University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN HIGH PERFORMING URBAN HIGH SCHOOLS:
A CASE STUDY

by
Annette V. Alpern

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Annette V. Alpern
ii
DEDICATION
To my mother, who attended my graduation but did not live long enough to see
the completion of my degree.
And to my son, Aaron.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am a different person today, personally and professionally, than I was almost ten
years ago, when I chose to go back to graduate school and earn a Doctor of Education
degree. I am grateful for the many people who have supported and encouraged me over
the past decade to complete this degree and period in my life. I owe a great deal to:
My son, Aaron, who demonstrated that worry-free play time, as a result of
completing this degree, was a goal worth achieving.
My family and close friends, who gently and regularly “checked in” to be sure I
did not forget about my commitment to this endeavor.
My former colleagues and friends at North High School, who regularly modeled
care and compassion, along with a commitment to excellence, in our schools.
My current colleagues in the Redondo Beach Unified School District, who have
reignited my passion for educating the “whole child”.
Dr. Stuart Gothold, who not only encouraged me as an educator during my first
course at U.S.C., but who remains an inspiration to me and so many other former and
current students.
Dr. Kathy Park-Stowe, my cherished friend and mentor, for always supporting me
in whatever personal, academic, and professional pursuits I choose.
My dissertation committee members: Chairperson Dr. Stuart Gothold, Dr. Dennis
Hocevar, and Dr. Kathy Park-Stowe, for their time, assistance, and encouragement along
the way.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Abstract viii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 3
Research Questions 4
Significance of the Study 4
Methodology 5
Assumptions 6
Limitations 7
Delimitations 8
Definition of Terms 8
Organization of the Study 12

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 14
Introduction 14
Modern History of Secondary Public Education in the United States 14
The Accountability Movement 19
Current State of Achievement of High School Students 22
Student Engagement 24
Instructional Practices 27
Leadership Practices 32
School Culture Factors 34
Conclusions 36

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 38
Introduction 38
Conceptual Model 39
Research Questions 40
Research Design 41
Sample and Population 44
Instrumentation 47
Data Collection 52
Data Analysis 54
v

Chapter 4: Presentation of the Data 56
Introduction 56
A First Impression of Engagement High School 56
Findings by Research Question 59
Research Question #1 59
Discussion of Research Question #1 69
Research Question #2 75
Leadership at the Top 75
Distributed Leadership and Responsibility 78
Hiring and Retaining Great Teachers That Believe in Student 82
Engagement and Their Ability to Positively Impact Student
Engagement
School Culture 84
Discussion of Research Question #2 90
Research Question #3 92
Administrative Leadership 92
Instruction and Intervention 94
Collaboration and Teacher Leadership 98
Discussion of Research Question #3 99
Findings by Theme 102
Leadership Matters 102
Data-Driven Decisions 104
Whatever It Takes 105
Putting the Right People in the Right Places 106
Creating and Believing in Your Own Press 107

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion 109
Introduction 109
Research Questions 110
Summary of Findings 110
Implications for Practice 115
Conclusions 116

References 118

Appendices
Appendix A. Observation Template 122
Appendix.B. Teacher Survey of Student Engagement 123
Appendix C. Interview Instrument of Student Engagement 125

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: API Scores, 2001-2006 45
Table 2: Teacher Experience 46
Table 3: Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement 62
Table 4: Social/behavioral/Participatory Engagement 62
Table 5: Emotional Engagement 63
Table 6: Time in Activities 64
Table 7: Respect/Fairness Attitudes Toward School 65
Table 8: Curriculum/Motivation/Skills 67
Table 9: School Contribution Toward Student Growth 68
Table 10: Staying/Going to School 69
Table 11: Teacher Survey, Questions 1-10 72
Table 12: Values Assigned and Mean Scores-by-Question, Teacher Survey 84

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Model 40
Figure 2: Demographics: Engagement High School 46

viii
ABSTRACT
While there is considerable research on the elements needed for successful
schooling, the research is more limited for what is needed to create and sustain successful
urban high schools. However, there is a growing body of research that suggests that high
performing urban schools have certain factors in common, including solid leadership, a
positive and supportive school culture and good teaching. Student engagement has also
been identified as a key factor related to school academic success. This mixed methods
case study attempts to link student engagement with identified school practices that result
in high student achievement.
The sample includes over 2,700 students at one identified high performing urban
high school in southern California. The study, along with several other similar studies
being conducted concurrently at other high performing urban high schools, examines
whether students at this school are more or less engaged than their peers nationally. The
conceptual model includes an investigation of the influence of school factors such as
teaching and learning, school leadership, and school culture on student engagement and
student achievement. School factors that contributed to student engagement and student
achievement were identified and discussed, along with implications for practitioners and
recommendations for future studies.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The “era of accountability” – This is the current catchall phrase for the state of
public education in the United States in the early part of the 21
st
century. Much of this
socus on accountability stems directly from the rules and regulations created under the
federal No Child Left Behind law, in effect since 2001. The annual yearly reporting of
individual school’s test scores, attendance, and graduation rates through a formula known
as AYP (Annual Yearly Progress), has allowed politicians, educators, and the public at-
large, to both rate and compare schools with one another, as well as compare a single
school over time.
Under the American system of government, however, each state has the primary
responsibility for educating its public; not the federal government. As such, there does
not exist a set of national standards or a national curriculum by which public schools can
be measured across the nation. As a result of No Child Left Behind, each state had to
create its own system of accountability, ensuring that the federal law’s accountability
requirements were included (WestEd, 2004).
If the responsibility of public education rests with the states, why should schools
within a given state work so hard to meet their AYP goals? The answer is simple: dollars.
The federal government expends billions of dollars every year to public schools
throughout the nation.
Because NCLB is really just an extension of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (1965) of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, the vast majority
2
of the federal dollars that go to support public education are spent on urban youth,
minority youth, impoverished youth and/or immigrant youth. The schools with the most
to lose, both literally and figuratively, are those schools serving the above students.
While some improvement in test scores have been shown to exist at the
elementary school level, secondary schools have not kept pace. In particular, poor
students and students of color continue to score significantly behind their wealthier, white
or Asian counterparts. By the end of high school, African American and Latino students
have skills in reading and math that are similar to those of white students in the 8th grade
(Haycock, 2001).
Dropout rates vary depending on the definition criteria used, but even given that
consideration, the statistics are grim. The National Center for Education Statistics notes,
in 2005, that the dropout rate for high school students nationwide was 32%. For urban
and minority youth, the statistics grew to more than 50%.
By anyone’s account, our public secondary schools are not as successful as we
want or need them to be. Collectively, our students are not well-served by our current
system of public education. However, as easy as it is to generalize about the poor
performance of our schools, exceptions do exist. There are many communities where
these statistics are NOT reflected in the public schools. Why? What makes these schools
different? And, can we do anything about trying to learn from them and replicate their
successes?

3
Statement of the Problem
These exceptional high schools do exist. There are high schools with nearly 100
percent graduation rates, exceptional college-bound preparation rates, and top-notch
performance on external state and national assessments, to name a few. However, there
is little research that exists that studies these exceptional, high performing high schools to
determine the school factors that have contributed to their success. Where there is even
less research is in the identification and research of these high performing high schools in
urban settings, and the corresponding factors that have contributed to their success.
While many within and outside of the education community note that poor and
urban youth have little to no chance of academic success, and that it is the family
environment and expectations that set forth a student’s path in life, there is a solid and
growing body of research that suggests otherwise; that there are a number of identifiable
school factors that impact student performance, including student engagement.
Student engagement is related to both motivation and self-esteem. Student
engagement is also one of the most robust predictors of student achievement in schools
(Guthrie,Schafer, & Huang (2001); Klem & Connell (2004)). What is not clearly known
is the relationship between student engagement and other school factors that may
contribute to the success of students at high performing urban high schools.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to examine one high performing urban high
school and determine if, indeed, there is a higher level of student engagement than the
national profile. If higher engagement exists than the national profile, the particular
4
school factors that contribute to that engagement would be identified and examined. If
higher engagement than the national profile is not discovered, an investigation as to other
school factors that might contribute to the high performance of students at this urban high
school would be identified and examined.

Research Questions
The study investigated the following research questions:

1. What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high
school, as measured by the national High School Survey of Student
Engagement? How does it compare to the national profile?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing
urban high schools?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?

Significance of the Study
This study was designed to increase the understanding of the relationship between
high performing urban high schools and student engagement. While much literature
exists on the topic of student engagement, there is much less literature on the
characteristics of high performing urban high schools. This case study is significant in
that it adds to the limited literature base linking the above two topics. This linkage helps
contribute to the ongoing search for “what works”, especially as it pertains to closing the
achievement gap and increasing graduation rates of poor and minority students.
5
As educational leaders and school practitioners look for promising practices in the
field, they may benefit from this study’s rich description of the structures, the teacher and
leadership practices, and the formal and informal policies and activities that exist at this
high performing urban high school.
This study, and other similar studies undertaken at this university, has the
potential to inform policymakers about the learner…the high school student and his/her
experiences. While current policies regarding API and AYP reporting deal with student
achievement in the aggregate, this case study takes the focus of study down to the school,
the teacher and the student level for analysis. As such, members of the state and federal
departments of education, as well as state and federal legislators, may be able to better
address the larger social and economic issues involving public education.

Methodology
This study, conducted at one high performing urban high school, was one of six
studies being conducted simultaneously in a single high performing school district in
southern California. The doctoral students met periodically, over the course of a year, to
create the research design, research questions, and data collection instruments to be
utilized during the study.
The study involved a mixed-method, qualitative case study design. The
qualitative approach allowed the researcher the opportunity to delve deeply into activities
and behaviors that seemed to produce higher student engagement and achievement at the
identified school. The rich and thick descriptions, encouraged through the qualitative
6
research process, lent itself nicely to the kind of information being collected through this
case study.
In order to triangulate the data, multiple measures of data collection were
employed (Creswell, 2003). These methods included document analysis, interviews,
surveys and observations. The use of an observation framework, created by the doctoral
students, utilized the “Four Frames” perspectives from Bolman and Deal’s 2003 book
Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. This framework allowed the
researcher to sort information through the political, symbolic, structural and/or human
resource lenses.
An additional data source, thus the mixed-methods portion of the study, was
utilized. This data source came from the University of Indiana’s “High School Survey of
Student Engagement”. This survey was administered to all of the students at the case
study high school in the spring of 2007. The results from the students, and their
comparison to the national profile, was provided to both the school and the researcher
directly from the University of Indiana.
The use of the mixed method case study is believed to increase the validity and
generalizability of the research (Creswell, 2003). Creswell’s six steps of data analysis
and interpretation were utilized and are discussed in greater depth in Chapter 3.

Assumptions
Several assumptions were made in this mixed methods case study. The first
assumption was that the participants and respondents were honest in their responses on
the student survey, the teacher survey and the interview process. The second assumption
7
was that the school was a good choice to study due to the following indicators: urban
setting, racial/ethnic diversity, high student achievement as demonstrated by API growth
over the past three years and API similar school status, and qualification for California
Distinguished School status. It was further assumed that API, attendance rates,
graduation rates and ‘a-g’ completion rates were valid measures of individual and school-
wide achievement and that these indicators were honestly earned and accurately reported.
There was an assumption that the school’s WASC accreditation and other recognitions
were earned as a result of honest reporting that accurately portrayed the realities of the
school. Finally, it was assumed that the researcher would encounter a greater level of
cooperation among the participants and respondents in this study since the school was
identified for its positive attributes and successes.

Limitations
The most notable limitation in case study research is the small sampling, which
prohibits generalizations of the findings. In this case study, the adults and students at one
urban high school in Los Angeles County were studied. The study was limited to the
high school students who participated in the High School Study of Student Engagement
Survey as well as the adults at the school and school district who agreed to participate in
this research study. A further limitation was the time frame for the study of the school,
which was from December 2006 until June 2007. This time frame did not provide a
year-long or multi-year longitudinal analysis of the school, the staff and the students.
The validity of the study was limited to the reliability of the instruments utilized and the
bias of the researcher, including the HSSSE, the staff survey, the interview protocols and
8
the observation tools and process. The triangulation of data and the use of thick and rich
descriptions throughout the study were used to strengthen the validity of the study.
(Creswell, p.196).

Delimitations
Delimitations were determined by a group of six doctoral candidates who were
focusing on the general theme of high school student engagement, and urban high schools
with high student engagement, in particular. The selection criteria included urban
schools with 40% or more of the students qualifying for free or reduced lunch and/or
50% or more ethnic minority enrollment. The group of doctoral students, along with
their advisor, identified one high performing urban high school district, with six high
schools, to conduct this study. The selected schools had all met and exceeded their API
growth targets for the previous three years. A significant delimitation was the number
and type of participants involved in the study. The study included students who
participated in the HSSSE, teachers who participated in the teacher survey, and adults
who participated in the interviews.

Definitions of Terms
Many of the definitions were selected from an online glossary (EdSource). The
other definitions are operational for high school educators and have been defined by the
researcher. The acronyms were spelled out in the case study upon first citation, although
acronyms were then used in subsequent references. These terms were essential in
developing a fuller understanding of the topic and the case study presented.
9
Academic Performance Index (API). A single number summarizing the performance
of a school or district on California’s standardized tests. A school’s number or API score
is used to rank it among schools of the same type and among the hundred schools most
“similar” in terms of students served, teacher qualifications, etc. The ranking system is
based on deciles (1-10), with decile 1 schools being the lowest performing and decile 10
schools being the highest performing schools in the state. A decile 8 (or score of at least
800) is the target for all schools in the state.
Accountability. The notion that individuals (e.g. students, teachers, principals) or an
organization (e.g. a school or school district) should be held responsible for improving
student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their success or failure in
doing so.
Achievement Gap. A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of students and students in other groups.
Advanced Placement (AP). The College Board, which administers the AP Program,
offers 33 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. High school students may enroll in
these courses, if offered at their school, and earn college credit for them if they receive a
satisfactory score on the cumulative exam administered every May. Additionally, many
colleges favor students who have completed AP coursework and have taken exams.
‘A-G’ Completion Rate. The ‘a-g’ courses are a set of 15 courses that high school
students must take and pass with a ‘C’ or better to be eligible to enter either the
California State University (CSU) or the University of California (UC) systems. The
completion rate is the percentage of high school seniors at a given school who have
successfully taken and passed these courses.
10
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). An individual state’s measure of yearly progress
toward achieving state academic standards. The AYP is the minimum level of
improvement that states, school districts and schools must achieve it’s year, according to
the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Benchmarks/Benchmark Assessments. A detailed description of a specific level of
student achievement expected of students at particular ages, grades and identified periods
within a curriculum. Benchmark assessments may be used as checkpoints to monitor
progress in meeting performance goals within and across grade levels.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). A state exam that California public
high school students must pass in order to graduate. It is divided into an English-
Language Arts and a mathematics section.
Content Standards/Standards. Standards that describe what students should know and
able to do in core academic subjects at each grade level.
California Standards Tests (CSTs). Tests that are part of the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content standards –
what teachers are expected to teach and what students are expected to be learning.
California Distinguished School. A highly sought after state level recognition that
honors many of the state’s exemplary and inspiring public schools. Approximately five
percent of California’s public schools are selected each year.
Dimensions of Engagement. As defined by Indiana University’s High School Survey of
Student Engagement, there exist three major dimensions of evaluating the ways in which
students may be engaged in school. They include: cognitive/intellectual/academic
engagement, social/behavioral/participatory engagement, and emotional engagement.
11
Disaggregated Data. The presentation of data broken down into segments. Often test
data is broken into groups of students such as economically disadvantaged or limited
English fluency to allow parents and educators to see how each student group is
performing within a school.
Elementary and Secondary Educational Act (ESEA) 1965. This is the primary law
affecting K-12 education in the United States. The NCLB Act of 2001 is the most recent
reauthorization of the ESEA. ESEA must be reauthorized every six years but NCLB has
carried the most drastic changes to the original ESEA.
No Child Left Behind Act (2001) (NCLB). The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Educational Act (see above). NCLB’s provisions represent a significantly
larger role of the federal government’s influence on assessment, accountability and
teacher quality.
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) 1999. Approved by the California
legislature in 1999, this law outlines a comprehensive process for measuring a school’s
academic performance and ranking on that performance (API), providing interventions
for schools not performing well and recognizing and rewarding schools that are
performing well.
School Accountability Report Card. An annual report on specified aspects of a
school’s operation, which is required as part of California’s Proposition 98. This
information is also required for NCLB and other state legislation.
Single School Plan. Developed by a school’s Site Council, this plan must describe how
the school will spend restricted state and federal funds toward the improvement of
student achievement. Plans are then approved by the school district’s school board.
12
Western Association of Schools and Colleges/Focus on Learning Process
(WASC/FOL). One of six regional accrediting associations in the United States. As part
of the accreditation process, each high school or college conducts a year-long self-study,
has a visit by outside evaluators, and conducts a follow-up study. Insight into a school’s
culture can often be found in their WASC report.

Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provided an overview of the study including the background and
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study and the research questions being
addressed. The significance of the problem was provided in order to justify the need for
the study. The methodology utilized in the case study was described, as were the
limitations, delimitations and assumptions of the study.
Chapter 2 reviewed the salient research on urban high school student performance
and engagement. The major topics addressed were (1) the recent history of secondary
public education in the United States, including the reform and accountability
movements, (2) the current state of achievement of high school students and (3) a
discussion of the factors that contribute to student engagement.
Chapter 3 provided an in-depth description of the case study methodology utilized
including the research design and conceptual model, population, sampling procedures,
instrumentation and data analysis.
Chapter 4 presented the findings from the case study at Engagement High School,
along with an analysis of the data for each research question.
13
Chapter 5 provided conclusions and recommendations for educational leaders and
public policy makers

14
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature on urban high school achievement and the
factors that impact student engagement. The main topics include (a) a modern history of
secondary public education in the United States including reform and accountability
movements, (b) the current state of achievement of high school students and (c)
definitions and a discussion of the factors that contribute to student engagement.

A Modern History of Secondary Public Education in the United States
The concept for public high schools did not surface in the United States until the
late nineteenth century. With the emergence of the industrial revolution, a significant
growth in the immigrant population, and a large movement from rural to urban dwellers,
enrollment in public high schools nearly doubled in cities during the last decade of the
nineteenth century. Public high schools were expected to educate the majority of its
students for workforce preparation; primarily work in the factory system (Goldin, 1999;
Deschenes, Cuban & Tyack, 2001). Although the growth in student enrollment in high
schools grew significantly, fewer than ten percent of students actually graduated from
those schools (Goldin, 1999).
Many students left school early to join the work force. A high school diploma
was not a requisite for most work available to young people. And, although an eighth
grade education was considered the norm, the amount and quality of education a student
15
received was often closely associated with race, class, and immigrant status (Goldin,
1999).
Education reform in the early 20
th
century came from The Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, which led a national effort and focus on improving K-
12 education (Marzano, 2003). One significant, and lasting, legacy of that work was the
“Carnegie unit”, a uniform approach to defining academic achievement measured
through time spent on particular coursework. Nearly 100 years later, this method
continues to remain the standard by which American high school students earn credits for
high school graduation eligibility across the country.
While the progressive movement swept the nation in response to the harsh
conditions of urban life in the early twentieth century, progressive reformers did have
some influence in the nation’s schools. One of the most prominent critics of the public
school system at the time was a progressive named John Dewey. Dewey believed that
the role of school and education was to be concerned with the “whole child”, and ensure
their social, emotional, physical, and academic well-being (Goldin, 1999). While many
schools embraced and developed systems that supported this progressive approach, given
the nation’s redirected focus on international affairs and the impending World War, the
basic purpose and structure of secondary education remained relatively unchanged during
the period between the two World Wars.
When the United States recovered economically and psychologically from the
Depression and World War II, they woke up to the recognition that they were one of the
two world’s superpowers. Along with that role came great prosperity and great
(perceived) responsibility for the nation.
16
The birthrate from 1946 through 1964 grew significantly, in a period which
became known as the baby boom. This explosion of school-age children put significant
pressures on the public school system. First, there was a need for more schools. The
building of public schools in the 1950s and 1960s was unprecedented in our nation’s
history. Second, without the economic pressure to leave school at a young age, schools
now had a greater challenge to educate more of its students for a longer period of time.
It was during this time that today’s model of the comprehensive high school first
took shape. A high school diploma became the standard by which all young people
could aspire. However, not all high school diplomas were equal. Some students were
enrolled in an academic track, preparing them for post-secondary schooling; while others
were enrolled in a general track, with a focus on practical arts, family living, and civic
participation (Bybee, 1997). Again, race, class, and gender often played a role in one’s
academic track in school.
When the Soviet’s launched the world’s first man-made satellite, Sputnik, into
orbit in 1957, American officials were forced to admit that the Soviets had a clear edge in
space exploration. This was at a time of intense Cold War competition, and this
admission of Soviet advantage had reverberations in many areas, but in particular, for
public education in the fields of math and science. There was much greater criticism of
the progressive notion of schooling and much greater emphasis on rigorous coursework,
especially in mathematics and the sciences (Marzano, 2003).
After more than a decade-long struggle, the civil rights movement gained
momentum under President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. As part of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, his Commissioner of Education conducted a landmark study that
17
evaluated the educational opportunities of over half a million students. The result was
the 1966 “Coleman Report: Equality in Educational Opportunity” (Marzano, 2003). The
report concluded that children’s achievement in school is primarily dependent on their
home and neighborhood environment, and
that schools bring little to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his
background and general social context; and this very lack of an independent effect
means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and
peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they
confront life at the end of school. (Marzano, 2003)

The impact of the Coleman Report changed the view of many about the role of
public education. Namely, the belief that schools could be an equalizing force for the
country came into question. One of the legacies of Coleman that still resonates today is
the massive federal funding of public schools, through Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which gives dollars to schools with economically
disadvantaged students.
While the public’s concern around the ability of the government and public
schools to create a better future for our country existed in the 1960s and 1970s, the
conflict in Vietnam, Watergate, the women’s movement, and any number of other social
issues took the headlines. However, while the Cold War raged and eventually concluded
in the 1980s, this decade brought a much greater wave of concern for those in the field of
education.
Commissioned and endorsed by President Ronald Reagan, the National
Commission on Educational Excellence published “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform” in 1983. This report found that,
18
our nation’s once preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological
innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world…the
educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by the rising
tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people.

The report concluded that American students were not studying the right subjects,
were not working hard enough, and were not learning enough. Schools suffered from
slack and uneven standards and many of the public school teachers were ill-prepared. In
short, major changes in public education were needed to ensure our nation’s security and
children’s future.
As a result, education has become a permanent fixture on the national level. In
the 1980s, reform fell under the umbrella of the “excellence movement”. In the 1990s,
reform fell under the umbrella of “school restructuring”. Regardless of the movement or
title of the reform, the health of the nation’s schools was closely tied to the public’s
perception of the health of the nation, and the economy, in general.
“America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages”, released in 1990 by the
Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, added fuel to that fire. It focused
on the need to reform schools in order to create a more highly educated workforce and
improve the nation’s productivity. It called for greater relevancy in student coursework
and a connection to their world of employment beyond school.
The Third International Math and Science Study, commonly referred to as
TIMSS, was published in 1995. This report compared American students’ performance
in math and science to their peers in dozens of other nations. While American students
faired reasonably well at the elementary school level, their performance dropped off a bit
at the middle school level, and practically plummeted by the time they reached high
19
school. These results were widely known, and heavily debated, within education circles.
Calls for reform of math education again made headlines. This appeared to be yet
another “nail in the coffin” for the public’s perception of America’s high schools. What
comes, or came, next became known as the era of accountability.

The Accountability Movement
Nothing says accountability in education more than the acronym NCLB. In
January of 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB). Not only did this law represent President Bush’s plans for K-12
public education, but it contained the most far-reaching changes to the Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA) since it was enacted under President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.
Under NCLB, states are responsible for having strong academic standards for
what every student should learn in reading, math and science. Tests are administered
annually, with results being reported in state and district report cards. These reports look
at results in the aggregate as well as for every group of student (i.e. English Learner or
socio-economically disadvantaged); thus allowing educators and parents the ability to
look at achievement gaps between and among students. High schools are also expected
to improve overall graduation rates on an annual basis. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
is determined every year and by 2014, all students are expected to perform at a proficient
level under their state plan or the school will face consequences. If a school does not
reach these standards, parents will be able to transfer their student to a better performing
public school or a public charter school.
20
States have responded and “high stakes testing” has become the norm across the
country. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) noted, in a 2000 report,
that every state had a minimum of one accountability report tied to high stakes tests.
Close to that number reported on student achievement at the district and school site level.
Seemingly, that number would include all states now that NCLB has taken over.
As different states have their own achievement tests, Congress required states to
participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), to help the
public better understand the results. This group of assessments, often referred to as the
Nation’s Report Card, provides an external check of the rigor of states’ standards and
assessments.
In response to NCLB, California began broadening its own accountability system
to match the federal law's accountability requirements (WestEd, 2004). California's
primary tool for holding schools accountable is the Academic Performance Index (API).
The API tracks student performance and growth as measured by statewide testing in
Language Arts, mathematics, science, and social science for students in grades 2-11. It
also includes passing rates on the state’s High School Exit Exam. Statewide school
rankings under the API system are widely publicized and have created great pressure on
schools to improve.
As might be expected, there are vocal proponents as well as critics of the
accountability system, as it exists today. Proponents argue that standardized testing is
the only real way to compare student performance across different states. They also
believe that having a system of public school accountability, including high stakes tests,
acts as an incentive, and an explanation, for higher student performance (DeMoss, 2002).
21
Opponents worry that, as we inch ever closer to 2014, the realities won’t
ever match up with the requirements of NCLB. In the most recent “39
th
Annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes toward Public Education”, a quite obvious
trend began to appear; a growing public discontent with NCLB and standardized testing.
In 2003, 69% of the public said they did not know enough about NCLB to have
an opinion. At that time, 18% had a favorable opinion, and 13% had an unfavorable
opinion, of the law. Within the next four years, only 29% of the public said they no
longer knew enough about NCLB to have an opinion. As public knowledge has grown,
so has the discontent with the legislation. In 2007, 31% of the public had a very or
somewhat favorable opinion of NCLB, while 40% had a very or somewhat unfavorable
opinion.
In addition, NCLB’s emphasis on Language Arts and mathematics has resulted in
reduced emphasis in science, social science, health, and the arts. Ninety three percent of
the public were somewhat or very concerned about that reality.
Over half of the public school parents reported that there is too much emphasis on
achievement testing in their local schools. A third of these parents believe that this
emphasis on testing has helped school performance; a third of parents believe that this
emphasis on testing has hurt school performance; and a third of parents believe that this
emphasis has made no difference in the performance of public schools.
Opponents also see that the assessments currently in use may have limited value.
For example, there are gaps, some large and some small, between student performance on
the NAEP and performance on state level assessments. According to NAEP, just 29
percent of the nation’s eighth-graders demonstrate proficiency in reading and math. Most
22
states report much higher proficiency rates on their own assessments. In some cases, the
gap is as much as 50% (Hall & Kennedy, 2006).

Current State of Achievement of High School Students
High School Graduation
When one looks at the achievement success of high school students, the number
that most people turn to is the graduation rate. Improving high school completion rates to
90 percent was the goal set by the first National Education Summit, held in 1989 (Barton,
2006). Reporting graduation rates, in addition to achievement scores, is now required in
a schools' Adequate Yearly Progress Report. However, calculating graduation rates is
not as simple as one might predict (WestEd, 2004).
One of the problems with calculating graduation rates is that schools and school
systems do not generally have accurate methods to track students when they move from
one school to another. Complicating that is the fact that different states have different
definitions of whether or not a student who moves away is classified as a dropout or non-
graduate (Hall & Kennedy, 2006).
Various independent researchers and education non-profit organizations have
done analyses of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) government
statistics on graduation rates and all have determined that the "real" graduation rates are
anywhere from 10 - 20% lower than what is currently being reported by most states
(Barton, 2006). For the class of 2001, California reported an 86.7% graduation based on
an NCES formula. Based on methods of three other independent researchers, the actual
graduation rate was anywhere from 67% to 68.9%. (WestEd, 2004). Even given these
23
confusing statistics, it would not be unrealistic to presume that there are at least a million
students per year, nationally, who are failing to earn a high school diploma (Barton,
2006).
Performance Gaps
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2001), reading
achievement among 17-year old African American and Latinos climbed substantially in
the 1970s and 1980s but gaps separating them from other students widened during the
1990s (Haycock, 2001). At the start of the 21
st
century, African American and Latino
twelfth graders had skills in reading and math similar to those of white students in the 8th
grade (Haycock, 2001). African American, Latino and mixed-race students also report
lower rates of homework completion than whites for any given amount of time spent
studying (Cotton, 2006).
In addition to racial/ethnic gaps, gaps also exist between students reported plans
for post-secondary education and the work they engage in at the high school level. More
than 80% of students responded in the 2005 High School Survey of Student Engagement
that they planned to enroll in some form of post-secondary education. Eighty percent of
these students report spending less than three hours a week studying, and yet almost half
of that group also report receiving mostly A's and B's in their classes (McCarthy & Kuh,
2006).
As reported in Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project (2005), only one in five
African American or Latino students in the Los Angeles Unified School District meet
California’s four year public college bound criteria, commonly known as ‘a-g’. This
24
number, 20%, pales in comparison to the ‘a-g’ completion rates in many of the
surrounding, yet smaller, urban and suburban school districts in the state. These other
public school districts often boast preparation rates for four year universities into the 60,
70 or 80% of their high school student populations (California Department of Education).
Clearly, differences exist in the preparation of students for high school graduation and for
college readiness. These differences can have tremendous economic and social costs for
students, and for society at-large.

Student Engagement
Student engagement has been found to be one of the greatest predictors of student
achievement and behavior in school, regardless of whether students come from families
who are economically or socially advantaged or disadvantaged (Klem & Connell, 2004).
Findings such as this directly contradict that of the well-known 1960s Coleman Report,
where student achievement was deemed to be a direct function of one’s family
circumstance. Students who are engaged in school are also more likely to earn higher
grades and test scores and have lower dropout rates (Klem & Connell, 2004).
According to Newman (1989), engaged students make a psychological and
emotional investment in learning. They not only try hard to learn what the school offers
but they take pride in earning higher grades and internalizing the material. Skinner and
Belmont (1991) note that motivated students
select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the
opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of
learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action,
including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest (p. 3).

25
Studies have shown that students who report caring and supportive interpersonal
relationships in school have more positive academic attitudes and values and are more
satisfied with school (Klem & Connell, 2004). Black and Hispanic students in particular,
although all in students in general, report that they work harder due to teacher
encouragement rather than teacher demands (Cotton, 2006).
After reviewing the literature on twenty-two different studies on the topic,
researcher Heather Libbey (2004) concluded that researchers use a variety of names and
methods to measure student attachment and connectedness to school. She found that nine
common themes or constructs were found consistently throughout the research: 1)
academic engagement, 2) belonging, 3) discipline/fairness, 4) extracurricular activities, 5)
likes school, 6) student voice, 7) peer relations, 8) safety and 9) teacher support. Whether
or not the research has been conducted by education or health researchers, there was a
strong correlation between the above factors and student outcomes. In short, students
who feel connected to school do better in school.
Why should students, or anyone for that matter, choose to engage? Sagor (2002)
suggests that schools must incorporate the characteristics that all human beings need to
feel satisfied. They include the need to feel competent, useful, potent, optimistic, and
have a sense of belonging. He argues that unless schools are able to incorporate all of
these components into schools and infuse them in students, educators will continue to
miss the mark.
The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), developed at the
University of Indiana and administered to close to 300,000 high school students across
the nation since 2004, was designed for the above purpose. The survey looks at a variety
26
of engagement topics, including how students spend their time inside and outside of
school, the amount and quality of interaction with teachers, the level of engagement with
class assignments, discussions and writing inside and outside of class, their views of their
schools, student voice at their school, experience with diversity and attitudes toward
learning, grades, and schoolwork.
In the 2005 survey almost half (49%) of all respondents indicated that they have a
voice in making classroom decisions. Students who strongly agreed (16%) reflected
different attitudes toward their school experience than did students who strongly
disagreed (6%) that they have such a voice. Those strongly agreeing were far more likely
to indicate that (a) they are supported and respected by teachers (81% compared to 25%),
(b) what they learn at school is useful (73% to 23%), (c) they feel safe at school (69% to
25%), (d) they worked harder than they expected to work in school (59% to 26%), (e)
they take pride in their school work (86% to 34%), and (f) they place a high value on
learning (90% to 36%).
Sixty four percent of respondents in the 2005 study agreed/strongly agreed that
they are supported and respected by their teachers. The 23% who strongly agreed
differed in many respects from the students who strongly disagreed (5%). Those strongly
agreeing were far more likely to say that (a) they take pride in their school work (86%
compared to 28%), (b) what they learn at school is useful (75% to 19%), (c) they have
opportunities to ask teachers questions about their school work (89% to 25%), and (d)
they are challenged to do their best work at school (75% to 18%).
Based on the NELS (2002) study of over 15,000 high school sophomores,
students who spent nine or more hours per week in extracurricular activities were more
27
likely to (a) expect to earn a 4-year college degree or higher, (b) expect to go directly to
college, (c) perform in the highest test quartile, (d) report to have "never cut class", and
(e) identify good grades as very important.
Curriculum experts know that engagement is necessary in order for students to
truly understand at higher levels of thinking. Wiggins and McTighe (1998), in
Understanding by Design, argue that if students are to synthesize and apply their learning
to real-life situations, that their learning can not be measured by standardized or multiple-
choice tests. Students must, therefore, be engaged in their learning and demonstrate that
learning through more authentic forms of assessment.
In Marzano’s studies of what works in schools (2003), he recommends four
actions steps that an individual school or teacher could take to enhance individual student
motivation and engagement: (1) provide students with feedback on their knowledge, (2)
provide students with tasks and activities that are inherently engaging, (3) provide
opportunities for students to construct and work on long-term projects of their own
design, and (4) teach students about the dynamics of motivation and how those dynamics
affect them.
While there is a good body of research on student engagement, the challenge for
school leaders is how to take the research and create and sustain schools that support and
engage students on a regular basis.

Instructional Practices
Good teaching matters. Marzano (2003) notes that “All researchers agree that
the impact of decisions made by individual teachers is far greater than the impact of
28
decisions made at the school level (p. 71).” Based on the research of Haycock (2001),
the most effective teachers produced student achievement gains that were four times
greater than gains made by students with the least effective teachers. The research on
Effective Schooling (Cotton, 2001) concludes that effective teachers see themselves as
responsible for student learning. “They do not perceive learning problems as products of
students’ personal backgrounds, but rather as indications that adaptations need to be
made in instructional approach so that learning can take place.(p. 5)” These teachers
believe in their ability to reach and teach all of their students successfully. Effective
schools have teachers who are flexible in their teaching approaches, modifying and
adapting instructional materials and methods to meet the needs of different students.
In 1998, a group of British researchers published their research work in Phi Delta
Kappan entitled, "Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom
Assessment". Rather than the traditional approach of teaching a set amount of
curriculum during a set period time and then testing students on their cumulative
learning, Assessment for Learning focused on the informal and ongoing assessment of
student learning in the classroom.
Since the time of its original publication, Assessment for Learning has become a
movement with the same, as well as other, researchers studying it for "best practices" and
"lessons learned", while teachers and schools began implementing it with the hope of
improving learning for students, while raising test scores at the same time.
From 1999-2004, Black, Harrison et. al undertook an Assessment for Learning
project that involved more than 400 teachers and advisers at the middle and high school
level in the United States, Canada, England, Israel and Portugal. For each project class
29
the teacher also identified a comparison class. Their findings fall into four categories: (1)
questioning, (2) feedback through grading, (3) peer/self assessment and (4) formative use
of summative tests.
They learned that teachers who spend more time waiting for students to answer
questions get more students involved in the classroom. Greater effort in framing
questions is also critical in order to raise students' interest, understanding, and level of
critical thinking. Lastly, teachers who learn to be effective questioners move students to
explore and develop their own ideas rather than learn or focus on the right answer.
The assignment of letter grades or numerical scores was actually found to have a
negative effect on student learning. A commitment by teachers to provide written
feedback, identifying what has been done well, what needs improvement, and guidance
on how to improve the work, is needed. Students respond best when given the
opportunity to respond to the feedback, enabling them to view learning as an ongoing
process, instead of a "finished product".
Regarding peer and self-assessment, teachers must be clear in communicating the
criteria for quality work. This can be facilitated through the use of rubrics. The ability of
students to self-evaluate and peer-evaluate may, at first, be limited. Teachers must create
structures and teach students this skill in order for them to become proficient,
independent learners.
Not only did the research show that using assessment for learning improves
student achievement, it actually accelerates the pace at which student achievement occurs
(Leahy, Lyon et al, 2005). The researchers determined that students taught by teachers
30
who used Assessment for Learning approaches achieved, in six or seven months, what
would otherwise have taken a year to learn.
In 2003-2004, researchers at the Educational Testing Service in New Jersey
studied elementary, middle and high school teachers in Arizona, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania implementing the
Assessment for Learning practices (Leahy, Lyon, et al, 2005). After triangulating their
data, they determined that different teachers found different techniques to be effective.
The result of their work confirmed the work of earlier researchers, while including the
creation a catalogue of more than 100 instructional techniques for teachers to incorporate
in their classrooms.
The Stanford Mathematics Teaching and Learning Study (Boaler, 2004), a five
year longitudinal study, looked at the impact that different teaching approaches had upon
student understandings of math. One of the most significant findings was that the most
urban school, with the highest poverty level of students, had the highest achievement,
greatest number of students who enjoyed math, and greatest number of students enrolled
in higher level math courses. Many factors contributed to these differences; school
culture, enrollment practices, and curriculum. Primarily, teachers and classrooms
operated differently in the successful school. Students had specific or defined roles
within the classroom. Students were encouraged to use multidimensional approaches to
problem-solving. Teachers assigned “competence” to students by valuing, and publicly
acknowledging, their contribution/s to the class. Lastly, teachers employed group work
and expected students to be responsible for each other’s learning.
31
Assessment, including self-assessment and peer-assessment, appears to be a
critical component of the learning process (Black & Harrison, 2004; Leahy & Lyon,
2005; Boaler, 2004). Student involvement in assessment should not be characterized as
students assigning themselves a grade. Instead, it can be identified as students learning to
understand how they learn best, knowing where they are in relation to the stated learning
targets, and knowing how to take the next steps toward mastery of those goals (Chappius
& Stiggins, 2002).
Low achievement often occurs as the result of students not understanding what
teachers expect them to know and do (as reported in Leahy, Lyon, 2005). Assessment
strategies, therefore, must ultimately help teachers enhance learning for students in the
classroom. With that in mind, students must clearly understand the learning goal and
know how teachers will evaluate their learning. Students must believe that the learning
goals and assessments are meaningful and worth learning. And, lastly, students must
believe they can successfully learn and meet the teacher’s expectations (McTighe &
O’Connor, 2005).
In conjunction with instructional and assessment strategies, curriculum (“what” is
taught) matters as well. Marzano (2003) argues that a “guaranteed and viable
curriculum” has a greater impact on student achievement than all other school-level
factors. Included in a guaranteed and viable curriculum are the concepts of “Opportunity
to Learn” (OTL) and “time”. In order to be successful, schools must identify the
essential content and ensure that it is sequenced appropriately for learning. Additionally,
adequate instructional time must be available to teach the essential content. The work of
Darling-Hammond, Dufour, Oakes, the Education Trust, and numerous other researchers
32
support the notion that access to a rigorous, college preparatory curriculum, coupled with
flexible and extended time for learning, are necessary ingredients for success.

Leadership Practices
After teaching, leadership has been identified as the second most important factor
in contributing to student achievement in schools (Marzano, 2003). In December of
2000, California’s educational leaders joined with 12 of California’s high performing/
high poverty schools for two hour dialogues focusing on the reasons for their success
(Bell, 2001). One of the overriding factors at each of these schools was the existence of
strong site and district leadership. Site leaders had the flexibility of hiring their own
staff, setting their own budget and implementing the instructional program. Successful
principals articulated and modeled their own vision of what a successful school should
look like and communicated that to their school constituency. District leadership
included goal and tone setting, along with a clear focus on the prize…academic
achievement.
A 2001 study conducted with 118 schools in California’s Central Valley asked
principals one question, “What effort, if any, is your school making to improve the
education of the lowest achieving students?” (Bushman, Goodman, Brown-Welty &
Dorn, 2001). Eighty four percent of principals responded that they are focusing on
individualized instruction. They focused on analyzing data, identifying and
implementing a successful reading program, and looking at alternative schedules for
students.
33
In a Chicago study of eight lower performing schools, principal leadership around
high stakes testing was analyzed and compared (DeMoss, 2002). The data suggested
that the ways principals framed how their schools would respond to the testing
environment was directly responsible for their schools’ test performance. It was found
that principals who led their schools based on a philosophy of professionalism and
empowerment demonstrated the strongest academic achievement gains. Curriculum
improvement at these schools was valued over the achievement of specific test scores.
Test scores were utilized as a source of information, rather than an end in themselves.
Marzano (2003) identified three research-based principles of leadership for school
change, culled mostly from his own work with schools across the country for the past
three decades. These principles state that:
(1) Leadership for change is most effective when carried out by a small group of
educators, with the principal functioning as a strong cohesive force,
(2) The leadership team must operate in such a way as to provide strong guidance
while demonstrating respect for those not on the team, and
(3) Effective leadership for change is characterized by specific behaviors that
enhance interpersonal relationships such as optimism, honesty and consideration.

In 2005, the Education Trust published a study comparing high impact and
average impact schools. The high impact schools produced unusually large growth
among students who entered school significantly behind. As it pertains to leadership, it
was found that principals in high impact schools have greater autonomy in hiring teachers
and staff, provide support for new teachers that is focused on curriculum and instruction,
34
and adjust class sizes to provide for greater support for struggling students. Lastly,
principals in high impact schools utilize assessment data for future planning, such as
making curriculum decisions or teacher class assignments.

School Culture Factors
School culture, as defined by Cosner and Peterson (2003), is a set of underlying
beliefs, norms and values held by members of the school. School culture affects every
part of a school; from what faculties talk about in the lunch room, to the type of
instruction that is valued, to the way professional development is viewed, to the
importance of learning for all students (Deal, Peterson 1998). According to Barth,
school culture is “the way we do things around here” (2001). Barth notes that school
culture has “for more influence on life and learning in the school house than the president
of the country, the state department of education, the superintendent, the school board, or
even the principal” (2001).
Saphier and King (1985) identified a dozen healthy culture norms that
significantly impact a school’s capacity to improve and promote student learning. These
norms include: collegiality, experimentation, high expectations, trust and confidence,
tangible support, reaching out to the knowledge bases, appreciation and recognition,
caring celebration and humor, involvement in decision making, protection of what’s
important, traditions, and honest and open communication.
High impact high schools, as found by the Education Trust (2005), have a culture
that focuses on students attending college and preparing for careers, rather than strictly
earning a high school diploma. They also have a clear focus on academics, with teachers
35
and administrators who express consistent views about achievement-related school goals.
Teachers in these schools embrace external standards and assessments and provide
students additional time in English and math in order to “catch up” to grade level
curriculum. These schools have early warning systems to identify students who need
help before it’s too late and they involve counselors who proactively monitor student
performance and intervene early and often.
Studies of successful professional learning cultures often have a shared sense of
purpose and values, norms of continuous learning and improvement, a common
commitment to, and sense of responsibility for, the learning of all students, and a
collaborative, collegial culture (Deal, Peterson, 1998). The professional learning
community work of DuFour and Eaker (1998, 2004) focus on the need for a shared
mission, vision, and goals, collaborative teams, collective inquiry, action orientation,
continuous improvement, and a results orientation.
When looking at a continuum of school effectiveness, Marzano (2003) focused on
the far right, or extreme, of the distribution curve. By doing so, he looked at the practices
that exist in the schools that are the most effective (99
th
percentile). He found that these
schools had a culture that provided interventions designed to overcome student
background characteristics that might, otherwise, interfere with learning.
In a study of California’s high performing/high poverty schools, a commitment to
building a learning community was one of the three overarching principles found in every
school. Collegiality, collaboration, inclusion, and a sense of community were an integral
part of these schools (Bell, 2001).
36
Students need to feel that the adults in the school know them and care about them.
Effective schools research supports the fostering of ongoing relationships between
students and school personnel. Students need to feel that they are being asked to do
meaningful and relevant work and they have some autonomy in making important
decisions that directly have an effect on them. (Klem, Connell, 2004). Children have
distinct psychological needs and are more likely to be engaged in learning when the
school environment is compatible with those needs (ASCD Infobrief, Feb. 2002).

Conclusions
The link between the health of public education and the health of the nation is one
of the greatest legacies of the 20
th
century. As a result, public education is no longer
viewed as a matter to be decided solely by locally elected school boards. Rather,
education policy has become inextricably linked to the legislation and regulations
established by federal and state governments.
The current focus on student and school accountability has resulted in an
emphasis on high-stakes testing for students, beginning as early as kindergarten. While
some states and schools have seen growth under these conditions, critics argue that the
accountability movement will result in greater numbers of student dropouts who have not
yet mastered the skills needed to succeed in this environment.
Performance gaps, and academic preparation gaps, exist between white and
Asian students and their African-American and Latino counterparts. And, these gaps are
growing. Gaps also exist between the amount of work high school students engage in,
and the plans they have for post-secondary education.
37
Student engagement has been found to be one of the most robust predictors of
student achievement for all students. While there is much research on the topic of
engagement, there is limited research on engaged students in large, urban, comprehensive
high schools. The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), involving over
300,000 students across 29 states, provides a wealth of information about high school
student engagement. However, this large representative sample does not match the
population found in most public urban high schools.
Where there is a need for further research is in determining whether or not
students at high performing urban high schools have higher levels of student engagement
than the national profile of high school students. Also unknown is whether certain school
practices such as school culture, effective teaching, and strong leadership result in higher
levels of student engagement in these urban schools.

38
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The case has been presented thus far that there are a limited number of high
performing urban high schools. The research suggests that high performing schools have
certain things in common such as solid leadership, a positive and supportive school
culture and good teaching. Student engagement has also been identified as a key factor
related to school academic success. Our team of doctoral candidates believes, but does
not know, that student engagement in these schools is greater than the "average" high
school.
The purpose of our mixed method case study was to determine whether high
performing urban high schools did have higher levels of student engagement. If the
engagement was higher, we investigated the school factors that contributed to the student
engagement. If the engagement was not higher than the national profile, we identified
themes or areas that we believed contributed to that school’s higher performance.
The interest in this topic was generated from an existing national study of high
school students created at the University of Indiana. This study, the High School Survey
of Student Engagement (HSSSE), grew out of a previous national study, also created at
the University of Indiana, conducted with college-age students. The purpose of the high
school study was to identify the level of engagement of high school students as identified
by their participation in a variety of school and non-school related activities.
Engagement High School is one of five comprehensive and one continuation high
schools in an urban high school district in Los Angeles County. The school district was
39
chosen due to (1) the physical location within a large urban metropolitan area, (2) the
large percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged students in the attendance area, (3)
the ethnic diversity of the student body and (4) the California State Superintendent’s
recognition resulting from remarkable growth in test scores for the past six years.
Our team of doctoral students met regularly from June 2006 through the spring of
2007 to share literature sources, develop research questions, design the actual study and
create the research instruments that would be utilized, in addition to the national HSSSE
administration. Although a timeline for the research was created by the team, each
student handled his/her case study on an individual basis and, thus, determining group
findings and the sharing of team results was often limited. Each case study stands alone.
The collection and interpretation of research literature, data and findings are individual
and unique to each study. However, when viewed collectively, it is hoped that the
findings might shed some light regarding levels of student engagement within one school
district as well as practices that promote or encourage higher levels of student
engagement and/or performance.

Conceptual Model
The model below (Figure 1) represents the influence and contribution that student
engagement and student achievement have on the high performance of urban high
schools. It also illustrates how a school’s programs, practices, culture and leadership, all
influenced by a variety of input factors, contribute to both student engagement and
student achievement. What is predicted is that there are identifiable factors that
contribute to both high performance and high student engagement.
40

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Research Questions
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high school,
as measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement? How does it
compare to the national profile?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in a high performing urban
high school?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?

41
The research questions were designed to allow the researcher to gather and
explore a variety of data pertaining to student engagement. Through the review of
school documents, the administration of the HSSSE to all students, direct observations,
adult interviews and teacher surveys, an in-depth understanding of student engagement
and the practices and programs at a particular high school were possible. In each of the
studies conducted by the doctoral students, three areas were strongly linked to high
engagement and high performance in these high schools: school culture, leadership and
instructional practices.

Research Design
The research design for this case study began in the early summer of 2006, when
a team of six education doctoral candidates began meeting on a regular basis to
investigate themes and best practices on the topic of high school student engagement.
The group members individually researched relevant literature in the areas of (a) the
current state of achievement in urban schools, (b) student engagement and (c) the factors
that contribute to higher levels of student engagement and achievement. Based on the
collective findings of the group, three areas were identified as having the greatest impact
on student engagement. They are: leadership practices, teaching practices and school
culture.
By the end of the summer 2006, the team utilized the literature research findings
to develop the conceptual model and research questions for the study. The thematic
dissertation chairperson, or principal investigator, had already made contact with the
42
superintendent of the selected school district, and had received approval to conduct the
research there.
In November of 2006, the thematic dissertation team met with a representative of
the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), to complete the
required paperwork (online) for authorization to conduct the research. After individually
completing an online exam, each member of the dissertation team received authorization
to conduct the research in early 2007.
The school district made arrangements directly with the University of Indiana to
administer the secondary data source survey in January and February of 2007; with the
results being sent to the district and doctoral researcher in April. In January, the thematic
dissertation team members were assigned an individual school site to contact and begin
the case study investigation.
It was felt that a mixed methods case study research was the best type of design
for this study due to the interest of the researchers as practitioners in identifying how
individual high schools might be able to impact student achievement. Case study
research is defined by the interest in individual cases as opposed to particular methods of
inquiry that are used (Gall, Gall & Borg, p. 435). This approach not only allowed the
researcher to focus on individual cases, but provided a great deal of latitude with regard
to the methods of inquiry utilized in the study.
Unlike quantitative research, where there are standard designs or sequential steps
to follow in the investigation, qualitative research in general, and case study research in
particular, does not follow a prescribed pattern for the investigation.
43
Case study research, as described by Gall, Gall and Borg is "…an in-depth study
of instances of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the
participants involved in the phenomenon" (p. 436). Discovery of some of the best
phenomenon can only be achieved by interpreting data within context, according to
Merriam (1998). Case study research can provide examples of broader phenomenon that
exist in the real world (Gall, Gall, et al., p.437). The challenge for the researcher is to
identify emergent themes, using vivid descriptions from the data collected through the
study.
Case study research is only one, of many, types of qualitative research. The
mixed-methods description of this case study refers to the variety of data sources that
were utilized to gather information about the case. The use of multiple methods of data
collected include an analysis of school, district and state documents, classroom and
school observations, staff interviews, a staff questionnaire and a student survey.
The student survey utilized in our study is considered a secondary data source.
The survey, developed at the University of Indiana, entitled the “High School Survey of
Student Engagement”, was included in the study, in order to better triangulate the data
and provide greater validity to the descriptive findings.
Creswell (2003) suggests that the use of multiple methods in qualitative research
may help to increase the validity and generalizability of the case study. As such, this
study is one of six case studies investigating the same phenomenon, utilizing the same
research questions and data collection tools. The possibility of discovering recurring
themes across the various case studies will help to generalize the findings to other schools
and situations, and build upon the importance of the work.
44
Sample and Population
This study collects data from one public, high performing urban high school
within the state of California. For the purpose of this study, high performing was
defined as a school that met API growth targets for the past three years and had greater
achievement than other “similar schools” (as defined by California’s API similar school
ranking). "Urban" was defined as a school where ethnic minorities comprised a majority
of the student body and forty percent or more of the students qualified for the federal
free/reduced lunch program. Engagement High School, one of five comprehensive high
schools in an urban high school district of Los Angeles County, met the above criteria
and was chosen for this study.
In 2006, the school district in which Engagement High School resides was
identified by California State Superintendent Jack O’Connell as a high-performing
district. This came as a result of significant growth in student performance on
California’s standardized tests in each of the district’s schools over the previous few
years. In the spring of 2005, the district had the highest API growth rate of all school
districts in Los Angeles County.
From 2000 to 2006, Engagement High School’s API score rose 120 points alone.
The chart below (Table 1) shows the year-to-year growth during that time frame. While
API growth is evident for each of these past six years, it is especially noteworthy that all
of the school-wide targets, including significant subgroups of Hispanic, White and Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged, have been met each year since 2003.

45
Table 1: API Growth, 2001-2006
School Year API Score Point Change
From Prior Year
All Schoolwide
Targets Met
2000-2001 573 +11 No
2001-2002 580 +7 No
2002-2003 610 +30 No
2003-2004 648 +38 Yes
2004-2005 660 +19 Yes
2005-2006 693 +33 Yes

In addition to identifying a school’s success by a numeric score, schools in
California today are also evaluated by students’ individual successes. Passing rates on
the California High School Exit Exam as well as graduation rates provide data that is
more closely connected to individual student success. In the spring of 2007, 99.2% of
Engagement High’s seniors had passed both the required English/Language Arts and
Mathematics portions of the California High School Exit Exam. Additionally, the
graduation rate for the class of 2006 was over 98%, well above the county average of
80%.
During the 2006-07 school year, Engagement High School served 2,793 students
in grades 9-12. The school has witnessed a significant growth in student population,
having grown more than 700 students since 2000-2001. The chart (Figure 2) below
depicts the current ethnic/racial distribution of students at the school.

46
Figure 2: Ethnic/Racial Distribution at Engagement High School
White/Anglo
11%
African Am.
4%
Latino/Hispanic
81%
Asian/Pac.
Islander 4%
Engagement High School is a Title I school with 45% of students eligible for the
federal Free/Reduced Meal Program due to limited family income. Seventeen percent of
students have limited English proficiency with 98% of these students speaking Spanish as
a first language.
Engagement High School employees 109 certificated teachers, six counselors,
five administrators and 69 classified staff. Twenty six of the 69 classified staff are
paraprofessionals who work directly with students. The chart below identifies the range
of experience and credential background of teachers at Engagement High School.

Table 2: Teacher Experience
Experience/Credential Background Engagement
High School
County
Average
State
Average
Average Years of Teaching Experience 10 12 13
Teachers with One or Two Years of
Classroom Experience
14% 16% 14%
Teachers with a Master’s Degree or
Higher
29% 39% 37%
Teachers with a Bachelor’s Degree Alone 71% 60% 62%

47
Instrumentation
The instruments for data collection - surveys, document review analysis template,
interview questions and observation template - were developed by the members of the
thematic dissertation group in the fall of 2006. The individuals each reviewed
instruments utilized in similar case study methodologies as they created their own
instruments. Thorough discussions with University of Southern California faculty
members on the dissertation committee were conducted, and adjustments were made,
before finalizing the products.
The research instruments were designed to provide the kind of "thick"
descriptions required in a case study, while searching for themes that could be validated
in the research literature (Creswell, 2003). The triangulation of data, or the use of
multiple forms of data, was utilized in this effort.
In addition to the researcher-developed instruments utilized above, secondary data
results from the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) was collected and
analyzed. In early 2007, all students at Engagement High School were asked to
participate in this survey conducted by the University of Indiana as part of a nationwide
study of student engagement. The data from Engagement High School was
disaggregated and compared with the national data. The data gathered from this study
allowed the researcher to answer the first set of research questions; namely, to determine
the level of student engagement at Engagement High School and compare it to the
national average.

48
Document Review
A review of relevant documents pertaining to the school was the first point of data
collection. The purpose of the document review was to gather both statistical data on the
school as well as provide an overview of the school’s programs, practices and policies.
Most of the documents were available on-line through the California Department of
Education’s website as well as the school and district websites.
The types of data collected included longitudinal data for California’s Academic
Performance Index (API), federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). California Basic Educational Data Systems (CBEDS)
reports provided demographic, attendance, graduation rates, ‘a-g’ completion rates and
teacher/staffing information. Engagement High School’s Single School Plan (2006-07),
School Accountability Report Card (2005-06) and California Distinguished School
Application (December 2006) provided both rich and descriptive narrative about the
school as well as areas of strength as well as areas for growth.
All of the above information was reviewed prior to a school visit. Once on the
campus, other documents were collected and reviewed. The student master schedule
was reviewed to identify the types and numbers of courses offered as well as staffing
priorities. The master schedule also provides a more detailed glimpse of both rigorous
course offerings as well as support classes for students pursuing a rigorous, college-
bound course of study.
Other on-site data was collected to validate the school’s priorities and focus. This
data included parent and principal newsletters, daily bell schedules, school and meeting
calendars, school map, and other district and school produced flyers and announcements.
49
Observation Template (Bolman and Deal)
The observation template assisted the researchers in organizing information
collected throughout the visits to the high school. The observation instrument (Appendix
A) utilized during school and classroom observations has it’s foundation from Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) Reframing Organizations. The Four Frames, identified in the
research, were developed as a tool through which organizations can be observed,
explored better understood. The Structural, Political, Human Resource and Symbolic
frames were the lenses through which that analysis occurs.
The Structural Frame can be used to look at the structures, formal roles and
organizational designs in place at the school. The school calendar, student master
schedule, organization of each school day, organized staff development and staff
meetings, types of instructional practices and assessment utilized, and formal
relationships with the district office are areas of study to consider from the structural
perspective.
The Political Frame can be used to explore the concept of power and how that
power is utilized and negotiated between and among the various stakeholders in an
organization. How those in power at the school (i.e. Principal, assistant principals) work
with teachers, classified staff, parents, community leaders and district office personnel
are to be explored.
The Human Resource Frame can be used to study the relationships between
people within the organization, including staff, students, parents and community
members. The interaction between and among the adults and students at the school are
key to this frame, with emphasis on the needs of the individual.
50
The Symbolic Frame can be observed in less formal structures and actions of
those within the organization. For instance, the use of symbols, rituals and ceremonies at
the school fall within this frame. The use of school welcome signs, Expected School-
wide Learning Results painted throughout the school, student activity signs posted within
classrooms, and teacher and student award recognition ceremonies, would be found
through this frame.

Teacher Surveys
The teacher survey (Appendix B) was distributed to all teachers in attendance at a
faculty meeting in June 2007. The 20 question teacher survey instrument was developed
to gain the teachers’ perspective regarding student engagement at their school. The
returned surveys represent a variety of core and elective departments as well as years of
experience in the classroom.
The teacher survey questions were designed to parallel the student questions in
the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) yet were worded to reflect the
teachers’ perspective. This allowed the researchers to compare teacher responses to the
student responses. While many of the statements/questions were directly parallel with
statements that appear in the HSSSE, an additional set of statements were added to
measure teacher efficacy. These statements were developed from the Teacher’s Sense of
Efficacy Scale developed at Ohio State University (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001).

51
Staff Interviews
The interview questions (Appendix C) consisted of three open-ended questions,
followed by a series of follow-up questions. The purpose of these open-ended questions
was to allow the respondent the opportunity to provide a more-detailed and free-response
answer as well as converse with the researcher regarding their feelings about high
performance, student engagement and the factors that make a difference at their school.
Interviews were conducted with two administrators, two counselors, a dean of
students, three teachers and two classified staff members. Interviews lasted between 15-
45 minutes.

High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)
A secondary data source, the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE), was administered to all students at Engagement High School in January 2007.
Developed at Indiana University, this anonymous student survey has been administered
to more than 300,000 high school students nation-wide since 2005. The survey seeks to
compile systematic, national data on a variety of dimensions of student engagement as
well as educational practices.
The survey, administered by classroom teachers, took approximately 20 minutes
for students to complete. Once the surveys were completed, they were returned to the
school district office and then to Indiana University for scanning and analysis. Since
each of the high schools in the district participated in this project, the results from Indiana
University were sent to the district office in April 2007. A copy of the data was then
52
provided to each researcher as well as to the principal of each of the high schools in the
district.
Results were obtained from 2315 students at Engagement High School; an 83%
participation rate. Responses were presented by grade level and school-wide for each of
the questions in the survey. Responses were also presented with statistical comparisons
to the national profile. In addition, individual questions were grouped into one of three
dimensions of engagement, so that statistical comparisons could be made by general
category as well. The three dimensions of engagement identified by the survey include:
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic, Social/Behavioral/Participatory and Emotional.

Data Collection
The researcher collected data through a variety of activities and approaches over a
period of four months. Much of the initial research was collected prior to ever stepping
foot on the campus, due to availability of information on the Internet.
The document review process began as a review of key documents and data
available on-line. All of the online documents were available either on the California
Department of Education or Engagement High School website. The data collected during
this time allowed the researcher to identify demographic data and external performance
indicators for the school as well as the school’s analysis of their own successes and areas
for greater focus.
Data collection on the actual school campus took place over a period of ten
weeks. Interviews were conducted with the principal, assistant principal, dean of
students, two counselors, two campus security officers, a secretary and three teachers.
53
A letter of consent, created through the Institutional Review Board process, was provided
to each of the participants prior to the interview. Additionally, the participants were
provided with verbal instructions reminding them of the voluntary nature of the interview
and the ability to refuse to answer any question and/or conclude the interview at any time.
All participants were asked the same questions as provided for in the established script
(Appendix C). All but three interviews were tape recorded and transcribed at a later date.
The three interviews that were not tape recorded were typed on a computer laptop and
given to the individuals at a later date to confirm accuracy of reporting.
Observations on the campus, in meetings and in classrooms were conducted
during the course of six days, which included a total of 25 hours on the campus. Twenty
one classrooms, representing five academic departments, were visited and observed
during that time. Other activities observed included a meeting of the Leadership Team, a
whole-school faculty meeting, before school, after school, passing and nutrition breaks,
as well as lunchtime activities. Observations were noted using the observation template
(Appendix A). Miscellaneous notes that did not seem to “fit” within any or more than
one of the four frameworks were noted on separate paper for coding at a later date.
The teacher survey (Appendix B) was distributed to all teachers in attendance at a
faculty meeting in June 2007. The principal re-introduced the researcher to the faculty,
reminded them about the importance of data collection to the study and thanked them for
their cooperation and participation in the study. Additionally, to ensure greater
participation in the survey, the principal included it as one of the tasks to be completed
before a teacher could check out of school for the end-of-year.
54
At the end of each day spent on the campus, the researcher reviewed the materials
and data gathered, organized them and secured them in her home.

Validity and Reliability
Validity, reliability and generalizability are critical considerations in a quality
research study. In a limited way, qualitative researchers can use reliability to check for
consistent patterns of theme development among several investigators on a team
(Creswell, 2003). They can also generalize some facets of multiple case analyses to other
cases (Yin, 1989). Overall, however, reliability and generalizability play a minor role in
qualitative research.
Validity, on the other hand, is considered a strength of qualitative research. It is
used to determine whether the findings are accurate from the standpoint of the researcher,
the participant, or the readers of the study (Creswell, 2003).
In order to validate the accuracy of the data collected, a number of strategies were
employed. They included the use of rich, thick and detailed descriptions to convey the
findings, triangulation of different data sources, and peer debriefing with fellow thematic
dissertation team members throughout the process.

Data Analysis
Data was collected and triangulated using the review of various school, district
and state documents, classroom and campus observations, staff interviews, a teacher
questionnaire and the High School Survey of Student Engagement. The analysis and
interpretation of data followed Creswell’s six step process (Creswell, 2003).
55
The first step involved organizing and preparing the data for analysis, followed
closely by reading all of the data to get a sense of broad themes that might be emerging.
Fortunately, this researcher had organized all of her materials in color coded files during
the collection process, which allowed the first two steps of the data analysis to go very
smoothly. The third step in the data analysis involved the coding of materials. Themes,
or chunks of similar information, were color-coded with the use of highlighters or
different colors within the various computer documents.
As a result of the first three steps, a number of themes began to emerge. These
themes became the basis for the major findings or headings in Chapter Four. It was
decided that in addition to the narrative passage to convey the findings of the analysis, a
number of figures and tables would be included to further validate the findings.
The final stage in the data analysis involved the meaning-making, or lessons
learned, from the data. The researcher compared findings with the research literature and
also suggested new questions that need to be included in future studies.

56
CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

Introduction

The purpose of the study was to determine whether high performing urban high
schools have higher levels of student engagement and, if so, to determine what school
factors contribute to that engagement. The chapter summarizes the findings from the
case study at Engagement High School; starting with a first impression of the school,
followed by the results and discussion of the research questions, and concluding with a
discussion of the emergent themes found at the school.
The data collection and analysis were completed to answer the following research
questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high
school as measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement?
How does it compare to the national profile?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing
urban high schools?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?

A First Impression of Engagement High School
I drove up to the school, for the first time, on a sunny afternoon in the spring, just
after the lunch period had ended. Parking was available for me, as a visitor. The
sprawling lawn in front, interspersed with sprawling old oak trees, was neatly cut and
green. There was not a single piece of trash to be found. As I approached the front
57
entrance, where the administration building is located, I saw that there was a fire truck
parked right out front; lights on, but not blaring. The firefighters were talking with the
principal and another staff member. I watched, as the principal listened and interfaced
with the firefighters. I overheard her apologize for the false alarm and wish them a good
afternoon. During that time, I was greeted professionally by a campus security officer
sitting at a table at the front entrance. He welcomed me, asked me where I was going,
and requested that I sign the visitor registry. He completed the guest badge for me.
The principal, who had by that time sent the firefighters on their way, welcomed
me and escorted me to her office. Within minutes of our meeting, her warmth and open
personality were evident. She excused herself to wash her hands briefly and commented
that,” in order to be a good role model, one ends up picking up lots of trash at lunchtime”.
She offered me a drink of water and we got right down to business, discussing the
research on urban schools and student engagement. We reviewed the key people on
campus to interview and dates for me to come to campus and observe. She then gave me
a 30 minute tour, introducing me to the people I would be interviewing weeks later, and
showing me the layout of the campus, program highlights and new buildings as a result of
school bond construction.
I share this first impression for a reason. The stereotype of an urban high school
is often times that of a concrete jungle; crowded, dilapidated, multi-story buildings placed
on a relatively small plot of land, with little or no grass for students to wander, relax and
mingle. Maybe some of that view is tainted by the media, or maybe it is influenced by
the reality of how schools are constructed in cold-weather climates. But this is Southern
58
California. And, in Southern California, urban sometimes looks very different. Graffiti
and gang turf wars sit quite comfortably alongside wide, palm-lined boulevards.
By its exterior alone, this could be any middle-class high school U.S.A., but it is
not. This is Engagement High School. Engagement High School serves a mostly
Hispanic population in Los Angeles County. Close to half the students receive assistance
through the Free-Reduced Meal program. One in five students do not speak English
proficiently, although almost a third of the students are bilingual, speaking both English
and Spanish fluently. The school faces challenges around its academic performance, as
No Child Left Behind provides higher benchmarks to meet with each passing year.
Test scores alone do not paint the whole picture of academics at Engagement
High School. While Engagement High School is still 100 points away from reaching the
state performance goal of 800 for all schools in the state, it continually outperforms
“similar” high schools. As stated earlier, Engagement High School has shown year-to-
year growth in academic performance on state tests. In 2000-01, the school’s Academic
Performance Index was 573. Today it stands at 700, and continues to grow each year.
Graduation rates are well over 95% every year. The school has an almost perfect record
for students passing the California High School Exit Exam, a requirement for earning a
high school diploma in the state of California. This chapter attempts to answer “why”.
Why does Engagement succeed, when so many like it fail? The answers will come first
through an examination of the research results and, second, through identification of
emergent themes evident at the school.

59
Findings by Research Question
Research Question #1: What is the level of student engagement in a high performing
urban high school as measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE)? How does it compare to the national profile?
The 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement had 33 questions, many of
which required multiple responses. Close to 82,000 students nationwide took the survey;
a 74% participation rate at the schools that administered the survey. At Engagement
High School, 83% of the student body, or 2315 students, participated in the survey,
administered in January 2007. Therefore, the data oobtained and utilized in this study is
considered a secondary data source.

Demographic Comparisons
The average student enrollment at a HSSSE participating school was 1,010. The
smallest participating school had an enrollment of 37, with the largest participating
school enrollment at 3,881. Only 11 schools had an enrollment over 2,000. Engagement
High School, therefore, is on the far end of the spectrum for school size compared to the
national profile.
Each of the regions of the country was represented in the pool of participating
schools, although the majority of the schools were located in the Midwest.
Approximately one third of schools were classified as urban, about a third were classified
as suburban, about a quarter were classified as rural, and the remaining schools were
situated in what the survey classifies as towns.
60
Student distribution by grade level and gender match the distribution at
Engagement High School almost identically. Students were asked to identify themselves
by race/ethnicity, showing a far greater difference between the national profile and the
student profile at Engagement High School. The national profile included 54% White,
9% African American, 7% Hispanic, 7% Multiracial, 4% Asian and 16% who preferred
not to respond. The Engagement High School profile included 5% White, 3% African
American, 62% Hispanic, 12% Multiracial, 3% Asian and 14% who preferred not to
respond. Not only do the ethnic distributions differ remarkably between the two profiles,
it is interesting to note the large number of students, nationally, who either identify
themselves as either Multiracial or prefer not to identify themselves by race at all.
Another area of comparison between the national profile and Engagement High
School is the percentage of students on Free/Reduced Lunch and the percentage of
students in which English is the main language spoken at home. Twenty one percent of
students in the national profile participate in the Free/Reduced Meal program, while 49%
of students at Engagement High School do so. Seventy nine percent of students in the
national profile report that the English language is mostly spoke at home, while only 54%
of students at Engagement High School report the same.

Dimensions of Engagement Comparisons
The results from Engagement High School show that these students are neither
more nor less engaged, generally, than their counterparts throughout the rest of the
country. Neither group was considered to be “highly engaged”, as defined by the
HSSSE.
61
In addition to the general category of “engagement”, the survey questions were
divided into three categories, or dimensions, of engagement. The engagement
dimensions were identified as “Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement”,
“Social/behavioral/Participatory Engagement”, and “Emotional Engagement”. When
analyzed through this lens, there were some identifiable differences between and among
students at Engagement High School and students nationwide.
In the Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic dimension, the students at Engagement
High School reported slightly higher engagement, statistically insignificant, than the
HSSSE respondents; 32.03 versus 31.43 mean overall. Out of a possible score of 60,
both the Engagement and HSSSE respondents scored at about the median for this
category. The patterns of engagement, by grade level, are actually more noteworthy.
Both for the Engagement High and HSSSE respondents, the mean score of
engagement in this category increased during each year of high school; with ninth grade
respondents scoring the lowest and twelfth grade respondents reporting the highest
median scores. The 9
th
grade mean score for the HSSSE respondent was 31.07,
compared to the 12
th
grade mean score of 33.07. The 9
th
grade mean score for the
Engagement respondent was 30.95, compared to the 12
th
grade mean score of 34.95. The
results indicate that 9
th
grade students at Engagement High start high school with slightly
lower levels of Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement (30.95 versus 31.07) and
end high school with higher levels of this type of engagement (34.95 versus 33.07).

62
Table 3: Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic
Engagement
HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
Engagement High School
Mean Score
9
th
Grade 31.07 30.95
10
th
Grade 31.91 31.38
11
th
Grade 33.02 32.16
12
th
Grade 33.07 34.95
Overall 31.43 32.03

In the Social/behavioral/Participatory dimension, a similar pattern emerges.
Students at Engagement High School report a slightly higher overall mean score (9.05)
than do the HSSSE respondents (8.70). Out of a possible score of 18, the responses once
again hovered around the median for this category. Like the
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic dimension above, students in this dimension show
greater engagement during each passing year of high school. Again, the Engagement
High freshmen report a lower level of engagement than the HSSSE freshmen (8.69 versus
8.81 overall). Yet, the Engagement seniors report much higher
social/behavioral/participatory engagement than do the national profile seniors (9.78
versus 8.93).

Table 4: Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement
Social/Behavioral/Participatory
Engagement
HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
Engagement High
School Mean Score
9
th
Grade 8.81 8.69
10
th
Grade 8.93 9.07
11
th
Grade 8.99 8.97
12
th
Grade 8.93 9.78
Overall 8.70 9.05
63
In the final dimension, Emotional Engagement, HSSSE respondents scored lower
overall, as well as in three of the four grade levels. Out of a possible score of 37 for this
category, however, both the HSSSE respondents and the Engagement High School
respondents scored well above the median on this scale of engagement. While in the
previous two categories, levels of reported engagement increased during each year of
high school, in this category, the same pattern did not emerge. For the national profile,
the level of reported emotional engagement remained relatively flat from the ninth to the
twelfth grade. For Engagement High School, emotional engagement was highest at both
the freshmen and senior year, with lower levels of emotional engagement reported in the
sophomore and junior years. However, as was the case in the first two dimensions of
engagement for Engagement High School, Emotional Engagement was the highest during
the senior year of high school.

Table 5: Emotional Engagement
Emotional
Engagement
HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
Engagement High
School
Mean Score
9
th
Grade 24.36 25.22
10
th
Grade 24.35 24.37
11
th
Grade 24.54 24.35
12
th
Grade 24.71 26.05
Overall 23.90 24.84

With regard to the amount of time spent in a typical week engaged in extra-
curricular (i.e. athletics or music) or academic activities (i.e. reading or studying for
class), the results show that students from the national profile consistently report
64
spending more time engaged in these activities than do students at Engagement High
School (Table 6). However, there is no difference with regard to the importance or value
that is placed on each of these activities. Each of these activities generally scored in the
“somewhat important” response, both for the national profile and for the Engagement
H.S. respondents.

Table 6: Time in Activities
HSSSE Questions National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
Hours spent in a typical week engaged in school
sponsored activities (athletics, clubs, st. gov’t.)
0=0 hours, 1=1 hour, 2=2-5 hours, 6=6-10 hours,
10=10
3.01 2.55
How important: engaged in school sponsored
activities
0=not at all, 1=a little, 2=somewhat, 3=very,
4=top priority
1.85 1.8
Hours spent in a typical week practicing a sport,
musical instrument, rehearsing for a performance
0=0 hours, 1=1 hour, 2=2-5 hours, 6=6-10 hours,
10=10
3.44 2.93
How important: practicing a sport, musical
instrument, rehearsing for a performance
0=not at all, 1=a little, 2=somewhat, 3=very,
4=top priority
2.02 1.96
Hours spent in a typical week reading and
studying for class
0=0 hours, 1=1 hour, 2=2-5 hours, 6=6-10 hours,
10=10+
1.8 1.5
How important: reading and studying for class
0=not at all, 1=a little, 2=somewhat, 3=very,
4=top priority
2.11 2.11

In the next category of responses (Table 7), students responded to issues of
respect, fairness and general attitudes toward their school. In all areas, the national
65
profile responses and the Engagement High School responses were higher than the
median. The mean for both groups in this category were similar. However, the
Engagement High School responses were higher for the following statements: “I am
treated fairly in this school”, “I have a voice in classroom and/or school decisions”, “My
opinions are respected in this school”, “I care about my school”, and “Overall, I feel good
about being in this school”. Students at Engagement High School also reported having a
greater number of classes that challenged them academically.
There appeared to be no difference between the national profile responses and the
Engagement High School responses with regard to the “Number of teachers who want me
to do the best work I can do”, the “Number of teacher who believe that I can do excellent
work” and the feelings of safety at the school.

Table 7: Respect, Fairness, & Attitudes Toward School
HSSSE Questions National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
I am treated fairly in this school
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
disagree
2.76 2.91
I have a voice in classroom and/or school decisions
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
disagree
2.68 2.73
My opinions are respected in this school
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
disagree
2.57 2.66
# of classes that challenge me academically
0=none, 1=1-2, 2=some, 3=most, 4=all
2.29 2.36
# of teachers who want me to do the best work I can
do
0=none, 1=1-2, 2=some, 3=most, 4=all
2.77 2.77
# of teachers who believe that I can do excellent
work
0=none, 1=1-2, 2=some, 3=most, 4=all
2.82 2.80
66
Table 7: Respect, Fairness, & Attitudes Toward School (Continued)
HSSSE Questions National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
Overall, I feel good about being in this school
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
2.91 3.04
I care about my school
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
2.74 2.83
I feel safe in my school
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
2.88 2.87

Students responded to issues of curriculum, motivation, skills and effort in this
next category of questions (Table 8). In most, but not all, areas, the national profile
responses and the Engagement High School responses were higher than the median. The
mean varied greatly in this category, with the national profile and Engagement High
School not showing consistently higher or lower mean responses.
The higher mean responses from Engagement High School students included
responses to: “discussing grades with teachers”, being “motivated to work by a desire to
get good grades”, being “motivated to work by teachers who encourage me”, and having
the school “spend a lot of time preparing for state and district standardized tests”.
The lower mean responses from Engagement High School students included
responses to: “writing a paper of more than five pages”, “attending class with all
assignments completed”, “taking a test with essay questions or show-your-work
problems”, and “connecting ideas or concepts from one class to another”. Engagement
students also reported lower mean scores for “placing a high value on learning” and
“having the skills and abilities to complete my work”. There appeared to be little or no
67
difference with regard to “putting forth a great deal of effort” and “taking pride in the
quality of my schoolwork”.

Table 8: Curriculum, Motivation, and Skills
HSSSE Questions National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
How often have you: wrote a paper of more than five
pages
0=never, 1=rarely, 2=sometimes, 3=often
1.28 1.05
How often have you: attended class with all
assignments completed
0=never, 1=rarely, 2=sometimes, 3=often
2.33 2.15
How often have you: took a test in class with essay
questions or show-your-work problems created by
your teacher (not a state or district test)
0=never, 1=rarely, 2=sometimes, 3=often
2.33 2.14
How often have you: connected ideas or concepts
from one class (or subject area) to another in doing
assignments or participating in class discussions
0=never, 1=rarely, 2=sometimes, 3=often
1.80 1.58
How often have you: discussed grades with teachers
0=never, 1=rarely, 2=sometimes, 3=often
1.87 2.02
I place a high value on learning
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
3.16 3.07
I have the skills and abilities to complete my work
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
3.31 3.25
I put forth a great deal of effort when doing my work
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
2.88 2.90
I am motivated to work by a desire to get good grades
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
3.10 3.16
I am motivated to work by teachers who encourage
me
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
2.75 2.85
I take pride in the quality of my schoolwork
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly
agree
2.92 2.90
68
Table 8: Curriculum, Motivation, and Skills (Continued)
HSSSE Questions National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
School encourages: spending a lot of time preparing
for state and district standardized tests
1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit,
4=very much
2.43 2.67

Table 9 reports students’ responses to the question regarding how much influence
the school has had in contributing to their growth in a number of different areas. This
table, and the one following (Table 10), show the greatest overall difference in responses
between the national profile and those of Engagement High School. In every category,
the Engagement High School responses were significantly higher than the national
profile. Engagement High respondents believe that the school contributed “quite a bit” to
their ability to “work well with others”, “learn independently”, “develop clear career
goals”, “understand the relevance of school work to life after high school”, “understand
people of other racial/ethnic backgrounds”, “understand oneself”, and “treat people with
respect.”

Table 9: School’s Contribution Toward Growth
HSSSE Questions National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
School contributed to growth: working well with
others
1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
2.73 2.92
School contributed to growth: learning independently
1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
2.69 2.85
School contributed to growth: developing clear career
goals
1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
2.53 2.74

69
Table 9: School’s Contribution Toward Growth (Continued)
HSSSE Questions

National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
School contributed to growth: understanding the
relevance of school work to life after high school
1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
2.54 2.77
School contributed to growth: understanding people
of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 1=very little,
2=some, 3=quite a bit,
4=very much
2.49 2.72
School contributed to growth: understanding yourself
1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
2.50 2.77
School contributed to growth: treating people with
respect
1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
2.74 3.03

The last group of responses from the HSSSE report out on the reasons that
students go to school (Table 10). The differences are significant between the two groups
of respondents. Students at Engagement High School report going to school both
because they enjoy it AND because they want to stay out of trouble.

Table 10: Staying/Going to School
HSSSE Questions National
Profile
Mean
Engagement
HS
Mean
Why do you go to school: because I enjoy being in
school
0=No, 1=Yes
.34 .45
Why do you go to school: to stay out of trouble
0=No, 1=Yes
.24 .36

Discussion of Research Question #1
Overall, students at Engagement High School showed only slightly greater levels
of engagement than the national profile on the High School Survey of Student
70
Engagement. The greatest differences in engagement are found between the twelfth
graders. The twelfth graders at Engagement High School are significantly more engaged
than the senior class nationally. This holds true for ALL THREE dimensions of
engagement: Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic, Social/Behavioral/Participatory, and
Emotional.
One possibility for the difference in engagement is that the students at
Engagement High School participate in a Senior Project. In addition to attending their
regular schedule of classes, seniors spend the entire year involved in a Senior Project. It
requires them to submit a proposal, obtain a mentor, do fieldwork in their proposed area
of study, research and write a thesis paper, maintain a portfolio, and give an oral
presentation to a panel of judges in what is called the June “Senior Boards”. Teachers
from many disciplines oversee and serve as leaders in this comprehensive, authentic form
of assessment of student learning.
Another possible difference with engagement is the Horizons/AVID program at
Engagement High School. Advancement Via Individual Determination is a national
program, begun in Southern California more than twenty years ago, which targets
traditionally underrepresented minorities and enrolls them in college preparatory
curriculum, along with support and intervention classes and activities, to ensure their
success in a rigorous course-taking pattern. AVID has a large enrollment and very high
success rate with students at Engagement High School. Not only does the program keep
students enrolled and engaged through their senior year, it focuses them on post-
secondary goals and success.
71
A third possibility for the difference between engagement of students, and seniors
in particular, is the relationship-building that exists at Engagement High School. As
Table 9 indicates, students at Engagement High School stated that the school contributed
greatly to helping them understand themselves better, work well with others, treat people
with respect, learn independently, and develop clear career goals. These perceptions in
attitude may be reflected in the responses to engagement by students just about to finish
their high school careers.
Students at Engagement High School also report higher positive responses with
regard to having a voice in decisions at the school, being treated fairly, having their
opinions respected at the school and caring about the school. School culture and
interpersonal relationships, both topics discussed at greater length in the discussion
section of the next two research questions, are possible factors contributing to student
responses.
It is interesting to note the responses from the Teacher Survey at this time (Table
11). These questions from the teacher survey correspond directly with the student
questions on the HSSSE. Students and teachers from Engagement High Schools have
remarkably similar scores for questions number 1, 4, 6, and 8 below, agreeing to the
preparation of assignments, valuing of grades and other rewards, caring about school, and
having a voice in classroom decisions. Teachers capitalize on the opportunity to utilize
these student realities and priorities in working with their students.

72
Table 11: Values Assigned and Mean Scores-by-Question, Teacher Survey

Instructions: Read the statements below and
place checkmarks in the appropriate columns.
4
Strongl
y Agree
3
Agree
2
Neutr
al
1
Disag
ree
Mean
Score

1. My students attend class with readings and/or
assignments completed.
4 54 44 10 2.1

2. My students take pride in their schoolwork.
8 87 22 10 2.4

3. My students have the skills and abilities to
complete their assignments.
44 93 14 2 2.9

4. My students value the rewards (grades, awards,
etc.) that they get at school for their work.
40 102 16 3.0

5. My students think it is important to make good
grades.
16 102 20 4 2.7

6. My students care about their school.
28 87 26 3 2.7

7. My students place a high value on learning.
12 56 40 9 2.2

8. My students have a voice in classroom
decisions.
28 93 16 5 2.7

9. My students put forth a great deal of effort when
doing their schoolwork.
20 63 28 10 2.3

10. My students are challenged to do their best
work at school.
44 102 14 3.0

There is a significant gap in responses between the students at Engagement High
School and the teachers at Engagement High School for questions 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9. With
regard to students reporting taking pride in their schoolwork, the student mean score was
2.9 with the teacher mean score at 2.4. Students believe they have the skills and abilities
to complete their work (3.25) and as well as put forth a great deal of effort (2.9) in
completing their work. Teachers at Engagement High School do not agree. They scored
a 2.9 and 2.3 respectively, in those categories. Students noted they placed a high value
on learning (3.07), with teachers noting that students are neutral in this area (2.2). These
would be interesting areas for follow-up at the school level: What constitutes “putting
73
forth a great deal of effort”? What is the “disconnect” between students’ perception of
their own abilities and teachers’ perceptions of student skills and abilities? What does
“placing a high value on learning” look like for the student versus the teacher?
Feelings of safety are the same for national profile and Engagement High School
(2.87). While researchers are typically looking for differences between the national
profile and the identified school’s respondents, the fact that the responses are the same
for both groups may actually be significant. That a majority-minority student body in an
urban school setting feel as safe at school as do the students from the national profile
(mostly middle class, white, and suburban), is not only surprising instinctually, but
requires further investigation as to cause.
Students at Engagement High School appear to be more motivated by a desire to
get good grades and by teachers who encourage them, more than students from the
national profile. This finding is consistent with the research on the ability of teachers to
positively influence students’ attitudes. The students also report spending more time
preparing for standardized tests. Observations of the school and classroom activities in
the weeks leading up to the state’s standardized tests confirm this focus and preparation
for standardized testing. Teachers reviewed individual student’s results from their
content teaching area for the previous year. The teachers often broke the results down by
subcategories and key essential standards that needed to be reviewed. All students
received handouts on test-taking tips, a history of the school’s previous four years of
performance, and a comparison to the other schools in the school district. One of the
school’s handouts congratulated the students and staff for working so hard previously and
74
encouraged them to focus on “working really hard to move ahead by making personal
improvements on last year’s scores”.
Although the school-wide focus on standardized tests is reported and observable,
Engagement High students report less academic preparation – writing a five page paper,
attending class with assignments completed, essay questions, making connections from
one class to another. Students also report not having adequate skills to complete their
work. Engagement High School attempts to address these gaps through a variety of
practices and programs. Engagement High School’s School District was well aware of
these gaps, when it sent a team of 40 educators to Illinois to visit a school that had
adopted Rich DuFour’s “Whatever it Takes” pyramid of interventions. The “Whatever it
Takes” pyramid of interventions was designed to create support and interventions when
students are not learning. Engagement High has modeled their school schedule, student
intervention programs, and teacher professional development with that focus in mind.
Over time, the school expects that the gaps identified above would diminish and,
possibly, reverse direction from the national profile.
Lastly, students at Engagement High School like being in school AND they want
to stay out of trouble. It is important to discuss these two ideas together. For urban
youth, it may not be entirely surprising that going to school equates with staying out of
trouble. Too many examples abound in the local and national media that attest to the
kinds of trouble that awaits teenagers not attending school. However, the fact that the
students at Engagement High School report that they also like being in school is more a
reflection of the school’s attributes, than it is a reflection of urban youth. The results and
75
discussion to the following two research questions get at the heart of WHY Engagement
High School students like going to school.

Research Question #2: What school factors contribute to student engagement in high
performing urban high schools?
There are a number of identified factors that contribute to student engagement at
high performing urban high schools. At Engagement High School, they include
leadership at the top, distributed leadership, hiring and retaining great teachers, and the
overall school culture that contributes to student engagement.
Leadership at the Top
Through observations, interviews and document analysis, both formal and
informal leadership from the principal and administrative team have a huge impact on
high performing urban high schools. The leadership team consistently models for the rest
of the staff, and parents and student body, the importance of being engaged in academic
and extra-curricular pursuits.
Leadership from the central or district office is also included in this category.
Every person, down to an individual, shared glowing remarks when referencing the
personnel at the district office, in particular the Superintendent. Comments included,
Her (superintendent) ability to make everyone feel important and to make clear
that every student is valued is unquestioned. It’s what drives us. That’s
everyone’s focus in our district. She picks good assistants but she is really
magical. She could give you sand and make you believe that it’s worth a million
dollars.

The first person that comes to mind is the superintendent; making herself visible
to the staff and the students. We have a special relationship with her because she
was our principal. Even though I came after her, she came into my office a few
76
weeks ago and gave me a big hug and called me by name. Your students see that
and know who she is and they see a superintendent who really cares. She came
on a rainy day with her umbrella and checked into every single classroom.

Their constant support is HUGE. They are very focused on providing user-
friendly data-sets on a myriad of topics. Additionally, they really ensure that
district personnel are streamlined so that the lion’s share of resources goes straight
into the hands of the site. They constantly work behind the scenes to make our
lives easier. For instance, NCLB requirements and API structures and potential
changes are poured over by them, including areas for improvement, so that we
can have good information for planning strategy. I love the district support, all the
way to the very top. Our Superintendent is stellar.

I can’t imagine that I would know so many district office people on a personal
level if I worked in another district, especially the superintendent. We get a fair
amount of support from the district. They’ve provided a vision and Engagement
High has taken off on that vision based on our own perception. The district’s
student services office is about the most student-advocating type of philosophy
and most student-centered that I have encountered.

In her own right, the superintendent is an amazing person. She hugs in a second;
she remembers names. She promotes the idea that we are a family that comes
together to promote kids and they come first. She, and those she surrounds
herself with, are all providing consistent messages about being here for students.
It’s a nurturing and supportive environment in which to work. Expectations are
clear; there are no secrets about what is expected but no one is in it alone.

Clearly, the superintendent, and those working at the district office, has had a huge
influence on the culture of Engagement High School.
While a large, comprehensive high school can sometimes seem to take on a life-
of-its-own, a school still looks to the principal as the high priest or priestess, for advice,
guidance, and leadership. Engagement High School has just such a high priestess. One
counselor stated, “Our principal is very focused on academics. She is very bright and
smart about surrounding herself with people who are aggressive and enthusiastic about
the “Whatever It Takes” philosophy”. Another staff member commented,
She is someone who provides great leadership for us. I see her leadership style as
really comfortable. I see she wants to do more but she knows politically and
77
culturally when to push and when not to push. She has made progress in setting a
stronger message about a culture of advocating. Our assistant principals have a
great connection with the teaching staff…it’s a part of their personalities. Our
principal has surrounded herself with people with that type of leadership style.

One classified staff member added that,
A good leader surrounds themselves with good people. If that happens, then
everyone feels like they’re a leader. Our principal does that at the school. She
doesn’t make us feel like we’re at the bottom of the food chain. She empowers
everyone else to make the students feel empowered as well.

When asked directly what schools factors she believed contributed to higher
student engagement among her students, the principal stated that it was a result of a lot of
“cheerleading” at the school.
We are constantly telling our new teachers about how great our students are. We
regularly encourage teachers to participate with students outside of their own
classrooms. We lead by modeling and recognize and praise teachers and staff
who are involved.

During numerous observations, every administrator was visible on the campus
during nutrition and lunch periods. From the lens of symbolic leadership, visibility is
important as it sends a message to staff and students that the administrators know what is
happening on the campus and are available to get involved, when needed. However, the
visibility of the leadership team goes beyond that. At every turn, proactive involvement
and engagement with students was taking place. This goes beyond symbolic leadership,
and gets to the heart of cultural leadership. The dean of students was checking in with a
student who had failed to show up for morning tutorial, the assistant principal was
touching base with a group of teachers regarding the timelines for planning the fall’s
master schedule, the principal was walking from one area to the next, engaging in small
talk with students that demonstrated her knowledge of their interests, friendships, and
78
home lives. As a result, students attending a campus with 2,800 other teenagers were
known as individuals to the school administration.
The priority of the school, namely the success of each student, is first and
foremost what is discussed, debated, and highlighted in all school meetings. When asked
how she is able to focus solely on teaching practices and student programs in her
meetings, the principal responded quickly, “It’s easy. I don’t allow the management of
the school to interfere with our focus…students. If it can be taken care of in a memo,
then it doesn’t have a place in our precious time we have to meet together as adults.”
In the next section under Shared Leadership, a more detailed description of the
school’s Leadership meetings will occur. In the area of “Leadership at the Top” though,
it must be stated that the principal has created a highly engaging, productive, and student-
focused meeting on a monthly basis with approximately one-third of her certificated staff
from key areas of the campus. While the meeting demonstrates, to an inexperienced
onlooker, the tremendous amount of shared leadership that exists on the campus; to a
veteran high school administrator, the structural, political, human resource and symbolic
lenses of the school all seem to coalesce through these monthly meetings.
Distributed Leadership and Responsibility
The monthly Leadership meeting includes all administrators, department chairs,
counselors, and individuals representing various specialized programs on the campus
(including the business Academy, Horizons, AVID, Link Crew); approximately 30
people. Two teachers serve as facilitators, with a written agenda distributed. Currently,
all staff is reading Douglas Reeves’ The Learning Leader. Half of the meeting time is
79
spent with the principal facilitating a book talk and how it relates to their work at
Engagement High School.
The meetings open with a ten-to-fifteen minute “whip around”, where individuals
acknowledge and share thank you’s to one another for contributing to their program/s.
Samples from this meeting include thank you’s for recommending students for Link
Crew, the guidance department is thanked for their AVID work, Senior Project teachers
are acknowledged, a counselor thanks the general staff for “putting up with them” while
they were registering middle school students last week off campus, Advanced Placement
teachers were praised for help sessions with students after school and on the weekends,
staff for coming in on the weekends to help read and score Senior Project essays, a
general staff thank you for serving as mentors for the Senior Project, maintenance staff
for getting the track ready for track season, assistance in preparing for STAR testing
(teachers went through their boxes and checked the materials to be sure they were ready),
and 158 students showed up this past Saturday for a review session in preparation of the
NCLB science test. Individuals are mentioned as well as departments. Some teachers
“pass” and don’t have any announcements while most choose to provide thanks. Many
choose to comment on what an amazing staff they have, how teachers at other schools in
the district want to come there due to the cohesiveness of the faculty and the general
feeling of being part of a team. There is an acknowledgement that new ideas are always
embraced by staff.
After a few announcements from the administration regarding Senior Project
panel presentations, and timelines for course request planning for the fall, the rest of the
80
meeting demonstrates both the shared responsibility of the staff, as well as the principal’s
very adept facilitation skills during the book talk conversation.
“On page 135, where are we good and how did we get that way?” one of the
teacher facilitators asks of the group. The principal asks teachers to reflect on that
question and come up with one sentence so that they may begin a cluster to develop
further. People began to speak up, “Good at intervention”, “Good at sustaining long term
programs like AVID, Business Academy, and Horizons”, “Always willing to change and
adjust as needed”, “Good at people”, “Good at holding student and staff accountable,
making that everyone understands they make a difference, “Classroom instruction is
strong”, “Alignment of curriculum and a systematic approach for curriculum
development and best practices (i.e. Cornell notes) is used, “Counselors and students
know one another”, “Senior Projects – holding tight to the goals of the project and
rationale for students”, “Providing a place that students like to be”, and “Nurturing
teacher leaders and people with particular interests, and then encouraging their
creativity”.
After this input, different teachers began to ask questions and share thoughts
about their work and the success or challenges at Engagement High. Teachers referenced
various quotes in the book and the principal engaged in a Socratic dialogue with them.
Shared leadership and involvement by a significant number of staff at the school was
never in question.
About the topic of shared leadership, one highly involved teacher stated,
Of course the administration has the formal leadership, along with the department
chairs, but I think, informally, all of us take leadership seriously. Whether you
are in charge of a program, or even coming up with an idea in your classroom and
81
sharing that with other members of your department; that is demonstrating
leadership initiative.

Another highly involved teacher shared that,
both young and old teachers demonstrate leadership at our school. The veterans,
as well as teachers with 1-10 years’ of service, are all involved in students’ lives.
I do a lot, so a lot of people will identify me as influential, but that’s because I do
so many things on the campus. I believe the activities and the curriculum pieces
are both needed. The administration does a great job of sending the message that
all voices are critical. The positive people do tend to have greater influence at the
school. While decision-making is collaborative, it is also forward moving.

One of the school’s PASS (Preparing All Students for Success) teachers
commented that counselors do a fantastic job. This PASS teacher runs the adult school
three days a week after school and works regularly with counselors to identify students;
currently 80 students. The PASS program focuses on freshmen and sophomores, with
two teachers running the program. The program started with 30 students and one teacher,
and has expanded to 300 students and two teachers. This PASS teacher shared,
That’s why I like this school; because we’re taking a look at all of the possible
intervention strategies and make sure that really no one does fall through the
cracks. I’m excited for next year since we have made some adjustments and put
new ideas into place.

Departmentally, the school has tried to build a strong team at each grade level.
For instance, in the English department, they look at putting a combination of new and
veteran teachers in grade 9 due to small class sizes; they look at 10
th
grade teachers for
their ability to prepare students well for the California High School Exit Exam; and a
balanced team of 12
th
grade teachers, who spearhead the school-wide Senior Project
program. “At each level, there is an identified leader, but there are probably a few at
82
each level. We are always encouraged to share best practices, both informally, and
through our three six-hour professional development days,” states the department chair.
Hiring and Retaining Great Teachers That Believe in Student Engagement and Their
Ability to Positively Impact Student Engagement
“We set that expectation and hire and retain teachers who model it”, states the
principal. “We also recognize teachers who are connecting with our kids. Last
year, we had a school-wide focus on rigor, relevance and relationships. We
showed a video of our students, district-wide, and how teachers demonstrated
these three R’s. Our Superintendent focused her first day message to teachers on
just this. At Engagement High, there are many teachers and staff who are alumni
of the school. They are personally invested in ensuring that our current students
have a positive relationship with them, and that they be successful. Constantly, we
are all sharing that we need to treat every student as if they are our own child.”

“We don’t keep anyone who is not an “A” teacher,” agreed the English
Department Chairperson. “To be an A teacher is to be collegial, not just to be a
good teacher in the classroom. We work very hard at common curriculum. We
have a lot of dialogue as teachers. We all know what’s going on at the school.
Part of that is relationship building and communication. We work really hard to
put the right people in the right places. People don’t necessarily stay if they
realize that a match isn’t good for them. We talk about our programs a lot, at
Leadership meetings, department meetings, and general staff meetings.”

The school’s Employee Recognition Committee gives annual awards; two Rising
Star awards for teachers with two-five years of teaching experience, three Instructional
Leadership Awards, and two Classified Employee awards. Every school in the district
has these awards and every recipient is honored at a district recognition dinner. Through
the human resource and symbolic lenses, all employees, regardless of position or years of
service, have the opportunity for recognition and quality work.
Underlying the conviction that it is important to hire and retain teachers who
believe in student engagement, comes the understanding that the teachers who are hired
are also qualified to teach the students. Between 2003 and 2006, Engagement High went
83
from 60.5% of its teachers being “Highly Qualified” to a 96% “Highly Qualified” rate.
CLAD certified teachers, those able to provide instruction to English Learners, went from
63% of the staff in 2004 to 77% in 2006. There are currently five Nationally Board
Certified teachers on staff, with 13 teacher-leaders who recently completed their
administrative services credential. These teachers serve in leadership positions in the
school, such as curriculum coordinator or WASC self-study coordinator and, therefore,
have a greater impact on their colleagues and the culture of the school than do others.
In addition to believing in student engagement, teachers at this school also
generally report positive feelings of self-efficacy and their ability to positively influence
their students. Mean scores from the teacher survey fell somewhere between the Agree
and Strongly Agree categories for the following statements: “I am able to influence the
attitudes my students have about school”, “I am able to help students care about their
schoolwork”, “If my students are struggling in class, I have the necessary skills to
increase their achievement”, “I can help my students think critically”, and “I can foster
student creativity”.
There is less agreement among teachers about whether or not they have enough
time and resources to get to know students personally (question #11), help families truly
in need (question #20), or in their ability to get through to the most difficult students
(question #17).

84
Table 12: Values Assigned and Mean Scores-by-Question, Teacher Survey

Instructions: Read the statements below and place
checkmarks in the appropriate columns.
4
Stron
gly
Agre
e
3
Agre
e
2
Neutr
al
1
Dis-
agree
Mean
Score

11. I am able to influence the attitudes my students
have about school.
44 108 12 3.1

12. I am able to help students care about their
schoolwork.
44 117 8 3.2

13. I have enough time to get to know the personal
characteristics and interests of all of my students.
40 75 12 11 2.6

14. If students stop trying in my class, I have the
capacity to motivate them to start trying again.
36 96 18 2 2.9

15. If students in my class are struggling, I have the
necessary skills to increase their achievement.
68 96 6 3.2

16. Resources and assistance are available to
students to meet their personal and academic needs.
92 63 14 2 3.2

17. I can get through to the most difficult students.
36 75 26 4 2.7

18. I can help my students think critically.
64 108 2 3.3

19. I can foster student creativity.
44 120 4 3.2

20. I can assist families in helping their children do
well in school.
32 66 40 4 2.7

School Culture
School culture, or school climate, was primarily analyzed through the use of an
observation template. Through the structural, political, human resource, and symbolic
lenses, a great deal of information about the school’s culture was obtained.
The school day at Engagement High School does not mirror that of most
comprehensive schools in the United States. Rather, depending on the day of the week,
students may begin their school day in a tutorial session with one of their academic
teachers, before attending another three classes that are 90 minutes in length. Another
85
day of the week, the student may attend all six or seven of his/her classes for 50 minutes
of instruction. Teachers, as well, do not engage in the same schedule every day of the
week. Two days of the week are set aside within the school’s bell schedule for morning
department meetings, interdisciplinary team meetings, and other faculty/staff meetings.
These are not considered “after school faculty meetings”, but are a regularly scheduled
activity within a staff member’s normal working day. Teachers may choose to hold
lunch time and after school one-on-one sessions with students, as do thousands of their
colleagues across the nation. However, the teachers at Engagement also hold these
sessions within the regular school day; all part of the structure that is included in the
school’s bell schedule.
The school has created a structure (structural lens) that focuses on student
success. It addresses this through a revised bell schedule. This schedule also reflects an
understanding and appreciation of the work and time that is required for teachers and
staff to help students become successful learners (the human resource lens). The
symbolic lens would note that the school not only states that student success is important,
but it acts, through the creation of this schedule, in ways that are visible and consistent
with the message it is trying to convey.
Engagement High School has also implemented a modified closed campus. What
this means is that ninth and tenth grade students remain on campus during the 35 minute
lunch period, while eleventh and twelfth grade students must earn the privilege of off-
campus lunches. They do this through good grades, good attendance, and good behavior.
This policy, when viewed through the symbolic lens, sends another message to the
students and school community, that student success through attendance, responsibility,
86
and academic performance, are rewarded. Politically, the community knows that the high
school students who convene on the school’s outskirts during the lunch hour have already
earned this status, and serve as positive role models for the school.
Schools throughout the western part of the United States are expected to have
agreed-upon student outcomes, as part of an accreditation process through the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges. Not only does Engagement High have ESLR’s,
they are painted in the hallways and breezeways throughout the campus. They are kept
freshly painted by the special needs class of students on the campus. In this way, the
special needs students are able to contribute to the whole school climate, as well as
interact with their regular education peers. Their role is both symbolic of the school’s
culture and a reinforcement of the ESLR’s.
Consistency and fairness; these two words best describe the culture and climate
around student discipline at Engagement. While there are some variations from room to
room, every teacher at the school is required to use a common set of prescribed classroom
discipline plans. These include parent notification on a third consequence with a referral
to the school’s in-house suspension room, the wearing of photo identification cards on
external clothing, and a school-wide dress code, and tardy policy. Not only do students
and parents/guardians sign an annual Statement of Student Responsibility, but the details
are reviewed in details with visits of every classroom by the Dean of Students and the
Guidance – Assistant Principal.
The Associated Student Body, just like so many of the programs and staff members
at the school, has achieved local and regional recognition. Engagement High School’s
ASB has been recognized by CASL and CADA for six consecutive years as one of the
87
best ASB’s in the state. They have an expanded student council, to ensure greater
representation of all groups on the campus. In addition to the council, the school has a
Congress, with representatives from all period 2 classes elected. In this way, two-way
communication occurs and all parties have the opportunity for input and feedback on the
school’s policies and events. The school’s 23 clubs cover a range of students’ interests
and talents. Community service occurs through the AVID program (40 hours/year is
required), Future Business Leaders of America, the Principal’s Honor Court, the National
Honor Society and the Soroptomists organization. The school also hosts an annual
volunteer fair, with over two dozen non-profit agencies participating. Annually, students
participate as volunteers at the Special Olympics and in Relay for Life. The school hosts
a Club Rush, similar to college fraternity/sorority Rush Week, where students are
recruited and encouraged to join and become engaged with their peers and in their school.
Athletics and the performing arts are an integral part of campus life for students and
the school community. More than 1,000 students participate in athletics each semester.
Two hundred students participate in the marching band and color guard; 75 students on
the hip hop dance team, and 40 students on pep squad. There is an active drama and
vocal music program in place as well.
Non-core, or elective, classes are encouraged and promoted. Engagement has rich
offerings in its business academy program. Students enrolled in the academy have
common English and social science courses, as well as business/technology courses.
Examples of the technology courses are computer keyboarding, Computer Information
Systems 1 and 2, Webpage Design, and CISCO certification. The students are enrolled in
this program for three years and serve in jobs and internships. Through their involvement
88
with the academy program, students work with employers, who often serve as mentors,
role models and as a positive influence in their lives. Each year, more than 70 juniors are
partnered with a local business mentor, making it one of the largest mentorship programs
in the state.
The local community college offers numerous courses each semester, and one in the
summer, on the high school campus for students to receive either college or high school
credit. In its most recent academic year, Spanish, English, Arts, Political Science and
Introduction to Chicano Studies were offered. In observing the school through the
political and human resource lenses, these partnerships with the business and community
college communities is strategic, benefiting students and the school’s reputation in the
larger community.
The Expanded Horizons office supports underrepresented students, (the majority at
Engagement High School), with academic and socio-cultural experiences throughout the
year. The director of the program coordinates the college center, and its specialist, who
organizes college fieldtrips, on-site admissions, college and outreach reps, a senior
breakfast, and weekly application workshops. The Expanded Horizons program also
sponsors FAFSA workshops for students, financial aid meetings for parents, scholarship
lists, and a quarterly newsletter.
Engagement, like most high schools, attempts to engage and involve
parents/guardians in their student’s lives. Parent bilingual newsletters are mailed home
and are also posted on the school’s website. Parent meetings are scheduled and held for
back-to-school night, AVID and the Gifted and Talented Education program. These are
fairly common approaches for reaching and involving the high school parent/guardian.
89
Engagement has also implemented some approaches that go above-and-beyond the
traditional parent outreach programs. Teleparent is one example. Recently implemented,
this telephone outreach program replaced the old absence auto dialer. Positive phone
calls, with detailed information available from each teacher, have been going home and
that has turned things around for many families. Says one parent and campus security
officer, “Teleparent is fantastic. Our attendance coordinator is phenomenal as well. Two
individuals are totally on top of the attendance for students, making phone calls to parents
and really going the extra mile.”
Another above-and-beyond example is Parent Education Day, held one Saturday
every fall. This event typically attracts up to 300 parents, and affords them the
opportunity to hear three presentations on a variety of topics including CAHSEE, internet
dangers, college information, demands of the GATE student, careers for the future, and
how to help students make the grade. All workshops are provided in English and
Spanish.
The Caught in the Act program symbolizes a school culture that recognizes and
promotes making good choices and “going the extra mile”. The program exists for
students and staff. Students who are “caught” are given a ticket. A monthly raffle of
movie tickets, ice cream tickets, and the like, are distributed to the various ticket holders
earned during the given month. Likewise, a Colleague Caught in the Act earns a school
shirt and a $30 certificate, along with public recognition at a school-wide faculty
meeting.
The Guided Study program is organized around supporting students who don’t have
a support system at home. Most of the programs at Engagement evolve over time and are
90
aligned to the identified needs of students. “When I first started at Engagement, we had
houses/tribes. A few of us became known as intervention teachers. From there, we built
a number of interventions at the schools. We have the right people working in it; now we
have about 50 teachers who are considered part of the Guided Study program.”
Teachers recognize that systematic data collection is part of any school program
focused on engagement and student success. The two Guided Study teachers took data
and shared it with the school leadership. The teachers were given three periods to work
with students initially. The second school year, they had four periods of students, with
five periods planned for the following school year. After their first year of
implementation, 87% of students were on target for graduation.

Discussion of Research Question #2
A high school culture such as the one described above is not typical of American
high schools. As one teacher states,
One of the things I’ve come to learn is that our school philosophy and culture is
not the norm. Our students feel like they can be here all hours of the day and this
is sometimes their first home, not just a home away from home. If you don’t
embrace that philosophy, people look at you in an odd way, both students and
adults. When our current superintendent used to be the principal here, it used to
be called Happy High. Now, with accountability, it can be more exhausting work,
but it’s also more rewarding.

When a school writes an accreditation report or applies for a special recognition
or award, the descriptions of the school’s Leadership Team meetings are the types of
experiences that are difficult, yet necessary, to capture. In research literature, this is
what is meant by the term culture-building. Through the political, structural, symbolic
and human resource lenses, it is clear that the school culture is extraordinarily powerful
91
for most staff members and at most levels within the school. To be included in the
“leadership” and decision-making of the school is empowering. Strategically, it is magic
to observe a Leadership Team meeting at Engagement High School. In a ten minute
period of time, thirty people could walk out of a meeting feeling positive AND knowing,
to a large degree, what is going on throughout their campus. It would be hard for a
teacher to go home at night and think he/she were the only one working hard on behalf of
students at Engagement High School.
Site-based management and shared leadership are both phrases often coined in
school and school district reports; rarely are they seen to be as visible and authentic as
they exist at Engagement High School. Shared leadership is not only supported
symbolically, but structurally, through the effective use of collaboration time, non-
teaching “release” periods for teachers to implement support/intervention programs, and
the expansive nature of the school’s leadership team.
The descriptions of the superintendent and her district office staff, in this study,
are almost unprecedented. Most research focused on student engagement leaves out any
discussion of the role of the superintendent or a school district’s central office. Although
it can be presumed that the school’s central office and school board plays a role in their
success or failure, the focus of the research on student engagement remains squarely on
the student, the school, along with some attention to parents/families and outside
influences.
In this study, there was a definite belief that the role of the superintendent, the
district office staff, and the school administration absolutely made a difference in the
culture, and level of engagement, of students at the school. The greatest influences
92
appeared to be their visibility, warm and open personalities, a focus on what was best for
students and a strong level of engagement on their part as well.
Lastly, unlike many other urban schools, who strive to just fill teaching positions
before the opening of a school year, Engagement High School is selective. The
administration and staff are clear that they have a particular type of teacher in mind when
an opening exists. And, when hired, they are willing to provide all types of formal and
informal support to ensure their success. However, when it is realized that the “fit” is just
not there, the teacher is either encouraged to pursue opportunities elsewhere or is simply
not invited back for the following year.

Research Question #3: What school factors contribute to high performance?
Many specific examples of practices that contribute to high performance are
described below. For purposes of simplicity, they have been categorized into the
following subheadings: administrative leadership, instruction and intervention, and
collaboration and teacher leadership.
Administrative Leadership
In addition to the school’s stated focus of high graduation and college access for
all students, the administrators at the school ensure that focus is renewed every year.
Each August, before the opening of the school year, the Leadership Team holds a retreat.
At this retreat, the team systematically reviews school data from the previous year.
STAR test results are analyzed, including significant subgroup and grade level analysis.
They look at on-target graduation rates for students by grade level, based on the number
of credits students have already obtained and their passage of the California High School
93
Exit Exam. They review the numbers and trends of students completing the “a-g”
requirement, which enables students to attend a four year university directly out of high
school. Lastly, the look at school/district generated data; the results of site-based
common assessments, senior project results, and course grade distributions. The team
develops school goals for the year, based on the data and the discussions that arise from
this in-depth analysis.
Since the Leadership Team is so inclusive and represents a third of the faculty, it
makes for an easy transition, once the school year begins, for departments to spend time
analyzing its own performance data (both ongoing and end of course assessments) and
plan for revisions to course pacing and teacher pedagogy.
Taking into account the findings of the data analysis, the administration aligns the
school’s budgets to its goals. For instance, as an example of the commitment to
increasing the numbers of students who complete the uc a-g curriculum, $40,000 in
categorical dollars are earmarked for AVID tutors and a College Center Specialist.
Engagement High School has more students eligible to attend four year universities than
other high schools in their district. In the most recent school year, they were also able to
secure close to 1.5 million dollars in financial aid for their graduating seniors planning to
attend post-secondary education.
Similarly, the school’s Title I money is used to target 310 students who scored
below basic on the English/Language Arts California Standards Test, far below basic on
Algebra 1 California Standards Test, non-CAHSEE passers, and those not on track to
graduate due to lack of credits. Ninth graders who score far below basic on California
Standards Tests are placed in a parallel reading or introduction to algebra course, in lieu
94
of an elective course they might otherwise take. The Guided Study program is focused
on entering ninth graders who failed two or more classes in middle school. The Guided
Study course, in the ninth grade, is an AVID-like course which prepares students
academically, socially, and emotionally to overcome their personal challenges in order to
achieve in school. Among the above courses, 200 ninth grade students receive support
within their school day. One student noted, “My GS teacher has my mom on speed-dial;
when I’m not in class, she calls her right away.”
The graduation requirements at Engagement High School are not common to
most schools in California. They include more units of academic coursework. While
four years of English and three years of social science are the norm, three years of math
and three years of science both exceed, by one year, what is the standard at even the most
high performing suburban high schools in the state. In addition, all students are required
to complete a computer proficiency requirement and senior project.
Student and teacher success is highlighted by the administration on a regular
basis. Evidence of this includes promotion and publicity at faculty meetings, student
recognition assemblies, newsletters, and the school and district websites.
Instruction and Intervention
One of the things that adults on the Engagement High School campus will tell you
is that “interventions are required, not invited, here”. What they mean is that student
failure is not acceptable. They do not allow students to choose to fail, as is the case in so
many secondary schools and classrooms across the country. The structure of support at
Engagement makes it very difficult for students to slip through the cracks.
95
This philosophy is founded in educational researcher Rick DuFour’s Whatever It
Takes program for student success. It is founded in the philosophy of creating systematic
interventions to ensure that every student demonstrates academic improvement. The
Whatever It Takes motto is found throughout the school and school district’s materials.
Over a dozen current staff members have traveled to Illinois, where the training and
model school exist. Engagement High’s Guided Study program, parallel Reading and
Introduction to Algebra classes, CAHSEE intervention, Summer Bridge, Campus Watch,
Link Crew, and Freshmen First Day are all part of this systematic system of
interventions.
The Summer Bridge course is designed for the at-risk student that just completed
the eighth grade and is recommended for retention in that grade. The course combines
English and math skills, time management, physical education, and a connection to at
least one extra-curricular program at the school. The class has enrollment has been as
high as 82 students in the past, but usually serves approximately 50 students. On the last
day of summer school, if students have attended every day, and passed the class, they
have a mini promotion celebration which acknowledges that they have earned the right to
attend high school. This same group of students becomes part of the Guided Study
program as freshmen.
The CAHSEE Intervention classes are very successful. Tenth grade pass rates for
first-time test-takers at the school are 79% for Math and 78% for English. Yet, for the
Class of 2006, only five seniors failed to graduate due to not passing CAHSEE (all were
ELD students offered a 5
th
year of school enrollment). Eleventh grade non-CAHSEE
passers are systematically placed in CAHSEE prep classes in lieu of an elective class;
96
students remain in this semester-length course until they have successfully passed the
exam. Students who have yet to pass both sections of the CAHSEE test are placed in the
support class first semester for which their results demonstrate strength. Seniors who
have yet to pass are placed in an intensive intervention course with small teacher/student
ratios of 1:10, with additional support from academic peer mentors.
Engagement High Schools’ AVID program has earned the distinction of a
National Demonstration Site. The Guided Study program has been described earlier in
the chapter. However, just in case there is a possibility of some one falling through the
cracks, PASS was established. PASS (Preparing All Students for Success) targets all
ninth and tenth grade students that are failing one or more core classes and are NOT
served by another program. Intervention specialists meet with PASS students each week
to identify the cause/s of failure, devise improvement plans, and monitor progress via
weekly progress reports.
The school’s alternating schedule has a built-in tutorial time. Every Wednesday
and Thursday, teachers are available in their classrooms from 8-9 am for tutorial.
Students use this time to retake tests, meet with study groups, ask clarifying questions,
and get individualized/small group support. Freshmen are required to attend tutorial;
their attendance is tracked via tutorial cards and is monitored by a different department
each quarter. Students may make up a tutorial after school in the library with several
teachers available each day.
Aside from systematic intervention, all core courses are aligned to state content
standards and frameworks. The process to get there included the in-depth analysis of the
standards and clarifying of essential ones. This was followed by the development of
97
common assessments and benchmarks aligned to the essential standards. Once the
assessments were complete, subject-alike teachers created pacing guides and course
binders of best instructional practices to ensure that all students follow a rigorous and
coherent standards-based curriculum.
Teachers have recently incorporated the use of Cornell note-taking across the
academic departments. Originally it was adopted school-wide for all freshmen teachers,
then sophomore teachers and, eventually, school-wide. As one math teacher described
her use of Cornell notes in the classroom, “I think it is helpful at the high school level.
Although I’m not a huge fan of direction instruction, Cornell notes helps students
organize themselves and makes review easier.”
Most teachers also engage students in some type of warm-up activity to get
students focused and in the right mindset for learning, as well as checking for
understanding throughout the class period. Examples observed include the use of
individual student whiteboards, a check-for-understanding thumbs up/thumbs down, pop
quizzes, and a “ticket out the door” for completing work successfully.
To ensure that grades are more a reflection of learning rather than a reflection of
effort, many departments at Engagement are giving greater weight to assessments (tests
and quizzes) as components of the achievement grade. Teachers utilize rubrics for all
major assignments. Teachers post daily objectives, standards, and the school’s Expected
School-wide Learning Results. Students who are not yet proficient at the end of a lesson
are reminded that they are expected to attend the week’s tutorial.

98
Collaboration and Teacher Leadership
Collaboration in schools is not limited to teacher collaboration. Engagement
strives to ensure clear parent communication and includes it as one of its goals in their
Single School Plan for Student Achievement. A student handbook is revised annually
and sent home through the mail. The bilingual parent newsletter is also mailed directly to
homes on a bimonthly basis. The school website includes the daily bulletin, parent
newsletter, school and athletic calendar, teachers’ websites (syllabi, homework, web
resources), and School Accountability Report Card. An auto dialer system communicates
to parents when a student misses any classes, resulting in a 95.58% attendance rate.
TeleParent, a web-based program, leaves automated messages in the home language
regarding achievement, behavior, and attendance.
Teacher collegial time is built into the alternating block schedule. Teacher
meetings are scheduled twice per week, in the morning, to revise common assessments,
review assessments results, and share best instructional practices. This work is
coordinated by 15 course leads in math, science, English, social science and foreign
language who, during subject-alike meetings, ensure that pacing guides and common
assessments are administered, results analyzed, and students in need of additional support
are identified. The school’s web-based data management program enables all teachers,
counselors, and administrators the ability to review aggregate and disaggregated
achievement and program data, and utilize test bank items for common assessments.
In addition to the collegial time available as the result of the alternating block
schedule, several teacher groups have common conference, or planning, periods. All
AVID elective teachers share a conference period. They are able to discuss vertical
99
articulation (planning from 9
th
through the 12
th
grade), and facilitate monitoring the
achievement of AVID students. Some departments also have two department chairs. In
these instances, the co-department chairs share a common conference period as well.
Through the use of site and district school funds, attendance at off-site
conferences and institutes is available for teachers. Monies are set aside for department
chairs to observe teachers within their departments to offer assistance and constructive
criticism. Other teachers are encouraged to participate in the peer observation process
also. Administrators conduct weekly walk-throughs to monitor curriculum and
instruction. Based on these observations, teachers are selected to share their best teaching
practices at general staff meetings throughout the year.
Teachers also have the opportunity to share best practices with their colleagues at
faculty meetings. Usually as a result of administration walk-throughs, teachers are asked
to share a particularly successful strategy or lesson with the rest of the faculty. During
the course of the year, teachers from every department have shared their successes. Also,
this allows both new and more veteran teachers to demonstrate their expertise and
commitment to quality instruction and student success.

Discussion of Research Question #3
As noted throughout the research, high performance and urban secondary
education are rarely linked. Where are they linked and what is happening at those
schools are the central questions of the study. The factors that contributed to high
performance at Engagement High School were strong administrative leadership, a focus
100
on required student intervention and consistent, standards-based instruction, as well as
teacher collaboration and leadership.
Focusing on people through a Human Resource lens is the administration’s first
and foremost priority. While it is clear that the focus of the school is about student
success, it is also clear that the structures and culture of the school supports the adults and
enables them to reach success with their students. Examples of this include the ongoing
public recognition and celebration of individual and team accomplishments, both
professionally and personally. Another example is the caring interactions observed
between and among the adults on the campus. The campus security and custodian
receive the same attention, warmth, and welcome greetings from the principal, as does
the superintendent of schools.
Students and adults are also supported for success through the structures in place
at Engagement High. The alternating block schedule supports both students and adults.
Through this structure, students have the time to receive additional support and
instruction from classroom teachers in smaller settings. This structure also provides
students choice, at least after their freshmen year, and helps them to take ownership of
their learning. The schedule supports adults in that is creates a structure for teachers to
meet with course-alike colleagues, department members, and the Leadership Team. The
structure also provides adults choices about how to best use their professional time on the
campus.
While is seems obvious that a school’s budget is allocated to support a school’s
goals, they are often unrelated in schools. On a yearly basis, the school administration is
required to complete a school plan and have it approved by the school’s governing body,
101
the school site council. Often, this requirement is handled as another one of many
administrative tasks to complete and get “checked off”. The school site council, likewise,
may read through this cumbersome twenty or thirty page document and see their role as
not much more than a rubber stamp of the administration. This is not the case at
Engagement High. The school plan and the alignment of budgets to the school’s goals is
the most strategic, or political, form of leadership. The use of the goals, along with the
inclusion of a research-based program like Rick DuFour’s, allows the school leadership
and staff to justify new courses, programs, and direction for the school.
Politically, the superintendent of schools and the board of Education have set the
bar higher in their community. The fact that the requirements for high school graduation
in this community are higher than they are in Beverly Hills sets a standard, and a
statement, that high performance is expected. The Whatever It Takes motto across the
district is another example of the very public message that high performance is expected
of each and every student in the school district.
Symbolic leadership is seen throughout the campus. Data analysis is an activity
for all adults to engage in. It begins first at the district office, then through the school’s
administration and Leadership Team, and then through academic departments and
individual teachers. The sharing of best practices at the faculty meetings sends a message
that the core of the work at the school is about teaching and learning. Lastly, the
recognition of Engagement High as a California Distinguished School, an AVID
Demonstration School, a Golden Bell award winner, along with individual recognitions
sends a message to all within the school’s community that success and high achievement
is expected and accomplished.
102
Findings by Theme
Given the statistical data and narrative responses and discussion of the research
questions above, a number of themes began to emerge and reappear throughout the case
study. These themes are described below.
Leadership Matters

Earlier in this chapter, a description of Engagement High School’s Leadership
meeting was noted and came under the heading of “Distributed Leadership and
Responsibility”. While one is able to observe distributed leadership at work through
these meetings, the underlying responsibility for this remains with the principal. She has
taken the model of high school department chair person meetings, and turned them into
an opportunity for circular feedback, professional development, and culture building.
Not only does she keep her staff informed about the “business of running a
school” (i.e. her secretary had recently had emergency surgery, requiring a substitute
secretary for the remainder of the school year), she holds teachers and staff accountable
for keeping everyone else informed about what is happening in the school from their
worlds/departments. Through the process of teachers and staff sharing their world, many
choose to share how lucky they feel to be part of the staff at Engagement High School.
There is an acknowledgement that new ideas are always embraced by the staff there. The
positive culture-building created by the principal turns even a veteran cynic into a
believer.
The principal’s ability to lead a Socratic Seminar with staff, for half of the hour-
long Leadership Team meeting, is evident. She is confident in facilitation skills, allowing
appropriate wait time for responses, and asking deeper questions to get at the heart of
103
teacher, and larger school, issues. She is viewed as a leader among leaders, and models
what she expects from her staff in the classroom. As an example, at one meeting,
teachers received their own “ticket out the door”, by submitting a yea or nay, for
participating in a new student mentor program for the following school year.
The principal acknowledges programs as well as people. An end of year meeting
included celebration of significant recognitions earned over the course of the school year.
They included being named a California Distinguished School, an AVID national
demonstration site, a Title I Academic Achievement Award and Newsweek magazine’s
listing as a Top 1200 High School in the Nation. Individuals recognized for achievement
included those who had recently earned a master’s degree, those who earned a Rising
Star or Instructional Leader award, a 35 year veteran math teacher and department chair
who had announced his retirement, newly elected department chairpersons, and teachers
joining the Guided Study and AVID teams.
The principal creates a happy, positive, and focused culture. The last faculty
meeting of the school year was held in the cafeteria. Raffle tickets were handed out as
one entered, and prizes from bookstores, coffee shops, and restaurant tickets were given
away at the end of the meeting. The upbeat, 1970’s disco tune “We are Family” was
playing loudly in the background. Food and drink were readily available with a huge
California Distinguished School cake and flag in the center.
The focused culture is clear. The staff survey of student discipline: “what went
well and what areas do we need to work on” were distributed. A Whatever It Takes
Progress Report was shared. The Whatever It Takes guiding questions were distributed,
along with measurable targets and interventions for each of the past three school years.
104
The new services and interventions for the following school year were also shared.
Representatives from PASS, Guided Study, AVID, Senior Projects, and Counselors
shared data reporting student successes and focus areas for the past and upcoming school
year.
As evident from these examples, the business of faculty meetings at
Engagement High School is not bogged down with the usual bureaucracy of handouts,
deadlines, and procedural announcements. The business of faculty meetings at
Engagement High School centers around sharing best practices, sharing results and
accomplishments, and making decisions based on data.
Interestingly, the Leadership Matters theme is reflected in leadership at the school
as well as the district level. The dynamic personality of a leader at the school site can be
a source of conflict for some central office administrators. On the contrary, the dynamic
leadership of the superintendent and those she surrounds herself with at all levels within
the school district came up throughout the interviews and observations of this study.
Seemingly, the alignment of strong, dynamic and consistent leadership makes a
significant contribution to the success of this and other high schools in this urban school
district.
Data-Driven Decisions

At Engagement High School, decisions are not made because “that’s the way
we’ve always done things around here”. The student master schedule does not look the
way it does because “we can’t get any of our teachers to teach the last period of the
school day”. Nor does employee seniority carry with it certain rights and privileges that
105
might be afforded elsewhere. Decisions at Engagement High School are made based on
data.
Does that mean that an innovative and popular teacher gets to create her own
program? Maybe. If she can make the case that it fits in to the “Whatever It Takes: how
professional learning communities respond when students don’t learn” model. Does that
mean that administrators and teachers are encouraged to be creative and courageous risk-
takers? Absolutely.
During one meeting, the principal is engaged with a discussion among department
chairpersons. The math department has identified incentives for students who increase
their California Standards Tests score for the year. Do other departments want to extend
these incentives? Have we talked with our middle schools about how they approach the
California Standards Tests and incentives for students?
Engagement High School is a Professional Learning Community. The guiding
questions, and answers, for the school are:
1. What do we want student to know and be able to do? California Content
Standards and Expected School-wide Learning Results
2. How will we know when they’ve accomplished this? Common Assessments,
Senior Projects, CAHSEE and California Standards Tests
3. What will we do, when despite our best efforts, students are not learning?
Assess, intervene, and monitor
Whatever It Takes

This theme, embedded in the work of Rick Dufour, is evident throughout the
campus. The theme focuses on the individual needs of students, whether those needs go
106
beyond the purely academic, it is part of the responsibility of the school to help. The
theme goes back to a philosophy more than a hundred year ago; that of John Dewey and
his belief in educating the whole child. The social, emotional, physical and academic
needs are addressed at Engagement High School. The PASS program, Guided Study, and
AVID are examples of programs that support this philosophy. The creation of a summer
bridge and parallel math and reading classes are examples of course-taking approaches to
this philosophy.
While programs and courses address the Whatever It Takes theme, the every day
practices in the regular classroom do that as well. The content classes also have a
“however long it takes to learn the material” theme. Instead of a student failing to earn a
passing grade on a paper or test, students are encouraged to retake exams until they are
able to demonstrate their learning and pass. They are encouraged, and sometimes
mandated, to attend the morning tutorials, which focus on the “however long it takes”
approach.
Putting the Right People in the Right Places

Urban high schools can not be successful with mediocre staff. The school district
sends a strong message that they are willing to pay for quality through one of the most
competitive salary/benefits package in Southern California. Administrative and teacher
vacancies receive dozens and dozens of qualified applicants each year. However,
individuals are also often recruited by the leadership in the school and at the district
office. There is a focus of encouraging leadership from the bottom-up, and in hiring
graduates of the local community schools.
107
As well as quality, the administrative team at Engagement High School believes
in putting “the right people in the right places”. Not every teacher is best suited to serve
as the cheerleader for a particular program. Some teachers are better at the data analysis
side of the teaching business. Some have a natural talent for working with at-risk youth.
The theme of putting the right people in the right places came up in almost every
interview conducted in the study. Leading a department, joining the AVID team,
working as a Senior Project teacher, coaching a sport, and a number of other strengths are
all needed at a high achieving urban comprehensive high school. No one person can do it
all, nor can the success of a school rest on the laurels of a few dynamic people. Matching
people with their strengths is grounded in the belief that when individuals are encouraged
and feel rewarded for doing meaningful work, they are more productive. And, productive
and happy teachers make for a much greater likelihood of student success.
Creating and Believing in Your Own Press

Engagement High School, and its school district, does much to celebrate and
promote its successes at each and every turn. The slick, all-color, ten page promotional
brochure, entitled “Whatever It Takes: Guide to Instructional Direction for the Successful
High School District”, is located in the front lobby of Engagement High School’s
administration building. The front pocket includes the district vision, “The Successful
School District will provide all students with an engaging, quality, standards-driven
instructional program delivered by a well-trained staff resulting in improved student
achievement.” It also states the “Steps in Realizing the Vision: #1: Common
Instructional Materials, #2: Site Based Interim Assessments, #3: District-wide Quarterly
Common Assessments, #4: Implementing the Pyramid of Interventions. The rest of the
108
publication goes on to describe these steps in greater detail, through narrative examples
of what these steps look like in-practice at the school setting. It also includes a section on
why the school district has chosen to utilize this four-step strategy for success; namely,
they’ve seen it work.
Headlines from the Parent Newsletter include a “Message From the Principal” (in
English and Spanish), “City Foundation”, “Engagement High School Works to Promote
Respect and Diversity”, “CAHSEE Information”, “Keeping Our Campus Clean”,
“Tutorial Schedule”, “Engagement High School Vision and Mission”, “Engagement High
School – Top 5% in the Nation as Identified by Newsweek Magazine”, “Engagement
High School – Now a California Distinguished School”, and “Engagement Shows the
Greatest Attendance Rates in the School District”.
Another slick, all color, four page newspaper brochure published quarterly by the
school district has the following bi-lines, “Successful School District Students Show
Academic Progress as API Scores Rise”, “Three Successful School Students Named Top
Scholars Nationwide”, “Superintendent’s Message”, “Teacher X Named Successful
School District Teacher of the Year”, “Successful School Board Nominated for Magna
Award”, “Engagement High School Academy Recognized for Achievement by the
County”, “Successful School District Hosts California Regional High School Summit”,
“Teleparent Enhances Communication Home”, “Link Crew Expanded to all District
Schools”, and “Staff and Students Host Parent Summit at Engagement High School”.
Engagement High School’s mission is clear; success for each and every student.
They truly believe in that mission and in the publicity that encompasses that mission.

109
CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
While much literature exists on the topic of student engagement, there is much
less literature on the characteristics of high performing urban high schools. This case
study attempts to search for “what works” in linking student engagement and successful
urban high schools.
This study examined student engagement, and the factors connected to both
engagement and achievement, at one high performing urban high school in Los Angeles
County. The purpose of the study was to determine if there was a higher level of student
engagement than that of the national profile; and identify the school factors that
contributed to such engagement. Given that there were limited differences in
engagement between the case study school and the national profile, other school factors
that contributed to high achievement of students at this school were identified and
examined.
The case study was one of six similar studies being conducted by doctoral
candidates in the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. It
involved a mixed-method, qualitative case study design. The qualitative data research
was gathered through document review, observations, teacher surveys, and staff
interviews. The observations were documented through an instrument utilizing Bolman
and Deal’s “Four Frames” (2003) approach to analyzing organizations. The teacher
survey included some questions that correlated directly with the High School Survey of
Student Engagement, as well as questions that were related to teacher efficacy. The
110
quantitative data research, or secondary data source, was obtained through the High
School Survey of Student Engagement, developed by the University of Indiana. What
follows is a summary and analyses of the findings of the above research.

Research Questions
The research questions were developed by the thematic dissertation team. The
study investigated the following questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high
school, as measured by the national High School Survey of Student
Engagement? How does it compare to the national profile?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing
urban high schools?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?

Summary of Findings
A number of themes emerged from this case study that relate to the success of
students at Engagement High School. The themes or factors that seem to make the
greatest difference are leadership, data-driven decision making, a “whatever it takes”
approach to intervention and support, hiring the best people and assigning them the
“right” work, and creating and believing in one’s own press.
A summary of the student results from the High School Survey of Student
Engagement follows:
111
• The average student enrollment at a HSSSE participating school was 1,010.
Only 11 schools had an enrollment over 2,000. Engagement High School, with an
enrollment approaching 3,000, is on the far end of the spectrum for school size
compared to the national profile.
• The majority of the schools from the HSSSE national profile were located in the
Midwest, with only one third of schools classified as urban.
• Students were asked to identify themselves by race/ethnicity, showing a far
greater difference between the national profile and the student profile at
Engagement High School. The national profile included 54% White, 9% African
American, 7% Hispanic, 7% Multiracial, 4% Asian and 16% who preferred not to
respond. The Engagement High School profile included 5% White, 3% African
American, 62% Hispanic, 12% Multiracial, 3% Asian and 14% who preferred not
to respond.
• Another area of comparison between the national profile and Engagement High
School is the percentage of students on Free/Reduced Lunch and the percentage
of students in which English is the main language spoken at home. Twenty one
percent of students in the national profile participate in the Free/Reduced Meal
program, while 49% of students at Engagement High School do so. Seventy nine
percent of students in the national profile report that the English language is
mostly spoke at home, while only 54% of students at Engagement High School
report the same.
• While students at Engagement High School, in general, had only slightly higher
levels of engagement than students from the national profile, the twelfth graders
112
reported much greater engagement at Engagement High School. Students there
stated that the school contributed greatly to helping them understand themselves
better, work well with others, treat people with respect, learn independently, and
develop clear career goals.
• Engagement High students report higher positive responses with regard to having
a voice in decisions at the school, being treated fairly, having their opinions
respected at the school and caring about the school.
• Engagement High students appear to be more motivated by a desire to get good
grades and by teachers who encourage them.
• Engagement High students report spending more time preparing for standardized
tests.
• Engagement High students report less academic preparation – writing a five page
paper, attending class with assignments completed, essay questions, making
connections from one class to another.
• Engagement High students report not having adequate skills to complete their
work.
• Engagement High students like being in school AND they want to stay out of
trouble.

While there are some differences between the engagement of students nationally
and those at Engagement High School, only a few of those differences are statistically
significant. What follows are the school factors that appeared to make a difference in the
academic success of students at this school.
113
Leadership is found throughout the school and school district. The superintendent
is well-known and well-respected by students, parents, and the staff. Beyond being well-
known and well-respected, she is liked. The school’s constituency believes that she cares
and can and will ensure that each student will succeed in her school district. The same
can be said of Engagement’s principal. She “came up” through the school district and is
a trusted community member.
The leadership team at the school is made up of thirty individuals. With so much
shared and trusted leadership, issues and data are discussed, decisions are made, and
policies are all communicated in a very seamless and transparent process. Shared
leadership is not only supported symbolically, but structurally, through the effective use
of collaboration time, non-teaching “release” periods for teachers to implement
support/intervention programs, and the expansive nature of the school’s leadership team.
Part of the leading a school is identifying what areas to focus on to improve
performance. The principal at Engagement was very clear that meetings and
collaboration time are to be spent analyzing data and making decisions based on data. As
the school has focused on becoming a professional learning community over the past
several years, there are three guiding questions (and answers) that impact their daily
work:
1. What do we want students to know and be able to do? California Content
Standards and Expected School-wide Learning Results
2. How will we know when they’ve accomplished this? Common Assessments,
Senior Projects, CAHSEE and California Standards Tests
114
3. What will we do, when despite our best efforts, students are not learning? Assess,
intervene, and monitor

The Whatever It Takes approach is really about ensuring that all students achieve
at high levels. Engagement’s approach ensures that student learning is monitored on a
timely basis and, if they need additional time and support, they get it. What makes this
support different than what is offered in many schools is that the support is required, not
invited. The block schedule, Guided Study and AVID programs, parallel Reading and
Introduction to Algebra classes, CAHSEE intervention, Summer Bridge, Campus Watch,
Link Crew, and Freshmen First Day are all part of this systematic program of
interventions.
Engagement High hires good people and supports them through a mentor
program, peer collaboration, and matching their strengths to the courses they teach and
programs they work with. Salaries are high, sending a message that quality teachers are
valued. There is a focus of encouraging leadership from the bottom-up, and in hiring
graduates of the local community schools. In this way, students at the school are able to
see “themselves” in the adults on campus.
Lastly, the school and the school district spend time, dollars, and energy on great
public relations. The district office regularly puts out press releases reporting on student,
adult, and school recognitions, growth in performance data, and implementation of new
or expanded school programs. The district and school websites are replete with
information for current or prospective parents, community members, and/or educators.
115
Engagement High School’s community is inundated with positive messages about the
students and their achievements.

Implications for Practice
As a result of the above findings, a number of implications for practice emerge.
The first implication is that it really does “take a village” to reach all students in a large,
urban, comprehensive high school. Ensuring that parents, students, teachers, site
administrators, other site staff, and the district office are on board with the overall
direction and specific strategies at the school are essential to student success. The
school’s structural, symbolic, human resource, and political activities and policies must
all support this key value.
Another implication for practice is that schools should create interventions and
support for students based on data. Once the data has been analyzed, a planned, coherent,
and required series of interventions must be implemented for students. Schools should
not offer a myriad of approaches for a myriad of problems, but rather focus on those
areas within the school program that can provide the greatest difference in success. Once
that is achieved, the school must continue to dig deeper and work on the “harder to
impact” issues.
A third implication for practice is the importance of creating a maintaining a
positive school culture. Students who like being in school, and want to stay out of
trouble, like those at Engagement High, are much more likely to “buy in” to a school’s
mission and purpose; namely, educating students. Students are also more motivated by
teachers who encourage them. Developing strong, positive relationships between and
116
among students and adults is a key component of a positive high school culture. Hiring
good people, providing structures to support them, and encouraging leadership and
growth opportunities are key ingredients in sustaining a positive school culture.
Lastly, schools can never over-sell their success. Too often, student and school
success is not shared. The first step for school leaders is to have internal communication
systems and programs that recognize and reward student and adult success. The next step
for school leaders is to ensure that these successes are well publicized within the parent
and larger community. Utilizing parent organizations and the business community are
important components of the public relations blitz.

Recommendations for Future Research
Much of the research, and most of the media attention, on urban high schools
focus on poor student performance, unsafe environments, high teacher burnout and
equally high student dropout rates. This study, however, along with several others from
this university, focuses on other factors; namely, high performing urban high schools that
contain highly engaged and highly successful urban students.
While this study is one of six other research studies of a thematic group focusing
on high achieving urban high schools, the benefit of further research will provide
teachers, administrators, and elected officials with a greater understanding of successful
urban schools and the strategies and resources needed to ensure the success of greater
numbers of public school students.
The following recommendations for further research are a result of the emergent
themes found in this study:
117
1. Further analysis of student engagement at other comprehensive urban high
schools is needed. A comparison between urban high school students, in the aggregate,
against the national profile data might provide some consistency of findings, thus
enabling practitioners with greater implications for practice.
2. Case studies that include student perception in the analysis. This study limited
interviews to the adults on the campus. However, by including students, they would be
able to provide insight into attitudes relating to hard work and needed support, feelings of
school safety, and how they affect student success.
3. Further research on the impact of district office personnel and school board
involvement, support, and leadership, as it pertains to student achievement, is needed. It
was clearly identified as a component in this case study. The degree to which that is the
case in other schools or school districts is unclear.

118

REFERENCES

Amerein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student
learning. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (18).

Ansell, S & McCabe, M. (2003). Off target. Education Week on the Web. (January 9,
2003). Retrieved from website:
http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc03/templates/article.cfm?slug=17target.h22

Barth, R. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Barton, P. (2006). The dropout problem: losing ground. Educational Leadership.
(February, 2006), 14-18.

Bell, J. (2001) High performing, high poverty schools. Leadership, (September/October
2001), 8-11.

Black, P. & William, D. (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan,(October 1998) 139-148.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & William, D. (2004). Working inside the
black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, (September
2004) 9-21.

Boaler, J. (2004) Promoting equity in mathematics classrooms: Important teaching
practices and their impact on student learning. Text of a lecture given at ICME,
Copenhagen.

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistitry, choice, and
Leadership (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bracey, G. (2001). The 11
th
Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi
Delta Kappan, 83(2).

Bracey, G. (2003). The 13
th
Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi
Delta Kappan, (October 2003) 148-164.

Bushman, J., Goodman, G., Brown-Welty, S., & Dorn, S. (2001). California testing: how
principals choose priorities. Educational Leadership, (September, 2001), 33-36.

Bybee, R.W. (1997) The sputnik era: why is this educational reform different from all
other reforms. Text of a paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences, Center
for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Symposium. Paper retrieved April 13, 2007
from website www.nationalacademics.org/sputnik/bybee1.htm
119

Chiappuis, S. & Stiggins, R. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational
Leadership (September, 2002), 40-43.

Clark, R. (2002). Building student achievement: In-school and out-of-school factors.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Policy Issues, December, 2002, (13),
11-21.

The Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (1990) America’s choice:
high skills or low wages! National Center on Education and the Economy. Rochester:
New York.

Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in California (March 24, 2005) The Civil Rights
Project: Harvard University.

Cosner, S. & Peterson, K. (2003). Building learning community. Leadership, May/June
2003, 12-16.

Cotton, K. Educating urban minority youth: research on effective practices. North West
Regional Educational Laboratory – School Improvement Research series. Paper
retrieved June 6, 2006 from website http://www.nwrel.org/scped/sirs/5/topsyn4.html

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

DeMoss, K. (2002). Leadership styles and high-stakes testing. Education and Urban
Society, 35 (1), 111-131.

Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D.B. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on
schools and student who don’t fit them. Teachers College Record, 103 (4), 525-547.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional
learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington: National
Educational Services.

The Education Trust (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools
accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, D.C.

Gall M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: an introduction. (7
th

ed.). San Francisco: Allyn and Bacon.

Gardner, DP & Others (1983) A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. An
open letter to the American people. A report to the nation and the secretary of education.
National Commission on Educational Excellence. Department of Education:
Washington, D.C.
120

Goldin, C. (1999). A brief history of education in the United States [Electronic version].
NBER Working Paper No. 119 (August).

Guthrie, J., Schafer, W.D., & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and
balanced instruction on the NAEP. The Journal of Educational Research, 94 (3), 145-
162.

Hall, D. & Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: a state by state
look at student achievement patterns. Education Trust, March 2006.

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58 (6), 6-11.

High School Survey of Student Engagement (2005). What Can We Learn From High
School Students. Retrieved on October 1, 2006 from
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pd/hssse_2005_report.pdf

High School Survey of Student Engagement: Winter 2007 Report. Results for
Engagement High School. Indiana University.

Klem, A. & Connell, J. (2004) Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, D. & William, D. (2005) Assessment minute by minute,
day by day. Educational Leadership, (November 2005), 19-24.

Libbey, H.P. (2004) Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding,
connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health,74 (7), 274-283.

Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years. Review of Educational Research. 70 (3) 153-
184.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action.
Alexandra, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McCarthy, M. & Kuh, G. (2006). Are students ready for college? What student
engagement data say. Phi Delta Kappan (May 2006).664-669.

McTighe, J. & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational
Leadership, (November 2005), 10-17.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education statistics tables and
figures. Paper retrieved August 5, 2006 from nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05_tf.asp

121
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: the
imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
teaching for america’s future. Paper retrieved July 22, 2006 from website
www.teaching-point.net/Exhibit

Newman, F.M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational
Leadership (February, 1989) 34.

Rose, L.C., Gallup, A.M. (2007). The 39
th
annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the
Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan (September, 2007).

Sagor, R. (2002). Lessons from skateboarders. Educational Leadership, (September
2002) 34-38.

Saphier, J. & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational
Leadership, 42(6), 67-74.

Schmoker, M. & Marzano, R. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based
education. Educational Leadership (March 1999).

Skinner, E. & Belmont M. (1991). A longitudinal study of motivation in school:
Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement. University of Rochester,
New York.

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive
contstruct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Voke, H. (2002). Motivating students to learn. InfoBrief, February 2002 (28).
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

WestEd. (2004). Student achievement in California: steady progress made, faster
improvement needed. Paper retrieved June 1, 2006 from
www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/753

WestEd. (2004). California’s graduation rate: the hidden crisis. Paper retrieved June 1,
2006 from www.wested.org/online_pubs/cde.gradrateII.pdf

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandra, Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

122
APPENDIX A
OBSERVATION TEMPLATE
ORGANIZED BY FOUR FRAMES
(BOLMAN & DEAL, REFRAMING ORGANIZATIONS, 2003)

The use of this Observation Template will assist the observer in organizing information
collected in observations. The information collected may be used to validate other data
obtained through interviews and questionnaires. (The actual Template is one sheet per
frame).

Structure
(Consider: Interaction between staff and administration,
familiarity with school vision, recognition programs for staff and
students, leadership style, selection of substitutes, visible
standards, visible agendas and objectives, student work displayed
in classrooms, instructional practices, levels of questioning, types
of assessments utilized to evaluate student work)

Human Resources
(Consider: Level of teachers engaged in school activities,
interaction of administration with students and staff, environment
in staff meetings, how or if organization is tailored to people, use
of conflict management, empowerment of employees)
Political
(Consider: Cleanliness of campus, display of student work and
important events, sense of safety and security, students on task
with or without visitors)

Symbolic
(Consider: School spirit among staff and students; interaction
between community, parents, staff and students; visibility of
administration throughout campus; friendliness of office staff
with visitors; learning and social events are evident and
celebrated by rituals and events)

123
APPENDIX B
Teacher Survey of Student Engagement

This survey asks you to respond to statements about your students and your interactions with them.
The information you provide will help with a case study of student engagement at your school.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Please indicate the content area(s) in which you teach:
Career/Technical English History Math
PE Science Visual/Performing Arts

Instructions: Read the statements below and place
checkmarks in the appropriate columns.

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

1. My students attend class with readings and/or
assignments completed.

2. My students take pride in their schoolwork.

3. My students have the skills and abilities to
complete their assignments.

4. My students value the rewards (grades, awards,
etc.) that they get at school for their work.

5. My students think it is important to make good
grades.

6. My students care about their school.

7. My students place a high value on learning.

8. My students have a voice in classroom decisions.

9. My students put forth a great deal of effort when
doing their schoolwork.

10. My students are challenged to do their best work
at school.

11. I am able to influence the attitudes my students
have about school.

12. I am able to help students care about their
schoolwork.

13. I have enough time to get to know the personal
characteristics and interests of all of my students.

14. If students stop trying in my class, I have the
capacity to motivate them to start trying again.

124

15. If students in my class are struggling, I have the
necessary skills to increase their achievement.

16. Resources and assistance are available to
students to meet their personal and academic needs.

17. I can get through to the most difficult students.

18. I can help my students think critically.

19. I can foster student creativity.

20. I can assist families in helping their children do
well in school.

125
APPENDIX C
Case Study
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

Background

In the use of the Interview Instrument, we plan to interview the principal, assistant
principals, a few counselors, a campus security person, a secretary, teacher department
chairs representing a full spectrum of courses taught on the campus, and a few district
office personnel. The questions came directly from the research questions for our case
study. The follow-up questions pertain to the areas (i.e. teacher practices) that the
research has identified as having an impact or making a difference.

Interview Script

Investigator: Hi. My name is . As you know, I am here at
High School to conduct a study that looks at the characteristics of your
school that have made it successful. I'd like to ask for your thoughts on that topic
specifically. Any information you provide me will remain confidential. If at any point
during our conversation you would prefer to not answer any question, just let me know
and we will move on to the next question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Your school has been identified as a high performing urban high school.
What school factors do you think contribute to this identification?

2. What school factors contribute to student engagement at this school? (define
student engagement if necessary)

(a) follow-up -- Are there specific programs that this school has in place that
contribute to higher student engagement?
(b) follow-up -- Are there specific teacher practices that contribute to higher
student engagement?
(c) follow-up -- Are there any aspects to the school culture or school
atmosphere that contribute to higher student engagement?
(d) follow-up -- Who are the formal and informal leaders at your
school?
(e) follow-up -- What do both the formal and informal leaders at the school
do to contribute to higher student engagement?

3. Does the central/district office play a role in High School
becoming a high performing urban high school? If yes, please describe.

Again, thank you for participating in this study.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract While there is considerable research on the elements needed for successful schooling, the research is more limited for what is needed to create and sustain successful urban high schools. However, there is a growing body of research that suggests that high performing urban schools have certain factors in common, including solid leadership, a positive and supportive school culture and good teaching. Student engagement has also been identified as a key factor related to school academic success. This mixed methods case study attempts to link student engagement with identified school practices that result in high student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

PDF

Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs

PDF

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

PDF

Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school

PDF

A study of academic success with students of color: what really matters? Lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

PDF

Outperforming nontraditional urban school: a high school case study

PDF

Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lesson from a high performing high poverty urban elementary school

Asset Metadata

Creator Alpern, Annette V. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/21/2008

Defense Date 05/29/2008

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,student engagement

Place Name California (states)

Language English

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

Creator Email doctornettie@msn.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1364

Unique identifier UC1117244

Identifier etd-Alpern-20080721 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-193926 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1364 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Alpern-20080721.pdf

Dmrecord 193926

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Alpern, Annette V.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu