher scores indicated stronger agreement with the
statements characterizing each of the five pillars (1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly
Agree). Overall, mean parental ratings indicated strong agreement with statements
describing the five pillars. In order to determine whether ratings for any of the five pillars
were significantly different from ratings for other ones, a repeated measures ANOVA
was conducted. This ANOVA tested the null hypothesis that the sample had been drawn
from a population in which mean ratings of each scale were equal. Differences in mean
ratings of the five scales were not statistically significant, F(4,108) = .406, p = .804.
These results are consistent with the view that ratings of the five pillars are consistently
high.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 77
Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for the Five Pillars (N = 28)

Pillar (Scale) M SD

High Expectations 3.44 0.56
More Time 3.42 0.74
Choice and Commitment 3.38 0.63
Focus on Results 3.51 0.49
Citizenship 3.38 0.61

Note. Scales scored 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree.
Research Question 2: Student Achievement
Research Question 2 asked, How does the academic achievement of African
American students at HBCP compare to the achievement of similar students in California
as measured by standardized test data? In order to assess learning among African
American students at HBCP, data on student achievement were obtained from the web-
site of the California State Department of Education (http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us).
Specifically, scores on the API from spring 2012 and spring 2011 were examined. The
API is a single score on a scale from 200 to 1,000 that is intended to measure how well
students are learning, based on performance on the California STAR tests. API scores for
African American students increased from 763 in spring 2011 to 797 in spring 2012. Of
the African American students, 57% were proficient in English/Language Arts and 64%
were proficient in Mathematics. According to the California State Department of Educa-
tion, the spring 2012 performance of HBCP was in the 90th percentile in relation to
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 78
schools serving a similar student population. African American students comprised
81.4% of the student population, so the high performance of HBCP relative to other
schools serving a comparable student population, controlling for economic deprivation,
supported the hypothesis that the school promotes higher levels of learning and achieve-
ment.
In order to determine whether levels of proficiency were higher in HBCP relative
to schools serving a similar student population, scores from spring 2012 were examined.
Table 3 shows proficiency levels for HBCP and matched comparison schools. The
matched comparison schools were all public K–6, K–7, or K–8 elementary schools in
California with majority African American populations in which the percentage of
minority enrollment was with 5 percentage points of HBCP. Schools in this table are
ranked according to the percentage of students who were proficient in Language Arts and
the percentage who were proficient in Mathematics. Of the 12 comparison schools, only
one had higher proficiency rates than HBCP. In order to test the null hypothesis that the
sample had been drawn from a population in which an equal number of comparison
schools had proficiency rates above and below HBCP, the exact probability of having one
or no schools with higher proficiency levels was computed. The null hypothesis predicted
that the probability that a given school had higher proficiency rates was .50. In the
current study, the probability of having one or no schools with higher proficiency levels
than HBCP was only .003. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the
alternate hypothesis that proficiency rates were significantly higher at HBCP than in the
set of matched comparison schools.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 79
Table 3

Spring 2012 Proficiency Rates for Hardy Brown College Prep School and Comparison
Schools

Grade Percentage proficient
School span Minority % LA Mathematics

St. Hope Public School K–8 97.5 75.5 73.4
Hardy Brown College Preparatory K–7 93.6 55.3 63.5
Anna Yates Elementary K–7 91.6 53.7 62.7
Highland Elementary K–6 98.5 56.0 58.9
Barbara Comstock Morse K–6 93.3 56.1 57.4
Analee Avenue Elementary K–6 98.2 51.6 53.1
Iftin Charter K–8 97.1 49.4 49.8
Union House Elementary K–6 91.9 40.1 50.2
Fairbanks Elementary K–6 91.5 36.2 50.9
Excel Prep Charter K–6 98.3 42.4 36.4
Leataata Floyd Elementary K–6 96.3 28.5 40.0
RAAMP Elementary K–7 92.9 25.3 40.7
Stege Elementary K–6 98.0 24.8 28.7

Note. LA = English Language Arts.
Research Question 3: Summary
Research Question 3 asked, How do the parents’ perceptions of student achieve-
ment compare to data the outcomes reflected by the data? Cumulatively, the results of
these analyses suggested that parents perceived high levels of each of the five pillars. No
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 80
significant differences were found in parental ratings of the five pillars. The analysis of
student achievement indicated that levels of student proficiency in Language Arts and
Mathematics were significantly higher than in matched comparison schools containing a
similar grade span, percentage of minority student s, and majority of African American
students. All tabled values refer to enrollment and performance among African American
students.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 81
Chapter 5
Discussion
This research involved quantitative investigation of HBCP, a K–8 charter school
in southern California. This charter school was developed to improve academic success
and to counteract negative impacts of U.S. society and its schooling system on African
American students and their communities. Specifically, HBCP seeks to enable African
American students to succeed in school and to reframe their lives and those of their
communities.
Overview of the Study
Charter schools are emerging exponentially throughout United States. This reality
is due partially to the increasing demand for solutions to the achievement gap. The
charter school phenomenon has become one of the most visible forms of educational
innovation. Despite the growing number of charter schools throughout the United States
and in California, researchers have not been able to answer definitively the question of
charter school effectiveness as a whole. The question that consistently remains unan-
swered is whether charter schools as a whole yield better academic results for students.
Researchers such as Garrison and Holifeild (2005) examined site principals’ per-
ceptions of charter school effectiveness and looked at the results with respect to charter
school laws in participating states. The current study also involved measuring charter
school effectiveness; however, the results were interpreted through the lens of parents.
While effective school practices have been studied extensively (North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory [NCREL], 2000; Taylor, 2002), they have not been used to
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 82
assess effectiveness as perceived by parents. This study introduced the idea of parent
choice as a viable expert opinion. Given the growing number of charter schools in the
United States (Landberg, Smith, & Blume, 2010), this study can act as a guide for parents
in the determination of school choice and in deciding whether charter schools really are a
option for their child.
Findings
While charters are not uniformly high performing or successful, there are exam-
ples within the United States and California that are quickly narrowing the achievement
gap and in some cases becoming some of the best public schools in the county. Based on
the findings of this study, students at HBCP are performing well academically. In fact,
the data indicated that the only school in the state that outperformed HBCP on the 2011-
2012 state test was Public School 7, a school after which HBCP was modeled and that
shares the five pillars of excellence.
Findings indicated that African American parents of HBCP students collectively
indicated that the five pillars of excellence implemented at HBCP had a positive impact
on student achievement. A comparative analysis of student test score data indicated that
students at HBCP were outperforming students at comparison schools in the areas of
Language Arts and Mathematics.
The survey instrument utilized in this study focused on the five pillars that have
been determined to be effective practices for schools: high expectation, more time,
choice and commitment, focus on results, and citizenship. The study was designed to
determine whether there was a relationship ship between successful implementation of
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 83
the five pillars and students’ academic performance as measured by scores on the Cali-
fornia standardized tests as perceived by parents.
Implications for Education
This study began with the premise that the hope of Brown v. Board of Education
remains unfulfilled. The goal of this benchmark analysis was to explore the idea of
student choice and its impact on student achievement. The goal was to determine whether
a charter school within one of the nation’s lowest-performing school districts could
produce positive academic results for low-income African American students. If this
school proved successful in its mission to close the academic achievement gap for Afri-
can American students, this would be a great story to tell and a wonderful model on
which to build. The analysis of HBCP detailed specific strategies that worked well to
improve academic achievement by African American students in a traditionally low-
performing environment. HBCP has subsequently created a culture in which they live
their intentions.
The idea that HBCP could effect change rested on a set of basic assumptions
1. Schools have the capability to close the achievement gap between African
American students and White students
2. Standardized test scores provide a useful measure of effectiveness of individual
schools in bridging the achievement gap between African American students and White
students
3. Given the autonomy that charter schools have to choose their own academic
program, charter schools are uniquely positioned to implement effective practices.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 84
HBCP is a charter school that has used its autonomy (freedom with accountabil-
ity) to achieve better results for African American students than other California public
schools serving similar populations. The analysis of their practices hinged their success
on the implicit implementation of five well-researched and effective practices that the
organization termed the Five Pillars of Academic Excellence: High Expectations, More
Time, Choice and Commitment, Focus on Results and Citizenship. These five pillars
were operationalized through a series of policy decisions in the areas of staffing, cur-
riculum and instruction, and school culture.
Given that HBCP has control of their budget by virtue of being a charter school,
they have the power to make decisions that have proven successful for the children whom
they serve. They have made the decision to establish a much smaller school than the dis-
trict’s average school size, to limit class sizes, to extend the learning day, and to invest
significant financial resources into staff development. In addition, HBCP has complete
control of staffing and by practice spends extensive time in recruiting highly qualified
teachers who believe in the school’s mission and who have the desire to do what is neces-
sary to help students. Sebring and Bryk (2000) explained that principals in higher
performing urban schools carefully recruit competent teachers who will contribute to the
emerging vision of the schools.
HBCP has used its autonomy of curriculum to teach a standards-based curriculum
that strives toward mastery of standards rather than an overview of information that relies
heavily on a district-mandated pacing guide. HBCP has created a culture that requires
collaboration and connection to student learning. HBCP relies on this vision of high
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 85
expectations to guide interaction with students and staff. The staff employ a higher sense
of accountability and discipline than that found in the traditional school.
Historically, charter school advocates have argued that the greater autonomy of
charter schools would translate into adoption of practices that would yield better student
achievement (Nathan, 1996). Nathan argued that the combination of autonomy, innova-
tion, and accountability would lead to improved student achievement, high parental and
student satisfaction, high teacher/employee satisfaction and empowerment, positive
effects on the broader system of public education, and positive or neutral effects on edu-
cational equity, including better services for at-risk students. HBCP has proven to be a
positive example of this ideology. The choice by HBCP to adhere to a strict set of princi-
ples related to school culture and decision making has important implications for practi-
tioners.
This study supports the idea that parents are capable of choosing a viable educa-
tional alternative for their children. Parents generally give charter schools positive marks.
A review of research conducted by RAND found that “parents of children in voucher and
charter schools are more satisfied, on a wide variety of dimensions, than are comparison
groups of local public school parents” (Gill, Timpane, Ross, & Brewer, 2001, p. 137).
Finn, Manno, and Vanourek (2000) cited survey data (from schools recommended by
state personnel) indicating that charters were “extremely popular” among parents, who
rated them superior to their children’s previous schools with regard to class size, school
size, attention from teachers, quality of instruction, and curriculum. Several indicators of
market satisfaction (including the common existence of waiting lists) support the
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 86
conclusion that parents and students are generally satisfied with charter schools. Parents
appear to be highly involved with charter schools (Center for Applied Research and Edu-
cational Improvement, 1998). One study (WestEd & University of Southern California,
1998, suggested that active parent involvement can be a mixed blessing: “In some cases,
there was such a high degree of parent involvement that clear parameters and boundaries
needed to be established to guide interaction” (p. 15).
However, to imply that simply having these highly effective practices in place or
simply being a charter school is enough to yield results is erroneous and misleading. The
more global question becomes whether autonomy is always better. Charter school advo-
cates have generally considered more autonomy to be better (Kolderie, 1990), but the
research to date is clear that charter school outcomes are not better. According to the
USC dashboard report, the primary differences between charter and noncharter school
performance are at the extremes. Charter schools, on average, tend to have a dispropor-
tionate number of schools at the top and bottom of the performance spectrum compared
to noncharter schools. Noncharter schools have a more uniform distribution, with charter
schools once again having a larger percentage of schools bunched at the extremes. As
with the API composite index, noncharter schools have a more uniform distribution than
charters, which have higher proportions of schools at either end of the performance
spectrum.
One study found that schools operating with greater autonomy were better able to
create and sustain learning communities and respond quickly to problems but were more
consumed by managerial decisions. Another study suggested that, despite their desire for
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 87
autonomy, charter schools often turned to their local district’s bureaucracy when they
needed help (Wells, 1998). Some schools, particularly those with weak organizational
structures, may have difficulty in capitalizing on their autonomy (Wohlstetter & Griffin,
1998). Further, the academic impact of charters nationwide is mixed. As it stands, charter
schools are among the highest-performing schools and the lowest-performing schools in
terms of student achievement (Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998). Similarly, the most compre-
hensive analysis of findings on charter school achievement concluded that the charter
impact on student achievement appears to be mixed or very slightly positive (Miron &
Nelson, 2001).
The initial idea for charter schools was to incite competition and share nontradi-
tional nonbureaucratic best practices. However, in spite of pockets of excellence within
the charter school world, the sharing of best practices has not happened regularly. In
order for the best practices of this organization to have a widespread impact on student
achievement, those who are responsible for the academic success of students will have to
do more to enact change. Bureaucratic bars will have to be broken. The idea of an adult-
centered approach to education must change. The overzealous nature of some district
unions and heavily administrative districts will need to shift. However, the institution of
safeguards and protection and functioning systems and processing still must exist to have
a balanced approach to learning. Based on this research, it is reasonable to conclude that
it is not the nature of being public, private, charter, or traditional that makes for an effec-
tive learning environment; rather, it is the people who operate the school and the gov-
erning practices that they choose to employ that make the difference.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 88
This study adds to the small body of research literature that ties student academic
success to charter school practice. In effect, greater school autonomy, coupled with faith-
fully executed, research-based instructional models, can yield improved academic per-
formance for African American students, but this fortunate outcome is very uncertain,
perhaps even unlikely. The favorable parent outcomes in this study are not unique
because, more often than not, charter school parents favor the education that their
children are receiving. What is more unusual is that HBCP is also performing well based
on objective measures of test scores.
The outcomes revealed that parents agreed that the five pillars were having a pos-
itive effect on their child’s academic achievement. These implications for education are
(a) added statistical evidence for the Fortune School of Education as they seek to repli-
cate the HBCP model exponentially throughout California, and (b) identification and
description of effective school philosophies that can be implemented not only in urban
settings but also with African American students in an attempt to close the achievement
gap. However, in looking critically at the practices of HBCP, the question is raised about
sustainability and replicability. Can these efforts be sustained over time and across multi-
ple schools? Given the school’s change in leadership and potential teacher burnout and
relatively low compensation, will the program sustain itself as a highly functional institu-
tion?
Limitations of the Study
The study focused on a single school in a single city. The information was gath-
ered from the few parents who volunteered to participate. Therefore, findings from this
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 89
study can be generalized only to schools where there is a similar organizational structure
and demographics.
Developing Alternative Educational Settings
The majority of African American students will continue to attend public schools
in the 21st century, but these schools must implement programs that target African
American students for success. By its example, HBCP has shown that deliberate imple-
mentation of five research-based principles can singlehandedly affect the achievement of
African American students achievement in a positive manner. Therefore, it would benefit
school districts and the communities that they serve to explore these pillars and consider
using them.
Suggestions for Further Research
This work has implications for researchers and practitioners. Researchers can
replicate this study. The research community needs to learn much more about the
schooling experiences of African American students in urban settings. Future analysis of
the five pillars of excellence that have proven successful in targeting African American
students should utilize research methods similar to the ones employed in this study to
provide ideas for traditional public school settings. The question becomes how to repli-
cate the model within the jurisdiction of the traditional school setting to engender success
among African American students and how to benefit all teachers in search of effective
classroom practices for African American students.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 90
Conclusion
As shown in the literature review, charter schools are exempt from many public
school requirements and subsequently rely on student test data to measure the success of
school operations and subsequent charter renewal. However, given the national disparity
between African American achievement and their counterparts with respect to most of the
indicators for school success and the aforementioned accountability trend, the suggestion
is made that public school practitioners move beyond what has always been done to
protect the status quo structures, practices, and pedagogies and consider programs that are
aimed at building on the many strengths of African American children. This model in
particular will benefit not only the African American child; it can benefit all children.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 91
References
Abdul-Adil, J., & Farmer, A. D., Jr. (2006). Inner-city African-American parental
involvement in elementary schools: Getting beyond urban legends of apathy.
School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 1-12.
Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home-school relations: Par-
ent involvement strategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban Edu-
cation, 37, 384-407.
Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A., Van Der, G., & Kuyper, H. (2008). Perceived social support
and early adolescents’ achievement: The mediational roles of motivational beliefs
and emotions. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39(1), 36-46.
Alldred, P., & Edwards, R. (2000). A typology of parental involvement n education
centering on children and young people: Negotiating familialisation, institu-
tionalisation and individualisation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21,
435-455.
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina.
Anderson, J. D. (2007). The historical context for understanding the test score gap. The
National Journal of Urban Education & Practice, 1, 1-21.
Anderson, L. (1983). Instruction and time-on-task: A review. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 13, 289-303.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 92
Archambault, I., Eccles, J. S., & Vida, M. N. (2010). Ability, self-concepts and subjective
value in literacy: Joint trajectories from Grades 1 through 12. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 102, 804-817.
Armstrong, J., & Anthes, K. (2001). How data can help. American School Board Journal,
188(11), 38-41.
Aronson, J., Zimmerman, J., & Carlos, L. (1998). Improving student achievement by
extending school: Is it just a matter of time? San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Bell, C. (2009). Geography in parental choice. American Journal of Education, 115, 493-
521.
Benner, A. D., & Mistry, R. S. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational
expectations and low-income youth’s academic competence. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 99(1), 140–153.
Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2002). Implementation and per-
formance in new American schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
Berends, M., Watral, C., Teasley, B., & Nicotera, A. (2006, September). Charter school
effects on achievement: Where we are and where we’re going. Paper presented at
the National Center on School Choice Conference, Nashville, TN. Retrieved from
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/conference/papers/Berendsetal_2006-
DRAFT.pdf
Berk, L. E. (1994). Child development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 93
Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2006). The impact of charter schools on student achievement:
Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 50-90.
Blankstein, A. M. (Ed.). (2004). Failure is not an option (TM): Six principles that guide
student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Bond, H. M. (1939). The education of the Negro in the American social order. New
York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2011). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and lead-
ership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.
Boutte, G., & Strickland, J. (2008). Making African American culture and history central
to early childhood teaching and learning. Journal of Negro Education, 77, 131-
142.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). The inheritance of inequality. Journal of Economic Per-
spectives, 16(3), 3-30.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 94
Boykin, A. W. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American children.
In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspec-
tives (pp. 57-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradford, J. C., Jr. (1990). Year-round schooling: A school for all seasons at the second-
ary level. Buena Vista, VA: Buena Vista City Public Schools.
Braun, H. I., Wang, A., Jenkins, F., & Weinbaum, E. (2006). The Black-White achieve-
ment gap: Do state policies matter? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(8).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n8/
Brooks, J. E. (2006). Strengthening resilience in children and youths: Maximizing
opportunities through the schools. Children & Schools, 28(2), 69-76.
Brown, K. E., & Medway, F. J. (2007). School climate and teacher beliefs in a school
effectively serving poor South Carolina (USA) African-American students: A
case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 529–540.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2005). Are charter school students harder to educate? Evi-
dence from Washington DC. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27,
365-380. doi:10.3102/01623737027004365
Buddin, R., & Zimmer, R. (2005). Students achievement in charter school: A complex
picture. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 351-371. doi:10.1002/
pam.20093
Bulkley, K. (2004). Reinventing an idea: The political construction of charter schools.
Educational Foundations, 18(1), 5-31.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 95
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2002). A review of the research on charter schools (CPRE WP-
01). Pittsburgh, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice.
Educational Policy, 17, 317-342.
California Department of Education. (2009). Accountability progress reporting system.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/api
California Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2009). Vic-
torian early years learning and development framework: For children birth to
eight years. Sacramento, CA: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Campbell, J., Hombo, C., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress:
Three decades of student performance (NCES 2000469). Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools.
Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
Castro, D. C., Bryant, D. M., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Skinner, M. L. (2004). Parent
involvement in Head Start programs: The role of parent, teacher and classroom
characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 413-430.
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. (1998). Minnesota charter
schools evaluation. Minneapolis, MA: Author.
Center for Education Reform. (2011). Review of charter school laws. Retrieved from
http://www.edreform.com/templates/dsp_cLaw.cfm
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 96
Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2009). Multiple choice: Charter
school performance in 16 states. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Cholewa, B., & West-Olatunju, C. (2008). Exploring the relationship among cultural dis-
continuity, psychological distress, and academic outcomes with low-income, cul-
turally diverse students. Professional School Counseling, 12(1), 54-61.
Collins, T. (1999). Charter schools: An approach for rural education? Charleston, WV:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED425896)
Comer, J. P., & Poussaint, A. F. (1992). Raising Black children: Two leading psychia-
trists confront the educational, social, and emotional problems facing Black
children. New York, NY: Penguin.
Cook, P., & Ludwig, J. (1998). The burden of acting White: Do Black adolescents dis-
parage academic achievement? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-
White test score gap (pp. 375-400). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Cooper, B. S., & Randall, E. V. (2008). Fear and privatization. Educational Policy, 22(1),
204-227. doi:10.1177/0895904807311303
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of
summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic
review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227-268.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches (2nd
ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 97
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony
of “No Child Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10, 245-260.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/Teacher learning:
What matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass;
Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York, NY: New Press.
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G. (2009). Are high-quality schools enough to close the
achievement gap? Evidence from a social experiment in Harlem. Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Driessen, G., Smit, F., & Sleegers, P. (2005). Parental involvement and educational
achievement. British Educational Research Journal. 31, 509-532.
Dubow, E. F., & Ippolito, M. F. (1994). Effects of poverty and quality of the home envi-
ronment on changes in the academic and behavioral adjustment of elementary
school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 401-412.
Education Trust. (2003). African American achievement in America. Retrieved from
http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/
AfAmer_Achievement.pdf
Education Trust West. (2006). Enough to do the job? Critical questions about Califor-
nia’s latest teacher equity plan. Retrieved from http://www2
.edtrust.org/edtrust/etw/
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 98
Education Trust West. (2010). “Access denied:” 2009 API rankings reveal unequal
access to California’s best schools. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/
edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Equity%20Alert.pdf
Egertson, H. A (2004). Achieving high standards and implementing developmentally
appropriate practice: Both are possible. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 32(1),
3-9.
Feikens, J. (1967). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: The implications of
the trust-fund theory for the church-state questions raised by Title I. Michigan
Law Review, 1967, 1184-1205.
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing
public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Flores, B., Tefft-Cousin, P., & Diaz, E. (1991). Transforming deficit myths about learn-
ing, language, and culture. Language Arts, 68, 369-378.
Fortune, R. (2010). Bridging the achievement gap: What successful educators do. Rose-
ville, CA: Author.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter
school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/779
Freedman, S. (2004, May 19). Increasingly, African-Americans take flight to private
schools. The New York Times, p. B11.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1994). Clinton's education policy and intergovernmental relations in the
1990s. Publius, 24(3), 83-97.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 99
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London,
UK: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Columbia University Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The sex secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fuller, H. (2001). Freedom to Learn Conference keynote remarks. Retrieved from
http://www.charterfriends.org/freedom.html#fuller
Funkhouser, J. E., Humphrey, D. C., Panton, K. L. M., & Rosenthal, E. D. (1995). A
research review: The educational uses of time (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: Policy
Studies Associates.
Garrison, L. F., & Holifeild, H. (2005). Are charter schools effective? Planning and
Changing, 36(1-2), 90 .
Gill, B. P., Timpane, P. M., Ross, K. E., & Brewer, D. J. (2001). Rhetoric versus reality:
What we know and what we need to know about vouchers and charter schools.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Gill, B., Timpane, P. M., Ross, K., Brewer, D., & Booker, K. (2007). Rhetoric versus
reality: What we know and what we need to know about vouchers and charter
schools (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: RAND Education.
Gizir, C. A., & Aydin, G. (2009). Protective factors contributing to the academic resili-
ence of students living in poverty in turkey. Professional School Counseling,
13(1), 38-49.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 100
Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C., & Dwoyer, E. (2010). The evaluation of charter school
impacts: Executive summary (NCEE 2010-4030). Retrieved from http://ies.ed
.gev/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104030.pdf
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New
York, NY: Longman.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Lead-
ership and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
Halvorsen, A., Lee, V., & Andrade, F. (2009). A mixed-method study of teachers’ atti-
tudes about teaching in urban and low-income schools. Urban Education, 44,
181-224.
Hanna, J. L. (1988). Disruptive school behavior. New York, NY: Holmes & Meier.
Hardy Brown College Prep. (2009). Charter school petition of Hardy Brown College
Prep, A charter school of Project Pipeline, presented to San Bernardino City
School District. San Bernardino, CA: Author.
Hassel, B. (2005). Charter school achievement: What we know. Retrieved from
http://www.charterschoolleadershipcouncil.org/PDF/Paper.pdf
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, par-
ent and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
Henig, J. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates—The case of charter
schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation/Century Foundation.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 101
Henig, J. (2009). Politicization of evidence: Lessons for an informed democracy. Educa-
tion Policy, 23(1), 137-160. doi:10.1177/0895904808328525
Heritage, M., & Chen, E. (2005). Why data skills matter in school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86, 707-710.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: South-
west Educational Development Laboratory.
Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: The reshaping of American life by
difference in intelligence. New York, NY: Free Press.
Hess, F. M., & Fullerton, J. (2009). The numbers we need: Bringing balanced scorecards
to education data. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 665-669.
Hinnant, J. B., O’Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S. R. (2009). The longitudinal relations of
teacher expectations to achievement in the early school years. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 101, 662-670.
Hoffman, L. M., & Nottis, K. E. (2008). Middle school students’ perceptions of effective
motivation and preparation factors for high-stakes tests. NASSP Bulletin, 92, 209-
223. doi:10.1177/0192636508322662
Hojnoski, R. L., Gischlar, K. L., & Missall, K. N. (2009). Improving child outcomes with
data-based decision-making graphing data. Young Exceptional Children, 12(3),
32-44.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in
their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 42-46.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 102
Hunter, R. C. (2009). Public school administration and Brown v. Board of Education.
Education and Urban Society, 41, 575-594. doi:10.1177/0013124509333784
Imberman, S. A. (2007). Achievement and behavior in charter schools: Drawing a more
complete picture (Doctoral dissertation). Houston, TX: University of Houston.
Ingram, M., Wolfe, R., & Lieberman, J. (2007). The role of parents in high-achieving
schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and Urban Society,
39, 479-497.
Ireson, J. (2008). Learners, learning and educational activity. London, UK: Routledge.
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard
Educational review, 39(1), 1-123.
Johnson, J. H. (1997). Data-driven school improvement. Retrieved from http://
scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/jspui/bitstream/1794/3331/1/digest109.pdf
Johnston, R. C., & Videro, D. (2000, March 15). Unmet promise: raising minority
achievement. Education Week, 19(27), 2-10.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2001). Patterns of teacher-student interaction in inclusive
elementary classrooms and correlates with student self-concept. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48(1), 33-52.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 103
Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP). (2012). The story of KIPP. Retrieved from
http://www.kipp.org/about-kipp
Knox, K. (1974). The availability of education in the Negro separate school. Journal of
Negro Education, 16, 269-279.
Kolderie, T. (1990). Beyond choice to new public schools: Withdrawing the exclusive
franchise in public education. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraor-
dinary things done in organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1992). Ethical leaders: An essay about being in love.
Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 479-484.
Kreider, H., Mayer, E., & Vaughan, P. (1999). Helping parents communicate better with
schools. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/pubs/onlinepubs/ecd/
may99.html
Lacireno-Paquet, N., & Holyoke, T. T. (2007). Moving forward or sliding backward: The
evolution of charter school policies in Michigan and the District of Columbia.
Educational Policy, 21(1), 185-214.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From achievement gap to educational debt: Understanding
achievement in schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 1-2.
Landberg, M., Smith, D., & Blume, H. (2010, January 10). An unplanned revolution in
L.A’s public schools. Los Angeles Times, pp. A1, A10-A11.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 104
Landsman, J. (2004). Confronting the racism of low expectations. Educational Leader-
ship, 62(3), 28-32.
Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu's concept of capital to the broader field: The case of
family-school relationships. In B. J. Biddle (Ed.), Social class, poverty, and edu-
cation: Policy and practice (pp. 77-100). New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race,
class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education,
72(1), 37-53.
Latham, G. (1985). A data-based approach to assessing program quality. Unpublished
manuscript, Utah State University, Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center,
Logan, UT.
Lee, J., & Bowen, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement
gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal,
43, 193-199.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background
differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A repli-
cation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451-479.
Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement: A
multi level analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research
Journal, 43, 651-798. doi:10.3102/00028312043004651
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 105
MacNaughton, G. (2003). Shaping early childhood: Learners, curriculum and contexts.
Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Madon, S., Smith, A., Jussim, L., Russell, D. W., Eccles, J., Palumbo, P., & Walkiewicz,
M. (2001). Am I as you see me or do you see me as I am? Self-fulfilling prophe-
cies and self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1214-
1224.
Maloney, C. (2005). The effect of Texas charter high schools on diploma graduation and
general educational development (GED) attainment (Doctoral dissertation). Re-
trieved from ProQuest database. (Accession No. 3196163)
Manno, B., Vanourek, G., & Finn, C. (1999). Charter schools: Serving disadvantaged
youth. Education and Urban Society, 31, 429-445.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development.
McKinnon, J. (2003). The Black population in the United States: March 2002 (Current
Population Reports, Series P20-541). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
McKinsey & Co. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s
schools: Summary of findings. New York, NY: McKinsey & Co., Social Sector
Office.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 106
McLeod, S. H. (1995). Pygmalion or Golem? Teacher affect and efficacy. College Com-
position and Communication, 46, 369-386.
Mead, S., & Rotherham, A. J. (2007). A sum greater than the parts: What states can
teach each other about charter schooling. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
Means, B., Padilla, C., Gallagher, L., Department of Education Office of Planning
Evaluation Policy Development, & S. R. I. International. (2010). Use of education
data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2001). Student academic achievement in charter schools: What
we know and why we know so little. New York, NY: National Center for the
Study of Privatization in Education.
Moll, L. C. (1994). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications
of sociohistorical psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, M. T., & Funkhouser, J. (1990). More time to learn: Extended time strategies for
Chapter 1 students. Washington, DC: Decision Resources Corporation.
Murtadha-Watts, K. (1998). Teacher education in urban school-based, multiagency
collaboratives. Urban Education, 32, 616-631.
Naceur, A., & Schiefele, U. (2005). Motivation and learning: The role of interest in con-
struction of representation of text and long-term retention: Inter- and intra-
individual analyses. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(2),
155-170.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 107
Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity in American educa-
tion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2012). Why charter schools? Retrieved
from http://www.publiccharters.org/About-Charter-Schools/Why-charter-
schools003F.aspx
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). America’s charter schools: Results from
the NAEP 2003 pilot study (Research Report No. NCES 2005-456). Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/charter/2005456.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Numbers and types of public elementary
and secondary schools from the common core of data: School year 2006-07 (Re-
search Report No. NCES 2009-304). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
pub2009/peschools07/findings.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). NAEP 2009 High School Transcript
Study. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/hsts_2009/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Condition of education 2011. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2010-section3b.asp
National Education Association. (2012). NEA’s policy on charter schools. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm
Neuenschwander, M. P., Vida, M., Garrett, J. L.,& Eccles, J. S. (2007). Parents' expecta-
tions and students' achievement in two Western nations. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 31, 594-603.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 108
Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural educa-
tion (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nieto, S. (2005). Why we teach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Noguera, P. A. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in
education. Education and Urban Society, 34(1), 18-41.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). (2000). The Characteristics of
Successful Schools Survey. Naperville, IL: Author.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Oakes, J. (1999). Limiting students' school success and life chances: The impact of
tracking. In A. C. Ornstein & L. S. Behar-Horenstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues
in curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 224-237). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic
disengagement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history,
community, and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1-35.
Orfield, G., Sunderman, G. L., & Kim, J. S. (Eds.). (2005). NCLB meets school realities:
Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Overstreet, S., Devine, J., Bevans, K., & Efreom, Y. (2005). Predicting parental involve-
ment in children's schooling within an economically disadvantaged African
American sample. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 101-111.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 109
Owens, A., & Sunderman, G. L. (2006). School accountability under NCLB: Aid or
obstacle for measuring racial equity. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at
Harvard University.
Pai, Y., & Adler, S. (2001). Cultural foundations of education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., Samarapungavan, A., & French, F. (2008). Patterns of
young children's motivation for science and teacher-child relationships. Journal of
Experimental Education, 76(2), 121-144.
Peske, H., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality. Washington, DC: Education
Trust.
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools. Edu-
cational Leadership, 56, 28-31.
Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2003). No child left behind? The politics and practice of
school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 539 (1896).
Poplin, M., & Weeres, J. (1992). Voices from the inside: A report on schooling from
inside the classroom. Claremont, CA: Institute for Education in Transformation at
the Claremont Graduate School.
Quartarola, B. (1984). A research paper on time on task and the extended school day/
year and their relationship to improving student achievement. Burlingame, CA:
Association of California School Administrators.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 110
Rapp, K. E., & Eckes, S. E. (2007). Dispelling the myth of “White flight”: An examina-
tion of minority enrollment in charter school. Educational Policy, 21, 615-661.
doi:10.1177/0895904806290123
Rattermann, M. J., & Reid, B. (2009). A comparison of student growth between Indiana
charter schools and traditional public schools. Indianapolis, IN: University of
Indianapolis, Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Rousseau, S. (2007). Educational reform: Toward a K–16 framework. Metropolitan
Universities: An International Forum, 18(4), 48-66.
Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students:
Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 429-444.
Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago.
Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 440-443.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shen, J., & Cooley, V. E. (2008). Crucial issues in using data for decision making. Inter-
national Journal of Leadership in Education, 11, 319-329.
Shockley, K., (2007). Literature and definitions: Toward understanding Africentric edu-
cation. Journal of Negro Education, 76, 103-117.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 111
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socializa-
tion of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1),
1-40.
Stillings, C. (2005). Charter schools and No Child Left Behind: Sacrificing autonomy for
accountability. Journal of Education, 186(2), 51-70.
Sunderman, G. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes
transform the law. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M., . . . John, P.
(2004). Transforming teaching and learning: embedding ICT into everyday class-
room practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 413-425.
Superfine, B. M. (2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of Goals 2000.
American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10-43.
Swartz, E. (2007). Stepping outside the master script: Re-connecting the history of
American education. Journal of Negro Education, 76, 173-186.
Taylor, B. O. (2002). The effective schools process: Alive and well. Phi Delta Kappan,
83, 375-378.
Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2004). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Thompson, G. L. (2002). African American teens discuss their schooling experiences.
Westport, CT: Greenwood, Bergin & Garvey.
Thompson, G. L. (2004). Through ebony eyes: What teachers need to know but are afraid
to ask about African American students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 112
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioural
and Brain Sciences, 16, 495-552.
Toney, A. N. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of charter schools performance in Oakland
Unified School District: A district and neighborhood matched-comparison analy-
sis. Retrieved from http://www.myschool.org/pressroom1/AM/
contentmanagement.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Digest of education statistics 2000. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from
http://www.nclb.gov/next/overview/index.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). The
condition of education 2007 (NCES No. 2007-064). Washington DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Vergari, S. (2007). The politics of charter schools. Educational Policy, 21(1), 15-39.
doi:10.1177/0895904806296508
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach
the new survival skills our children need—and what we can do about it. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Wells, A. S. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten Califor-
nia school districts. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Charter School Study.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 113
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discus-
sions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Milken Family Foundation and Educa-
tional Testing Service.
West, C. (1994). Race matters. New York, NY: Vintage.
WestEd & University of Southern California. (1998). The findings and implications of
increased flexibility and accountability: An evaluation of charter schools in Los
Angeles Unified School District. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Whitman, D. (2008). An appeal to authority: The new paternalism in urban schools. Edu-
cation Next, 8(4), 53-58.
Wilder, T., & Jacobsen, R. (2010). The short supply of saints: Limits on replication of
models that “beat the odds.” Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 26, 237-263.
Wilkinson, L. (2005). Improving literacy outcomes for students in disadvantaged schools:
The importance of teacher theory. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,
28(2), 127-137.
Wilson, J. D., Cordry, S. A., & King, N. (2004). Building learning communities with
distance learning instruction. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to
Improve Learning, 48(6), 20-22.
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven deci-
sion making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 19, 239-259.
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 114
Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning communities:
Early lessons from charter schools (Occasional Paper No. OP-03). Philadelphia,
PA: The University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Educa-
tion.
Woodson, C. (1998). The mis-education of the Negro. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
Woodworth, K. R., David, J. L., Guha, R., Wang, H., & Lopez-Torkos, A. (2008). San
Francisco Bay Area KIPP schools: A study of early implementation and achieve-
ment—Final report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Yeo, F. (1997). Teacher preparation and inner-city schools: Sustaining educational fail-
ure. The Urban Review, 29(2), 127-143.
Zehr, M. A. (2010, July 14). Charter schools. Education Week, 29(21), 1-5.
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T. R., & Witte, J. (2009). Charter
schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and com-
pletion [Monograph]. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/
MG869
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 115
Appendix
Parent Interview Questions
Demographic questions
1. How long has your child attended HBCP?
2. What is your ethnic background?
3. What is the ethnic background of your child?
4. What is your age?
5. How many children do you have?
6. How long has your child attended HBCP?
7. Has your child ever attended a traditional public school?
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 116

Strongly
agree Agree
Somewhat
agree Disagree
High Expectations
1. HBCP teachers have high expectations for my
child’s learning.

2. My child has higher self-expectations since
attending HBCP.

3. My child is performing better because he/she has
high self-expectations.

4. HBCP has higher academic expectations for my
child than what I experienced at his/her traditional
public school.

More Time
5. HBCP has a longer school day.
6. HBCP’s longer school day has improved my
child’s learning.

7. HBCP has a longer school day than my child’s
regular traditional school.

Choice and Commitment
8. I signed a parent commitment when I enrolled
my child at HBCP.

9. My child signed a commitment to excellence
contract before enrolling in school.

10. I have completed 40 parent volunteer hours.
11. HBCP requires a greater commitment of me
than did my child’s traditional public school.

Focus on Results
12. HBCP focuses on student academic results.
13. HBCP’s focus on results has improved my
child’s academic performance.

BENCHMARK ANALYSIS: HARDY BROWN COLLEGE PREP 117
14. HBCP has a greater focus on results than did
my child’s traditional public school.

Citizenship
15. HBCP encourages my child to become a good
citizen.

16. My child’s citizenship has improved since
attending HBCP.

17. HBCP has a greater focus on citizenship than id
my child’s previous traditional public school.

General
18. I believe that, overall, my child is performing
better at HBCP than he/she would at a traditional
public school.

19. I believe that all children in the SBSD are aca-
demically outperforming students.

Comments:

Sources: (a) Wanted, a National Teacher Supply Policy for Education, by L. Darling-
Hammond & G. Sykes, 2003, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; (b) African American
achievement in America, by Education Trust, 2003, retrieved from http://www.edtrust
.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/AfAmer_Achievement.pdf

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Student achievement data from the California Department of Education clearly show that a severe and persistent achievement gap exists for African American students across the United States. This achievement gap can be defined as the difference between African Americans’ and White students’ proficiency on the California Standards Test. Many parents and educational reformers have looked to the charter school structure as a viable alternative to the traditional public school offerings. Charter school supporters hold that charter schools can and will be the answer to the achievement gap. ❧ This study examined parent choice related to charter schools, performing a benchmark analysis of a newly formed charter school in San Bernardino County, California, to determine whether the parents’ choice of an alternative educational model for their African American children was beneficial for their children’s academic progress. School success was investigated through the lens of a heavily researched model of academic excellence that is implemented at the school. ❧ This study investigated how parents think their children are performing academically in the identified charter school setting. The researcher compared student data on standardized tests for these African American students to data for similar students throughout California. Results suggest that parents perceived high levels of each of the Five Pillars. Analysis of student achievement data indicated that levels of student proficiency in Language Arts and Mathematics were significantly higher than in matched comparison schools throughout California.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

District allocation of human resources utilizing the evidence based model: a study of one high achieving school district in southern California

PDF

Academic achievement among Hmong students in California: a quantitative and comparative analysis

PDF

College readiness in California high schools: access, opportunities, guidance, and barriers

PDF

Restoring the value of a high school diploma in the United States using 21st century skills as pedagogy: a case study of 21st century skills development and preparation for the global economy

PDF

Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools

PDF

School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the elementary level: a case study of one elementary school district in California

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal crisis: case study of elementary schools in a California school district

PDF

Grinding harder than a molcajete: a qualitative study of Latina charter school principals

PDF

School factors that facilitate viable arts programs and support student academic achievement: a case study

PDF

Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012

Asset Metadata

Creator Lundy, Howana Lenise (author)

Core Title A benchmark analysis of Hardy Brown College Prep

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/28/2013

Defense Date 05/23/2013

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

Tag African American,charter,Education,five pillars,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Fortune, Rex (committee member)

Creator Email hlundy@live.com,hlundy30@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-282398

Unique identifier UC11293932

Identifier etd-LundyHowan-1722.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-282398 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LundyHowan-1722.pdf

Dmrecord 282398

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lundy, Howana Lenise

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA