Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A STUDY OF AN OUTPERFORMING URBAN HIGH SCHOOL AND THE
FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO ITS INCREASED ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT WITH ATTENTION TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT
by
Juliette Avery Ett
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Juliette Avery Ett
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Benjamin Sharpe Avery who
never allowed me to give up on education. It was his dying wish that I pursue this
degree as he truly believed that education and knowledge were the great equalizers.
“There is no limit to what one can accomplish with an education,” was a mantra my
father lived by.
To my children Benjamin and Lauren, thank you for your support and
technological savvy in helping this dinosaur leap into the 21
st
century. I knew I
could never quit with you guys waiting to yell at me for not “realizing my potential.”
My words truly came back to haunt me!
Most importantly, my profound thanks to my dear husband, Michael for all of
the boring weekends watching me read and complete assignments. You never
complained, and when times were the darkest, you were my rock, as you have
always been. I could never have done this without you, and I never want to do
anything without you. You are my life. Thank you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Stuart Gothold for serving as my
dissertation/committee chair. He took me on a journey through a procedure which
was absolutely foreign to me and successfully directed ten students through research
and data analysis. He guided by questioning our methods and reasons, and his
suggestions made my manuscript stronger than I thought possible. Thank you for
your guidance through my periods of frustration. You truly helped me to revisit my
thoughts and look for the glass to be “half-full.” You assured us that we would
finish on time, and you did not let us down.
Thank you to Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Kathy Stowe for also serving on
my committee. Your comments and concerns were gentle and most appreciated. It
was wonderful to have such experts guiding me through the defense, and your
experience made me a better researcher.
A special thanks to Christine Clark and the faculty, clerical staff, and parents
of John F. Kennedy High School for their tireless assistance in my behalf. Chris
opened the school to me; nothing was off limits. I was able to interview anyone who
was willing, and she was always available to fill in details and provide commentary
and school history when needed. I shadowed her for two days and found a true
respect for the job an exceptional Principal does. She was everywhere at once and
wore many hats. She met every obstacle with a calm demeanor, and there was never
a complaint. The Kennedy family is very lucky to have this amazing woman as their
leader.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ……………………………………………………………. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………………… iii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………… v
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………….. vi
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY …………………………… 1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ………………………… 23
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ………………………………………… 66
Figure 1. Conceptual Model ……………………………………………… 69
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ………………………………………………… 89
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………. 157
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………. 176
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………….. 183
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. API Base Scores and Growth ………………………………….. 94
Table 2. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for
Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) by Program
(Combined 2006) for (All Grades) John Q. Public High School ………… 96
Table 3. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for
Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA)by Program
(Combined 2007) for (Grade 10) John Q. Public High ………………….. 97
Table 4. Mean Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores …………………………. 98
Table 5. Dropouts ……………………………………………………….. 100
Table 6. Graduation Rates ………………………………………………... 101
vi
ABSTRACT
The American educational system, once a bastion of excellence, has lost the
reputation for excellence. The modern high school, created with the hopes of
educating millions to excel in a global workforce, fails one-third of its students.
With a high school completion rate which ranks tenth in the world, the United States
once again looks for reform to answer these staggering statistics. The passage of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002, made reform a reality as school districts across
the country scrambled to enact changes to meet the stringent accountability
requirements imposed by NCLB. In 2003-2004 almost 5% of students enrolled in
high schools left without completing a program. Of these students, the dropout rate
was four times higher for those from low income families. Race and ethnicity were
also contributing factors with Hispanics dropping out at 8.9%, African Americans
5.7% and White students at 3.7%. This represents an emerging pattern as minority
students from low income homes are major contributors to the high school dropout
rate.
While high school has remained remarkably unchanged for the past fifty
years, the students today in no way resemble students from years past. They are more
socially and intellectually sophisticated, and keeping them engaged in school is
difficult. Students participating in a national survey responded that high school
could be improved, while one-third of those planning to graduate felt high school
vii
was ‘easy.’ These students also stated they would work harder if the courses were
more challenging and interesting.
It would appear that educators, armed with student responses such as those
described in the national survey, would initiate reform to help the modern high
school achieve success for all of its students. There remains, however, a percentage
of students attending urban high schools which are not vibrant, multicultural learning
havens. These schools have a responsibility to help all students achieve their full
potential, but this vision has not become a national reality.
While students in urban high schools have underperformed academically in
comparison to their suburban counterparts, there are some high schools that have
achieved significant academic gains when compared to schools of similar
demographics. It was unclear what contributed to high performance in these schools,
so a study of high performing urban schools was conducted to identify the factors
that contribute to student achievement and academic success. In addition to
identifying factors present in high performing urban high schools, it was important to
determine if a link existed between student engagement and achievement in these
schools.
A case study, in conjunction with a University of Southern California
thematic research group, studied successful high schools in southern California to
identify urban factors and to discover the elements which make these schools high
performing. Using the research questions of student engagement and identifying
other factors of success, a conceptual model was created to serve as the rubric to
viii
guide data collection. The secondary data supplied by the Indiana University
instrument, the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) helped define
the parameters of engagement. The focus of the study was on urban schools because
while the HSSSE provided information about students in high schools across
America, there was a dearth of relevant information about the students in urban high
schools. It was necessary to study this population to ascertain if all high performing
high schools, suburban and urban, contribute part of their success to student
engagement.
1
CHAPTER 1:
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
American education has lost its reputation for excellence. The institution
which created the modern public high school fails to graduate one-third of its
students. The United States which only a few short decades ago dominated the
world scene with students of incredible ability, now boasts high school completion
rates which rank tenth in the world (Barton, 2005). Education has repeatedly been
called upon to offer reforms to the call of a changing society. These reforms, some
successful while others have failed, have addressed issues from setting graduation
standards to increasing rigor so that students graduate with the skills to compete in
the global workplace. With the introduction of President Bush’s promise of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB), the states were expected to produce high standards and success
for all students. California was ahead of the game with policies in place for
standards, assessment, and accountability. Since all schools are held to the same
standards, urban schools are operating at a disadvantage with scores on state tests far
below those of their suburban counterparts.
High school is the final step for students in the K-12 experience. This period
not only challenges students to showcase their academic and social skills, but they
must hone this knowledge in preparation for the adult world. The success or failure
of students is a direct reflection on the educational system in America. How well
high school graduates are prepared for the future is a statement of how successful the
2
K-12 system operates. Districts full of high achieving college bound students verify
the effectiveness of public education, while many urban schools witness high levels
of failure and drop-outs. It would appear that the high school education varies across
demographic and attendance boundaries. In 2000, students living in families with
incomes in the lowest 20 percent of all incomes were six times as likely as their
peers from families in the top 20 percent of income distribution to drop out of high
school (Kaufman, Alt, & Chapman 2000).
There are more students expected in American schools than ever before.
Public elementary and secondary enrollment reached 48.3 million in 2004, and is
expected to increase to an all-time high of 50 million in 2014 with the West
experiencing the largest increase (NCES, 2005). A concerned educational
community must address equitable achievement in every high school.
Challenges in High School
According to the National Dropout Rates in 2004, the American high schools
are failing an impressive percentage of their students. The event dropout rate
measures the percentage of both private and public high school students who leave
between the beginning of one school year and the next without earning a diploma or
equivalent degree such as a General Education Degree (GED) certificate. It
specifically targets youths between 15 and 24 who dropped out of grades 10-12 in
the twelve-month period (NCES, 2007). This data is vital because it represents the
success or failure of high schools. In the twelve month period of October 2003-
2004, five out of every 100 students enrolled, left without completing a program.
3
While there was no measurable difference in the gender of the dropouts, family
income was a factor. The dropout rate was four times higher for students from low
income families. Race and ethnicity were also considered with Hispanics dropping
out at 8.9%, African Americans 5.7% and White students at 3.7% (NCES, 2007). A
pattern is emerging as minority students from low income homes are major
contributors to the high school dropout rate. It appears that the ethnic/racial minority
students are not achieving, but the schools are accountable for the success of every
student.
Schools still resemble the old factories of the 1800’s, and many educational
opponents accuse them of using the same methods with bells, departmentalized
content, and teachers herding dozens of faceless bodies in and out of the classroom
every fifty minutes. If we stop to look at those faces, we see more students of racial
and ethnic minorities. The percentage of public school students who are racial/ethnic
minorities increased from 22% in 1972 to 42% in 2003, due primarily to the growth
in the Hispanic enrollment. In 2003, minority public school enrollment at 54%
exceeded White enrollment of 46% in the Western States (NCES, 2005). Despite a
century of comprehensive reform efforts, the high school today operates in much the
same manner as it did one hundred years ago, but with the shift in our racial/ethnic
population, one must question if all students in grades 9-12 have been satisfactorily
prepared for the future.
4
The History of Educational Reform
Reform began in the 1900s with a need to educate the masses to provide a
viable workforce for the growing industrial society. Reform was based on political
influence. Those in power from 1900-1950 represented a majority of white men who
held key educational positions and shaped policy for schools across the country.
They ran a program based on the philosophy that the schools should shape the course
of social evolution. A Nation at Risk (1983) taught America that schools must have
high expectations for all students and proposed that schools and parents must expect
the best effort from their students with no excuse for poor achievement. The report
addressed students and directed them to try their best because education was their
responsibility. It further expressed the need for students to be held accountable for
their ultimate success or failure stating that educational reform, accountability,
achievement, and success would remain elusive, or at best minimal, if American
students did not assume responsibility for their education.
Standards-Based Education in the United States
Federal and state education policy is driven by the conviction that every
student, regardless of ethnicity or ability, can achieve academic rigor, when
accompanied by high expectations. Raising the standards means raising academic
content standards which constitutes the knowledge, skills, and abilities a student
must demonstrate at each grade level. For the individual grade level content
standards, state departments of education developed frameworks to serve as
blueprints which schools would use to guide curriculum, instruction, and assessment
5
(EdSource, 2007). While states reformed their methods for accountability, the
federal government realized that these methods varied greatly from state to state. In
2002, the federal government reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) to reinforce the concept of standards-based reform. President George
W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) version into law that year. NCLB
stated that if states were to receive ESEA funding; they must have accountability
programs in place which hold schools and districts responsible for improving the
academic performance of students (EdSource, 2007). This program must have tests,
which are directly aligned to the content standard, that measure students’ academic
performance each year. The state accountability system is mandated to report the
yearly progress of students toward the proficiency goal identified by the school, local
district, and the state. One factor viewed negatively by educators is the state’s use of
consequences, or sanctions, which are imposed on schools and districts that fall short
of their goals. The federal government required that schools receiving federal funds
under Title I programs that do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) must be
designated as Program Improvement schools and subjected to a series of
interventions. If this pattern continues for five years, the school is required to be
restructured.
While it would appear that NCLB was guiding state accountability systems in
the right direction, schools were still failing the students they were designed to help.
If there were content standards, frameworks to guide instruction, and assessment
6
tools designed to correspond to the knowledge being taught, then there were other
challenges facing high schools which needed to be identified.
If an effective high school is filled with exceptional educators and a dynamic
administration, then perhaps the problem of student failure lies within the course
content. As previously introduced, the federal government put NCLB into place to
ensure that standards-based education was the norm on every campus. Students and
teachers were aware of the mandated course content, and the end of grade
assessments were aligned to this material. If the content was acknowledged and
delivered, then school failure could not be attributed to academic issues. It was
important to look at the challenges facing schools for which no amount of
preparation and sanctions could prepare.
High schools must teach students who do not have the necessary skills to
succeed. Their reading and math skills were below the level needed to pass the
content-based classes in high school. Teachers struggled to provide basic instruction
in high school classes and still teach the course content with the academic rigor
mandated by the state and federal government. This was a frustrating proposition for
both the teacher and the student. If the student struggled and did not make visible
progress, failure was a distinct possibility. Add to this struggle material which was
not interesting or presented in a manner that the student could comprehend, and the
student disengaged from school and ultimately dropped out. While high school has
remained remarkably unchanged for the past fifty years, the students today in no way
resemble students from years past. They are more socially and intellectually
7
sophisticated, and keeping them engaged in school is difficult. In 2005, an online
survey sponsored by The National Governors Association gathered responses from
more than 10,000 high school students. Many of the students responded that high
school could be improved, while one-third of those planning to graduate felt high
school was ‘easy’ (EdSource, 2007). These students also stated they would work
harder if the courses were more challenging and interesting. Of those surveyed who
had already dropped out, 66% responded that personal attention to help them with
their studies would have helped them stay in school (2007). Educators at every level
recognize this crisis and shake their heads. While we teach what we think is
important and test that knowledge with carefully aligned assessment instruments, a
percentage of the students are not learning. It does not matter how many textbooks
are purchased, if the students are not engaged, the content cannot be taught. If the
students drop out, then perhaps the sophisticated assessment instruments are
collecting the wrong kind of data.
Educational Reform in California
Recent data show that education in California needs revision. For every ten
students who start high school here, fewer than two will complete a higher education
degree within 150% of the expected time (EdSource, 2007). California has more
than 1,000 high schools serving almost two million students. The average high
school has 1,800 students in a traditional comprehensive format. There are a variety
of programs and courses to involve and challenge students. There are technical and
8
occupational programs, as well as those paths guiding students toward the top
American universities.
High schools have been maligned by society for decades as being boring,
traditional factories preparing some for higher education while others enter the world
of work. In the 1990’s schools were pressured to change their approach for
educating students. State law in California turned to the State Board of Education
(SBE) to develop state content standards in the mid-1990s. By 1999, the SBE had
adopted four academic content standards in English Language Arts, Mathematics,
History/Social Science, and Science. These standards formed the basis of the
framework which outlined the course of study for each grade level. The framework,
in turn, guided textbook adoption, professional development, and the development of
an assessment process. The yearly testing instruments added a standards portion to
the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) named the California Standards
Test (CST) which directly assessed mastery in the four core content areas. These
tests are administered to every child in grades two through eleven each spring and
contribute to a school’s Academic Performance Index (API). In addition to the core
content testing, California created an exit exam which students must pass to graduate
from high school. It assesses the students’ mastery of the California content
standards in English Language Arts and Math. While NCLB, with its federal
accountability requirements, was signed into law in 2002, California had developed
and implemented their program years before. Educators and policymakers armed
9
with test results began to identify schools that were successful and identify strategies
to help those that were struggling.
The Urban High School
While reforms were proposed and rejected through the second half of the
twentieth century, the high school remained the same place our parents and
grandparents were educated. The current trends in education touted high school as
the place to prepare students for the global workplace, but its look and procedures
were staunchly entrenched in the 1960s. The educational norm required that those
interested in college completed one set of courses, while the not-so-fortunate average
students moved toward vocational paths. Urban high schools are viewed as complex
social milieus where administrators and teachers often engage in struggles of
authority and resistance, knowledge and power, and cultural hegemony (Rocco &
West, 1998). This dynamic was further complicated by tensions among students,
faculty, the administration, families, and community members. The students arrived
unprepared and underachieving. Such systemic challenges often oppress and
constricted creative forces, thus limiting vision and constraining dialogue, both
essential components of sustained improvement at scale (Elmore 2000).
With schools in an achievement decline, the public clamored for reform of
the large, bureaucratic school. If the school district had a large enough tax base,
smaller suburban schools were built to serve neighborhoods instead of cities. More
low income families and minorities moved into the urban area filling these large
schools with high poverty students of color. The demographics changed, and so did
10
the problems. Not only was education in crisis, but the neighborhoods around the
high schools were providing additional problems. A vast range of beliefs, ideas,
customs, language and world views created a tapestry of assets that possess the
potential to meet the challenges confronting today’s urban schools. Yet in many
urban communities, creating vibrant, multicultural high schools where all students
achieved their full potential was a vision, not a reality (Duvall 2001).
Concerned citizens realize that the public high school does not work. All one
has to do is read the newspaper to see that students cannot pass the exit exam, and
many who do graduate are functionally illiterate. Everyone wants to change the high
school to make it more effective, but educators have been trying to do this for one
hundred years. Changing ineffective schools is difficult because of their size and
scope. Inside those buildings are people trying to educate thousands of students
from diverse backgrounds with diverse needs. Instead of trying to “be all things to
all people,” the high school fails to recognize the needs of a large percentage of
students who need the most help. According to the 2005 National Governors Survey,
“the students who have no adult attention or assistance will most likely drop out,
when a responsible adult could have prevented this disaster.”
High school reform research points to a number of factors present in high
schools which can make the school successful. Listening to the concerns of students,
as addressed in the 2005 Governors Survey, schools should recognize the importance
of academic rigor to challenge students. A curriculum based on sophisticated,
advanced knowledge also tells the students that this institution holds the highest level
11
of expectation for their success. Students who are not stimulated often see no
relevance in their academic content as it applies to their real lives. If they can see a
direct association between learning and application, then schoolwork takes on a
renewed interest. A third factor which must be evident on the school campus is the
presence of adults who are concerned with the lives of the students as well as their
education. A supportive adult relationship gives students that feeling of “belonging”
which can motivate them to stay in school at a time when quitting would be a more
popular decision.
In California, the correlation between school-level demographics, including
low income families and education levels, and achievement is very high. Using the
state achievement measurement, the Academic Performance Index (API), schools
having similar demographics are compared with their API scores. While it would
seem that these high poverty schools, which also serve large numbers of English
Language Learners (ELL), would score about the same on the API scale, they score
two, three, and even four deciles above similar schools. There are urban high
schools in California which outperform similar schools, and a study of these schools
should uncover the practices and policies which make these schools successful
despite tremendous challenges.
Statement of the Problem
Historically, students in urban high schools have underperformed
academically in comparison to their suburban counterparts. Nonetheless, there are
some high schools that have achieved significant academic gains when compared to
12
schools of similar demographics. It is unclear what contributes to outperformance in
these schools, so an investigation is necessary to determine the factors which
contribute to student achievement and academic success. Schools in California are
held accountable for student academic success using a number of instruments. Using
the growth scores from the yearly API does provide a general basis for how well
students in a particular school are performing on the annual California Standards
Tests. It is not; however, the only criterion that is used to measure how well students
are mastering the rigorous content standards set by the state. There are other criteria
which must be identified and incorporated in an in-depth study of a successful high
school.
As previously noted in this study, the modern high school faces many
challenges in educating today’s youth. An increased accountability paired with the
demand for academic rigor produces a setting for students to excel because the
schools are providing the right mixture of both. The alternate scenario presents the
increased accountability revealing a school that is struggling to educate its students
who struggle, fail, and ultimately drop out. The real question lies in trying to
determine which school will succeed and which one will fail. While it is easy to
assume that an urban school filled with high-poverty students and English Language
Learners is a recipe for failure, this is not necessarily the case. There are a number
of urban high schools which are defying the odds. It is also possible that a suburban
high school has falling API scores and no concrete explanation as to why this
phenomenon has happened.
13
The educational community has turned to the experts for help in determining
those characteristics which are present and working in high performing high schools.
A recent number of student surveys have been administered to students across the
United States in an attempt to hear from them what is important enough to make
them stay in school. The National Governors Survey administered online provided
responses from 10,000 students who candidly admitted that high school was easy,
and they would have worked harder if the courses were more challenging. They also
stated it was important to feel wanted in a welcoming school community which
caused a feeling of engagement with their educational community (2005). It was
now time to determine what the students needed to be successful.
The concept of student engagement is not new, but its importance in the
academic success of students is just being uncovered. Student engagement is
described as the student’s relationship with the school community which includes the
people, structures including schedules and rules, curriculum and content, pedagogy,
and the curricular, co-curricular, and extracurricular opportunities. The degree of
engagement depends on the degree or quality of the relationship the students has
with these various aspects of school life (CCEP, 2007). It was important to hear
from the students what they say about their school engagement. The High School
Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) investigates the attitudes, beliefs and
perceptions students have about their work, the school learning environment, and
their interaction with the school community (2007). The data gleaned from this
survey was invaluable to staff, policymakers, and reformers who were genuinely
14
concerned with the success of all high schools. These stakeholders can take the
highlights provided from this study and see how students really view their academic
achievement and the learning community in which it occurs.
While students from across America were answering surveys about their high
schools and academic achievement, it was important to hear from the students in
urban high schools. The socioeconomic backgrounds of students were identified as
one predictor of student success, but it was not the only one or necessarily the most
important. There are high performing urban high schools which must be identified
and studied to determine those factors present which allow them to succeed where
other schools fail. Student engagement and its impact on the success of the urban
schools were considered as a contributing factor.
Purpose of the Study
While it would seem evident that high performing, successful high schools
have easily identifiable characteristics, it was the purpose of this study to isolate and
present those factors discovered by the research. These factors permit schools to
excel against a background of poverty, language, and even societal issues, so it was
imperative to identify those characteristics. The study focused on the continued
success of these schools by identifying strategies and programs which contribute to
high achievement in these high schools.
Raising academic standards and achievement, both mandated by NCLB, has
left high schools feeling the pressure to improve and perform. Historically, high
schools have attempted to educate everyone’s child using similar methods and
15
curriculum, but recent changes in accountability raised the bar for these schools to
prepare students to succeed in the global arena. While thousands of students leave
high schools every year, the problem in the urban high school is exacerbated by
poverty and an educational society ill-equipped to meet the needs of its multicultural
student body. There were; however, high schools which exceeded expectations. A
study of an outperforming urban school would reveal those factors which contribute
to increased academic achievement and allow this school to exceed the academic
performance of like or similar schools when ranked by an academic indicator such as
the Academic Performance Index (API).
In addition to identifying factors present in high performing urban high
schools, it was important to determine if a link exists between student engagement
and achievement in these schools. A case study, in conjunction with a University of
Southern California thematic research group, studied successful high schools in
southern California to identify urban factors and to discover the elements which
make these schools high performing. Using secondary data supplied by the Indiana
University instrument, the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) the
study helped define the parameters of engagement. The focus of the study was on
urban schools because while the HSSSE provides information about students in high
schools across America, there was a dearth of relevant information about the students
in urban high schools. It was necessary to study this population to ascertain if all
high performing high schools, suburban and urban, contribute part of their success to
student engagement.
16
Due to the research focus on high performing urban high schools, the study
led to a realistic, balanced picture of high school students in America today.
Research methods were employed to illuminate the research questions:
1) What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
2) Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
Results from the study were validated by consistent themes which emerged
from the combined ten studies of the thematic group. To reiterate, factors discovered
in one study become more evident when they emerge from multiple studies. The
factors move from inquiry and theory into identifiable practices which can then be
applied at other schools.
Terminology Specific to the Study
There is terminology in the educational setting which may be unknown to
some interested in this study, and because this study is conducted in California there
are educational terms specific to the system. These terms are identified and defined
according to the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
definitions in the Lexicon of Learning (2007).
1. Academic Performance Index (API): The numeric index or scale, ranging
from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 that measures the academic performance and
progress of schools.
17
2. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A statewide accountability system
mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which requires each state to
ensure that all schools and districts make Adequate Yearly Progress.
3. Cognitive: The process of knowing; anything that is perceived.
4. Content Standards: Tell what students are expected to know and be able to
do in various subject areas (ASCD, 2007).
5. Engagement (School): Student’s relationship with the school community:
the people (adults and peers), the structures (rules, facilities, schedules), the
curriculum and content, the pedagogy, and the opportunities (curricular, co-
curricular, and extracurricular).
6. English Learners (EL): An EL is a student for whom there is a report of a
primary language other than English on the state-approved Home Language Survey
and who, upon initial assessment by the appropriate state assessment (currently the
California English Language Development Test or CELDT) and from additional
information when appropriate, has been determined to lack the clearly defined
English language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and/or writing necessary to
succeed in the school’s regular instructional programs.
7. High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE): National survey
that assesses the extent to which high school students are involved in activities
associated with high levels of learning and development.
8. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Originally named the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act in 1965, (ESEA) focused on the educational needs of
18
minority children and provided substantial funds for public education. It was
renewed, renamed, and signed into law in 2002 by President Bush.
9. Outperforming: Exceeding academic performance of like or similar
schools, when ranked by an academic indicator such as the Academic Performance
Index (API).
10. Performance Standards: Expected levels of learning; the degree to which
the content standards have been met (ASCD, 2007)
11. School Climate: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and
organizational structures within a school that cause it to function and react in
particular ways. This is associated with the school’s effect on students (ASCD,
2007).
12. School Culture: The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices, and
organizational structures within a school; particularly the way teachers and other
staff members work together (ASCD, 2007).
13. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC): One of six
regional associations that accredit public and private schools, colleges, and
universities in the United States.
The Importance of the Study
The qualitative case study permits the researcher to produce an in-depth,
systematic, comprehensive study of the students, teachers, administrators, and
support staff in a large urban high school (Patton, 2002). By combining the data the
researchers collected in ten schools, the identification of verifiable patterns was
19
possible and difficult to ignore. This led to a clear basis for theoretical development
through the evidence. The evidence enabled the development of educational
practices (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
Using the survey data results provided by Indiana University and the HSSSE,
schools were able to see strengths and weaknesses in their programs. The HSSSE
profile report identified student behaviors and school characteristics needing
attention to enhance student learning and school effectiveness. This enabled the staff
and administration to enact specific strategies and interventions to improve student
achievement in each individual school. The decisions and strategies chosen for
reform were data driven based on comparison of the school with the national mean.
Stakeholders could use the results on the school profile to supplement the
state’s high stakes test results. Schools identified by California as needing
improvement could identify indicators that lead to desired outcomes and enhanced
school improvement efforts. Because the survey created a national database,
policymakers could compare the profiles of their schools against similar schools in
other parts of the country. With the added dimension of urban schools afforded by
this study, involved stakeholders have a realistic, data-driven report of what the
school looks like within its own school environment and compared with schools
nationally.
20
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Delimitations
The study was limited to one high school in a southern California school
district.
The teachers and administrators completed surveys which were distributed
during the fall semester.
The student survey was conducted during homeroom for two periods of 25
minutes each.
The data collection instruments and methods were consistent across ten
studies.
The study was conducted in the high school over a period of two months.
Limitations
Not all students participated in the student survey.
Not all staff participated in the teacher and administrator surveys.
The staff interview and survey respondents were not truthful.
Certain staff members were not interested in participating in the study.
Assumptions
Truth and accuracy: teachers and administrators were honest in their
responses concerning student engagement and achievement.
Observations: information recorded was representative of what I observed
at the time.
21
School of study: the school, staff, and stakeholders were interested and
excited to participate because they represented a high performing high
school. They were anxious to receive the study results to acknowledge the
practices that were working and those that needed improvement.
The remainder of the study provided examination of the research problem,
namely, what were high performing urban high schools doing right that could be
identified and measured. Chapter 2 presented a review of pertinent literature
describing the history of education, and the creation of high schools in America.
Reform movements were described which illustrated numerous attempts to improve
education with few recognizing measurable success. With the signing of No Child
Left Behind in 2002, accountability became the benchmark for school reform and
performance as school districts struggled to meet stiff new requirements for success.
The study then presented the modern high school and its culture concentrating on the
urban setting.
Chapter 3 provided a detailed description of the methodology used in the
design of data collection for the study. Details included an explanation of the
multiple methods implemented including document review, survey, interviews, and
observations of the school and its environment. A rationalization was furnished
explaining triangulation and the strengthened validity it provided. The procedures
presented were consistent with the theoretical and conceptual tenets of the research
design.
22
Chapter 4 consisted of the results or findings from the study. The
information from the data collection and analysis was presented with the general data
first, followed by the findings which were organized to answer the proposed research
questions. Additional themes and analyses that emerged from the study were also
introduced.
Chapter 5 was the summary and its implications. This section answered the
question: “This study was completed, and I discovered……so what?” I was able to
explore and speculate my findings from the emergent themes. I summarized the
study, presented the findings, and interpreted the data. It was here that I used the
results to recommend practices for the school to implement. Emergent themes,
concerning the importance of student engagement and its effect on student
engagement, provided opportunities to suggest ways for other urban schools to
initiate changes or apply my findings to their issues. With the popularity of the
HSSSE as a national database the implications for further study were obvious. Each
year there will be new schools across America trying to determine how engaged their
students are and if their educational programs are working. Continued study in this
area is necessary to monitor changes in students and tailor programs to ensure their
success.
23
CHAPTER 2:
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Education, one of the oldest institutions in America, has lost its reputation for
excellence. The United States which only a few short decades ago dominated the
world scene with students of incredible ability, now boasts high school completion
rates which rank tenth in the world (Barton, 2005). America, home to cutting-edge
curriculum and theorists credited with creating the public school system, fails to
graduate one-third of its students.
The public schools, which are viewed as the cause of many of society’s ills,
serve as the scapegoat for a crumbling moral system. The American high school, in
answer to the growing pressure of modernization and industrialization, created
expectations of efficiency and functionalism among the social classes. Its
organization, complete with procedures and principles to govern life in the
classroom, was dominated by an interest in production, well-adjusted economic
functioning, and bureaucratic skills (Apple, 2004). In 2000, students living in
families with incomes in the lowest 20 percent of all incomes were six times as likely
as their peers from families in the top 20 percent of income distribution to drop out
of high school (Kaufman, Alt, & Chapman 2000). This alarming statistic seems to
support the concerns of the federal and state governments, concerned community
leaders, and worried parents that public schools no longer “produce” well-prepared
students.
24
The purpose of this literature review is to examine what is known about
student engagement in high school; it seeks to understand how high performing
urban high schools can exist, and to what extent student engagement is involved.
The following study considers a number of factors involved in high performing
urban schools, but concentrates on the symbiotic relationship between a student and
his school.
The review reports on the history of education in the United States and its
evolutionary process. Then, a brief review of the major reforms is presented with an
emphasis on those that affect urban high schools. Most of these are federal mandates,
but since student engagement is dependent upon the school and the state, California
state policy is explained including subject matter standards and the California High
School Exit Exam.
The next sections describe the state of the high schools today and the
evolution of the suburban and urban schools. The schools cannot be discussed
without focusing on the students, their needs and achievement. A section on student
performance looks for effective methods and best practices. If performance is a
factor that raises student engagement, then it is imperative to identify the
characteristics which allow some schools to outperform others. Finally, it is
necessary to study engagement and the criteria which identify high student
engagement. The review looks at what is known about the various types of
engagement and how they are measured.
25
History of the Development of the High School
It is necessary to follow the evolution of the public high school in the United
States to identify the changes which have led to the educational institution which
exists today. From the single room school, American education evolved into the
sprawling high school educating thousands of students. In less than a century, the
agrarian majority moved to industrialized cities and educated their children in
departmentalized factory model schools which churned out thousands of workers and
thinkers in an urban assembly line.
Early schools in America were often one large room in which all of the
school age children were educated together with the older children helping the
younger students with their lessons. Most teachers were unmarried females who
lived in a room provided by the community. They were responsible for the
education of all children in the community and followed a school calendar dependent
upon the seasonal planting which meant the children were absent during planting and
harvest seasons. While this school was personal with individual learning
experiences, it was not the ideal model because of the need to conform to the
planting schedule.
A different type of school was established in large cities in the early 1800s
with many more students divided into grades and taught accordingly. The students
did not learn as much as those in the one room school because they did not have the
individualized instruction. With so many students, the lessons were quick and
26
impersonal. This type of school was not successful because the students did not
receive as much attention to the details of learning.
Education needed an efficient model school where students from all
backgrounds and abilities could learn. The cities were filling with immigrants from
the rural areas of America and Europe looking for work. As a result of the Industrial
Revolution, the factory system proved successful with its division of labor.
Everyone had a job and knew what was expected of them. It was hierarchical with
little chance for advancement, but America was truly industrialized. If the factory
system was successful in training workers to come and go by the ringing of a bell,
then perhaps this model would work for education. The urban graded school was
created.
In their article, The Grammar of Schooling: Why Has It Been So Hard To
Change? (1994), David Tyack and William Tobin describe the curriculum, syllabi,
and year-end tests taken by the students. Students were directed into graded
classrooms based on their ages and ability. After a year in an assigned grade,
students took a final exam which determined a move to the next grade or repeating
the same grade next year. These exams and promotion standards meant that the
normal students progressed while a large minority of immigrants and poor students
failed because of poor skills. This urban school design was common in large
American cities by the 1870’s (1994).
In 1902, a standard format was established for America’s high schools which
set fifteen units as the requirement for high school graduation. Many reformists of
27
the period accused the new high school system of existing only as a whim of the
nation’s universities with the sole purpose of preparing the elite for college. It was
assumed that this college preparatory institution would teach the classical curriculum
which included Latin, Greek, French or German, math, and science (Goldin, 1998).
In 1906, Henry Pritchett, President of the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, described a ‘unit’ as a course which meets five times a
week for the entire academic school year. The periods were later calculated into
divisions of fifty to fifty-five minutes each for the school day. This accounting
device became the” Carnegie Unit.” It was soon recognized within the educational
system that a ‘standard’ high school was one that measured class periods in identical
time increments and awarded Carnegie Units for successful completion of year long
courses (Tyack & Tobin, 1994).
The Modern High School
The modern high school was born at the beginning of the twentieth century
and grew with changes at the high school/secondary level enjoying the greatest
increase in students. In 1900, only one-half of the school age population between
five and nineteen were in school. Between 1910 and 1940, enrollment rose from
18% to 73% with graduation rates for the same period rising from 9% to 51%. In
1900, the average number of days a student was in school was ninety-nine with an
increase to 158 by 1950 (Tyack & Cuban, 2001). The students entering the high
schools in the decades between 1910 and 1940 wanted an education which prepared
them for work. Jobs were becoming more technical and complex, and workers
28
needed additional skills. The additional education included such skills as reading
manuals, technical instructions, bookkeeping and accounting, and management. The
way to advancement and more money was by obtaining additional education. School
continued to grow as a national institution with high school enrollment constantly
rising until World War II when students moved from high school to take the civilian
jobs vacated by soldiers and other military personnel. The increase in high school
attendance in the decades between 1910 and 1940 may provide the single most
important measurable reason for the major per capita income growth for this period
in the United States (Goldin, 1998). More people went to school and increased their
earnings upon school completion.
The American high school was admired by the international community as a
system where students enjoyed a free education that prepared them for a future with
gainful employment. There were great differences in the types of schools created
depending on the area of the country. Because the rural schools were smaller and
served a single community, they were often failing because of meager resources
available to contribute to education. In contrast to the rural problem, in 1935-36,
over ninety percent of the students who entered high school in northeastern cities
were from prosperous families. The low income families in the same regions saw
only fifty-six percent of their children enter high school in the same period (Tyack &
Cuban, 2001).
The high school realized its potential lay with America’s youth and
transformed the existing program to a true secondary school and began educating the
29
majority. Large high schools combined a number of smaller surrounding districts
because the invention of the car, school bus, and roads allowed more students to get
to school. In 1940, where children lived determined the type of education they
would receive. There was an obvious fiscal divide between rural and urban schools,
but there was an even larger divide between urban and suburban schools. Urban
schools were located in communities which served a large population of poor blacks,
the disabled, females, and working class immigrants. The educational community
theorized that children had different abilities, interests, and destinies in life and
should be treated differently and categorized for tracking. The students were not
considered ‘normal’; therefore, different classes and instructional requirements were
established. This early attempt at ‘tracking’ created special schools for physically
and mentally handicapped children. The number of separate schools increased from
180 in 1900 to 551 in 1930 (Tyack & Cuban, 2001).
These schools contained ‘special classes’ filled with children who were
considered ‘backward’ or ‘disruptive.’ These were unruly classes filled with a
majority of boys, most of who suffered from no physical or developmental problems.
They simply did not fit the profile of the normal child and were relegated to a limited
education. They suffered segregation not because of limitations or problems, but
because they did not fit the American ideal of what high school students should be.
The underserved and underrepresented parents of these children did not believe that
the American educational system was there to help them or offer equality.
30
The Importance of Title I
Activist groups recognized the plight of these students and demanded rights
for them under the blanket of Brown v. Board of Education of 1954. While this case
addressed segregation, reformists saw this as a moral precedent to help all
disenfranchised groups. Blacks sought to desegregate public schools, and advocated
for the handicapped stating that education in America was a right not a privilege.
Through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, funds were
targeted to help low income families receive the education necessary. Title I
guaranteed that poverty would not be a restriction to academic achievement. The
funds would help low income students realize their full potential despite their fiscal
position in the community (Tyack & Cuban, 2001).
Citizen groups expressed displeasure with the schools accusing them of being
too large, with a curriculum that did not hold acceptable rigor. With the Russian
launching of the Sputnik satellite on October 4, 1957, the American public clamored
for a more stringent educational plan to produce graduates capable of answering the
Russian technological challenge. The American people could not be caught
unprepared again; national security was in danger. Congress answered the call to
action with the passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958,
which provided funds to encourage increased study in science, math, and foreign
languages. The academicians accused the public high schools of not producing
enough math, science and engineering graduates, nor were there enough teachers in
these subjects. This crisis allowed the proponents of gifted education to receive
31
national attention. If the United States had fallen behind the Russians in knowledge
and ability, then the American schools should recruit the best students and create a
more rigorous curriculum for them. These gifted students would become America’s
hope. For the first time, enrollment in advanced courses rose as did enrollment in
advanced science and math courses (Ravitch, 2001).
In 1959, James Conant published a report, The American High School which
provided guidelines for the comprehensive American high school. He encouraged
the spread of the comprehensive high school whose mission was to educate all
students. To be comprehensive, the high school had three tasks:
Provide a good general education for all students
Offer the noncollege-bound majority good elective nonacademic courses
( such as vocational, commercial, and work-study)
Provide academically talented students with advanced courses in math,
science and foreign languages
The Conant Report provided parents with a rubric with which to judge and
grade the high schools in their communities.
The next twenty years proved to be the most difficult that American
education had yet endured. The criticism grew worse each year with national polls
showing a decrease in the trust citizens held for their schools and their teachers.
They ranked their schools as B- institutions in 1974, and C institutions in 1981. In
1978, 41% of Americans polled believed schools were worse than ever, and only
35% thought they were better (Tyack & Cuban, 2001). With the turbulent 1960s and
32
the growing disconnection of the 1970s, the schools began to take the blame for all
societal ills. The schools have assumed the responsibility for education and raising
the children of America. In a review of educational reform and accountability, it will
become evident that the responsibility for educating America’s youth is an ever
evolving process.
Educational Accountability and Reform
History has shown the American educational system to be both innovative
and traditional. Each problem which arises also has numerous solutions claiming to
solve all of the problems suffered by public school students. For all of the rhetoric of
modern schools preparing American students to be among the best in the world, one
fact rings true: society always returns to the safe, traditional education which has
been the mainstay of American schools since the late 1800’s. Despite a series of
reform movements, education historically reverts to the traditional form recognized
by society. The American public school reflects the society in which it operates.
Schools in the 1920’s were described as the fundamental institution that would solve
the problems of the city, the impoverishment and moral decay of the masses, and,
increasingly, adjust individuals to their respective places in an industrial economy
(Apple, 2004). The children and the decades change; the curriculum does not.
Teachers are provided with professional development to learn new ways to present
curriculum, but the content remains the same. Bells still signify movement to the
next period.
33
Schools have reduced their requirements and crumble under the scathing
reports about their ineffectiveness as evidenced by students ill-prepared in the basic
skills necessary for their present assignment. There are standards to achieve; there is
content to master. With the introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and
standards based education, America said to the students, “This is what you need to
know. You must show you know it, and everyone will be held responsible in helping
you learn it.” Now, it is imperative that schools identify their weaknesses in content
and pedagogy. This realignment with standard education is not new; it is educational
reform at its core. A problem was identified, and methods were suggested and
implemented as a cure. Some reforms have been instrumental in the continued
success of education while most have been noted and forgotten. A brief review of
the most important reform movements will show how the present need for
accountability has evolved.
As discussed in the historical review, the American high school was an
answer to the needs of the universities. The young elite needed a curriculum which
would prepare them for the rigorous courses they would encounter in college. With
the number of courses set at between fourteen and sixteen depending on the
institution, students began a formal, classical education. Of course, this education
was not for everyone since a majority of students could not or did not go to college.
Reform began with education needing to educate the masses to provide a viable
workforce for the growing industrial society. Reform was based on political
influence. Those in power from 1900-1950 represented a majority of white men who
34
held key educational positions and shaped policy for schools across the country.
They ran a program based on the philosophy that the schools should shape the course
of social evolution. The course they proposed provided school for the established
upper class because they needed extensive education to run their parents’ businesses
and control the wealth and influence in the United States. The ruling class needed
the education with which to rule. Innovators such as those in the Carnegie
Foundation, created by some of America’s wealthiest, set the graduation standards
for high school which are still in effect today. The time frame for period, school day,
week, and semester has not changed since the high school was created. While reform
has addressed every aspect of the school and its operation, the Carnegie Unit and
course credit have remained the standards for over one hundred years.
As instrumental as the Carnegie Unit was to institutionalizing high schools, it
was viewed as promoting a ‘lockstep’ method of educating adolescents. In the
1920’s, Helen Parkhurst developed the Dalton Plan which challenged the strict fifty
minute class in favor of small group instruction. She believed the way to truly
educate students with knowledge they would retain was to design methods which
would allow individualized instruction for students. Parkhurst organized secondary
schools to include independent study and differentiated curriculum based on ability
and interest. There were no promotions or failures. The Dalton Plan was in favor of
student self-regulation, mastery contracts, and independent learning (Tyack & Tobin,
1994). The Plan was heralded for a time, but was discarded in favor of the standard,
departmentalized high school. Reform has historically represented an attempt to
35
change the norm, but society deemed these attempts as failure and demanded a return
to the fundamental format of education.
There were clear signs of discontent with America’s secondary schools in the
1950’s. Educational experts along with governmental officials warned of a shortage
of graduates in the fields of science and technology. They appealed to President
Eisenhower to direct funds for new secondary schools, and new curriculum; which
he refused. They hoped to interest more students toward careers in the sciences and
math. The experts’ concerns were ignored until the launch of Sputnik which was
now a reminder that political supremacy was tied to political prowess (Ravitch,
2001). The nation turned to the long ignored National Science Foundation (NSF) for
help. Founded in 1950 to promote basic research and interest in science, the NSF
was viewed as the agency to turn high school curriculum into a world class
competitor. The NSF promoted science fairs and summer institutes for teachers of
high school science and math where they were introduced to new methods and
practices. With additional funds from the government, high school curriculum
reform expanded and included math, biology, chemistry, the social sciences, and a
revised physics curriculum. Two major programs, the ‘new math’ and ‘new social
studies’ revolutionized the subjects with innovative curricula and major instructional
revisions. National scientists, teachers, researchers, and theorists joined forces to set
curriculum packages of what students needed to know at the junior high and high
school levels. These learning packages were tested and revised by teachers in their
classrooms. This method of investigation and discovery, originally proposed by
36
scientific proponents years earlier, finally became mainstream educational practice in
American high schools.
During the late 1950’s, the Ford Foundation addressed the national school
crisis by funding the Great Cities-Gray Areas Program which concentrated on big
city school districts and improvement. Because the population of the big city urban
areas included large numbers of poor and immigrants, the schools were filled with
low income pupils with few academic skills. The Great Cities project sought to
create and mandate remedial and compensatory programs for the urban high schools
(Ravitch, 2001). While this program was lauded for its attention to remediation and
the educational needs of poor students in urban schools, it was never implemented on
a national scale. Once again, reform was discarded in favor of the traditional format.
Looking for programs to revolutionize urban, high poverty schools was a
major concern which moved forcefully to the forefront of the nation. The racial
revolution in the South, the movement of large numbers of black students to large
urban schools, and racial segregation exploded on the scene between 1963 and 1965.
Civil rights leaders demanded desegregated schools, equal education, and attention
to the needs of the disadvantaged. Immediate attention was given to the needs of
disadvantaged minority youth, and Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 1965, (ESEA) which focused on the educational needs of minority
children. ESEA was the first and largest comprehensive federal education law and
provided substantial funds for public education. Through Title I of ESEA, funds
were targeted to ensure minority children and those from poverty homes received the
37
education to which they were entitled. No longer could poverty be an excuse for the
failure of the nation’s minority and immigrant children. This program was
introduced as part of the “War on Poverty” during the Johnson administration and
was authorized to continue through 1970. It has, however, been reauthorized every
five years since the initial report.
The schools of the 1970’s began a decline in academic success with rigorous
curricula being replaced by frivolous electives like cooking for singles (Ravitch,
2003). Parents were worried that their children were not learning basic skills due to
the abandonment of academic requirements. This shift was a result of the 1960’s
revolutionary climate when all societal ills were attributed in some way to the
bureaucratic educational system which was attempting to thwart creativity in
American school children. When the educational system came under attack, it
sought ways to reinvent the traditional school turning to reforms like open
classrooms, student curriculum choices, and permissive environments with no
direction. This led to alarming reports which showed declining test results due to
‘pervasive changes’ in school and society. The main reason for the decline pointed
to the lack of formal training in the form of academic content rigor. Schools had
answered the public’s cry for pertinent cultural courses and removed the courses
necessary for critical cognitive development. The academic results showed this to be
a major mistake.
38
The Importance of A Nation at Risk
With Paul Copperman’s statement in the report A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative For Educational Reform, the American public was faced with the
shocking realization that for the first time in history, the present generation would
not pass the educational level of their parents. This was reported in 1983 by the
National Commission on Excellence in Education, an independent commission
created by Education Secretary Terrel Bell. The report called for higher expectations
in the wake of America’s educational erosion from a rising “tide of mediocrity.” The
commission stated that this educational erosion was at the hands of the American
public. The “Information Age” was at hand, and it was no longer possible for the
‘educational elite’ to do it all. A ‘skilled intelligence’ was necessary for everyone in
the country. The commission reported that student achievement was in decline, and
the country was not in a position to excel in the technological environment. The
threat was eminent that other countries were poised to overtake the U.S. economy
which was already in a recession. The report showed America that education was
suffering the repercussions of the turbulent 1960s societal reforms and the fads and
extreme measures of the 1970s. The walls were reinstated in the classrooms, books
were ordered, and teachers returned to the traditional curriculum. The three tracks in
high school: academic, vocational, and general were replaced with a more rigorous
track for all.
A Nation at Risk taught America that schools must have high expectations for
all students, and separate education for special education students was no longer
39
acceptable. They must be included, where possible, in the regular classroom.
Another major proposal from Risk was that schools and parents must expect the best
effort from their students. There was no excuse for poor achievement, and students
must realize that education was their responsibility. The report addressed students
directly reminding them that the amount of effort they put into their education would
reflect what they received. Educational reform, accountability, achievement, and
success would remain elusive, or at best minimal, if American students did not
assume responsibility for their education.
No Child Left Behind
In 2002, President Bush reauthorized and renamed the ESEA program No
Child Left Behind. A major change involved the strength of influence which the
federal government could exert on the states to pursue a standards-based reform
agenda. All states were expected to produce high academic standards for all
students, additional support for the local districts, and accountability for success or
failure to do so. The measurement for student success and academic growth was
aligned with state standards and student performance on standardized tests.
NCLB, with its ten sections called “titles,” reformed every area connected
with education. The law mandated that every state must have every child meeting an
academic proficient level, as defined by their standards by the 2013-2014 school
year. Also, every teacher must be certified ‘highly qualified’ to teach the core
subjects to which they are assigned. In school districts where schools were
underperforming, parents were given great latitude to move their children to high
40
performing district schools, and all costs associated with that move were assumed by
the school district. Furthermore, schools with unsatisfactory yearly report cards
would be taken over by the state and suffer sanctions including removal of
administrators and staff reassignment. This law sought to close the achievement gap
between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Forcing states to make
demonstrable annual progress or face sanctions and possible takeover, NCLB was
seen by most educators as an adversarial mandate. Schools worked hard to educate
students who did not want to be there while being held accountable for all of the
failures. Now they had more to prove and more to lose. States with large urban areas
of high poverty and minority populations soon realized they were being held to the
same standards and accountability for academic growth. The President promised
that NCLB would be fully funded, including Title I which was directly tied to
support for students who live in poverty. The states never received all of the
promised funds and continue to struggle to implement required accountability
measures and assessments.
Reform in California
The components of NCLB were already evident in California education
policy. To receive federal funds under the law, the state had to meet the mandated
requirements, many of which California already had in place. The major areas of
California policy affected by NCLB are: standards, assessment, and accountability.
41
Standards
California’s approach to standards satisfied the NCLB requirements.
Standards based education defined academic content that students should know at
each grade level. The framework was developed in the 1990’s as an answer to the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P. L. 103-227), which was signed into law on
March 31, 1994(GOALS, 1994). The Act provided resources to states and districts
to ensure that all students reached their full potential. The California framework
served to outline the course of study for local districts. The standards-based portion
of the mandated assessment, STAR and the CAHSEE, the new high school exit
exam, were created to measure the content standards. The standards defined what
was taught and tested in California and also as an accountability tool for NCLB. The
state must show progress each year; defined as AYP or Adequate Yearly Progress as
measured by the state testing system.
Assessment
The assessment system met the requirements mandated by NCLB by
providing a measurement that determined whether students were progressing and
schools were providing a rigorous standard of instruction. Beginning in 1997, state
legislators implemented high stakes testing for all students in California schools
called the STAR program or Standardized Testing and Reporting. Students in grades
2-11 test each spring in English, math, science, and social science using the
California Standards Tests (CST), criterion referenced tests based on the content
standards. The performance levels for these tests are far below basic, below basic,
42
basic, proficient, and advanced. The results of the student tests are used to assign an
Academic Performance Index (API) score for the schools which are then ranked
according to this score. This ranking is one of the criteria used to determine growth
under NCLB guidelines.
Accountability
California and NCLB held similar views on the importance of accountability
with both emphasizing regular assessment of students and making those results
public. The federal guidelines defined success in terms of the number of students in
a particular school who reached the proficient level in math and English, while
California defined success in terms of improvement from one year to the next. One
consideration was that with the large number of English language learners in the
public schools, requiring proficiency as the major factor to determine success was
unrealistic and unattainable. While California’s definition of accountability differed
from the one created by NCLB, the methods of holding schools accountable created
in California seem more equitable for the large second language population being
tested. The debate began on the best way to assess students new to districts in
California and new to the United States. Concern arose over readiness for new
students to be assessed in an unfamiliar language. The districts serving large
populations of high poverty schools grapple with unique factors beyond their control.
An argument continues concerning the extent to which school improvement
is viewed as failure by the stakeholders. Who should be held accountable? Goals
2000 codified into law six educational goals concerning school readiness, school
43
completion, student academic achievement, leadership in math and science, adult
literacy, and safe and drug-free schools. The act stated that schools would ensure
that all students would use their minds well and demonstrate competency over
challenging subject matter. It did not, however, explain how schools and districts
were to complete this task equitably for all students regardless of skill level. It did
not provide one test to assess that “students learn to use their minds well, so they
may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive
employment in our nation’s economy” (GOALS, 1994). It was the responsibility of
the states to create a framework and rubric to assess student achievement and school
success. Incentives and sanctions for individual teachers, school principals, and
students have been part of the overall strategy to date. New NCLB requirements
meant that every school district would now receive an AYP report and its own
Academic Performance Index (API). These new measures of school district
accountability will have an impact on school performance. How will district
accountability function within the context of current structures for school district
funding, governance, and operations? (EdSource, 2007). Many educators fear more
testing will be required. Districts with large populations of English language
learners and high poverty schools do not believe that these schools should be
compared using the same criteria, but then methods must be created to hold them
accountable. Suggestions being considered by educators include formative
assessments each quarter with summative measurements aligned to the standards but
created by the districts.
44
Reform began as soon as formalized education became a reality. With over a
century of reform the list of successes is short. After a century of trials and failures,
the high school looks the same as it did one hundred years ago. The familiar matrix
of schooling and its organization enables teachers to continue their duties in a
predictable, comfortable manner (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Society expects schools to
operate as they do, and while reforms come and go, the basic, fundamental structure
remains constant. Reform is introduced, and teachers selectively implement and
alter it. Reformers, take note: while believing innovative ideas will change the
schools, the truth lies in the fact that the schools will change the ideas to suit their
individual concerns. A look at the modern high school and its students will reveal if
times have changed or remain the same.
The Modern High School and its Students
There has been minimal change in the high school since the 1950’s. The
trend was to build large structures to accommodate hundreds if not thousands of
students. New classes of freshmen entered each fall and were soon intimidated and
indoctrinated in the policies of secondary education. Students wandered through the
halls ignorant of policies or rules, learning a class schedule and locker combinations.
The school was managed by professional administrators led by the principal who
governed the staff and students by sending procedural changes and regulations via
notes or announcements. Students were placed on tracks based on preconceived
notions about ability or promise. The educational norm required that those interested
in college completed one set of courses, while the not-so-fortunate average students
45
moved toward vocational paths. With schools in an achievement decline, the public
clamored for reform of the large, bureaucratic school. If the school district had a
large enough tax base, smaller suburban schools were built to serve neighborhoods
instead of cities. More low income families and minorities moved into the urban
area filling these large schools with high poverty students of color. The
demographics changed, and so did the problems. Not only was education in crisis,
these neighborhoods provided additional problems which found their way into the
schools. A vast range of beliefs, ideas, customs, language and world views created a
tapestry of assets that had the potential to meet the challenges confronting today’s
urban schools. Yet in many urban communities, creating vibrant, multicultural high
schools where all students achieved their full potential was a vision, not a reality
(Duvall 2001). The barriers to attaining this vision included: (a) teacher shortages
(Darling-Hammond 2001); (b) racial, socioeconomic and cultural tensions
(Beauboeuf-Lafontant 1999); (c) resource deficits (Anyon 1995); and (d) expanding
public expectations (Gratz 2000).
While the current trends in education touted high school as the place to
prepare students for the global workplace, its look and purpose remained unchanged.
Large schools still moved students from department to department with teachers who
seemed to have nothing in common with the populations they taught. These
mammoth, impersonal buildings possessed an uninviting atmosphere and students
disengaged in record numbers. Urban high schools were complex social milieus
where administrators and teachers often engage in struggles of authority and
46
resistance, knowledge and power, and cultural hegemony (Rocco & West, 1998).
This dynamic was complicated by similar sets of tensions among students, faculty,
the administration, families, and community members. The students arrived
unprepared and underachieving. Such systemic challenges often oppressed and
constricted creative forces, thus limiting vision and constraining dialogue, both
essential components of sustained improvement at scale (Elmore, 2000).
The Urban Teacher
In the urban high school, good teachers were hard to recruit and even harder
to retain. The administrators’ main goal was to raise achievement, but it was
impossible without an effective, caring staff. Teachers reported that student
achievement and growth were major reasons for staying in their positions, but the
urban schools did not realize the academic success of suburban schools. Low SES
students did not make the significant academic gains suburban students obtained, and
urban students were perceived as more disruptive and aggressive (Rosenholtz, 1985).
Facing this environment daily, teachers did not stay in the urban setting when
suburban schools offered more responsive and eager learners. The isolated work
situation, dictated by the departmental system, led to a negative outlook about work
which translated into an atmosphere of uncaring professionals who did not want to
teach the students who most needed an education. Teacher burnout, chronic
absenteeism, and turnover in urban schools led to more new, inexperienced teachers
entering the urban setting. With less experience and training in the urban setting,
young teachers faced a host of problems for which they were ill prepared with
47
behavioral issues among the most numerous. While the staff realized that most
students were in school to learn, behavioral disruptions were more frequent in the
urban schools. When disruption was paired with inexperienced staff, a climate of
chaos was produced. Students cannot learn, nor can teachers teach, in an atmosphere
of constant disruption.
Discipline in the Urban High School
Discipline was a major issue in urban high schools, reported as early as 1989,
with more time daily dedicated to addressing behavioral concerns. Jeremy Finn and
Kristin Voelkl completed a comparison of Effective Schools literature which
concluded that the productive school, urban or suburban, valued order and discipline
as major characteristics for learning. In the urban setting, an orderly environment
has been attributed to a lower probability of dropping out among disadvantaged and
at-risk youth (1993). This coincided with a student perception of effectiveness of
discipline and fairness of discipline. Students in the urban high school were more
aware of discipline rules and the policy flexibility practiced by the staff. This
translated into disciplinary decisions made based on the student and the situation
(Finn & Voelkl, 1993). In a study of high school students who engaged in class
cutting, the main reasons given for this behavior were that they were reacting to
educational structures that were sterile, bureaucratic, disrespectful of student’s
pedagogical preferences, and did not value student contributions. Other causes of
cutting included labeling students as ‘losers’ (Fallis & Opotow, 2003). In many
urban high schools that serve low-income students, class cutting was a major concern
48
(Opotow, 1994). The research suggests that students who attend large urban high
schools have a higher rate of class cutting than students in smaller schools (Bryk &
Driscoll, 1988; Fine & Somerville, 1998). The rate of urban high school students
who engaged in class cutting doubled in the years from 1984 to 1997 (Opotow,
Fortune, Baxter, & Sanon, 1998), which led to an increase in student retention.
Regular class attendance is considered a behavioral index of school engagement
which appears to be the cornerstone of academic achievement motivation (Caraway,
Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003). Whether the school was urban or suburban was
inconsequential: students who felt highly regarded by school staff were not as likely
to cut classes. With more engagement in school, students could look forward to
completing classes not failing them.
The High School Learning Environment
The school environment was an important factor in the urban schools with
consistency serving as a crucial characteristic. A learning environment, where roles
were defined and maintained, contributed to a positive learning commitment from
students. Students expected to receive respect from school staff and administration.
Students used this respect to identify effective teachers. Adults were expected to
become role models for students. For many students in the high poverty high
minority community, there was no adult present to help make daily life decisions,
and a school member could be a positive, lasting influence. These strong ties were
important motivators for students in urban and suburban schools because when
school staff felt they could make a difference in the academic performance of a child,
49
learning occurred. When teachers supported students instead of blaming a poor
performance on attitude or background, students learned more and felt the learning
was more equitable (Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1995). In the urban high schools
attendance was better and achievement more consistent when students felt that the
environment was warm and supportive.
High expectations were expected to be present along with established goals
for all students. High school was a time for students to choose courses which would
move them toward college or the world of work. Staff members held high standards
for themselves and their craft. The urban student was not always a participant in this
process. Lower expectations were evident because he was considered a product of
his environment. Some students were expected to succeed, while others would fail.
Minorities and immigrants were not recognized as having the same potential as
students in suburban schools. John Ogbu reported that schools contribute to the
academic problems of minority students. Dating back to a period in American
history when minority children were denied equal educational opportunities, schools
operated according to the norms of society as dictated by the communities they
served. There were factors present which operated against minority children’s
adjustment and academic performance. Some mechanisms were subtle, such as
lower expectations, while others were more overt (1987). The failure of school
personnel to recognize and accept the culture and its learned behaviors resulted in
conflicts leading to the student’s dislike of school. These societal examples showed
why urban families were not happy with the educational institutions America
50
offered. While it was the responsibility of parents to prepare their children to
perform and behave in school, they had the right to expect that the schools would in
turn recognize the individuality of all students and teach and treasure them
accordingly. This was not guaranteed to urban students who became self-fulfilling
prophecies; expect little, and that is exactly what the urban educators received.
Successful High Schools
As the experts provide mounds of statistics showing how American schools
are failing their charges, there are a few anomalies among the disturbing trends.
Large high schools, and even urban schools, seem to rise to the top and perform ‘in
spite of’ the problems we know exist. The first question uttered by the experts and
laymen alike is, “How did they do that?” How does a large school filled with poor
children with limited language speakers outperform schools of similar size with far
more resources? What happens in that building that can be studied and replicated
across America? There are successful urban high schools across the country, and an
investigation into their successful practices is in order. These high performing
schools appear to have common characteristics which will be introduced and
discussed.
The comprehensive high school has remained one of the most enduring
reforms introduced in American education. While its foundation remains intact, there
has been increasing doubt as to the high school’s ability to adapt to the technological
globalization needed by today’s students. The institution has been described as
offering inappropriate responses to the needs of its students, and its efficiency and
51
success in the academic areas is also in question. Add to this drop in confidence, the
urban school with its unique set of demographics, and educational organization had
problems with no visible strategy for success.
The special needs of the public schools in under resourced urban
communities have remained a problem but not necessarily a priority. How are urban
at-risk students expected to raise academic achievement when their schools represent
the communities with the least funds to allocate to education? Grace Carroll
suggests community partnerships with urban schools have proven a successful
strategy which provides human, material, and financial resources to improve student
academics and social competence (2001). These partnerships have joined involved
stakeholders including parents, school staff, faith-based communities, universities,
federal, state, and local governments working toward a common goal to help the
urban at-risk student succeed despite factors present which would impede progress.
While many examples of successful partnerships are discussed, one, Talent
Development transforms urban schools by using a set of activities based on a
development theme. Using the school’s cultural capital, this theme addresses the
personal, cultural, and social assets students bring to school. Providing a wide array
of learning opportunities, students gain knowledge through meaningful experiences
tied to their family and community experiences. The school staff work together
planning the activities, and all stakeholders are responsible for the success of these
theme-based experiences. The result is a learning experience which students use to
52
engage family and community to foster mutually beneficial relationships (Carroll,
LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001).
An emerging global society demanded a revamped organization which would
provide graduates with the advanced skills necessary to succeed in the world’s
marketplace. In 2005, the Iowa Department of Education and a statewide review
team introduced six promising practices which were identified as necessary for
successful schools to possess:
1. High expectations for all learners. Schools need the support of the
families and community to ensure that high expectations are held for all students.
Raising graduation rates has become a major imperative.
2. Collaborative school leadership. Communities must provide active
support for the schools along with state policymakers who must commit to a long-
term plan of improvement.
3. High quality professional development to assure quality instruction at all
levels. Increased expectations must be a requirement for all education staff.
Professional development needs time, relevant and needs-based content. Teacher
training should be based on promising practices and should provide more content
training.
4. A school environment is student focused. All school staff must develop
strong relationships and connections to students. Every student should have a
personal advocate. Career plans should be available for students, and their families
would be included in decisions.
53
5. Rigorous and relevant curriculum. Every student should graduate from
high school having opportunities to take challenging, relevant courses. All high
schools must provide multiple pathways for students to experience rigorous
learning. Students must have a choice of courses since not all will attend four year
colleges. The requirements for graduation need to be increased to include four years
of English, three years of math and science. Education should not just be academic
as students need the skills to be successful at work and in society.
6. School decisions are based on data. High schools should communicate
with employers to determine what skills are important for employment. Schools must
communicate with colleges and universities regarding preparation of students for
post secondary education. In turn, post-secondary student success should be
available to district schools.
These criteria were introduced in Iowa and appeared to be logical factors for
all schools. A rigorous curriculum and data-based decisions were also discussed in
reports from NCLB. The states were mandated to be involved proponents for their
school districts, and the yearly tests and reports provided the data which were to
drive reform. Another comprehensive plan suggested that core principles were
necessary to meet the content specific needs of each state in their efforts to educate
all children. The National High School Alliance proposed their framework to close
the achievement gap by presenting six core principles which foster high academic
achievement (2005):
54
1. Personalized learning environments: helps student meet academic
standards by designing curriculum, supports, and a learning climate which focuses
on student needs. A major factor in these environments is the need to restructure
schools into smaller units or centers. The large, urban high school has not presented
this environment, but dividing these huge schools into smaller teams would be one
way around this issue.
2. Academic engagement of all students: this works best when educators and
students co-construct learning activities relevant to economic, social, and political
dynamics at the local, national, and global levels. Low level and general classes
should be eliminated as students must be challenged in higher-order thinking classes.
3. Empowered educators: teachers and support staff must work together and
collaborate on the needs of students as well as practices which have proven effective
for all students. Teachers should be encouraged to try new methods and supplement
as needed. They know what their students need and should make the pedagogical
decisions. Teachers must be empowered with the authority to plan professional
development and implement those processes which work.
4. Accountable leaders: the educational leaders must be responsible to the
staff, students, and community in which they work. They must recognize the
importance of effective teachers and strive to retain as many as possible. The school
leader must realize the importance of innovation and be fearless when trying new
programs and procedures. These leaders must read and share student data with
stakeholders looking for trends, strengths, and weaknesses.
55
5. Engaged community and youth: the students and all stakeholders must
share in the school vision and assume responsibility for their part. If the community
is unresponsive, then the school leader must find a way to involve them.
6. Integrated system of high standards, curriculum, instruction, assessments,
and supports: there are clear expectations for all students and parameters to judge
success or failure for each year students complete. There are clear and rigorous
standards which are aligned with curricula. Intended outcomes and assessment
methods are in place before a project or learning activity is initiated. There is
literacy instruction and remediation available as well as accelerated learning
activities for students who wish to exceed standards.
Again, the community is shown to be an active participant in the learning that
goes on in the school, and all stakeholders are aware of content standards necessary
for grade and school completion.
A separate report that was presented in Utah suggested creating a high school
with a positive climate as the answer to failing schools. Orem High School was
shown to be a place where students wanted to come. While most stakeholders
reported that schools were uninviting, and Linda Darling-Hammond (1997)
described them as pretty much alike, no matter where they were, Orem was the
contradiction. Students were seen as worthy of respect, and the school provided an
environment for teacher-student relationships to flourish. While there was an
inviting atmosphere, the curriculum was rigorous and taught by excellent teachers
who wanted to be there. Decisions were made by participation, cooperation, and
56
collaboration. Students were encouraged to take responsibility, be involved, and
speak their own voices (Hansen & Childs, 1998). This report provided more criteria
evident in successful schools; inviting atmosphere, rigorous curriculum, valued
teachers, and student involvement.
High Performing High Poverty Schools
There are successful high schools which do not resemble the normal
suburban examples previously discussed. These high performing high poverty
schools excelled in spite of the issues they faced. High poverty schools are those
defined by concentrations of low performing minority and poor students. These
schools and districts serve communities with high concentrations of poor residents.
Of the eleven million students served nationally by ESEA Title I, minority students
participate at higher rates than non-minorities. Hispanic students comprise
approximately 30 percent of Title I participants, but only 14 percent of the total
student population. African-Americans are close behind with 28 percent enrolled in
Title I classes but 17 percent of total student enrollment. Title I also provided
services to over two million students with limited English proficiency (ESEA, Title
I, 2000). Along with language issues and large minority populations the urban
schools have large numbers of students on free and reduced lunch programs.
In addition to the conditions of poverty over which the schools have no
control, there are factors present in large urban schools that exacerbate an already
difficult situation. Students often travel through dangerous neighborhoods filled
with gang activity and fear. There are reminders of poverty and frustration
57
everywhere and high levels of unemployment. Children arrive at schools unprepared
to work and years behind in academic achievement. The dropout rates among
minority students are higher in the urban schools. Discipline and truancy prove more
of an issue in these schools.
Despite this dismal description, there exist numerous examples of high
performing urban schools. Daniel Duke (2006) introduced five important studies
published between 1999 and 2004, which described urban programs that raised
academic achievement to impressive levels. Each study produced a list of
characteristics associated with the process of improving low performing schools.
Many of the same characteristics previously identified in successful, regular high
schools were necessary to raise achievement in urban schools. The characteristics
present in successful urban schools were:
• Assistance: Help for a student was always available.
• Collaboration: Teachers were expected to work together for the benefit of
students.
• Data-driven decision making: Student achievement data was used to assess
programs.
• Leadership: Effective teachers and principal were a must.
• Organizational structure: Staff roles, teams, and planning were created to
help student achievement.
• Staff development: Teachers received training on a regular basis.
58
• Alignment: Tests were aligned with curriculum content, which was aligned
with instruction.
• Assessment: Students were assessed on a regular basis to determine
progress.
• High expectations: Teachers insisted all students were capable of
completing high level work.
• Parent involvement: School personnel reached out to parents to help in the
education of their children.
• Scheduling: Daily schedule was adjusted to increase time for academic
work.
While the factors present in effective, successful urban schools mirrored
those in suburban high schools, there were challenges which were unique to the
urban schools. Recognizing that these schools could change and the students could
learn was the vision accepted by all stakeholders including community leaders.
Retaining veteran teachers who were effective, knowledgeable, and content trained
was an issue which continued to pose problems. This difficult job caused an exodus
of seasoned veterans from the urban schools causing the neediest students to have the
most inexperienced teachers. Many classes were conducted by substitutes for the
entire school year. Minority students and those with limited English proficiency
faced an uphill battle to master high school curriculum if they could not read and
comprehend effectively. Finally, the last two years of high school must be regarded
as important to future plans. While many students planned to go to college or a
59
vocational school, they were not prepared for the world of post-secondary education,
nor did they possess the skills necessary to succeed in work or vocational training.
Students needed intense career counseling and courses which could help them
achieve their goals after high school (Bottoms, Fox, & New, 2000).
While there are schools which succeed where most fail, there is no reason to
celebrate. The lesson to be learned is that urban high schools are not meeting the
needs of their students. There are a few successful schools, but they should be the
rule rather than the exception. The lessons gleaned from this study should be applied
to all schools. First, students who are held accountable with high-level academic
courses and high expectations for success do achieve at higher levels. States and
districts should use end of course exams to help determine course grades. These
grades should then be used as data to drive change where needed. Secondly, schools
offering modern career/technical courses and counseling produce students who are
more successful after high school. This also supports the theory that students who
are given options and relevant curriculum see validity in the work they do and can
apply it to their own lives. Finally, schools need leadership teams dedicated to
improving curricula, instruction, and student achievement. Students should arrive at
school, suburban or urban, armed with the knowledge they are welcome and
responsible for their own learning. They will be given relevant, rigorous curricula
which will successfully prepare them for life after high school. If this happens, then
education is keeping its promise: it is equipping the next generation with the tools to
be successful members of a global society.
60
Student Engagement in High School
Students who participate in the academic and non-academic pursuits and
have a positive attitude about school and themselves are said to be engaged. These
students have good relationships with school staff and their peers. They feel as if
they belong in school. There are other students who do not feel like they belong in
school. The term disengaged describes students who have withdrawn from school
activities in a significant way (Willms, 2003). They do not get along with school
personnel and have few friends. They are more likely to misbehave and quit trying
altogether. Educators and researchers considered how these groups performed in
high school thereby determining if one group was destined for success, while the
other looked forward to a life of failure. Attention was focused on determining the
factors that caused some students to enjoy and excel in school while others failed or
did not finish. Researchers studied schools and student achievement and discovered
that student engagement played a significant role in student success.
Engagement refers to the extent to which students identify with school and
value the lessons learned there. Students who are engaged also actively participate
in the academic and non-academic activities in school. There are two components of
engagement; the psychological component, also known as affective engagement.
The psychological component refers to the students’ sense of belonging in school,
feelings of acceptance by peers, and the acceptance of school values and policies.
Students recognize the importance of education and realize it will benefit them in the
future. They enjoy learning and are intrinsically motivated (Hudley, Daoud, Polanco,
61
Wright-Castro, Hershberg, 2003). Behavioral engagement represents what students
do to remain involved in learning. The behavioral component is characterized by
factors including participation in school activities such as attendance, class
preparation, completing assignments and projects, and involvement in extra-
curricular activities (Willms, 2003). These students are less likely to become
disciplinary problems or exhibit poor attendance.
The other group are the disengaged; those who do not feel as if they belong
in school. They do not participate in school activities and have poor academics. The
reasons for disengagement are varied, but can include parents, teachers, schools, and
communities. Disengagement appears during adolescence when students find new
friends and develop a social network which takes a great deal of time. This period
also introduces great amounts of new academic content to be mastered. These two
forces compete and determine the level to which students disengage. Disengaged
students can survive temporarily with minimal effort, but they cannot meet the
rigorous cognitive demands of secondary education without effort (Newman, 1989).
While student failure was a concern in high school, disengagement has not proven
permanent or inflexible. Students could experience periods of disengagement,
recover, and enjoy scholastic success. Conversely, even successful students can
disengage due to poor teachers, family issues, poor school policies, and poor
curriculum.
Research suggests that engagement is a predictor of student success in
school. Engagement has been related to the successful emotional adjustment of
62
students in middle school and academic achievement in secondary school. Students
who were engaged in their learning have been shown to exhibit higher level
reasoning skills and feelings of emotional well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1987). These
students were also less likely to leave school before graduating. There was, however,
great concern about the disengaged high school student. Because ethnic minority
students were more likely to leave school early (NCES, 2000), the degree of
engagement they enjoyed was questionable. When the educational climate was
reviewed, minority students viewed teacher warmth as a validation of their own
worth. This factor was more important to Latino youth whose culture places great
value on personal relationships. Anglo students, whose culture was more
competitive and independent, were not concerned with teacher relationships.
However, there has existed a perception that teachers view students differently based
on their ethnicity. Research in multicultural education has revealed that teachers
perceive African-American and Latino students as more behaviorally (discipline
problems) and affectively (do not care about school) disengaged than other groups
(Kalin, 1999; Katz, 1999). Students subjected to this bias experienced an
unsupportive learning environment.
Although research examining the effect of engagement on achievement is
limited, studies exist which demonstrate a strong positive relationship between
engagement and performance across diverse populations (Marks, 2000). How
students choose to allocate their attention depends on the interaction of several
factors including natural inclinations, satisfaction from task completion, and the
63
relevance attached to the task (2000). With the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002,
schools suddenly became accountable for student progress. With NAEP results and
standards-based testing in every state, school districts were painfully aware of which
schools were succeeding and which were failing. The end of grade tests and high
school exit exams were not, however, identifying the specific educational processes
that lead to the outcomes reported. While reports printed test scores, they did not
point to specific student behaviors and school features which could affect student
achievement (HSSSE, 2005).
Indiana University and the creation of the High School Survey of Student
Engagement
Educators across the nation recognized that engaged students were more
successful at every level than their disengaged counterparts, but there was no data
collection instrument available to substantiate these claims. This need was
recognized with Indiana University’s creation of the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE), a data collection instrument which allowed schools to
compare themselves and their students to others across the country. The results,
reported back to the schools in a timely manner, provided information which enabled
the schools to determine where resources were needed and where attention should be
focused to maximize student learning and school effectiveness (2005). The survey
was pilot tested in the spring of 2003 with 7200 students in four high schools. The
instrument was reviewed, revised, and completed by 90,530 students in April 2004.
In 2005, an additional 80,904 students completed the survey.
64
Each year Indiana University conducts the survey to gather data on student
trends. Most importantly, data collected from the HSSSE provides school districts
with information on student engagement in educational practices in their high
schools. The data are returned to each school in a customized report comparing that
school’s results with all students who completed the survey. School personnel can
use this information to make changes which will increase student productivity. The
survey reports on student class preparation and school work, and programs can be
altered if data shows poor preparation (HSSSE, 2005). One of the most common
uses of the data is in school improvement plans. The HSSSE is noted in these plans
as a tool to monitor programs and initiatives which are in place. While the returns
provide valuable information to the participating schools, there is a lack of data from
urban schools. The survey is voluntary, and many school districts have chosen to
participate, but there is no complete body of data based on the returns of high
poverty minority schools. Before student engagement trends can be generalized
across America, the survey must be administered to minority urban schools in
districts across the country. While certain trends show engagement in middle class
suburban schools, this study will determine if these trends hold true in an urban
school in Los Angeles or Atlanta.
It is important to gather data on a variety of high school organizations
including minority schools, those with large immigrant populations, and large urban
schools in high poverty neighborhoods. There will be schools that succeed and
outperform other urban schools. With similar populations, why do some schools
65
succeed while others fail? There are urban schools that outperform everyone, and it
is imperative to examine the effective practices these schools utilize to engage their
students. If engagement is vital to student success in suburban high schools, is it also
the key in successful urban settings? It is the intent of this research to determine the
presence of student engagement and its effect in the urban school.
66
CHAPTER 3:
METHODOLOGY
A. Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if a link exists between student
engagement and achievement in high performing urban high schools. This research
focused on two questions: 1) What perceived factors contribute to academic
achievement in a high performing urban high school? 2) Is there a link between
student engagement and student achievement in a high performing urban high
school? The thematic research group studied successful urban high schools in
southern California to identify urban factors and what made those schools high
performing. A qualitative research approach was selected because of its focus on the
intensive study of specific instances, or cases, of a phenomenon (Gall, 2003). A case
study method was selected to “shed light” on a phenomenon, namely urban high
schools which are outperforming similar schools.
The researchers consisted of ten doctoral students at the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. These ten individuals selected to
work on the thematic topic of student engagement in urban high schools from a
number of different topics offered during a Summer Institute in 2006. The students
began meeting in December of 2006 and continued into 2007 as a thematic
dissertation group. They then created a conceptual model that served as a rubric to
guide the formulation of the data collection instruments. The thematic group, armed
with research questions and a design, reviewed the data results of the High School
67
Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), decided on a definition of student
engagement, and finalized the study to be conducted.
The study called for reviewing the results from the HSSSE, an annual survey
created by Indiana University, which assessed the perceptions high school students
held about their involvement in school activities which were associated with learning
and development. Using the secondary data provided by the HSSSE, criteria were
selected as a framework to guide in the selection of a high performing urban high
school. The case study created from the research in this school provided a thick
description of the cultural phenomenon, and the researcher hoped to determine
constructs from the data which identified the factors present in high performing
urban high schools. Most importantly, it was an expectation of this study to identify
student engagement as a factor in student achievement in urban schools.
The case study is a viable research method that enabled this researcher to
compare results to nine similar studies to strengthen the data collection by
developing uniform data collection instruments. The multi-method format afforded
by the case study was designed specifically for this phenomenon by the ten members
of the thematic group. The project design development as well instrument protocol
and selected report format were created by the research team which still allowed
each member to conduct his/her own individual study. The mixed methods possessed
both qualitative and quantitative components which added to the validity of the
study. In the quantitative area, the use of the High School Survey of Student
Engagement provided an instrument with objective results. While the HSSSE was
68
secondary data, the results of the survey were used to define the parameters of
engagement. The qualitative case study permitted the researcher to produce an in-
depth, systematic, comprehensive study of the students, teachers, administrators, and
support staff in a large urban high school while enabling the reader to have the
information necessary to understand the school and appreciate its unique status
among high schools today (Patton, 2002). The voices of these stakeholders
interpreted their experiences and provided the basis for a dense narrative. Each of
the ten members of the thematic group produced the case study of one high-
performing urban high school. By combining the data collected over ten schools, the
group hoped to produce readable, descriptive stories about urban high performing
high schools. While patterns or themes from one case study might identify possible
factors of high performing urban high schools, it would be difficult to ignore those
patterns and emerging themes when they appeared in ten different school studies.
Because the thematic group members selected schools with similar characteristics
and demographics, similar factors emerged which strengthened the study and
validated the research questions.
Development of the Conceptual Model
It was necessary to develop a conceptual model of the study we wanted to
conduct. The case study design was specific to the phenomena and our group. The
conceptual model began as theoretical statements of what we knew versus what we
did not know, but after reviewing Joseph Maxwell’s components, we recognized the
69
need to frame our issues as questions which needed their answers from our study
(Maxwell, 1998).
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
?
Globalization
Accountability
National/State/
District Influences
Urban-like
Risk Factors
Improved
Student
Learning
Leadership
Student
Engagement
School
Culture
Curriculum &
Instruction
70
The research group posited that high performing schools looked a certain way
and contained similar, general factors, and it was important to identify them. The
secondary data provided by the HSSSE showed students’ self-perceived ideas
concerning their success. While this was a national student survey, data concerning
the perceptions of urban students was limited. Using the research questions of
student engagement and identifying other factors of success, we created the
conceptual model as the rubric to guide data collection. We knew there were high
performing urban high schools that fit the mold demographically but not
academically. In the age of accountability and NCLB, state, and local influences, it
was imperative to identify the factors which enabled urban schools to outperform
their counterparts.
B. Sample and Population
Since the study utilized applied research, the first task was to decide on the
factors a school needed to be considered urban. Patton (2002) in his description of
applied research posited that the questions for a researcher to ask lie in the problems
and concerns experienced by people and articulated by policymakers. We focused
on urban schools because while the HSSSE provided information about students in
high schools across America, there was a dearth of relevant information about the
students in urban high schools. It was important to study this population to ascertain
if all high performing high schools contribute part of their success to student
engagement. The research permitted a focus on the urban schools to provide a
realistic, balanced picture of high school students in America today.
71
My qualitative study is a case study of one urban, high-performing high
school. The sample was selected purposefully after developing criteria to define an
urban school and the factors which constitute high performance. Patton (2002)
explains the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in the information rich
cases that provide a wealth of knowledge about issues of central importance to the
purpose of the inquiry. My research focused on the factors I hoped to uncover that
were present in high performing urban high schools, and purposeful sampling
afforded the opportunity to find these answers.
While no singular definition of urban exists, the researchers decided to use
the demographics of public schools in high poverty areas in Los Angeles County.
The schools were Title I designated, meaning there was a large percentage of
students performing below grade level and possessing economic features such as a
low socioeconomic status. One of the major factors of a Title I school is that at least
40% of the students must be on free or reduced lunch. Another factor required that
there was a high percentage of English Language Learners in the school, and the
ethnicity was varied with a majority representation of the population. A final factor
included was the determination of the community in which the school resided. It
was important that the neighborhood mirror the school population, so it was
necessary to find low socioeconomic status neighborhoods with high poverty and a
high percentage of immigrants.
After defining the parameters for school selection, it was necessary to
identify the characteristics of high performing high schools. The thematic
72
dissertation group considered a number of possible factors present in high
performing high schools including graduation rates and state ranking. Because of the
national attention on school accountability due to No Child Left Behind, attention
was focused on the school reports created by the California Department of Education
(CDE). The researcher used school assessment scores earned on the state tests to
guide the choice of high performing schools for the research. A visit to the CDE
website directed me to the Policy and Evaluation Division and the Data and Statistics
page where a service named DataQuest provided all of the information necessary to
make a school decision. DataQuest provided reports for accountability including the
API and Adequate Yearly Progress AYP, test data, enrollment, graduates, dropouts,
course enrollments, staffing, and English Language Learners data (CDE, 2007).
Public schools in California use the Academic Performance Index (API) to
measure the academic performance and progress of schools. The API is a numeric
index that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. A school’s score on the API
is an indicator of the school’s performance. The state has set an API score of 800 as
the benchmark. School growth is measured by how well it is moving toward this
score or past it. Schools which do not meet this score must meet annual growth
targets until they reach 800. Schools which meet or exceed 800 must continue
improving with a goal to have academic improvement by the entire student body.
Information reviewed from DataQuest was used including API reports for
schools and chose school districts in Los Angeles County. The reports and
assessments on a variety of possible schools were reviewed to determine those that
73
fit the criteria. The reports studied were the School Report: Base API, Ranks, and
Targets, and the School Report: API Growth and Targets Met for 2006-2007.
Report #1: Base API, Ranks, and Targets
This report summarized the school’s performance on the spring 2007
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program testing and the California
High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE). The 2007 Base API served as the
baseline of performance with which to compare current scores and determine growth
and high performance. This report included a statewide rank and a similar schools
rank. This information showed where a school ranked on a scale of one to ten
compared with other schools statewide (Statewide rank). It also compares the school
with 100 other schools with similar characteristics and demographics (similar
schools rank). I was interested in the state rank of high schools only and discovered
that the API scores of every high school in the state are sorted from lowest to highest
and then divided into ten equal groups or deciles. The lowest schools are in the first
decile, and the highest scoring schools are in the tenth. The Similar Schools Rank is
calculated using the School Characteristics Index (SCI) which is a composite of the
school’s demographic characteristics including such factors as grade span, Gifted
and Talented Education program, students with disabilities, Reclassified fluent-
English-proficient (RFEP) students, migrant education students, and students in full-
day-reduced size classes. Schools with similar SCI’s face similar educational
challenges and opportunities. A school is compared to fifty schools just above their
SCI and fifty just below. These 100 schools are then sorted from lowest to highest
74
according to their API Base and divided into ten deciles. The school is assigned a
decile rank based on this comparison, and this is the similar schools rank which we
used as one of the factors to determine if our school was high performing (CDE,
2006). My target school needed to perform higher on the Similar Schools Rank than
the state rank by at least two deciles.
Report #2 API Growth and Targets Met
The 2007 School Report-API Growth and Targets Met report was reviewed
to determine growth in the Academic Performance Index (API) from 2006 to 2007.
The results on the 2007 Growth API summarize the school’s performance one the
2007 Standardized Testing and Reporting ( STAR) Program and 2007 California
High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) tests (CDE, 2007). The score was
compared to the 2006 Base API to determine growth. The growth target determined
if our schools met the state API growth targets school wide, met comparable
improvement targets, and met both sets of targets. While it was important to show
growth and meet the targets set by the state, this was not mandatory for school
consideration. A school could miss the target growth, or perhaps show no growth,
and still meet our criteria by being two deciles higher on the similar schools rank.
The School Selected for the Case Study
As soon as a suitable candidate was identified, the demographics of the
school were reviewed using the approved criteria for the urban school. The school, a
large, urban high school serving grades 9-12 was located in Los Angeles. John Q.
Public High School had a long history in Southern California, opening in 1971 and
75
operating continuously since then. It is a racially diverse Title I school with
approximately 3200 students. Student ethnicity is divided in the following
percentages: Al/Alsk 0.3, Asian 2.1, Filipino 1.5, Pacific Islander 0.0, Black 5.1,
Hispanic 70.0, and White 12. John Q. Public operated on a traditional school
calendar with the school year beginning in September and culminating in June.
After selecting John Q. Public High School in March of 2007, I contacted the
Principal MS. Cox, (a pseudonym) with my proposal to determine what the school
was “doing right” that could be identified and presented for use on other campuses.
The USC program was introduced to the administration and school leadership at J.
Q. Public High along with information about the research and what I hoped to
discover. Since the schools identified by the thematic group have defied the odds,
we were offering research which could provide valuable insight to the school
participants and stakeholders. In our initial meeting, Ms. Cox was most concerned
with the amount of intrusion I would cause to her staff and students. I explained that
I would not be interacting with the students, and I would work only with staff
members who volunteered to speak with me. I also presented the High School
Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) component as part of the study and
explained how it is concerned with a relationship between student engagement and
achievement.
Ms. Cox called to inform me that the Leadership team was “excited” about
my research. Their reasoning was that since most leadership decisions about funding
and programs concerning students are data driven, the information gleaned from my
76
research and the results from the HSSSE could provide data necessary to drive
programs which would best serve the students at John Q.
I presented my proposal to the staff on the “buy-back” day before school
opened in September 2007 to introduce them to the HSSSE survey and the national
database so they could begin to familiarize themselves with the instrument to be
administered. I prepared a fifteen minute PowerPoint presentation using the slides
and information from my proposal defense. I also created volunteer sign-up sheets
for those teachers who would either be interviewed or observed in their classrooms
and distributed them for staff consideration.
The staff was provided with literature from Indiana University, the creators
of the HSSSE, and directed to the website for an explanation of the survey and its
protocol. It was important that the staff understand that they would administer the
instrument, which would provide the data on the students’ perceptions of their
engagement, and we would use the results in our data collections to support our
findings and strengthen our triangulation.
C. Data Collection Procedures
The data collection instruments and procedures were all created by the cohort
group. Instruments and protocols were introduced, discussed at great length,
discarded and replaced by new and improved models. With the cohort-created
instruments and procedures in hand, it was time to begin the actual collection of
information in the individual schools. Since the thematic dissertation group created a
research design around the case study concept, it was necessary to collect a large
77
amount of data about each specific school selected to represent the phenomenon
(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). We created the data collection instruments to address
different groups and purposes, so it was important to become visiting ‘members’ of
the school. I spent time in the school to become familiar with the schedules,
personnel, students, and the environment. I became a familiar face on campus and
was visible to all of the different factions there. The students and staff needed to be
comfortable with me and realize that while I was there to collect information, my
purpose was not to ‘check up’ on them.
The thematic group decided on using multiple sources of data to ensure a
greater opportunity to gather enough information to provide a thick and rich
description in the case study. Triangulation, defined as a combination of
methodologies in a study, provided a method of establishing the accuracy of
information by comparing three or more types of independent points of view on data
sources (BJA, 2007). In this study the interviews, document review, observations,
and surveys served as the data sources to triangulate. The various data sources would
also combine to provide an increase in accuracy and credibility of findings (Patton,
2002). The researchers were aware of the different instruments they wanted to use
and created each one as a group during the monthly dissertation classes in the spring
of 2007. Beginning with the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE),
the cohort familiarized themselves with the survey which enabled them to identify
the various themes which emerged about high school students and their beliefs about
their academic success.
78
Document Review
Documents germane to the school, its programs and performance were the
first area of data to review. A rubric of possible documents to consider was created
by the thematic group (Appendix A). My research began with a visit to the
California Department of Education (CDE) website to retrieve information necessary
in helping me choose John Q. as my school to study. Here I retrieved the statistics
for ethnicity, demographics and graduation rates. Using the CDE DataQuest website
for statistics, I reviewed John Q.’s scores for The Academic Performance Index
(API), the API Growth and Targets Met, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO), the Similar Schools Ranking, School
Demographics, and the Program Improvement (PI) statistics. I also gathered
achievement information including the Mean SAT scores for 2001-2006 and the
CAHSEE percentage rates.
The Southern California High School District has websites for each school,
and a visit to the John Q. Public High School website afforded me an opportunity to
review the various information available. The school website provided a wealth of
information including Bell Schedule, holidays, minimum days, News &
Announcements, Mission Statement, Alumni Directory, Library hours and suggested
reading lists, sports schedules, and college/scholarship information and web links. A
list of programs, school sponsored clubs, and events were available from the pull-
down menu on another page. Another tab guided me to the Academic Resources
where I found the courses and teacher assignments along with assignments for the
79
grading period. This information is supposed to be updated periodically by the
teachers, but three staff members told me that this does not happen. During my
meeting with the parents, they also were aware of the webpage and checked
regularly, but most of their children’s teachers did not keep the assignments and tests
updated. I also reviewed John Q. Public’s School Accountability Report Card
(SARC) for pertinent demographic information. This report is compiled by the
district each year, so the most current data available is the report for the 2005-2006
school year.
Patton (2002) suggests that the researcher negotiate access to on site
documents at the very beginning of the research. I collected a large number of
documents during my visits to the school. I requested and received a copy of the
school’s Cougar Pride Parent-Student Handbook 2007-2008. Other important
documents I reviewed that provided insight were The Word which was the school
newspaper, newsletters and parent information from Parent Expectations Support
Achievement (PESA) Center, the Cougar Pride Standards of Conduct, and the Tardy
Policies and Attendance Plan.
I requested a copy of the school’s WASC Accreditation Review 2005-2006
because it was important to determine where J. Q. Public was in their accreditation
cycle through the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Every
school in California is responsible for providing both cognitive and affective
components of learning for every student. The schools must also engage in periodic
objective and subjective internal and external evaluations to determine the ongoing
80
progress and success of their programs. The WASC Commission grants
accreditation to schools based on a cycle of self-study, visit and follow-up which is
repeated every six years (WASC, 2007). Documents are generated and filed based
on this process, so it was imperative to review them. I asked for minutes from staff
and department meetings, correspondence to and from all staff, financial and budget
records, organizational rules, regulations, discipline records, student grades and
grade point averages, and any other documents generated on or for the program.
These documents provided the researcher with information about things that cannot
be observed. It was possible that these documents would also reveal events that took
place before the study began (2002). This would be important in a narrative to
suggest that many of the incidents observed now are a result of previous programs
and situations. The thematic group contends that documents could serve as a
stimulus for inquiry enabling the researcher to adjust his/her focus and concentrate
on factors not previously considered.
Teacher and Administrator Surveys
The next data collection instrument created was a survey for teachers and
principals to corroborate the student responses from the HSSSE. The instruments
were entitled, Survey of High School Teachers Regarding Student Engagement and
the Survey of High School Administrators Regarding Student Engagement. They
were formatted to mirror the student survey themes, but asked the staff questions
concerning student performance in areas including homework, length of papers
assigned, student involvement in school activities, campus safety, and adult concern
81
for students. This activity was deemed necessary to see the student achievement and
effort from the perspective of the adults who interacted with them. I posited that
although high school students believe they put forth enough effort to excel, there are
few teachers who hold the same beliefs. Research showed that while students
perform with an adequate level of effort, they do not put in the necessary effort to
excel or even survive in college (Indiana University, 2005). An open-ended question
was included: “What are the factors that you feel contribute to student
achievement?” to encourage further dialogue with the staff.
While the survey was formatted like the HSSSE, there were too many
questions. The director of the USC Dissertation Support Center met with the
research group to review the instruments and suggested modifications to the surveys.
The final drafts were composed of twenty-four questions on the teacher survey
(Appendix B) and twenty-two on the administrative survey including the open-ended
responses (Appendix C).
It was estimated that the survey should take less than five minutes to
complete, so I delivered 140 surveys to the school which were distributed to the staff
by the school union representative and administration. I also left a contact sheet for
the staff to sign if they would be willing to participate later in interviews which
would include questions based on the open ended responses from the survey. Due to
problems with the distribution and collection, I received twenty completed teacher
surveys from 137 teachers. I spoke with Ms. Cox who had the completed
Administrator surveys, and she sent messages and announcements to her staff to
82
return additional surveys. She exclaimed that she was “not surprised because my
teachers do not always complete tasks in a timely manner.” I received a total of
thirty-eight completed surveys or approximately 30% of those distributed. While the
surveys provided a needed perspective of the students of John Q. Public, the small
number returned did not afford me the majority representation I had hoped for my
results.
Observations
The next procedure was to observe various people and situations in the
school environment to get a good picture of the daily operation of the school. The
observation was a crucial data collection instrument because it would enable the
researcher to better understand and capture the context within which our subjects
would interact (Patton, 2002). The thematic group developed a number of different
observation forms to use for classroom, leadership, staff meetings, and school
environment observations. The group suggested at least fifteen observations. The
Dissertation Support Center director suggested fewer observations stating that with
our time constraints, we were scheduling multiple observations and too many visits.
She suggested ten observations of two teachers in different classes for a day, or five
teachers in different classes. A third option was suggested: we could schedule a day
and observe the school and perhaps shadow the principal for part of the day, and stay
for a staff meeting. We could then spend another day observing teachers in different
grade levels and subjects to get a true representation of the academic rigor
maintained in the school. The final number of actual interviews was left to the
83
discretion of the researcher. The DSC director also suggested that we streamline our
observation forms to allow for spontaneity. A more simplistic observation chart was
created with the various groups in headings along the top. With a universal form, the
observer was free to choose a class or situation to watch and take notes for later
transcription and perhaps discover something to which no one paid attention. Those
involved in the school environment were participants in the routines which they took
for granted and were unaware of important nuances upon which we would focus.
I visited the school weekly for two months beginning in October 2007, and
completed all data collection before Thanksgiving. I conducted twenty observations
which were considerably more than initially intended. The observations were
important to the case study description as a basis of reference for the data
interpretation. (Appendix D) The feelings and impressions of the researcher became
part of the data in an attempt to understand the school setting and the individuals
who inhabited it (Patton, 2002).
Interviews
The interviews were the final data collection instrument scheduled. We
hoped that there would be extensive response to the survey and common themes
might begin to emerge from the open-ended questions. The group engaged in a
lengthy discussion concerning the number of interviews to complete finally deciding
on five. The next step was to compose a list of possible subjects who could be
interviewed. A list of questions was created with open-ended elements that
specifically addressed those factors the respondents considered as contributors to
84
student achievement. There was also a question concerning student engagement, as
defined by the cohort group, and its role in achievement The key stakeholders to
include in the interview process were: the principal, assistant principals, school
support staff, teachers, parent group members, community stakeholders, and extra-
curricular activities leaders who may be visiting staff members who are not full time
staff. We wanted to present minimal intrusion and asked for volunteers based on
their responses to the open-ended survey question. We used the survey as a starting
point for conversation and further questions, using audiotapes after securing
permission from each respondent. We wanted to make sure to have the subjects’
actual dialogue for quotes to add to our thick description. (Appendix E). Once again,
the final number of interviews was left to the discretion of the researcher.
In my data collection, it was fortuitous that the Principal helped me find more
volunteers than I had anticipated. I was able to conduct 13 individual interviews and
one focus group. I completed more interviews because they were the most intimate
and information packed instrument I used. They increased the probability that I was
studying opinions and the real thoughts of the participants rather than facts and
statistics. I was able to record various aspects of the culture of John Q. from passing
periods to Calculus classes and speak with stakeholders associated with the school in
various capacities.
These data collection instruments afforded me an opportunity to gather
extensive data from which to discover the answers to the research questions and
possibly find themes which emerged from this wealth of information.
85
D. Data Analysis
The process of data analysis involved making sense out of the collected
information. It was an ongoing process of continual reflection about the data and
asking analytical questions as the researcher attempted to formulate common themes
that emerged (Creswell, 2003). Since the thematic cohort used the case study
approach, a detailed description of the participants and setting was provided
followed by an analysis of the data and an explanation of emergent themes as
described in Creswell’s Six Steps of Data Analysis:
Step 1: Organize and prepare the data for analysis.
Step 2: Read through all the data.
Step 3: Begin detailed analysis with a coding process.
Step 4: Use the coding process to generate a description of the setting or
people as well as categories or themes for analysis.
Step 5: Advance how the description and themes will be represented in the
qualitative narrative.
Step 6: Make an interpretation or meaning of the data (2003).
The final phase began with a collection, organization, and preparation of the
data for analysis. The group used multiple instruments including interviews,
surveys, observations, and document reviews. This method was chosen because
triangulation strengthens the validity of a study by combining methods (Patton,
2002). Survey responses led to interviews; while observing staff and students in the
86
environment afforded an opportunity to experience incidents which might not
otherwise have been uncovered.
When data collection was completed, it was important to study all of the
collected data and reread the transcripts of interviews and observations which
afforded me an opportunity to reflect on the general research experience. It was then
important to organize the information into similar topics hoping that new categories
or themes might emerge. This system of coding, Step 3 of the data analysis process,
was used as the process of bringing the material to ‘chunks’ or categories and
labeling them with a term based on the actual language of the study participants
(Creswell, 2003). The coding process afforded the researcher a detailed description
of the collected information about the study subjects, places, and events recorded in
the data. Then, the coding was used to generate three to five themes or categories
that would appear in the narrative as findings.
A review of the evidence was important to validate the case study.
Triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods such as the multiple data
collection instruments utilized by the researcher. Since qualitative research uses
multiple methods, this combination was employed to illuminate the research
questions of student engagement and factors of achievement in high performing
schools. By interviewing the staff, observing the school environment, document
analysis, and staff focused surveys, I was able to provide cross-data validity checks
with tests for consistency (Patton, 2002). Not only was each study validated by the
methodology implemented, but there were consistent themes which emerged from
87
the combined ten studies of the thematic group. To reiterate, factors discovered in
one study become more evident when they emerge from multiple studies. The
factors move from inquiry and theory into identifiable practices which can then be
applied at other schools.
The interpretation of the data served as the final step. It was here that the
discovery of themes, which emerged from the data, were discussed based on the
lessons learned by the researcher. The case study was written using an analytic
reporting style. While each researcher’s perspective was evident in the individual
reports, due to the thick description provided, there was a clear basis for the theories
developed and evidence present for the development of educational practices (Gall,
et al, 2003). The cohort process proved invaluable as the members were able to
check for consistent patterns of theme development across the ten studies while
working together in peer debriefing to clarify and validate each report (Creswell,
2003).
E. Ethical Considerations
The need to clarify researcher bias was the initial issue each member of the
cohort addressed. Since this researcher had no prior contact with the school, there
were no preconceived ideas about the school or the students. The self-reflection
discussed in the case study narrative would uncover any problems which arose.
Also, it was important to write and maintain the confidentiality of all school
stakeholders who were contacted. Not everyone involved in research at a large
urban high school wants to be identified through descriptions in a dissertation study.
88
It was important that no written information would allow readers to identify school
members who wished to remain anonymous. It was equally important that no
identifiable information concerning the school and its location was supplied
according to confidentiality guidelines.
Finally, professionalism was mandatory when visiting the school. It was
important that I, as the researcher, maintain a professional code of conduct. School
participants might not believe in the study or what I was trying to discover, so it was
imperative that those who participated understand that they were doing so voluntarily
and were not coerced in any way. They may exhibit negative behaviors or hostility
if forced to be involved. The participants at John Q. Public were apprised of my
purpose and the nature of my study so that they understudy its nature and likely
impact on them (Creswell, 2003). It was imperative that the researcher remain
objective and professional when interacting with these individuals to ensure accurate
reporting of their responses.
89
CHAPTER 4:
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE
FINDINGS
Introduction
This study was conducted as one of a thematic group from the University of
Southern California to identify those factors present which enable high performing
urban high schools to achieve greater results than schools with similar demographics.
This large, urban school has outperformed its counterparts “in spite of”
possessing the factors prevalent in such settings. Their Academic Performance Index
(API) showed a Base Score in 2006 of 655 and Growth in 2007 of 17 points to 672.
Compared to other schools on the Similar Schools Rankings, John Q. had a score of
6 out of 10 measured groups or deciles (CDE, 2007). The criteria used to determine
an ‘urban’ school included its Title I status which is defined by at least 40% of the
student body participation in the federal school lunch program (NSLP). The second
factor a school must possess is a high percentage of English Language Learners
(ELL). The final criterion necessary was that the school be located in an urban
community with a diverse population. These factors, in conjunction with the state
API and Similar School Rankings, yielded a small list of schools from which John Q.
Public High School was chosen.
The study was guided by the following research questions.
1) What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
90
2) Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
The data collected was closely aligned to the conceptual model introduced in
Chapter 3. The mixed method design possessed data collection techniques
associated with both qualitative and quantitative research. The field research
conducted using interviews and observations were combined with the traditional
quantitative aspect of surveys. Since all methods have limitations, the biases present
in a single method could cancel those of other methods (Creswell, 2003).
Triangulating the results from the various instruments enabled the results from one
method to provide insight into the different units of analysis (2003).
History of the program
John Q. Public High School was created as a visionary idea in 1971 in
northern Los Angeles County. Its purpose, as defined by the school district, was to
serve as the first multicultural school experience in the county. Its goal was to show
that all of the cultures of the San Fernandez Valley could coexist on the same
campus. This was prior to the large busing and desegregation movements and
magnet school opportunities in southern California. The attendance boundaries were
reconfigured to pull from the three main neighborhoods in this part of the valley.
The first area, Lakeview, was predominately African American; the second, San
Fernando was Latino. The third area from which students were pulled was the
predominately white North Valley. John Q. is one of 15 high schools located in the
Local district One and served as the newest school until the recent building projects
91
of the last five years. While the neighborhood has changed in the past fifteen years
and is no longer predominately white, John Q. still serves a diverse student body
from the three areas. With the addition of the magnet programs, The Architectural,
Digital Arts, and Film Magnets, the school now pulls students from all over the
district but must maintain an ethnicity requirement of 30% white student enrollment
of the 360 available students in these programs. The school’s enrollment for the
2007-2008 school year totals 3220 students in grades nine through twelve with 137
certificated teachers. A review of the WASC Accreditation Review of 2005-2006
showed that two of the current Administrators have been at this school for less than
three years including the Principal who was currently in her third year here. This
large, urban school with a long history in southern California appeared to be an
ordinary school struggling to educate over three thousand students in a multiethnic
environment. This case study school was an interesting choice as I hoped to
determine what set John Q. Public High School apart from its contemporaries.
Findings
The literature provided a description of the urban high school as an
antiquated secondary system conceived at the beginning of the last century. Too
many students attend large, comprehensive high schools where they experience
anonymity and lack of purpose (Baldwin, 2001). Most of these schools have never
graduated more than half of their students or prepared more than a third for
postsecondary education (2001).
92
In an era when large, urban schools have adopted a “shopping mall” approach
to educating diverse groups of students, the public observed thousands of students
who were anonymous and not challenged to work to their potential. The students
were bored, disengaged from learning, and disconnected from adult influence and
guidance (Baldwin, 2001).
My initial visit to John Q. Public High School did not resemble the large,
impersonal behemoth represented in the literature. I entered the quiet main hall and
was greeted by an adult attendant who directed me to the Main Office where I
experienced a tranquil yet businesslike atmosphere. Staff members who entered the
office greeted me with a friendly smile. The quiet, friendly, controlled atmosphere
had me puzzled as I wondered where the students were. If this was a normal school
day and this calm, inviting environment was the norm at John Q., then it could serve
as one of the factors of success to be identified.
Assessment and achievement Data
This study was presented to the faculty and staff at John Q. as an opportunity
to discover what they were “doing right.” While their Academic Performance Index
(API) showed a Base Score in 2006 of 655 and Growth in 2007 to 672, they
questioned their “outperforming” status, in their responses to the interview question,
“Would you consider your school high performing? Of the fourteen interviews
conducted, including one focus group, only one respondent answered an unequivocal
“yes.’ Some of the responses were:
93
#1 I would consider us medium performing. We have some who are
above average. We have a place for those who excel. We have great
college counselors. We just need to excel more.
#2 No; absolutely no. We have a long way to go. We do have high
performance areas, but we have much to do.
#3 No, it is higher but not high. The reading and writing skills here
are poor. We have a high fail rate. There are poor math skills here,
and we’ll be dinged again this year. English shows improvement, but
math isn’t showing growth. Math in general, not Algebra I, has
shown no growth.
#4 Yes. Test scores are an unfair way to evaluate our students and the
job we do. We have a huge number of students who have stretched
themselves far beyond what they should have been able to
accomplish. The students in Algebra II/Trig and Pre Calculus have
grown tremendously and are taking courses far beyond what they ever
expected they could take. We raise students to a higher level.
#5 No, we are not high performing. We don’t have the student
majority thinking college bound. The school offers a lot of Advanced
Placement classes. We really need to have an extensive program
beginning in 9
th
grade. The emphasis must begin here
While the staff had genuine concern for the success of their students, there
were very few positive comments about the actual success of the school in achieving
goals which realized an increase in achievement. It was necessary to review the
assessment and achievement data for John Q. Public High School to determine if
there were outstanding results in any of the standardized tests or performance
indicators.
94
Standardized Test Scores
API/AYP
With descriptors including “average” and “disappointing” concerning
achievement, I reviewed the statistics used as the benchmarks to gauge success in the
schools in California. Their API base scores and growth for the past four years are
represented in Table 1.
Table 1. API Base Scores and Growth
Year Growth Base Score Growth Target Growth
2007 672 655 (2006) 7 17
2006 660 665 (2005) 7 -5
2005 665 626 (2004) 9 39
2004 628 607 (2003) 10 21
Not only was there a seventeen point growth in John Q.’s API score, but
when the scores were separated into the various subgroups, all groups with the
exception of the Filipino and English Learners groups met their growth target.
Additionally, the school met the 2007 AYP criteria for proficiency in
English/Language Arts but not Mathematics. The California Department of
Education’s Policy and Evaluation Division explain the importance Performance-
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) as:
95
Proficiency levels measured using the California High School Exit
Exam with target percentages identified as AMOs. Each numerically
significant subgroup of students must meet the AMOs in both subjects
for the school to make Adequate Yearly Progress. The subgroups are
based on ethnicity, disability, socioeconomically disadvantaged
(free/reduced meal program and/or parents without high school
diplomas), and English language status (2007).
The school met 18 of 21 AYP criteria, and is not in Program Improvement (PI)
status.
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE)
The next important indicator of achievement was the CAHSEE, a graduation
requirement administered to students in grades 10, 11, and 12. The results were
reviewed for both English/Language Arts and Mathematics for all grades in a
Combined Report which indicates the results for all exam administrations in the
selected school year (CDE, 2007). This chart, created by the CDE shows the results
for all test administrations in 2006 and compares John Q.’s results with the district
and the state.
96
Table 2. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA)
by Program (Combined 2006) for (All Grades) John Q. Public High School
School Subject
All
Students
Special
Education
Students
English
Learner (EL)
Students
Redesignated Fluent-
English Proficient (RFEP)
Students
Socio- economically
Disadvantaged
Not socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
John Q. Public
High
#
Tested
Math 1,339 243 347 355 837 178
Passing
790
(59%)
41 (17%) 115 (33%) 274 (77%) 471 (56%) 133 (75%)
#
Tested
ELA 1,251 209 357 333 796 171
Passing
834
(67%)
64 (31%) 127 (36%) 281 (84%) 497 (62%) 147 (86%)
Districtwide
#
Tested
Math 80,904 11,818 26,230 22,175 59,906 9,680
Passing
40,306
(50%)
1,844 (16%) 7,947 (30%) 15,188 (68%) 28,367 (47%) 5,954 (62%)
#
Tested
ELA 74,362 11,676 26,681 19,247 55,627 8,471
Passing
41,083
(55%)
2,195 (19%) 7,409 (28%) 15,533 (81%) 28,821 (52%) 6,140 (72%)
Statewide
#
Tested
Math 795,243 101,669 176,752 92,741 378,679 302,163
Passing
467,168
(59%)
21,749 (21%) 62,613 (35%) 69,791 (75%) 181,391 (48%) 221,074 (73%)
#
Tested
ELA 777,702 108,046 199,857 85,801 378,306 290,150
Passing
473,911
(61%)
25,236 (23%) 56,944 (28%) 70,607 (82%) 182,739 (48%) 225,035 (78%)
In 2006, John Q. outperformed both the district and the state in English/Language Arts and outscored the district and tied the
state in students passing the Math section. In 2007, the most current results reported are for Grade 10 only.
97
Table 3. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA)
by Program (Combined 2007) for (Grade 10) John Q. Public High
School Subject
All
Students
Special
Education
Students
English
Learner (EL)
Students
Redesignated Fluent-
English Proficient (RFEP)
Students
Socio- economically
Disadvantaged
Not socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
John Q. Public
High
#
Tested
Math 889 103 198 289 626 132
Passing
600
(67%)
20 (19%) 63 (32%) 238 (82%) 397 (63%) 105 (80%)
#
Tested
ELA 869 97 189 292 616 130
Passing
607
(70%)
29 (30%) 52 (28%) 248 (85%) 396 (64%) 113 (87%)
Districtwide
#
Tested
Math 46,398 4,530 11,916 16,974 35,716 5,525
Passing
28,281
(61%)
819 (18%) 3,778 (32%) 12,990 (77%) 20,953 (59%) 4,188 (76%)
#
Tested
ELA 45,837 4,573 11,938 16,708 35,319 5,484
Passing
30,356
(66%)
1,032 (23%) 3,161 (26%) 14,203 (85%) 22,231 (63%) 4,594 (84%)
Statewide
#
Tested
Math 479,044 36,622 79,093 78,738 212,326 211,081
Passing
363,252
(76%)
11,835 (32%) 36,806 (47%) 67,460 (86%) 138,025 (65%) 182,529 (86%)
#
Tested
ELA 480,890 39,116 79,683 78,483 213,159 212,007
Passing
368,237
(77%)
12,892 (33%) 28,667 (36%) 69,801 (89%) 137,639 (65%) 187,010 (88%)
98
These results show that in both Math and English/Language Arts, John Q.
outperformed the district but still trailed the state percentages.
SAT Results
The mean Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores were studied for John Q., as shown
below:
Table 4. Mean Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores
Year Number of Students Critical Reading Math Writing
2006-07 246 449 465 453
2005-06 260 453 466 452
2004-05 203 446 474 NA
2003-04 164 449 473 NA
2002-03 167 443 467 NA
In Reading and Math, John Q. showed minimal growth over the five year
period with falling scores in both areas from 2005-06 to 2006-07. The Writing
component, required for the last two years, showed a one point growth. It was
interesting to note; however, that of the eleven additional high schools that I
reviewed in the Los Angelo School District, nine showed an average decline of
seven points in the Reading scores from 2005-06 to 2006-07 where John Q. fell four
99
points. For the same period in Math, the scores of five schools fell an average of 15
points, but John Q. lost only one point. For the two year period of the Writing
component, the scores of six of the schools fell an average of nine points, but John
Q. improved one point.
Graduation and Dropout Rates
The most recent data on dropout rates available from the California
Department of Education (CDE) are based on data reported in the California Basic
Educational Data System (CBEDS) from October of 2006. In 2003, the CDE
adopted the definition of dropout used by the National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES) and defines a dropout as a person who:
1. Was enrolled in grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 at some time during the
previous school year AND left school prior to completing the school year AND has
not returned to school as of Information Day. OR
2. Did not begin attending the next grade (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12) in the school
to which they were assigned or in which they had pre-registered or were expected to
attend by Information Day (CDE: DataQuest, 2007).
The most current dropout rates for John Q. Public for were available from the
district on the School Profile Page of School Performance Indicators:
100
Table 5. Dropouts
John Q. Public Local District 1 Los Angelo District
2004-
05
05-
06
06-
07
2004-
05
05-
06
06-
07
2004-
05
05-
06
06-
07
1 Year Dropout
Rate (CBEDS)
2.3 4.1 TBA 3.2 2.9 TBA 5.5 5.1 TBA
4 Year Derived
Dropout Rate
(CBEDS)
11.1 19.5 TBA 14.9 14.6 TBA 24.1 25.5 TBA
When compared with the other schools in Local District One and the entire
district, John Q. had an average percentage of dropouts except in 2005-06 when their
dropout rate was higher than other schools in their local district. John Q.; however,
had a lower dropout percentage than the district in both the one year and four year
derived dropout rates.
Graduation Rates
According to the California Department of Education, the graduation
statistics are determined by taking the number of graduates in Year 4 and dividing by
the sum of the graduates in Year 4 and the dropouts in grades 9 through 12.
101
Table 6. Graduation Rates
School
Totals
Dropouts
Gr.9 (02-
03)
Dropouts
Gr.10
(03-04)
Dropouts
Gr.11
(04-05)
Dropouts
Gr.12
(05-06)
Dropouts
Gr.9 (02-
03)
through
Gr.12 (05-
06)
Grade 12
Graduates
(05-06)
Graduation
rate*
John Q.
Public
High
School
17 24 15 85 141 548 79.5
District
Total
4,068 4,386 2,500 5,155 16,109 28,421 63.8
State
Total
12,418 12,514 12,253 32,897 70,082 349,036 83.3
The statistics reviewed measured achievement in a number of different forms.
Approximately 80% of John Q. students graduated in 2005-06 according to the
formula created by the NCES. This validated the dropout statistic provided by the
school and the Los Angelo School District which showed the four year dropout rate
at almost 20% for the same period. The SAT Mean Scores also showed no
substantive growth in achievement actually falling during this period. The API
showed growth of 17 points in 2007 after falling in 2005-06. The school has not
shown substantial growth in achievement according to state measurements, although
it generally outperforms the other schools in the Los Angelo District. These
“average” scores, as quoted by staff and administration alike, did not reveal any
clues as to the reason for the 17 point jump in John Q.’s API score, until I conducted
102
an interview with the Principal. This discussion revealed that the staff and students
had become more aware of the importance of the standardized tests:
We can gauge engagement in the process when you look at our test
scores. I think the first year I was here, everybody was walking on
egg shells as far as the testing was concerned. We didn’t know what
direction we would go. I don’t think the kids were truly appreciative
that the scores meant something. Last year, the kids were very much
involved with it (the preparation). They got some rewards; the
parents were involved. So the engagement factor to taking the exam
was higher.
It was at this point that I discovered that the school was far more involved in the
continued improvement of the students than even they realized as the following
observation showed:
Every classroom I observed had a large piece of colored paper with a
huge, black “17” in a visible place on a bulletin board. During one of
my visits to the Main Office, I saw the “17” on the board there and
also in the teachers’ mailroom. I discovered this number was in
every room. I discovered its significance during my shadowing of the
Principal.
An 11
th
grade English class is locked out of their class with no
teacher. The Principal (C.C.) goes to the teacher’s desk, but there are
no lesson plans. She takes the roll while she is waiting for the teacher.
She calls to the office to have a sub come up here and is informed that
the sub is lost somewhere in the building. C.C. asks the class if they
know who she is, and two students raise their hands. She then asks
the class if they know what the large orange “17” is that is posted on
the bulletin board. Two students answered correctly, but another
asked its significance. C.C. explained that 17 is the number of points
the school came up on the API testing. She explained that the year
prior to last, the school dropped 5 points. The state set their
improvement at 7 points. She then explained, “We made up the 5
points from last year and covered our seven points. Then we
improved an additional 5 points, so, we improved our score 17
points!!!”
103
This number became a symbol for the improvement the school experienced during
the last academic year, but the stakeholders were committed to doing more.
Research Question #1: What perceived factors contribute to academic
achievement in a high performing urban high school?
The staff members expressed their frustration with John Q.’s slow progress,
so it was imperative to determine what factors they thought contributed to student
achievement at the school and to compare these responses with those provided on the
Teacher and Administrators Survey on Engagement. The honest responses
recognized that improvement was imperative and led to this interview question
which was the basis for Research Question #1: What are the factors that you feel
contribute to student achievement at your school? These responses were compared to
those provided on the teaching staff and administrative surveys. The stakeholders
represented all areas of the school culture, and their answers are provided.
#1 I think kids are proud to be here. I wish more were connected with
the traditional ways of being connected to the school through clubs
and athletics, and special classes. But I do think that even those who
aren’t connected in the traditional way have a connection of some
sort.
#2. The quality of teachers is important if our kids are going to learn.
#3. I think the Small Learning Communities (SLCs) are important.
There are the Health Care Academy, Teaching Academy, 9
th
grade
Magnet, Digital Arts and AVID. Not all high schools in the district
have this program. It requires a tremendous commitment by the staff
and administration. It was the teachers and using the school’s funding
that brought the program here.
#4. There is a “John Q. way” of doing things here including high
expectations. We have capable and caring administrators here who
104
push and encourage the students and the community. We have a
“hungry community” that wants success.
#5. We have high expectations. There are structured classrooms. The
kids have method and clear understanding of what is expected. We
have vertical structured teams which prepare kids for what comes
next.
The answers provided did not possess a singular vision of the most
important factor that drives student achievement, but there were certainly a number
of factors identified. A review of the open-ended question on the Teacher and the
Administrator’s Surveys also yielded a variety of responses concerning this issue.
The responses to the survey’s open-ended question: What are the factors that you
feel contribute to student achievement? were tabulated. Of the five administrators
surveyed, the factors judged most important were:
Instruction 3/5 Attendance 2/5
Parent Support 3/5 Teacher Collaboration 2/5
Teacher Attitude 2/5 Clearly defined and articulated expectations 2/5
Teacher Preparation 2/5
The same question directed to the teachers provided a more detailed list of
the factors deemed necessary for student achievement. Of the thirty-eight returned
responses, the most prevalent ones were:
Parent/family support 16/38 Motivation 5/38
Caring Teachers/teacher support 11/38 Basic Skills 4/38
Feeling safe and included 7/38
High Expectations for teaching the Standards 4/38
105
Nurturing learning environment 6/38 Teacher/student Relations 6/38
The results provided by the Administrative and teacher surveys produced
three common factors important to academic achievement. Additionally, a fourth
factor was identified from the documents, interviews, and observations. These four
factors were parent support, teacher preparation, caring teacher relationships with
students, and a safe, nurturing environment in which students could learn. Data
showed that the staff recognized the need to raise academic achievement and posited
that the best way to teach children was to provide them with an environment filled
with caring, competent professionals whose intent was to help them succeed.
Research Question #2: Is there a link between student engagement and student
achievement in a high performing urban high school?
The purpose of this question was to determine if engaged students achieve
more, and if this achievement enables urban high schools to outperform similar
schools. Student engagement, as introduced and defined in Chapter 1, is described as
the student’s relationship with the school community which includes the people,
structures including schedules and rules, curriculum and content, pedagogy, and the
curricular, co-curricular, and extracurricular opportunities. The degree of
engagement depends on the degree or quality of the relationship the students has
with these various aspects of school life (CCEP, 2007).
The students were fully aware of the rules and regulations, school schedules,
holidays, bell schedules, grading and discipline policies, and the attendance
regulations required at John Q. Public. All of this information was available in the
106
student handbook which students were expected to read and learn. There were
numerous parent meetings and a fully working parent center on campus. There was
a telephone message center which automatically called every home weekly notifying
parents of important meetings and dates including report card distribution. There
was a Counseling Center, Career Center, and a College Center. Students were
welcome any time, and there were always counselors on site or on call to take
questions and concerns of the students. The College Center had information on any
college and the admission requirements. The Career Center helped students with job
opportunities, resumes, military career questions and work experience credit for
graduation.
Studies have shown that students with increased engagement in school or
learning are less alienated from their school and have higher levels of academic
achievement (Norris, Pignal, & Lipps, 2003). Engagement is often gauged by the
number of students involved in extra-curricular activities at a school, and John Q.
tries to involve students with a full slate of sports including: Band, Baseball,
Basketball (boys and girls freshman, junior varsity, and varsity), Cheerleading, Cross
Country, Football, Golf (boys and girls), Softball, Soccer (boys and girls junior
varsity and varsity), Swimming, Tennis (boys and girls), Track and Field, Volleyball
(boys and girls junior varsity and varsity), and CoEd Water Polo. Information
regarding the sports and their schedules is available on the school website.
For the students who were not involved or interested in sports, there were a
number of service and social clubs with which the students could identify.
107
Identification, described as the internalized feeling students develop when they
“belong,” increases participatory behavior in subject-related clubs (Finn & Voelkl,
1993). The list of clubs at John Q. included: Armenia Club, Asian Club, Best
Buddies, California Scholarship Federation, Californianos, Christian Club, Debate
Club, EUForEA (Everyone United For Equal Acceptance), Film Club, Future
Educators of America, Ham Radio Club, International Culture Club, Journalism,
JSA, Key Club, Korean Club, La Raza Unida, Latinas con Espiritu, Let’s Talk Book
Club, Peace Institute, Photography Club, Publications Club, Senior Council,
Utopians, VICA, and Young Black Scholars. Students were welcomed to join the
Performing Arts and work in school produced productions for the community.
For the students interested in the communication field, there is a yearbook
committee and a school newspaper, The Word, which is produced monthly, with this
Mission Statement:
The Word is a student newspaper constructed by a group of diverse
students. These students are of different ages and nationalities and are
unified in their interest in the field of journalism. The purpose of the
student publication, TheWord, is to fairly and accurately report on the
wide spectrum of student affairs at John Q. Public High School in a
timely and effective manner. The Word is meant to educate, inform,
persuade, entertain, establish views and represent the voice of the
student body as a whole.
The clubs and organizations scheduled meetings during lunch so that the
maximum amount of students could participate without the worry of transportation
or staying late after school.
108
This list does not begin to acknowledge the other co-curricular activities
available on campus including a full tutoring schedule for all courses, CAHSEE
preparation classes, college visitation, Spring Break trips to Europe, and student
counseling groups that meet periodically. There was something available for every
interest or passion the students may acquire. If a club does not exist, it is possible to
start one as I discovered during a conversation between the Principal Ms. Cox and a
student:
A student asks Ms. Cox if more clubs can be started, and she answers,
yes if the proper steps are completed. She informs him that he must
first have a sponsor and a Constitution. The student states that he
wants to start a skateboarding club like Reseda High with ramps that
are pulled out after school. Ms. Cox advises him that while the district
does not allow skateboarding on their campuses, she is willing to call
Reseda and find out how they support their club.
Despite the wide array of extra and co-curricular activities and opportunities
available, the staff repeatedly remarked that students were not as engaged as they
could or should be. When interviewed, staff members were asked: What role do you
feel student engagement contributes to student achievement at your school, and
responded:
#1 Every student is involved at our pep rallies, and we look
forward to them. They usually take place during the day out at The
Mushroom. Everyone is together. There are an incredible number of
clubs on this campus. Students can find just about anything they want
to do after school. Along with the after school tutoring,
the clubs try to get all students involved. We also have cultural fairs
here, and everyone is represented. I feel the students know they
belong here.
109
#2 There is no real student engagement here. The students are
here because it’s what they are supposed to do. Maybe 700-800 have
a genuine goal to excel.
#3 Not all of the students are engaged. The mission of the
freshman academy is to develop a sense of belonging to the school.
We worked on activities to get students engaged. We had
intercurricular activities to show students how courses are connected.
#4. Absolutely. I do support groups. It empowers kids; they have
goals. Some of our kids have horrendous backgrounds. Our
counseling staff is awesome.
#5. I think…just looking at test scores we can gauge, not so much
what they’re learning in the classroom, but we can gauge engagement
in the process when you look at our test scores. In the past, I don’t
think the kids were truly appreciative that the scores meant
something. Last year, the kids were very much involved with it.
They got some rewards; the parents were involved. So the
engagement factor to taking the exam was higher. Now in terms of
engagement in a classroom, kids make choices all the time as to
whether the subject matter interests them, whether they see
relevance, if they’re good at it or they have to struggle. They all
contribute to whether they are engaged in a particular class.
A tabulation of the survey results revealed the staff responses on the Likert-
type questions involving student engagement. One hundred percent of respondents
answered that writing assignments of three pages or more were assigned weekly.
Eighty-seven percent of those surveyed utilized strategies which encouraged total
student participation. Of those surveyed, eighty-four percent replied that students
received the support they needed, and eighty-one percent acknowledged that students
were encouraged to participate in school events and activities.
A review of student responses reported on the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE) provided a different picture. The students completed the
110
survey, which asked a series of questions concerning their levels of engagement, in
January 2008. The survey questions were designed to be categorized into three
Dimensions of Engagement. The first dimension is Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic
which describes students’ effort; the work they do and how they do it. The second
dimension is Social/Behavioral/ Participatory which identifies students’ interactions
in social extracurricular and non-academic activities. The final category of
engagement is Emotional Engagement which emphasizes the students’ feelings of
connection to their school; how they feel about the school and the people within the
school.
The John Q. student responses to each question were disaggregated according
to grade level and a mean score was produced for each grade level along with an
overall school mean score. These scores were then compared to the National Mean
which provided an arithmetic average of student responses for all other Spring 2007
participants. It was important to review John Q.’s level of engagement as it
compared to the national study to determine if the students in an urban environment
are as engaged as their counterparts in suburban and rural settings throughout the
country.
There were a number of questions on the survey of particular interest to my
study because they addressed many of the issues and factors identified by the data
collected during the interviews, surveys, and observations. Of particular concern to
the John Q. stakeholders was the participation in the school life as described in the
Social Engagement Dimension. John Q.’s overall mean score was 6.92 which was
111
slightly lower than the national mean score of 7.53. The responses to the question:
“How many hours are spent in a typical week participation in school-sponsored
activities (clubs, athletics, student government, etc)?” revealed a mean of 1.58 which
is significantly below the national average of 3.09. This translates into 30.63% of
students at John Q spend between two and ten or more hours a week involved in
these activities as compared to the national statistics which show 51.74% of students
spend between two and ten or more hours involved in school activities. While the
averages rose steadily from a ninth grade mean of 1.08 to 2.07 for seniors, this is an
area which needs to be identified for improvement. A similar question asked, “How
important is participating in school sponsored activities (listed above) which showed
a dramatic drop in the national overall mean to 1.86. The overall John Q. mean
remained steady at 1.51. When the two questions are considered together, John Q.
students place a relatively minor importance on participating in school sponsored
activities and sports. I question if the sports factor was removed from this question if
the student participation and interest in school activities would be even lower. The
stakeholders are right in their concern that despite the numerous clubs and programs
designed to involve students in the social engagement at John Q. Public, the students
are not engaged in the social life of the school.
Another area of interest addressed the respondents’ answers to the following
questions concerning the school environment. The stakeholders were proud of their
safe, inviting atmosphere in which students were encouraged to achieve. When
asked, “I feel good about being in this school,” “I care about this school,” “I feel safe
112
in this school,” and “I feel supported by the teachers at this school,” students
generally replied with the same or higher frequency than the national averages.
Students at John Q. agreed/strongly agreed 84.37% that they feel good about being at
the school while the national average was 79.67%. They agreed/strongly agreed
72.2% that they care about the school compared with 68.46% nationally. John Q.
students responded that they felt safe less frequently than students nationally. John
Q. students reported feeling safe (agree/strongly agree) 71.22% compared to the
national response of 77.39%. Finally, students at John Q. agreed/strongly agreed
78.97% that they felt the teachers supported them compared to a national response of
81.1%. The educational community at John Q. should feel confident that students
recognize they are valued when more than 2000 students agree or strongly agree that
teachers support their efforts. I would address the students’ feeling of safety since
almost 30% do not feel safe. I observed the campus for months and always felt safe
and secure. The respondents of the interviews and surveys also identified the
environment as safe and inviting, but almost one-third of the students disagree. It is
imperative for the stakeholders to determine what is needed to make all of the
students feel safe.
The mission of John Q. stakeholders is to prepare students to succeed in
school and graduate with the skills necessary to succeed in the job market or in
college. This is evidenced by the Career and College Centers and magnet programs
geared toward career paths. When asked the following questions, “Adults in this
school want me to succeed,” “How often have talked to an adult in the school about
113
career goals,” “How often have you talked to an adult in the school about how to
apply for college” “I am motivated to work by a desire to succeed in the world
outside of school,” “My school emphasizes continuing schooling beyond high
school,” and “School has contributed to growth in acquiring skills related to work
after high school,” the responses for John Q. and students nationally did not differ
greatly. Both groups agreed/strongly agreed in 87% of the responses that adults want
them to succeed. When asked about speaking with adults concerning career goals,
only 50% of John Q. students responded in the “sometimes” and “often” categories.
This translates that one-half of the students have never or rarely spoken with an adult
about their career goals. When asked about speaking with an adult about college
application, only 42.5% of the students at John Q. answered “sometimes” or “often.”
Conversely, 87.23% of the John Q. respondents agreed/strongly agreed that they
were motivated to succeed in the world outside of school. Just when it would appear
that the stakeholders should be concerned with their career preparation interventions,
80.94% of the students at John Q. answered (some/very much) that the school
emphasizes that they continue their education beyond high school with 82.74% of
students providing similar responses on the national level. Students at John Q.
answered with “some/very much” in 65.78% of their responses, when compared to
67.09 % nationally, that school has contributed to growth in acquiring skills related
to work after high school. This data would suggest that while John Q. is on the right
track with student preparation for life after high school, there is still a substantial
percentage of students who do not feel that they have been adequately prepared for a
114
career or college life. The staff must review this area of concern to ensure that every
student is contacted and advised on their future plans. One suggestion would be for
the staff of the Counseling and Career Centers to go to the students instead of
waiting for them to come to the centers.
The final survey question reviewed directly addressed this research question
and simply stated, “I am engaged in school.” It was important to compare these John
Q. scores with the students at the national level to determine if our students were
more or less engaged in school than their national counterparts. John Q. students
responded with a mean of 2.71 compared to the HSSSE 2007 mean of 2.78. This
suggests that with a mean difference of .07, the students at John Q. are comparably
engaged with students in the rest of the nation. A review of the overall frequencies
showed that 68.61% of the students responded favorably with “agree/strongly agree”
to this statement. On the national mean, 73.07% of the students responded in the
same manner. With a 4.46% difference in favorable responses and 31.39% of those
students at John Q. responding unfavorably, it was imperative to review the
responses by grade level to determine where students felt the least and most engaged.
I used the HSSSE Means Comparison to determine which grade level felt the least
engaged. The survey question offered a Likert-style response with 1= Strongly
disagree, and 4= Strongly agree. Nationally, students in the ninth grade responded
with a mean score of 2.79 which remained constant until the eleventh grade where it
fell to 2.78 and remained there through the twelfth grade. The reverse was true with
John Q. students. The responses in the ninth grade had a mean value of 2.61 which
115
grew consistently through twelfth grade where the mean score was 2.79 showing that
students felt more engaged and connected with their school as they grew and
progressed. While these results show that John Q. engages students at rates
comparable to national levels, the area of engagement must be a priority for review.
With almost 32% of students responding that they feel little or no engagement with
their school, new interventions must be considered.
There is a distinction between involvement and engagement, and when
stakeholders are engaged, they are energized and more likely to make a full
commitment (Blankstein, 2007). While the data collection at John Q. provided no
definitive answer to the power of student engagement, the HSSSE results definitely
revealed that one-third of the student body, or approximately one thousand students,
do not feel engaged by their school, its curriculum, teachers, or extra curricular
programs. While the documents and visits to the website verified a myriad of
opportunities for students to engage in activities and sports, the interviews did not
support extensive student participation in the school culture. To the contrary,
interview respondents were quoted as continually trying to get students more
involved in the school activities. The HSSSE results should show the stakeholders
that they must do more because despite all of the programs and staff who state they
constantly try to engage students, the students themselves do not feel engaged.
Discussion
The data collection did not produce conclusive results that student
engagement is a factor in achievement in high performing urban high schools;
116
however, there were themes which emerged as a result of the study. These themes
appeared in the documents, interviews, surveys, and researcher observations. The
most notable of these themes were: 1) a welcoming culture/safe environment for all
stakeholders, 2) an outstanding teaching staff, 3) parent involvement and parent
programs on campus, and 4) John Q. provides a good education with outstanding
educational programs that prepare students for life after high school. An
examination of these themes follows.
School Environment
All of the teachers, classified staff members, administrators, parents, and
visitors I spoke with mentioned the beautiful campus and serene nature of the school.
My second visit to the school afforded me an opportunity to observe the school
entrance as a visitor sees it for the first time. The school is located in a residential
community and is surrounded by homes. There is limited parking on all of the
streets surrounding John Q. Public School. I parked about two blocks away and
walked past the homes in this quiet community. The school is a closed campus, and
as I passed by various buildings, I looked through the fence and found the campus
quiet. School was in session, and I expected to see students milling about the
campus, but I saw only a few individuals walking around. The front entrance to John
Q. is modern in design and representative of the architecture of the 1960s and 1970s.
The front walls are glass, and the entrance has an impressive cable-supported roof
that extends out over the walkway. As I entered the large, sunny main foyer, I
noticed the shining floors and immaculate lobby. The lobby was filled with carefully
117
tended plants, and I was struck by the cleanliness and lack of trash everywhere I
looked.
The Main Office, easily the busiest place on campus, was to my right, and as
I entered, it was quiet and orderly. I was immediately greeted, and I was handled
quickly and efficiently. A number of visitors followed, and all were handled in the
same, expeditious manner. Since the teacher mailboxes are located here, a number
of staff members entered and exited; each spoke to me, and all were smiling and
pleasant. The Principal was in her office with the door open. It is important to note
that I stopped at the Main Office to sign in every time I came to the campus, and Ms.
Cox’s door was always open unless she was in conference. Sometimes she was on
the phone and other times she was on her computer. Staff members always gave a
quick ‘hello’ or ‘hi, Boss” as they went by. It was an example of an administrator
who was accessible to her staff and visitors.
I observed a class change and was struck by the student behavior. There
were no hall monitors, and yet students moved purposely to their classes with no
shouting or loud disruption. As I navigated the campus on my way to an interview, I
realized that although the school is gated and locked, it resembled a college campus
with groups of students talking and walking. I walked across the campus and
observed students in the halls talking and laughing. I observed an open, immaculate
“quad” area. In the middle of this large, grassy area was a huge concrete patio or
deck called “The Mushroom” which served as a meeting area for breaks and lunch.
Students were sitting in the sun on the concrete deck. The buildings all surround this
118
‘common area’ where the students meet and talk. It was hard to imagine that 3200
students were moving simultaneously around this school, surrounded by gates and
fences. There is a real feeling of an open, inviting campus filled with students
socializing and enjoying their day.
Research shows that at a time when the need for personalization in schools is
growing, students spend less time with an adult and more time alone, with peers, on
the Internet, or watching television (Baldwin, 2001). Effective schools, as identified
by the Iowa High School Review Summary 2005, provide a school environment that
is student-focused. The staff in these schools develops strong connections with
students in a safe atmosphere (2005). A teacher at John Q. describes how the staff
works toward this goal:
This school has heart. We want kids to feel good about their
accomplishments. We want kids to feel good about themselves. The
teachers stay on the kids’ cases, and the staff works every angle to get
the kids to step up. Our school police are wonderful. They really
care about the kids and their safety. The counselors, cafeteria ladies,
everybody is watching out for the safety of the kids. Our first job is
to keep the kids focused.
I did not observe any instances of negative behavior, nor did I ever have
security issues or an uneasy feeling. The culture of the school I witnessed was one
of welcome and acceptance for everyone. As a visitor to the school, I had no
preconceptions concerning John Q.’s reputation. I witnessed a number of positive
traditions beginning when I entered the main hall for the first time. The pride of
tradition and recognition of outstanding achievement was evident from the moment I
entered the front lobby of John Q. Public. I observed a number of display cases on
119
the walls around the lobby, and the one next to the main office was titled the ‘Senior
Awards’ trophy case. The awards are as follows: Outstanding Achievement in:
Ceramics, Choir, Computer Science, Design, Dramatic Arts, English, ESL, French,
High Achievement, Home Economics, Journalism, Math, Music, NJROTC, Painting,
Drawing and Photography, Physical Education, Science, Social Studies, Spanish,
Stage Crew, Student Store and Outstanding Achievement for the Year, and
Woodworking. As I walked past these trophy cases filled with awards of student
success for over thirty years, I felt the strong tradition of high expectations and high
achievement which are a part of John Q. today.
When I interviewed the John Q. stakeholders, the issue of a safe and inviting
environment was mentioned by 75% of the respondents with parents, teachers,
clerical staff, and visitors remarking favorably.
#1. A long time veteran teacher explained: It is now a neighborhood
school, but it still has a good mix of cultures. It has kept the
welcoming culture, and I think the students are happy. It does have a
majority of lower middle class students. We go through a great
number of changes every year, but the attitude on campus remains
friendly. We also have nice kids here at John Q. Public. Altercations
are rare.
#2. Another teacher added: I got a call to come to John Q. Public,
and I have been here ever since. My first day was in the Tardy Room
which was the worst assignment on campus. I said to myself that if
THIS is the worst, I can handle anything!!! It’s great working here. I
love the layout of the campus; it’s so open.
#3. A parent and district office program director remarked: This is a
safe environment for the kids and staff. When you enter the building,
you just know it’s safe here. I always recommend J.Q.Public High
School to my neighbors and friends. This is my neighborhood, and
this is my school. I tell them to come to John Q. Public High and
120
come inside. I feel safe here, and the kids do too. I feel this school is
special, and I work here because I have a long history
#4.Another staff member exclaimed: There are so many good things
about this school. I travel 35 miles to get here and can’t see myself
anywhere else.
#5. An Administrative Assistant volunteered this observation: There
is also good communication here, and it is a friendly atmosphere. I
can’t compare to any other school but the kids are friendly and warm.
We have bad ones, but what is bad. Our “bad” is not as bad as some
other schools.
#6. A veteran math teacher who has been at a number of different
schools in the district provided this insight: There is a feeling of
support and caring that the students get. We have a commitment to
help those who want to succeed. We are also big on diversity. Just
look around. It works to everyone’s benefit because we are what the
real world looks like. The school is a friendly campus if you are a
student
#7 A teacher in one of the magnet programs summed up the school
this way: This school has heart. We want kids to feel good about their
accomplishments.
During a parent focus group, the following comments were recorded
concerning the secure and safe, welcoming environment at John Q.
Parent #1 The atmosphere has changed tremendously. Just in the past
two years since we have had a new principal, there has been a change,
and it is beneficial. Every year it just gets better and better.
Parent 2 explains that at the last parent meeting the school police
came and spoke about their job. They explained that they are here
24/7. They said you can get in touch with them even if it’s Saturday
or Sunday. They said to call, and if they aren’t available, they can
send out LAPD.
The comments expressed by the parents, were the first and only references I
observed or heard about concerning student and staff safety at John Q. Each time I
121
visited the campus, the school police officer’s car was conspicuously parked in front
of the school, and I encountered a deputy monitoring inside and out. There was also
a campus security team which was a visible and constant presence every place I went
on campus. Since the school is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood, I
sometimes parked two blocks away and walked to the campus. On a number of
occasions I witnessed police cruisers driving through the neighborhood and saw the
security team walking the perimeter of the campus. I felt safe in the neighborhood
and on campus. Safety was described by the staff as strength of the school.
I shadowed the Principal for a day in October, and I was able to see the
teachers and students as a whole interacting normally. The lunch period provided
insight into the rules and policies in action. The entire student body has lunch at the
same time with a relatively small number of students leaving the campus for lunch.
This time afforded me an opportunity to observe the staff and students monitoring
and enjoying social interaction. The following description was noted during lunch
on October 17, 2007.
All students have lunch at the same time; Period 4. The cafeteria
warms up prepared food. The students gather all over the campus. A
huge group is in the common area near the concrete stage called the
mushroom. The loudspeaker system is set up with the student DJ
asking kids to sign up for Homecoming. Music is playing, kids are
talking and eating, groups are dancing, and everyone is smiling. The
line for the cafeteria is extremely long, and some students spend
almost their entire period in line waiting to get food. The lunch
period is monitored by the Principal, AP’s, full time coordinators,
counselors, and Campus Security. Each person has a designated area,
and all are available by walkie. Four male students walk past the C.C.
and me, and they look serious. One has on a hood, and they all walk
as if going somewhere with a purpose. C.C. immediately gets on her
122
walkie to inform Campus Security that these boys are headed in their
direction, and someone needs to monitor and stop them to determine
their purpose. All adults are involved in stopping trouble before it
begins. Two of the boys are brought back to C.C. to explain. They
tell her they were just walking, but the Principal tells them that she
knows they usually hang out in another area. One of the boys replies,
“Yeah, we were over there, but nobody was there, so we left. I swear
we wasn’t lookin for no trouble.” Their demeanor is completely non-
threatening now in contrast to their threatening appearance just five
minutes earlier.
During the lunch period, I walked around the Quad area where this giant
party-like atmosphere was occurring. Ms. Cox was monitoring and speaking to a
number of students. She explained that this was her area to monitor, and as my
observation noted:
Ms. Cox. knows where groups like to meet, and she also explains that
the monitors watch for students who are alone; especially if it
becomes a pattern. A young lady approaches us and Ms. Cox.
engages her in conversation asking how she is doing and if everything
is ok.
Ms. Cox explained her unique perspective of “belonging” at John Q. with the story
of this young lady and her admission to the school.
The girl assures her everything is ok and continues on her way. Ms.
Cox. explained that she came to America from the Ukraine and
desired an education more than everything. She was enrolled in
another school, a magnet program. She attended one day and then
cried in her room for two days. She was very unhappy, so her mother
looked to John Q. as a possible fit. Her daughter is happy; she
belongs to a couple of clubs and is on the tennis team. Her mother
says that J.Q. Public has a “good aura” around it. The mother said,
“When I came here I saw your school have a beautiful aura; beautiful
colors around it. I knew this was the school for my daughter.” Ms.
Cox. replied to me,” How can you argue with an aura?”
123
From the moment I walked on the campus at John Q. Public High School, I
felt that this was an inviting, safe environment in which students could learn. From a
quiet, carefully monitored campus to personal interactions there is a unified, familial
feeling. The smiling teachers, administrators, counselors, and clerical staff on this
campus provide a safe, nurturing atmosphere of acceptance and welcome. The
Security staff was present and visible during all of my visits, and I witnessed no
student altercations or negative issues between students and staff. The interviews
and observations provided an in depth look at the environment of John Q. and its
importance to the achievement of the students who attend here. The special
environment was very adeptly addressed by Ms. Cox in an interview I conducted at
the end of my stay at John Q.:
Ett: Is there anything special or different here?
Cox: Everything here makes me come to work. It’s just the feeling
here I think. When you walk in the door, you know that we are here
for a purpose.
Ms. Cox’s statement summed up the feeling at John Q. The stakeholders
were there for a very important purpose; they were entrusted with the education of
young students from a community with a long tradition of meeting the needs of the
diverse families who lived there. The school and the stakeholders created a
welcoming and safe environment, and their concern for the happiness and wellbeing
of the students was evident as the school was secure with adults always present for
help and safety. The staff was vigilant in their purpose to provide a safe environment
in which students could achieve.
124
Outstanding Teaching Staff
The second theme which emerged from the data was that John Q. was
comprised of an outstanding teaching staff concerned with the welfare and success of
the students. Research strongly supports nurturing relationships between teachers
and students. Strong relationships are critical to academic success for students who
are more likely to engage in rigorous learning when they know teachers and parents
actually care how well they do (Daggett & McNulty, 2005).
According to statistics provided by the California Department of Education
(CDE) DataQuest website and the LA District School Accountability Report Cart
(SARC), John Q. Public’s teaching staff is comprised of 120 Credentialed Teachers,
5 Certificated Management, and 9 Certificated Others. The Teaching Staff Status is:
107 Continuing, 19 Probationary, 2 Temporary, 4 Provisional, and 1 University
Intern. The number of teachers listed on the roster that I received listed 138, but this
might include itinerant teachers or those who are not located at John Q. on a full time
basis. In 2006-07, 92% of teachers statewide had full credentials, with an additional
4.7 % teaching on emergency permits or waivers (CDE, 2007).
Urban schools face a problem with retaining competent, prepared teachers
with one-half of the teachers in urban schools having been there five years or less.
As a result, continuity in a comprehensive improvement effort is difficult (Bottoms,
Fox & New, 2000). The Teaching Staff Stability or the amount of years teaching in
this location, for staff assigned to John Q. revealed that 73% of the teachers assigned
to the school had been at this site for over six years, and 31% of these teachers had
125
been here for eleven years or more. The staff also reported 80% of the teachers have
been teaching in the LA district for six or more years with 54% of those teachers
working in the district for eleven or more years. These statistics represent a teaching
staff that is both experienced and stable despite the added pressure of NCLB which
has placed requirements on districts to ensure that the teachers are certificated and
placed in an appropriate setting for their areas of certification.
Twenty-five members of the 138 teaching staff volunteered to be
interviewed, observed, or both enabling me to observe some interesting and dynamic
classes. I observed a Special Education teacher trying to explain the concept of
electrons, protons, and neutrons to her Chemistry students. I observed forty-two
students totally engaged in a Calculus class with a teacher preparing them for an
exam. I observed two Spanish classes and teachers who were totally engaging in
different ways. One was preparing students for Advanced Placement Spanish next
year, and the entire class was conducted in Spanish. The following activities were
noted:
The class is working on Vocabulary Practica pp 20-21. They discuss
Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Students volunteer or are called on to
provide answers to exercises. Teacher explains every answer. There
is extensive clarification of the information. All students are engaged
in the activity. Students are correcting the work in their workbooks.
The lesson is teacher directed with repetition and reinforcement of
workbook grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Students were
engaged for the entire period. I asked how many of the students were
native Spanish speakers and was informed by Ms. Spanish Level 2 (a
pseudonym) that 100% are native speakers, but 65% of their parents
also speak English. Only 5% of these students have received Spanish
126
instruction in another country. The rest are learning Spanish grammar
and composition the same way they receive English instruction.
The other teacher, Ms. Spanish Level 1 (a pseudonym) was preparing her
first year students for a test the following day. This teacher used humor and rapid fire
questioning to check student understanding. This enjoyable class followed the
advanced Spanish class, and the students were in their first year of Spanish. These
observations reveal the manner in which Ms. Spanish Level 1 conducted her test
review:
The room is very talkative, and many are in easy conversation with
the teacher. Students are also talking and laughing in small groups.
Teacher begins with “Buenas Dias!” This class is less formal. The
teacher is joking with the students. The class is conducted in English
and Spanish.
The teacher begins, “Chapter Review. Remember, this is going to be
on the test. Culture: remember; learning about people. You will
write in English amigo=friend. You have friend-friends, and you
have friends.” The students all look at her with a LOST expression!!!
She is trying to clarify the concept of good friends versus
acquaintances.” Let me explain the difference. Friend-friend is a
good friend. A friend you say hi, how are you. Then you go
whatever…I don’t care!!!”
She then provides an explanation/clarification of amigo vs conocido.
“We had a student here, Jesse who had surgery. How many of you
went to see him in the hospital? None of you because he is a
conocido. If Amanda (a student who is sitting in the class) got sick
and fell off the bus, would you help her?” The students are yelling
that you can’t fall off the bus. The teacher rephrases, “OK, so
Amanda flew off the bus. Is that better? Would you help poor
Amanda? Yes, because you are a friend or amigo.” The teacher
ensured understanding of the concept by providing concrete examples
the students could understand.
As she circulated throughout the class, she corrected some negative
behaviors:
127
As she walks around the front of the class, a student has his head
down. She addresses him, “David! Don’t fall asleep on me. You
lower my self esteem!!!” The student sits up.
She then continues with a discussion of Caribbean music and its
Spanish influence. She explains that the Caribbean is an area where
blacks speak Spanish. “How did this happen? I’m going to tell you.
Spaniards took African slaves and dumped them on the islands in the
Caribbean. Caribbean music; have you heard it? You can dance to
it.” She starts to move, and the class starts to laugh. “How do we
dance? We just move side to side or don’t dance. Or…we just stand
against the wall and criticize those who do dance. We look at the
dancers and laugh and point and say: Look at them!! They don’t
know how to dance!!”
When the class ended, I made this observation:
11:19 Bell rings and students leave the class. The teacher came over
and asked me what I thought. I told her I thoroughly enjoyed her
class. She said that “sometimes you just need some feedback on how
you’re doing.” I asked how long she had been teaching, and she told
me 10 years. She still has a smile and a funny one liner for every
child.
Both classes were informative, entertaining, and learning was definitely
occurring.
I observed a Biology Lab and learned how to look at leaf cellular chloroplasts
using my newly acquired knowledge of the low and high magnification of a
microscope. Boy! It was not like this in my Biology class! The patience and direct
instruction followed by the independent practice was classic with the teacher
circulating to the different stations to quiz the students on their findings. It was an
interesting class, even for those of us with less than stellar grades in the sciences.
128
I watched students in a ninth grade English class as they completed their 10
week district assessment. They were working diligently writing essays in the two
day comprehensive benchmark measurement.
In one of the most impressive classes I observed, it wasn’t what the teacher
taught, but the manner in which she had empowered the students to govern
themselves. This was a Drama class, and as I entered looking for the teacher, I was
approached by a young student asking if she could help. I asked for the teacher and
learned that the youthful looking helper was, in fact, the teacher and Drama director
for the school. She informed me that this wasn’t a class but a meeting period for the
Drama Club, and they had a lot of business to discuss with their major production a
mere two weeks away. They also needed to decide on their participation in the
Halloween fundraiser the following week. As I watched this class meeting proceed, I
observed some impressive events unfold as the students facilitated the class.
1:08 the student leader called the meeting to order. The students
placed their chairs in a large circle around the classroom. There is no
“Head” of the circle. The minutes of the last meeting were read and
accepted. Everyone was engaged and listening to the leader. There
were no separate conversations occurring.
1:10: The students look at pictures produced from last year. This is
money making project, and no one is happy with the picture quality or
the price. They did not sell enough pictures to make it worthwhile to
do it again this year. The first order of business was to decide if they
even wanted to do this again. They agreed to try again, but then
queried, “How do we get more people to pose for and purchase the
photos?” They decide to use Halloween characters and allow patrons
to pose with them. They can also have multiple people in the picture,
but each one must pay $2 for a print.
129
1:15: A student volunteers to create a frame to go around the picture.
Another suggests they use Print Shop to create a frame on the
computer. They try to decide how to buy photo paper and film more
economically and produce the pictures more reasonably. One student
volunteers to try to get the paper in bulk. Another student asks,
“What is bulk?” A few students volunteer definitions, and one
student says, “Bulk is a lot. Think about Costco.” Students are free
to throw out suggestions and theories on various subjects, but NO
ONE is supposed to speak without raising a hand to be recognized by
the leader.
One student suggests, “I think we should try this new picture process
on a trial basis, and if it isn’t working, we should stop.” The group
consensus is that this is a good idea.
1:20: The Halloween conversation continues about the characters who
will pose with patrons for pictures. Scary characters are discussed and
agreed upon, and one student suggests,” I think we should have a two-
sided pumpkin. Some people will be bringing children, and we don’t
want to scare them. But….there will also be a lot of students who
might like a scary pumpkin, so let’s make one with two different
faces.” This suggestion is met with enthusiasm.
1:25 The teacher suggests they make some sample pictures for
customers to review and select from. This suggestion is a tremendous
success. She replies, “I was waiting for you guys to come up with
this.”
1:40 The students begin talking around the circle. Co-chair asks why
everyone is talking. The students begin arguing about the Haunted
House and the Zombie Icons. They need to shoot a video for the
Haunted House to serve as an add inviting everyone to come, but they
are running out of time. This is Thursday and the video must be shot
by Monday.
The teacher says, “Stop arguing and come up with solutions.”
The goals of the Drama teacher and her students were tolerance for everyone
and developing self-reliance in her students. If the job of American schools is to
provide a high level of academic rigor for all children, they must teach students to be
130
self-motivated learners, capable of problem-solving and decision making. There is a
great need for schools to be places where students gain social and civic competencies
as well as academic skills (Baldwin, 2001). The students of this drama class were
growing through these meetings as they practiced self-governing strategies and
group cohesion under the able tutelage of their teacher.
A review of the interviews supported the data I collected in the observations.
I conducted fourteen interviews; two of those interviewed were also observed. The
remainder of the interviews consisted of additional teachers, paraeducators, clerical
staff, and parents. Each interview mentioned the topic of the teaching staff, and most
responses were positive. Some of the respondents volunteered the following
statements:
#1. The teachers here are the most dedicated I have seen anywhere
in the valley. They are willing to do what is necessary for the
students. They want to be accountable to the students, and they want
the students to achieve.
#2. The entire faculty and staff are nurturing toward the students.
They really care about what happens to the students.
#3. The people here are our strength; our commitment to
educational excellence. We have very special people with special
talent.
#4. We try to deliver kids who are ready to graduate. We have
high expectations and communicate that high school cannot be the
end of the road as far as a future goes. We have a totally dedicated
staff. There is a “John Q. way” of doing things here including high
expectations. The feeling of support and caring that the students get.
We have a commitment to help those who want to succeed.
#5. As teachers we don’t want to be told too rigidly what to do,
yet we don’t want to take part in the decision making. How can we
131
complain about change if we are not involved despite being asked to
participate? I enjoy everything I have learned about how the school is
run or governed. While meetings are open to everyone at the school
there aren’t many teachers that are involved. I have been to three
meetings, and I was the only teacher present.
The parents were interviewed during a focus group and offered these
statements:
Parent #1: Uh, some teachers are passionate and are really there to
help the child, but others are there just for the paycheck. They say,
“Here it is. If you do it, fine. If you don’t, it’s on you.”
Parent #2; It depends on the teacher. That’s where the factor comes
in. Some teachers are good. Some teachers are here for the
paycheck, and some teachers go that extra mile for your child. They
take the time. They call, Ms. John Doe, your child is failing, and I
would appreciate your communicating with me. But then there are
those teachers with zero tolerance who say “go to the Dean’s office.
I’m not going to bother with you.” When the kid probably was
looking at a friend or something; the teachers just don’t want to deal
with it.
Parent #3 I’ve had some really good experiences with my son’s
teachers. One of his teachers has already spoken to him about the
future. Like you know, you have to be a little more mature because
my son is really immature. They say, “You have to do this and
that.” And I have seen that his teacher talks to him a lot. The teacher
tells him, “Young men should be like this. And what do you want to
be? Well if you want to be this you have to do this and take these
classes.”
This final observation was provided during an interview of the
administration:
There is a great staff, but some don’t get involved in the students; I
would agree. I think they are very interested in taking care of kids
within their classroom, but in every staff, I still think there is a
disconnect with teachers not taking the problems of the kids into
consideration on how they teach and the kids learn. These teachers
say, “I’m teaching it; they should be learning it.” I think they are
132
tired of becoming the social services of the school. It also depends
who you talk to. There are a great many staff members extremely
involved in their students, and they want that by choice. Some
teachers are involved in group counseling and helping kids where
other teachers who walk in at 5 minutes to 8 and leave before the final
bell rings.
While much of the success of John Q. was attributed to the caring and
dedicated teaching staff, there were mixed reviews from the staff concerning this
issue. Many of those interviewed alluded to problems concerning a small percentage
of the teachers, but still held the majority of their peers in high regard. The
stakeholders acknowledged the vision held by the staff for the success of all students.
The administration suggested that some of the teaching staff did not become as
involved as perhaps they should, and the parents had problems with teachers due to
grading or homework issues. In a large public school, it is impossible to make
everyone happy 100% of the time, but it is important to remember that successful
schools “have teachers who pursue a clear, shared purpose for all students’ learning,
and they take collective responsibility for student learning” (Blankstein, Cole, &
Houston, 2007). The staff at John Q. exemplifies these characteristics.
Parent Involvement and Support
The third theme to evolve addressed the parental support and involvement at
John Q. Public. The staff surveys and interviews mentioned the importance of
parental support in the lives of their students. As one enters the Main Building, the
Parent Center is adjacent to the Main Office. It holds an important place on campus,
and is the center for parent activity and information. It is the sincere belief of the
133
staff that parents are an integral part of the John Q. family because of their ability to
forge relationships which significantly increase student achievement through its
impact on student behavior and attitudes (Blankstein, 2007).
In a school of almost 3400 students, one would assume that the parental
involvement would be massive, but anyone associated with high schools knows that
involvement decreases as the students enter high school. Schools and their districts
have been inviting parents into the classroom since Education Secretary Richard W.
Riley emphasized parental importance in his initiative “partnership for family
involvement.” The introduction of this campaign was identified as one of the eight
Goals 2000: Educate America Act signed into legislation in March of 1994 (CQ
Researcher, 1995). Research shows that academic performance is higher at schools
with substantial parental involvement, and as long ago as 1989 researchers
discovered that high school students who graduated with parents who were ‘highly
involved’ during their high school years were more likely to complete college
(Eagle, 1989). According to information supplied by the Household Education
Survey of 1993, the percentage of parents who were moderately or highly involved
in school activities gradually declined as their children reached high school age.
When students are 14, the percentage of parental involvement is at 55% and drops to
50% by the time students reach the age of 18. Parents are less likely to be
significantly involved in the interests of students once they reach high school
(Moore, Guzman, Hair, Lippman & Garrett, 2004). A MetLife survey in 1994 asked
children whether they agreed that “deep down, I wish my parents would be more
134
involved in my school work,” only 28% said that was true (CQ Researcher, 1995).
The biggest barrier to parental involvement is the lack of time according to a 1992
survey of parents conducted by the National PTA (1995).
A review of the school’s Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) Accreditation Review of 2005-2006, revealed that they have been focused
on three areas of concern which became the Modified School Action Plan. One of
the critical Areas of Concern led to advanced action in the area of Improving
Communication with Staff and Parents. The Committee created a list of actions to
reach this goal, and those concerning Increased Parent Involvement were: 1)
Communication with parents and community, 2) Extend parent outreach from Parent
Center, and 3) Continue Parent Education Classes. The Innovative strategies are
being implemented at schools across America, and John Q. is no exception with a
fully operational Parent Center, classes on parenting, and meetings conducted in
English and Spanish. The school website provides a parent support menu, and
announcements are also available in languages other than English. A page of
Parental Involvement opportunities and their description are available and include:
John Q. High School PTSA, John Q. High School Booster Club, John Q. High
School Based Management/Learn Governance Council (SBM/LGC), John Q. High
School Music Boosters Club, and the Friends of John Q. Volunteers. In addition to a
visit to the school website, a document review discovered additional resources and
organizations available on campus for parents. The Parent-Student Handbook lists all
of the areas of parent involvement available including welcoming parents for campus
135
and classroom visits. Two interesting quotes from the Handbook set the standards
expected of parents:
Student success is enhanced when parents take an active interest in
their student’s school life, both in their academic and extracurricular
endeavors.
Parents are encouraged to take an active role in supervising student
grades and attendance. Student report cards are issued every 5 weeks.
Dates of issuance are published in the Parent Newsletter.
John Q. Public financed an expensive Parent Institute on campus until the
Los Angelo District offered the Parent Expectations Support Achievement (PESA)
Interaction Model program to schools, and J.Q. stakeholders decided to move to this
model. The program is financed with Title I funds which state that schools must use
a percentage of this money for Parent Engagement. The Principal stated that the
PESA Model is the most active form of parent intervention participation that the
school has experienced.
The Parent Center at John Q. is in operation daily with a team of three
bilingual and bicultural parent liaisons funded by the Title I program. It was founded
in 2000 to reach out to parents and help the school fill the communication gap and
foster collaboration between the school and home. Its goals are:
1) To help parents develop parenting skills that will enable them to meet the
basic obligations of family life and foster conditions at home that emphasize the
importance of education and learning.
2) Promote clear, two-way communication between the school and families
regarding programs and the student’s progress.
136
3) Provide parents with links to help them develop the skills they need to
access the school community support services to better strengthen student learning
and development.
The Center is filled with multilingual literature for parents including
brochures on drug intervention, pregnancy, community outreach programs, Action
program for parents and teens, Title I information, and a list of workshops conducted
in the center. The September/October list of workshops, which are conducted in
English and Spanish, included the following topics:
Mathematics & the California State Standards
English & the California State Standards
Discipline and Gang Prevention
History/Social Studies & the California State Standards
Science & the California State Standards
Preparing for College
The California High School Exam
Nutrition
In addition to the classes and workshops, there is a monthly “Coffee with the
Principal” which occurs on the first Tuesday morning of each month. All parents are
welcome, and the principal answers all questions and concerns and notifies those
present of upcoming dates of importance. The Parent Expectations Support
Achievement (PESA) classes empower parents to improve communication and
137
relationship with their children. Parents will learn strategies and techniques to help
them work with their children to achieve academic success.
I was introduced to the parent contingency at a monthly PESA meeting in the
Parent Center. I observed the beginning of the meeting, and my notes are included.
The Director places the tables in a horseshoe shape with 12 chairs
available at the tables. There are snacks and coffee ready. Each
parent enters with a furnished textbook. The class is scheduled
Wednesday morning in Spanish and another evening in English.
Three new parents joined this morning, and four mothers brought
pictures of their families to share with the group. Parents can bring
their small children. There is a playground outside of the center.
Parents involved want more back to school nights where they can get
information from the teachers about their children. The general
consensus; however, is that it is important to involve more parents of
students who are failing.
While it was a small group, I was informed that the evening meetings are
more diverse, and that quite a few fathers attend those meetings. I was informed by
the stakeholders that there is a very small core of parents who are involved with John
Q. and that the school is continually looking for new ways to attract new parents.
The list of parent involvement opportunities above would seem to offer parents a
variety of opportunities to become involved, but still far too few were observed
during my visits.
The interviews of staff and parents, while different in their approaches,
brought up the issue of parental involvement as important to the success of the
students at John Q. The teachers and staff responded with these comments:
#1. We need more parent support. We’re lucky if 6 parents show up
for meetings. I don’t know what it is, but many of the cultures feel
the teachers are in charge. They feel it is up to us to prepare the kids
138
for life. We need to reach more parents and have them involved in
their kids’ lives as soon as they get here.
#2. We have a “hungry community” that wants success. We have
parenting classes and a large turnout for “Back to School Night” that
gets larger every year. We are also working on improving the
communication between the community and the school.
#3 The parents are working long hours at one or two jobs. The kids
are capable but haven’t seen school as important. Many see a world
of work as their option. They haven’t been encouraged to look for a
better future. The greatest success comes from the support of one’s
family. Parents who care and are involved instill in their kids a need
to get all they can. A kid who is motivated by his family will get out
of school what he wants to. They haven’t taken the A-G courses
required for college. Most of these students don’t have three years of
a foreign language. Why not? The Parent Center and College Center
send home letters every semester telling parents what their kids need
in each grade to consider college. If we started in 9
th
grade, parents
and students would know what courses are necessary for college.
The teachers and staff realized the need to have parents involved in the
education of their children. An interview of a group of parents provided an alternate
view of school and their children. At the ‘Coffee with the Principal’ meeting in
November of 2007, I was given the opportunity to ask the parents present the same
interview questions posed to every other participant. While their major concerns
centered on the teachers and their methods of delivering instruction, they did have
some comments on their importance and involvement.
Parent #1 Well there are some of us who volunteer more than others.
We are a rather small group, but I don’t know what other schools are
like. I talk to other parents who have kids at other schools like
Cleveland, and they have a much larger parent group who are
involved in the school’s activities. I don’t know how that works. It’s
hard for people to get in here; they work. I don’t know the situation.
Maybe more people would help the situation.
139
Parent #2 I think the kids must be held responsible to put something
into it. They give them everything; they can’t just sit back and say,
“I’ll think about it later.” There’s help here, but you have to go and
look for it. I think it has to do with the student. They have to be
motivated. When you have Open House with your student and your
child makes comments telling us not to come in, we have to come
anyway.
Parent #3 I’m new since my child is a ninth grader. They asked us
once why more of us don’t come to Back to School or Open House, I
thinks it’s if your kid is doing bad, or poorly, you don’t want to hear
your child is doing poorly because you probably already know, and if
they’re doing good, you say, “ok, you’re doing good. I don’t have to
go and find out because I know my child is doing good. I don’t have
to go to school.”
Parent #4 “Yeah, if you come in here, it works better, sometimes.”
Parent #5 I’ve had a different experience; I’ve had a good experience.
I’m new to the school. I keep in communication with my kid’s
teachers. I gave them my cell phone number and home number and
told them to call anytime.
Parent #6 I do that too. They have my numbers. It’s just the fact that
our kids don’t want us to know what’s goin on.
Parent #2 I understand what you’re saying about being able to
monitor them with the computer, but it is important to be here. I also
understand about having a busy schedule, but there are evenings when
you can come and get information and then you go back home and
you mention to them what you learned, and they say, “Oh you know
that, Mom?”
Parent #6 I know it’s important to ask, but a lot of us have really busy
schedules and it is easier to take 10 minutes at lunch, go on the
computer and see what’s going on. Then I can say, ok that’s where
we are. Then I can go home and mention to the kid, hey, do you
know you have a test on Friday? Are you studying?
It was interesting to note that the parents did not all agree on the issues. As
noted here, some parents felt more parental involvement was necessary while others
140
acknowledged that their children did not want them at school. Parent #6 suggested
computer communication would be amenable to many parents with busy schedules.
There was no clearly definable position on parental involvement at John Q. Public as
evidenced by this focus group. The data collected from the teacher surveys revealed
that approximately 50% of those surveyed determined Parental Support as the #1
factor contributing to student achievement. The staff suggested more help from the
parents who lamented that there was not enough time in busy schedules to come
regularly. This meeting, which began as a question and answer session with the
Principal, concluded with my focus group interview for a total length approximately
three hours. It would appear that the parents could be present in the school for
longer periods, but they need to be utilized in a productive manner helping students
or staff, or just being a visible presence to offer support.
This proved to be an important theme because the staff wanted more parental
participation, and they realized the importance of a parent in the educational
achievement of children. The staff and administration went to extensive lengths to
get parents involved, but there was only a small group of less than twenty parents
who came to the regular monthly meetings with the Principal.
Outstanding educational programs that prepare students for life after high
school
The final theme which emerged from my study identified programs in place
at John Q. that help students succeed and also prepare them for life after high school.
Vartan Gregorian of the Carnegie Corporation wrote:
141
“Our century has become the age of the knowledge worker, in which
education has taken on greater importance for the personal
development of individuals, for the civic, social, and economic
development of the nation. Success in the new global economy
requires students to gain the ability to solve problems, work as a
member of a team, and use technology (Baldwin, 2001).
One has only to look at the Mission Statement and Vision Statement to
identify this theme that is emphasized in every aspect of life at John Q.
Mission
We, the members of the JQPHS community, strive to offer an effective
education to our diverse student population and to provide them with the skills they
will need to become positive contributors to the twenty-first century.
Vision
We envision that as a result of the collaboration and communication shared
by the John Q. Stakeholders:
• Students will be empowered to assume responsibility for their own quality
education;
• Students will graduate possessing critical thinking and problem solving
skills;
• Students will leave John Q. prepared to succeed in post secondary
education, technical training, military service, or the work place;
• Teachers will provide a meaningful curriculum and an environment of
educational excellence for students;
142
• Parents will work in partnership with the total school community to ensure
a successful learning experience for students.
The Mission and Vision statements are aligned with the critical issues of
concern discussed in the school’s WASC Accreditation Review. One of the critical
areas identified in an Action Plan was Increasing Student Achievement. The School
Progress on Critical areas for Follow-up report stated: “The site administration and
staff develop support services to help increase the number of students in all
subgroups demonstrate proficiency in the state content standards and Expected
Schoolwide Learning Results.” Among the areas targeted to increase student
achievement were: 1) Schoolwide Curriculum Alignment, 2) Literacy Focus, 3)
Academic Intervention, 4) Smaller Learning Communities, and 5) Attendance.
The programs defined as successful interventions included The Directed
Reading and Writing Course (DRWC-Read 180), block instruction, and after school
tutoring. Tutoring classes were expanded to include the academic areas. CAHSEE
preparation classes were provided, and this was extended in 2005 to become the new
program entitled “Beyond the Bell”. This program consisted of a more structured
preparation program in which students earn 2.5 credits if they complete the
additional required number of instructional hours. The program at John Q. was the
largest intervention effort in the entire Los Angelo School District. The test results
demonstrated the focus that the staff placed on literacy. In 2005, 72% of the first-
time attempts passed the CAHSEE English/Language Arts component. The AYP
143
ELA proficiency passing rate improved for all students from 16 to 43 points (WASC
Review, 2006).
There is a wide variety of programs available for John Q. students including:
Gifted and Talented (GATE), students with exceptional needs, English students, and
work experience programs including Regional Occupation Program (ROP). In
addition, a number of Advanced Placement courses are offered, and the Advanced
Placement tests are offered in the spring.
The research of best practices in high performing high schools suggested that
to provide rigorous academics to all students, the schools which were studied
developed small learning communities, typically theme academies based on student
interest. When the academics in each community were taught around that theme, it
was determined that the students performed better in school (Daggett & McNulty,
2005).
The following specialized programs are available to students as early as the
ninth grade and represent a myriad of specialized courses directed to the special
interests of a large portion of the student body. These programs are not available in
every school, but they of paramount importance to the stakeholders at John Q. as
they continue to strive to raise student achievement. They are described below.
Impact Program
This is a specially funded program available to all students with the
permission of their parent or guardian. Impact is a self-help program designed to
144
increase student awareness about substance abuse and chemical dependency and to
assist students with problems.
Career Technical Education, CTE
The CTE is defined as a multi-year sequence of courses that integrate core
academic knowledge with technical and occupational knowledge. Students in this
Perkins-funded technology career path complete a basic program in computer use
and progress to classes in computer repair, network management, and multi-media
and computer graphics.
Students interested in child care careers can explore teaching and child care
by participating in a real-life child care program on the John Q. campus while those
interested in a career or construction or wood craft can enroll in a sequence of wood
and construction classes.
Architecture and Digital Magnet
This magnet is a specialized program that offers students an opportunity to
participate in a one-of-a-kind program that gives the students a choice of three
programs to pursue as a career path: Architecture, Film-making, and Digital
Imaging/Photography. The Magnet’s core curriculum of college prep
interdisciplinary courses exemplifies the high expectations the program has for its
students.
Tutoring Program
Students who need extra help with their class work may choose from
numerous programs offered during and after school. Specific tutoring is available in
145
math, other subjects, SAT preparation, and special preparation classes for the
CAHSEE which offer 2.5 elective credits for its successful completion.
School for Advanced Studies
This program provides accelerated college preparatory classes for gifted
students and those interested in enrolling in college-level Advanced Placement
classes. The SAS curriculum is designed to prepare students for entrance to the
University of California and private schools. Top students have also been accepted
from schools including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and MIT.
Multilingual Teacher Career Academy
The MTCA provides a small school environment for students wishing to
explore careers in teaching, child care, and language teaching.
AVID
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) is a rigorous college
preparatory program which targets students whose test scores are in the middle or
higher in reading and math. The program provides college information and support
to these students to help them become university-eligible upon high school
graduation. In addition the program provides them with the skills they will need to
be successful in the university setting. This program targets students who may be the
first in their families to graduate from high school and think about post graduate
education. The AVID program will follow the students through high school to
ensure success.
146
Health Academy
Students interested in a career in the medical and/or health care fields can
pursue a specialized curriculum that is involved with the interdisciplinary instruction
necessary for the student’s success in the health field. Classes are visited by
specialists in the medical careers. A requirement states interested students must be
committed to providing the highest level of care to all people they will serve in the
future.
Ninth Grade Academy
The Freshman Academy is designed as a means of transition from middle
school to the high school environment. It is designed as a small learning community
(SLC) where students are assigned to teams of teachers who are concerned with
helping students develop positive learning skills. By focusing on core academics,
character building and effective study habits, freshmen are prepared for the
remainder of their high school career. The Academy hopes to improve student
achievement through collaboration and develop the uniqueness of each student so
they may thrive in the community and other future endeavors.
Despite the pervasive trend in the United States toward larger high schools, a
wide range of benefits from smaller schools or learning communities. These benefits
include higher levels of student academic achievement, satisfaction, maturity,
responsibility, and attendance rates (Finn & Voelkl, 1993). John Q. Public certainly
goes beyond the definition of a traditional high school with the number of magnet
and specialized programs designed to pique the interest of its students. The
147
programs and magnets are not offered at all high schools. The John Q. staff and
administration worked hard to get the Freshman Academy program operational for
this school year. This district imposed program is the result of educational
reformers looking for methods to improve student achievement and keep students in
school. The importance of the Academy was described by Ms. Cox:
The Freshman Academy is our first SLC. According to district
policy, we are to make a plan to go wall-to-wall SLCs in all grades.
We are in the midst of writing our plan. We’re a bit tardy. Our
deadline was last June, according to Bulletin 1600. We had to show
progress without them coming and knocking on my door. Our staff is
not 100% certain, nor am I, that we need to go wall-to-wall. It was a
huge step to get us to a 9
th
grade Academy for all kids, and even
though they know that our small learning communities that are in
place, the kids involved in them are very successful. You look at the
magnet school; you look at the Health Academy kids, the Multilingual
Teacher Academy; all of those kids have a higher graduation rate.
They do surveys on how well the kids like their environment, and
everything is off the chart for them. But, everybody (that was a hard
one) had to show the need for a 9
th
grade Academy. I couldn’t just
say, “Well, Bulletin 1600 said we have to do it.” We did a pilot
program last year that was terrible. But we found a lot of our ‘oops’
on a smaller scale. So now, we took care of all those problems and
now we’re a total 9
th
grade academy.
Our 9
th
grade is a team/group approach. It has A, B, C, and D. They
share about 80% of the same kids. So they rotate (kids) among their
core classes. There is some overlap between A and B and C and D.
Practically all of these teachers, since they share the same kids, should
be meeting to discuss the needs of individual kids. We need to add
math into the core because it isn’t in there now. I looked at the kids
and teachers, and we have a high rate of fails in the math department,
and I didn’t want the kids to fail. Last year I didn’t have a math staff
that would support the plan. They hated 9
th
graders, it seemed, and
they failed a lot of kids. So, we need to avoid that.
She explained that the failure and attendance problems began in ninth grade,
so this was the place to begin and intervention:
148
The ninth grade last year showed a large retention rate and low
attendance rate, so I had a lot of data to show that there was a high
percentage of failures. If this continued, they would all be 9
th
graders
again this year, and this was unacceptable. Our attendance is not up
overall, but it might be up in the 9
th
grade. Our fails at the ten week
mark are down significantly. For multiple fails, I believe in talking to
Luis (the Academy Coordinator), the rate is way down. He is very
upset because he has 100 fails in a single subject. I told him, “Luis,
we used to have 100 kids with multiple fails.” So, it looks like it’s
working.
Another staff member involved with the Freshman Academy added these comments.
We also schedule the students to remain in the same homeroom for
four years. It becomes an advisory relationship. We develop
closeness with our students so they can ask us any question. With the
9
th
Grade Academy we can change the excessive failures. If students
were failing last year, we recognize the trend and are already working
with them this year. This component was lacking before; the 9
th
graders were ignored. They didn’t know who their counselor was,
and the counselor sure didn’t know them. Kids could fail all of their
courses in junior high and still pass. That isn’t true in high school.
There is no social promotion. 9R is a rude awakening.
Dr. Valerie E. Lee reported that a promising direction for reform in large,
urban high schools was to break them into smaller subunits, often called schools-
within-schools with ideal enrollment between 600 and 900 students. The purpose
was to offer solid academic curriculum in a small enough environment to facilitate
positive social relations (2005).
The staff interviews I conducted made references to the programs in place
and the support which they had for the success of those programs and the students.
The variety was mentioned by nine of the respondents, and eight of the interviews
suggested that the increased options for study could help students be more engaged
149
and more successful. They also discussed how the programs helped the students
succeed.
#1 The District wants all schools to be comprised of Small Learning
Communities (SLC). A recent trend has 9
th
graders no successfully
making it to 10
th
grade in one school year. We feel that groups of
students who have the same teachers over four years bond and will be
more likely to finish school. We received a Block Grant which
helped us furnish the 9
th
grade office. The students are almost self-
contained. Only ½ of the students have to leave the 9
th
grade area for
science and electives.
#2 We want to enable every student to fulfill their personal goals and
be happy. That is very important. And that means that not everyone
goes to college, and they are not less successful if they don’t attend
college. We must help students be the best they can be for whom they
are; and that includes being the best teacher, priest, or construction
worker. We need many of all professions.
#3 We have high expectations. There are structured classrooms. The
kids have method and clear understanding of what is expected. We
have vertical structured teams which prepare kids for what comes
next.
#4 You can’t learn in a vacuum. We are assigned a homeroom as 9
th
graders, and we stay together for all four years. We become an
advisory group and a real family. Those are the kids in my Homeroom
that have GPA’s of 3.0 and 3.5 and better. That’s most of my kids.
Why? Because they have the support of their peers and me, as well as
other staff here at the school. These are not “super students.” They
work hard and are proud of their accomplishments. I have two
students who have not missed a day of high school!!!
The staff also made numerous references to preparation for life after high
school. The importance of the Career Center, College Center, and the Counseling
Center were mentioned favorably by some of the respondents:
#1 To have a school which is academically sound but challenging.
Our purpose is to have a school that works for all kids keeping in
mind that kids aren’t cookie cutters.
150
#2 I think our real mission or vision is to have kids ready for the
workplace. I believe this happens because kids who are pushed are
successful. There is a sense of a work in progress. The majority of
students are well prepared. Our math students are prepared. If they
are accepted to a 4 year college, they will do well in college. I run
into kids in the neighborhood that graduated from here that are
doctors and other very successful professionals.
#3 We try to deliver kids who are ready to graduate. We have high
expectations and communicate that high school cannot be the end of
the road as far as a future goes. Most kids know they need to go on;
high school isn’t the end. There is a strong push here at John Q. for
kids to prepare for college. We provide the materials and the
classroom expectations for kids to perform. We also have a work
experience program.
#4 They do have AVID which is not everywhere. AVID is fantastic.
This is for kids who have potential but just don’t have the financial
resources. The AVID staff works with the kids and helps them focus
on graduating and careers and college after that. We want to see kids
prepared for life after high school whether it is work, college; just
adulthood.
#5 The school offers a lot of Advanced Placement classes. I am very
impressed with the College Center, even when I was just a parent
here. IF a kid will just walk in here and consider the POSSIBILITY
of going to college we will spoon-feed him with scholarships and
financial aid. That is in addition to helping with applications.
The parents interviewed volunteered these observations:
Parent #1 I know for a fact that what they’re trying to do is send these
kids to college or possible university; the parent student staff and
whatever needs to be involved to help our school.
Parent #2 Let me comment on the past. In the past, these children
were not as prepared as they should be. It’s improving because I
can’t say it’s not improving. The Freshman Academy, I can’t
complain. They’ve actually gone out of their way they’re really good
with the parents, at least what I’ve seen.
151
The final comments on the programs were supplied by the Principal, Ms. Cox:
Making sure every student is college prepared and career ready is our
mission. Everybody has a different definition of what that is, but I
want, I hope that we provide the best possible opportunity for kids to
be ready for the next phase of their lives. We have a number of
Career Pathways that are continuing to be developed, so we have both
the career part and the college part. The district now mandates that
everyone is suppose to be college prepared as they graduate from high
school. I think if kids have specific interests they can articulate, we
try our best to provide that information.
We have a large performing arts and visual arts component if they
want to go in that direction. We have a full time work experience
coordinator here to help kids get jobs or find internships. He has a
class once a week at 7:00 a.m. and the kids have to come and learn
about workplace issues. They have to come and attend the class to
pass. The computer component and the architectural component are
available. The video component which is expanding with the new
teacher and the connections in the community are tremendous. We
have child care, teaching, health academy which will has an infusion
of new blood which will help it move forward.
The staff and administration generally agreed that they were at John Q. to
help students succeed and prepare for life after high school. There were a number of
programs available for students to investigate, and Ms. Cox suggested that other
avenues might be available if students can articulate their needs. The school was
staffed with knowledgeable adults who intervene when failure is a possibility and
provide valuable information about college and the world of work. The classroom
teachers served as advisors and maintained the same homeroom through all four
years of high school which provided another adult available for students if questions
or problems arise. The student support and program planning was extensive and
152
ongoing. The Magnet programs plan to add new areas of interest, and those in place
constantly review academic preparation and rigor.
The students at John Q. have a wide selection of opportunities available and a
huge staff in place to guide them every step of the way toward graduation. High
performing schools use enriching classes and high expectations for all students and
find some way to succeed with virtually all students (Blankstein, 2007). In the urban
setting, there are more students coming to school unprepared due to language issues
and poverty, but a high performing school has high expectations and a variety of
programs to help every child. The National High School Alliance, as discussed in
Chapter 2, proposed personalized learning environments which would help students
meet academic standards by designing a community focused on curriculum,
supports, and a climate focused on student needs (2005).
Schools are moving from traditional commitments to partnering with the
community to provide extracurricular activities and programs to address academic
needs and keep students safe and off the streets (Pittman & Irby, 2007). John Q.
accepts its custodial duty to keep youth constructively occupied while performing its
economic imperative of preparing the next generation for future employment
(Mitchell, 2007).
Discussion of the Findings
In this chapter, the data collection was guided by the research questions:
1.) What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
153
2) Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
A number of themes emerged as the data was reviewed and triangulated. The
four most prevalent themes were: 1) a welcoming culture/safe environment for all
stakeholders, 2) an outstanding teaching staff, 3) parent involvement and parent
programs on campus, and 4) John Q. provides a good education with outstanding
educational programs that prepare students for life after high school.
Given the themes gleaned from the data collected during my two months at
John Q. Public, the factors which contribute to academic achievement mentioned
most often in the interviews and surveys were parental involvement, a staff that is
involved and motivating, a safe, nurturing environment, and a variety of educational
programs. While most participants believed student engagement was necessary for
student achievement, it did not rank in the top five factors identified in the staff
surveys or interviews. The school wanted to increase student engagement and
offered numerous programs, tutoring opportunities, and extracurricular activities. A
number of the respondents admitted that only a small percentage of the student body
is engaged to the extent stakeholders desire.
Getting students involved was a popular topic in the interviews, surveys and
observations. Blankstein in his article Terms of Engagement posits that while many
students fail, the consequences are too dire to allow such an option to be considered
acceptable. He explains that students who do not finish high school earn
substantially less and have a greater rate of incarceration and drug abuse than their
154
peers (2007). Staff members commented repeatedly that students were watched, and
when they began to slip, someone would step in to help. This involvement is in
keeping with research which shows that high performing schools, even in the
toughest school settings, embrace at the core of their philosophy the notion that
failure is not an option for any child or subgroup of students (Blankstein, 2004). The
school implemented the Freshman Academy to involve and engage ninth graders to
put them on the right path toward graduation, and for the John Q. staff, dropping out
did not seem to be an option.
John Q. Public High School is a large, urban high school that is succeeding
‘in spite of’ the factors of poverty, language barriers, and poor achievement which
should increase their failure probability. When I initially approached Ms. Cox with
my research request, she remarked, “We are NOT high performing.” I reminded her
of this statement during our interview, and she acknowledged that although the
student body improved 17 points last year on the API score, they were no where near
where she wanted them to be. When asked if her school was ‘high performing,’ she
offered this observation:
No. Why? To me, at a high performing school, all kids are at Basic
or Above. So, maybe I consider high performing being defined by
being successful. We have too many kids that are Below Basic and
Far Below Basic. Even using a statistical look at it, there are the kids
who opt out. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the skills, but either
we are still not giving them all of what they need, or there’s not
enough background. Also, maybe we haven’t found the right
interventions for them. So, are we high performing, not yet.
155
It is important to note that although the school qualified as “outperforming,”
the staff was adamant that they could help their students raise achievement levels,
and they remained positive in their belief that their students would be successful.
These stakeholders possessed a long-term success policy. A truly successful school
shuns any sense of having “arrived” and continually strives to improve and reinvent
themselves (Daggett & McNulty, 2005). The staff continued to identify successful
strategies which would encourage improvement and ensure that all students were
performing at acceptable levels on state assessments.
A review of the HSSSE results showed repeatedly that the ninth graders
scored lower and answered questions more negatively. Even on the “I am engaged”
question, 38% of ninth graders disagreed as compared to 25% of the seniors who
disagreed. Ninth graders also stated that they (sometimes/often) come to class with
no assignments completed 34% of the time as opposed to seniors who reported no
assignments 28% of the time. The ninth graders also stated that 50% spend one or
less hours doing homework compared to 36% of the seniors who spent the same
amount of time on homework. When reporting on time spent studying for class,
70% of ninth graders spent one hour or less in preparation, while 52% of seniors
reported the same answer. These statistics would suggest that John Q. stakeholders
must ensure the success of the Ninth Grade Academy. The staff emphasized their
hope that the Academy would prove a viable intervention because of its focus on
academics, character building and effective study habits. The HSSSE results
supported the need for the intervention as soon as the students arrive on campus in
156
the fall to ensure that freshmen feel engaged and work hard to enjoy academic
success.
The stakeholders strictly adhere to the mission statement to provide students
with the skills necessary to become positive contributors in the twenty-first century.
Experts have suggested that the most important skill we can teach students for the
21
st
century is “how to learn,” and that universal post-secondary education is a
necessity for the future (Mitchell, 2007). The staff strives to involve the students in
their education, and they continue to provide a strong educational program which is
the tradition of John Q. Public.
157
CHAPTER 5:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Urban high schools in America have struggled for decades to overcome the
negative reputation they possess. Their massive size alone makes them appear
uninviting. These schools have the same issues that all schools face; children ill-
prepared for school, language barriers, poverty, and a general distrust that the
educational system penalizes instead of recognizing these problems.
The issues faced by all schools were exacerbated with the introduction
educational reform promised in No Child Left Behind. NCLB and its predecessor,
Goals 2000, had admirable objectives; primarily among them was the intent that all
children would perform at grade level and successfully graduate with the skills
necessary to compete in a global society. These lofty hopes, however, came with a
price in the form of assessment and accountability. The states, working within
federal guidelines, set standards of success which seemed impossible for some
districts and their struggling schools to achieve.
A review of educational research supports the existence of urban schools that
achieve ‘in spite of’ the glaring obstacles they face. These institutions outperform
other schools of similar demographics which encounter the same problems. One of
these schools, John Q. Public High School, has defied the odds. Statistics show that
it outperforms other large urban high schools in a major unified school district in
southern California. It was important to identify the factors which contributed to the
continued improvement at John Q. Public.
158
Ten doctoral students at the University of Southern California designed a
thematic case study to discover those factors present in high performing urban high
schools. These schools were successful “in spite of” identified demographic
characteristics which proved detrimental to a great many schools. Using the research
questions of student engagement and identifying other factors of success, a
conceptual model was created as the rubric to guide data collection. In the age of
accountability and NCLB, state, and local influences, it was imperative to identify
the factors which enabled urban schools to outperform their counterparts.
The study was qualitative because of its focus on the intensive study of
specific instances, or cases of a phenomenon (Gall, 2003), and it permitted the
researcher to produce a comprehensive study of the stakeholders in a large urban
high school. The selection of the case study high school was determined by criteria
identified with the term ‘urban’:
• Title I status
• 40 % of the student body received free or reduced lunch
• a large percentage of English Language Learners (ELL)
• a neighborhood reflected in the student population.
In addition to the student demographic factors, the school needed a Similar
School Ranking score of at least three deciles (or divisions) higher than its API
ranking.
159
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine if a link exists between student
engagement and achievement in high performing urban high schools, and also to
identify other factors that contribute to student academic success. A thematic
research group studied successful urban high schools in southern California to
identify urban factors and what made those schools high performing.
Research Questions
Two research questions were generated to guide the study:
1) What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
2) Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
Methodology
To facilitate the collection of data, a set of instruments was created by the
thematic group to be used by each researcher in his/her respective school. These
instruments, while uniform in nature, were versatile enough to address different
groups and purposes.
The use of multiple sources of data ensured a greater opportunity to gather
enough information to provide a thick and rich description in the case study. In this
study the interviews of various stakeholders, document review, observations, and
surveys completed by teachers and administrators served as the data sources to
triangulate, and when combined provided an increase in accuracy and credibility of
160
findings (Patton, 2002). Four factors were identified as necessary for raising
academic achievement in this successful high school. The analysis of the collected
data was then compared to the results provided by the High School Survey of
Student Engagement (HSSSE) which was administered in January of 2008.
Conclusions
The case study identified factors which enable urban high schools to achieve
in spite of obstacles which make success difficult. With the data collection
instruments guided by the two research questions, a thick description evolved into
key elements which addressed the research queries.
Research Question #1: What perceived factors contribute to academic
achievement in a high performing urban high school?
It was here that stakeholders provided examples of what they perceived to be
important contributors to student success. John Q. had enjoyed a 17 point
improvement in their API score from the previous year. The faculty and staff
provided a long list of successful interventions and programs created to validate their
success in addition to general elements of the school culture. The factors mentioned
most often by the respondents on the surveys and interviews included:
• great students
• dedicated teachers
• parent support
• rigorous curriculum
• attendance
161
• supportive and safe environment
• high expectations
The data collected pointed to parent support, teacher preparation, and caring
teacher/student relationships as significantly important to student achievement.
While comments were made about the schools large number of students performing
below proficient levels in basic skills, the stakeholders did not address curriculum
and instructional issues as the most important factors in achievement gains. They
noted that more important to success for the school, as a whole, was the attention
they paid to interpersonal, human issues.
While the respondents were unable to identify a unified set of criteria which
contributed to their academic growth, they did identify a group of factors that they
believed were important. These were to continue to raise achievement, to provide
caring professionals, and provide an environment where students could realize their
potential, succeed, and graduate with the skills necessary to compete in a global
society.
Research Question #2: Is there a link between student engagement and student
achievement in a high performing urban high school?
While there was no concrete evidence discovered that engaged students
achieve more, there were themes which emerged concerning the students, their
problems, and their support network at John Q. Public High School. When asked
what role student engagement plays in student achievement, there was no clear
consensus among the adult stakeholders interviewed. The responses ranged from
162
“absolutely,” to “not all students,” to “there is no real student engagement here.”
They offered examples of the various interventions and programs available to
involve students, but other than a real hope in the success of the new Freshman
Academy, no one pointed to concrete examples of the school engaging students.
Consequently, while many of the respondents lamented that students were not as
engaged as they could or should be, other than a small cadre of extremely involved
students I observed and heard about during interviews, the school suffered the same
level of apathy persistent at other schools.
A review of the HSSSE results provided an in depth look at the school and its
programs from the students’ perspective. The responses provided by the students
revealed that John Q. performed consistently with schools on the national survey.
While it is an urban school with demographics that did not fit the national profile,
namely a large free and reduced lunch population and a large number of minority
students, their responses were not considerably different from suburban and rural
students surveyed across the nation. When asked to agree to the statement, “I am
engaged,” 69% of John Q. students agreed and 31% disagreed. This is an area
stakeholders will need to address if they intend to raise academic achievement.
An analysis of the findings revealed four emergent themes, and they were:
1) school environment, 2) outstanding teaching staff, 3) parent involvement, and
4) outstanding educational programs that prepare students for life after high school.
A discussion of each explains its importance to the stakeholders at John Q. Public.
163
Theme #1: School Environment
John Q. Public had a long history in the local district and as a member of the
community. The observations revealed a quiet, safe environment in which students
could learn. There was substantial security at and around the school for over twelve
hours daily. Students were expected to arrive on time to school and their classes, but
a Tardy Policy and Tardy Room were in place for those who could not comply. This
provided a campus where students were not out of class or milling around
unsupervised.
There was also an academic environment in which students were aware of the
expectations held by the faculty and staff. The students were expected to come and
learn and were responsible, in part, for their educational success. There were
stakeholders observing and actively participating in every aspect of the students’
educational program. The stakeholders were dedicated to providing a welcoming
and nurturing environment in which students could succeed.
Theme #2: Outstanding teaching staff
The teaching staff at John Q. was comprised of caring individuals who were
concerned about the students and dedicated to providing them with the best possible
education. The teaching staff, of whom 92% held full credentials, contained
approximately 135 teachers of which 25% had taught at the school for 11 or more
years. More than 40% had been teaching 11 years or more, making for an
experienced and stable teaching staff. Observations of the content classes revealed
teachers who were knowledgeable and supportive of the students they taught. When
164
the teachers returned the completed surveys, they repeatedly acknowledged their
peers and the outstanding job they did. After conducting fourteen interviews, I
gleaned honest feedback concerning the teachers. Some of the respondents did not
feel that all of the teachers were working in the best interest of the students and
revealed that a minority of their peers suffered from negative attitudes.
The parents, administration, and outside stakeholders generally made positive
comments about the teachers and their concern for the students, but there were also
negative references concerning some teachers. Every respondent did comment that
the students had the opportunity to learn certain subject matter from some of the
most outstanding teachers in the district. The staff at John Q. Public exemplified the
effective teacher as described by Antoinette Mitchell in her article, The Emergence
of a Knowledge Base for Teaching,
Teachers who are successful with urban students understand that their
students are children who can learn at high levels, who are curious
about the world around them, and who will acquire knowledge and
skills when taught appropriately. They strike a balance between
recognizing social forces that contribute to student attitudes and
behaviors and recognizing students as individuals who are able to
make independent choices based on a logical assessment of the
consequences (2007).
Theme #3: Parent Involvement and Support
The data collected addressed the importance of parental support to the
success of the students at John Q. Recognizing that parenting is hard work, the
school sought to form positive relationships with the parents through proactive
engagement. Parents from every economic level may not be able to physically come
165
to the school, but these families care about their children and their children’s
education (Mitchell, 2007). The stakeholders realized that communication was
imperative to all parents, but they made a concerted effort to reach out to those who
would not consider becoming involved due to language issues or work schedules.
The school contacted parents through a variety of avenues including the computer
with a website which was easily navigated. The website provided an entire page for
parent activities and announcements as well as dates for report cards and holiday
schedules. There were automated phone calls announcing weekly activities to keep
parents informed and involved.
When I interviewed the parents during a focus group, some commented that
they did not have the time to be at school due to other commitments. The majority of
the parents interviewed expressed satisfaction with the education their children were
receiving, but they wanted more interaction with their children’s teachers and wanted
the staff to communicate on a regular basis concerning individual students and their
progress.
The school recognized the importance of parental support by including a
parental element in the school’s Mission Statement and Vision: “Parents will work in
partnership with the total school community to ensure a successful learning
experience for students.”
The data collected from the observations, document reviews, and interviews
confirmed John Q. Public’s determination to include all parents in their child’s
166
education. The stakeholders were concerned about the small core of visible and
involved parents who were present at school meetings and events.
The parents acknowledged the concerted effort of the school to increase
involvement, and spoke highly about the PESA program which was created to help
foster conditions at home that promote the importance of education. Another vital
component of the program promoted clear communication between school and the
home and provided community links for parent support services. With the bilingual
liaisons on site each day, parents had a contact for issues that might arise. The
Principal, Ms. Cox stated that this model had proven the most active form of
intervention participation that the school had experienced. The involved parents
wanted more ‘Back to School Nights’ so they could get information from the
teachers. The group acknowledged that they really needed to involve more parents,
especially those parents whose children are failing. The parents and school staff
were determined to continue finding ways to involve more parents.
Theme #4: Outstanding educational programs that prepare students for life after
high school
The final theme which emerged from the research, addressed the programs
offered at John Q. that provided a rigorous curriculum, expectations for success, and
prepared students for life after high school. This was first uncovered during the
document review when I read the school’s Mission Statement: “We, the members of
the JQPHS community, strive to offer an effective education to our diverse student
167
population and to provide them with the skills they will need to become positive
contributors to the twenty-first century.”
The educational programs included the general programs offered by all high
schools in the Los Angelo District, but the school had also instituted a number of
programs which were either not available at all schools or were unique to this
campus. In addition to the standard programs such as Gifted and Talented (GATE),
students with exceptional needs, English students, and work experience programs
including Regional Occupation Program (ROP) and Career Technical Education
(CTE), there were a number of Advanced Placement courses offered along with the
required courses for the California State University (CSU) and University of
California (UC) programs.
John Q. also had a number of Magnet programs which were unique including
the Architectural and Digital Magnet, School for Advanced Studies, Multilingual
Teacher Career Academy, and the Ninth Grade Academy. The stakeholders hoped
that this offering of programs would appeal to students and entice them to choose a
path that would lead to success. The Ninth Grade Academy was created with the
hope of acting as an intervention for freshmen as soon as they arrived on campus.
The constant attention of the staff would help students improve their grades and
attendance, thereby helping them stay engaged in school and not become
discouraged and drop out.
There was a wide selection of academic opportunities available for the
students at John Q. Public High School. Regardless of a student’s performance in
168
junior high, this school was prepared to meet him/her with the ninth Grade Academy
and monitor his/her progress through school. With these intervention programs and
academic choices available for the students, one would assume that every student
would achieve and graduate, but this was not the case. Despite the extensive
academic offerings, only 80% of students graduated from John Q, and their API
ranking was a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Despite an increase of 17 points on the school’s API, the students were not
performing and achieving as the stakeholders expected; a concern mentioned
repeatedly on the surveys and in the interviews. The Principal added that as long as
John Q. operated with a large number of students performing at Below Basic and Far
Below Basic on the state assessments, the school would not consider itself as
successful or performing at the level considered acceptable by the staff and
stakeholders.
The stakeholders reported a number of areas of concern associated with the
education of students at John Q. Public. A two-part question was posed to every
participant: What are you most proud of at this school? What areas would you
improve? Once again, the variety of responses supported the pervading theme that
there was no uniform consensus in the school. Some of the areas of pride stated
were:
Teachers want to be accountable to the students, and they want the
students to achieve.
I think I’m the most proud of the test scores. I love to see the kids
improve and grow each year. I’m really close to the student body
169
since I get to see every area. I’m proud of each graduating class I
have been able to see.
I am most proud of our students. For the most part, they are a joy to
have in class.
When the students feel supported, they surprise themselves with the
levels they can achieve. I have heard many students remark, “I can’t
believe I could do this.” That’s the good thing about John Q.: Kids
are given the opportunity to excel.
The respondents also provided areas they believed needed improvement:
We need the extracurricular activities expanded. This area has a “thin
gene pool.” The same kids over and over participating in everything,
but we really need to involve those who would benefit the most. We
need to get to the kids who have no outlet at home.
I believe all areas can be improved. We must assist students in higher
level thinking. We must infuse the application of knowledge with
experience. We must also make sure that the academics we offer
reflect a global view.
We aren’t where we should be. The academic focus and high
expectations need to be reviewed. I have some disappointments.
These examples show there is no clear, definitive resolution or remedy to
ensure John Q.’s continued performance. While most respondents had a different
idea on the factors which led to achievement as well as the areas that needed
attention, they were generally in agreement that too many students were performing
Below Basic for the school to be considered high performing. As for student
engagement, the responses showed that people possessed different ideas about what
engagement really was, and no one was able to clearly identify engagement at work
or its benefit to the students.
170
Implications
An urban high school should, by definition, possess glaring imperfections,
but John Q. Public does not fit this mould. In fact, the serene environment
exemplifies the school’s dedication to its students by providing an atmosphere of
nurturing and endless possibilities. This desire for success is supported by a variety
of educational programs designed to prepare students for the future. John Q. serves
as an example of an urban school that is outperforming similar schools, but to what
should this success be attributed?
Implication #1
In a school with over 135 staff members, many of whom did not know each
other, there was room for different views. While the staff recognized the school
needed to continue its improvement, there was no consensus as to how this would
occur. Their WASC plan stated that instructional and curricular decisions were data
driven, and the staff intended to utilize the information supplied by the HSSSE
results in conjunction with this research to show continued areas of concern which
need to be addressed.
Implication#2
John Q. Public High School is a family of faculty, parents, administrators,
and community stakeholders who are open and opinionated about the faults and
features of the school. While there was no unified consensus on how to improve
achievement, they were dogmatic in the belief of and concern for their students. The
stakeholders recognized weaknesses, but they were prepared to work around the
171
clock to help their students succeed and graduate. It was imperative that their
students persevere, and failure was never mentioned as an option. The staff wanted
their students engaged and successful, and they spoke with a parent’s pride when
they discussed the achievements of their students.
Implication #3
John Q. Public has an extensive array of academic programs and
extracurricular activities to involve every student. These programs include: magnet
programs unique in the district, tutorials, career, and advanced study programs. The
school provides intervention strategies, early identification of problems, and
assistance in preparing for the state exit exam. Yet, John Q.’s graduation rate is 80%
which is not an outstanding statistic. While these statistics are in line with the Los
Angelo district, these percentages fall short of state graduation rate of 83%.
Implication #4
If engagement is an important factor in student achievement, it did not
surface in the data here at John Q. With 69% of the respondents saying they agree or
strongly agree, there are 31% of the students who feel disengaged. While the adults
can point to their extensive array of programs designed to help and interest students,
if the children say they are not engaged, then the school must find ways to involve
them. A program does not help if the students do not use it or even know it exists.
In addition, with a dropout rate of 20%, this group represents the ultimate
form of disengagement. This would suggest that the school has not been successful
in engaging the students, and a great many are not achieving at high levels; thereby
172
leading to failure and a departure from school without graduating. This factor also
validates the remarks by the Principal and other staff members that the school has a
large percentage of students performing and Below Basic and Far Below Basic
which negates a high performing label.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made as a result of the findings of this
study. These suggestions should be considered when determining if a school is high
performing and if student engagement is one of the factors responsible for that
success.
Recommendation #1: Graduation rate investigation. Is the national rate
increasing or decreasing? It is imperative to determine why schools such as John Q.
graduate only 80% of the students. Compare this with 64% district wide and 83%
state wide, and thousands of students did not successfully complete their high school
program. Not one of these statistics is particularly impressive. If schools intend to
graduate all of their students, then research must be generated to study why so many
children leave school without finishing. A suggestion would be to create a survey or
conduct an interview with former students who left and inquire:
1) Did they complete their high school requirements somewhere else and
graduate?
2) What could the school or district have done to prevent them from leaving
or dropping out? This information would then be shared with the state to identify
trends and create and fund additional interventions.
173
Recommendation #2: Conduct a study of the success of Small Learning
Communities to determine if they keep students in school. Focus on the
relationships between students and their core teachers. Identify the role of the
teacher/advisor and is there a decrease in the number of students who leave school
where there is a program of teams or SLCs.
Recommendation #3: Increase parent involvement. Survey those schools
with acceptable parental involvement to determine additional strategies. Make
participation more imperative. Perhaps parents could pick up report cards, or maybe
a meeting could be scheduled for a Saturday morning.
It is also important to increase the communication between parents and
teachers. The school and district websites must be monitored and information should
be current. Teachers and the academic departments should provide information on
their website of assignments, projects, and tests. This could assist parents in
monitoring their child’s performance more closely and enable them to take a more
active role at home.
Recommendation #4: Schools need to identify strategies which will increase
engagement. Many schools have enough programs, clubs, and sports in place, but
many of them do not enjoy the membership they desire. This would intimate that the
students are not fully engaged in their school. A survey could determine why
students do not participate in school activities. It might also be advantageous to
conduct focus groups to get student input. If transportation is an issue for after school
174
activities and sporting events, schools could arrange to have school buses on campus
to take students home after club meetings.
The stakeholders should address this problem together because the
opportunities exist, and there are students who would benefit from increased
engagement in their school’s programs. If the staff provides programs and activities
they think the students need and want, but they are not being used, then it is time to
consider that the students might want something totally different. The adults may
see this issue from their perspective, but it is important to see this problem from the
perspective of the students, particularly those who are not involved in their school’s
activities.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study identified issues present in student achievement in an urban high
school which might contribute to increased student success, but further research in
this area would be beneficial to this subject.
1. Further research in the form of a longitudinal study should investigate and
identify factors present in high achieving urban schools.
2. Further correlation of the High School Survey of Student Engagement and
large urban high schools could isolate factors identified by students in the survey and
how they manifest themselves in the urban high school setting.
The research conducted for this study was intended to determine what makes
successful schools work. When all of the stakeholders agreed that the students are
the most important reason for being there, and that every aspect of education should
175
ensure their success, the important factors had been identified. Those elements most
crucial to student success were determined to be the nurturing environment provided
by the John Q. Public High School staff and their mission to help their students
succeed.
176
REFERENCES
Anyon, J. (1995). Race, social class and educational reform in an inner city school.
Teachers College Record, 97, 69–94.
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and Curriculum (3
rd
ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2007). The lexicon of
learning: Educational vocabulary. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from
http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.
Barton, P.E. (2005). One-Third of a Nation: Rising Dropout Rates and Declining
Opportunities. Policy Information Report. Educational Testing Service
Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (1999) A movement against and beyond boundaries:
“politically relevant teaching” among African-American teachers. Teachers
College Record, 100, 702–723.
Blankstein, A.M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blankstein, A.M. (2007). Terms of engagement: Where failure is not an option. In
A. M. Blankstein, R. W. Cole, & P.D. Houston (Eds.), Engaging every
learner (pp 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blankstein, A.M., Cole, R.W., & Houston, P.D. (Eds.) (2007). Engaging every
learner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bottoms, G., Fox, J. H., & New, T. (2000). The 2000 “High schools that work”
assessment: Improving urban high schools. High Schools That Work
Research Brief. 00V45, 1-15.
Bryk, A. S. & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The school as community: Theoretical
foundations, contextual influences, and consequences for students and
teachers. National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Bureau of Justice Assistance: Center for Program Evaluation Glossary. Retrieved
October 12, 2007, from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/glossary/glossary_t.htm.
177
California Department of Education (March, 2007). Accountability progress
reporting (APR): API, AYP, and PI information. Retrieved February 15,
2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/index.asp.
California Department of Education (March, 2007). DataQuest: Database for facts
about California schools and districts. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education (November, 2007). High School Exit Exam
Office. The California High School Exit Exam. Retrieved November, 21,
2007 from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cahsee/ExitProg4.
California Department of Education (November, 2007). Overview of California’s
2006 Similar Schools Ranks Based on the API. Retrieved November 21,
2007 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/simsch/06b.pdf.
California Department of Education (November, 2007). DataQuest: Dropout
Criteria Retrieved November 29, 2007 from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQ/NCLB-SchDrp.aspx?cyear.
Caraway, K., Tucker, C.M., Reinke, W.M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self-efficacy, goal
orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high
school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 417-427.
Carroll, G., LaPoint, V., & Tyler, K. (2001). Co-Construction: A facilitator for
school reform in school, community, and university partnerships. The
Journal of Negro Education, 70(1/2), 38-58.
CQ Researcher (1995). Parents and Schools. The CQ Researcher, 5(1) 1-40.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond L (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools, Educational
Leadership, 58(8), 12–17.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
178
Duvall H (2001). Big-city schools: struggling to be the best, Principal, 81(1), 6–8.
353-383.
Eagle, E. (1989). Socioeconomic status, family structure, and parental involvement:
The correlates of achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. San Francisco: American
Educational Research Association (March, 1989). ED 307 332.
EdSource, (2007) Accountability overview. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from
www.edsource.org/edu_acc.cfm.
EdSource, (2007) High school and beyond. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from
www.edsource.org/edu_hig.cfm.
EdSource, (2007) Standards and curriculum overview. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from
www.edsource.org/edu_sta.cfm.
EdSource (2007) NCLB: An overview. November 2004. Retrieved February 18,
2007, from www.edsource.org.
EdSource (2007). NCLB’s impact on California: Standards and curriculum
overview. Retrieved February 18, 2007, from www.edsource.org.
EdSource (2007). NCLB’s impact on California: Assessment overview. Retrieved
February 18, 2007, from www.edsource.org.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I: Helping disadvantaged children
meet high standards (2001). The Jossey-Bass Reader on School Reform. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (Eds.) (2000). Testing, teaching, and learning. A
guide for states and school districts. Committee on Title I testing and
assessment. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Fallis, R. K., & Opotow, S. (2003). Are students failing school or are schools failing
students? Class cutting in high school. Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 103-
119.
Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59,
117-142.
179
Fine, M., & Somerville, J. (1998). Small schools big imagination: A creative look at
urban public schools. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School
Reform.
Finn, J.D., & Voelkl, K.E. (1993). School characteristics related to student
engagement. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 249-269.
Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research-An Introduction
(7
th
ed.). Boston. Allyn & Bacon.
Gratz DB (2000) High standards for whom? Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 681–687.
Goldin, C. (1998). America’s Graduation from High School: The Evolution and
Spread of Secondary Schooling in the Twentieth Century. The Journal of
Economic History, 58 (2), 345-374.
H. R. 1804. Goals 2000: Educate America Act. One Hundred Third Congress.
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day
of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four. Retrieved October
20, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/Goals2000/TheAct/index.html
Hansen, J.M. & Childs, J., (1998). Creating a school where people like to be.
Educational Leadership. September 1998, 14-17.
Indiana University: Media Relations (2005). High School students need college prep
reality check. Getting Students Ready for College: What Student Engagement
Data Can Tell Us. Retrieved online http://www.iub.edu/~nsse/hssse.
Institute of Educational Leadership (2005). A call to action: Transforming high
school for all youth. A report by the National High School Alliance April
2005.
Iowa Department of Education (2005). High School Review Summary 2005: A
status report identifying technical assistance, policies, and promising practices
to facilitate high school improvement statewide. Iowa Department of
Education, Des Moines, Iowa.
John F. Kennedy High School. (2006). WASC Accreditation Review 2005-2006.
WASC Steering Committee.
Kalin, W. (1999). How white teachers perceive the problem of racism in their
schools: A case study in “liberal” Lakeview. Teachers College Record, 100,
724-750.
180
Katz, S. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and
the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100, 809-840.
Kaufman, P., Alt, M.N., &Chapman, C.D. (2001). Dropout rates in the United States:
2000. Education Statistics Quarterly 3(4), (NCES 2002-114).
Lee, V., Smith, J., & Croninger, R. (1995). Another look at school restructuring.
More evidence that it improves student achievement, and more insights into
why. Issues in Restructuring Schools. 9, 2-11.
Marks, H.M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 1, 153-184.
Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog
(Eds.), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sage.
Mitchell, A. (2007). The emergence of a knowledge base for teaching diverse
learners in big-city schools: From practice to theory to practice. In A. M.
Blankstein, R. W. Cole, & P.D. Houston (Eds.), Engaging every learner (pp
59-81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Moore, K. A., Guzman, L., Hair, E., Lippman, L. & Garrett, S. (2004). Parent-teen
relationships and interactions: Far more positive than not. Retrieved
December 15, 2007, from
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Parent_TeenRB.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). The condition of education 2000.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Dropout rates in the United States:
2004 Retrieved May 8, 2007 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/dropout/FindingsNationalStatusDropout.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The condition of education 2005.
Education Statistics Quarterly 7(1 & 2). Retrieved May 8, 2007 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_7/1_2/9_1.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). A Nation At Risk: The
imperative for educational reform. A report delivered in April 1983.
181
National PTA/World Book Successful Learning Survey (1992). (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED372143).
Newman, F.M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational
Leadership, 46(5), 34-36.
Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search
of an explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4). 312-334.
Opotow, S. (1994). Breaking out: Class cutting in an inner-city high school. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Los Angeles, CA.
Opotow, S., Fortune, L., Baxter, M., & Sanon, F. (1998). Conflict, coping, and class
cutting: Perspectives of urban high school students. Paper presented at the
biannual meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods 3
rd
Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pittman, K. J, & Irby, M. (2007). Engaging every learner: Blurring the lines for
learning to ensure that all young people are ready for college, work, and life.
In A. M. Blankstein, R. W. Cole, & P.D. Houston (Eds.), Engaging every
learner (119-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ravitch, D. (2003). The test of time: A Nation at Risk was an historic document—
for its time. Now we know that while its findings were dead on, its reform
agenda relied too much on the existing system. Education Next, 3.2, 32-37.
Ravitch, D. (2001). Reformers, radicals, and romantics. The Jossey-Bass Reader on
School Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rocco, T. S., & West, G. W. (1998). Deconstructing privilege: An examination of
privilege in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 171-184.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American
Journal of Education, 93(3). 352-388.
Shanker, A. (1993). A landmark revisited. American Federation of Teachers “Where
We Stand” column, May 9, 1993.
182
Shanklin, N., Kozleski, E.B., Meagher, C., Sands, D., Joseph, O., & Wyman, W.
(2003). Examining renewal in an urban high school through the lens of
systemic change, School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 357-378.
Steele, C. M. (1992). Race and the schooling of black Americans. The Atlantic
Monthly, 68-78.
Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994). The “Grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so
hard? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479.
Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (2001). Progress or regress? The Jossey-Bass Reader on
School Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (2007). Full Accreditation Process.
Retrieved 4-15-2007, from www.acswasc.org.
Willms, J.D., (2003). Student engagement at school. A sense of belonging and
participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organisation For Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006
High School Survey of Student Engagement. Center for Evaluation &
Education Policy: Indiana University pp. 1-12.
183
APPENDIX A
Survey of High School Teachers Regarding Student Engagement
This survey asks questions about how you perceive the high school experience for
the students at your high school. The information provided by these surveys will be
compiled to be shared with site and district stakeholders. Thank you for your
thoughtful responses.
1. What subject area do you teach?
____________________________________________
2. Which category represents most of the classes you teach?
_____ General/Regular _____ Special Education
_____ Remedial _____ Honors/College Prep
_____ Career/Career Technical Education
3. Are you _____ Female ______ Male
4. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
(Mark all that apply.)
______American Indian/other Native American
______Asian American/Pacific Islander
______Black/African American
______White ______Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
______Other, please specify: ______Prefer not to respond
5. Is English the main language used in the majority of your students’ homes?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I do not know
6. Do the majority of your students have a computer with Internet access at
home?
____ Yes ____ No ____ I do not know
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at
Urban High Schools
184
7. During this school year, about how many writing assignments have you
given?
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+
a. Written papers/reports of
more than 5 pages
b. Written papers/reports of 3 to
5 pages
c. Written papers/reports of
fewer than 3 pages
8. How much reading do you assign in a typical school week?
# of hours of assigned reading
____0 ____1 ____2-3 ____4-5 ____6-7 ____8-10 ____11+
9. During this school year, how often have you utilized strategies to encourage all
students to participate in class?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
10. During this school year, how often have you given prompt, personal feedback to
students on assignments?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
11. School safety is clearly a priority on this campus?
____ I agree ____ I disagree
For numbers 12-22, fill in the response that best identifies the extent to which
this high school emphasizes the skill or learning activity mentioned.
12. Students must spend a lot of time studying and on school work.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
13. Students are provided the support needed to succeed in school.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
14. Students are encouraged to participate in school events and activities (athletics,
music, etc.).
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
185
15. Students are encouraged to get involved in school leadership and governance.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
16. All adults on campus treat students fairly.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
17. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to learn work-
related skills.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
18. Students are encouraged to write effectively.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
19. Students are encouraged and provided the support to use information
technology.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
20. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities to solve real-world
problems.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
21. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to develop
clear, sequential career goals and prepare for appropriate post-secondary
education or training.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
22. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to make their
community a better place.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
23. What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
186
APPENDIX B
Survey of High School Administrators Regarding Student Engagement
This survey asks questions about how you perceive the high school experience for
the students at your high school. The information provided by these surveys will be
compiled to be shared with site and district stakeholders. Thank you for your
thoughtful responses.
1. What areas do you supervise?
2. Are you _____ Female ______ Male
3. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
(Mark all that apply.)
______American Indian/other Native American ______Asian American or
______Black/African American ______White
______Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin ______Other, specify:
_____ Pacific Islander
______Prefer not to respond
4. Is English the main language used in the majority of your students’ homes?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I do not know
5. Do the majority of your students have a computer with Internet access at
home?
____ Yes ____ No ____ I do not know
6. During this school year, about how many writing assignments are students
given?
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+
a. Written papers/reports of
more than 5 pages
b. Written papers/reports of 3 to
5 pages
c. Written papers/reports of
fewer than 3 pages
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at Urban
High Schools
187
7. How much reading are students assigned in a typical school week?
# of hours of assigned reading
____0 ____1 ____2-3 ____4-5 ____6-7 ____8-10 ____11+
8. During this school year, how often do teachers utilized strategies to encourage
all students to participate in class?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
9. During this school year, how often are students given prompt, personal
feedback on assignments?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
10. School safety is clearly a priority on this campus?
____I agree ____I disagree
For numbers 11- 21, check the response that best identifies the extent to which
this high school emphasizes the skill or learning activity mentioned.
11. Students must spend a lot of time studying and on school work.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
12. Students are provided the support needed to succeed in school.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
13. Students are encouraged to participate in school events and activities (athletics,
music, etc.).
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
14. Students are encouraged to get involved in school leadership and governance.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
15. All adults on campus treat students fairly.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
16. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to learn work-
related skills.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
188
17. Students are encouraged to write effectively.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
18. Students are encouraged and provided the support to use information
technology.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
19. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities to solve real-world
problems.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
20. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to develop
clear, sequential career goals and prepare for appropriate post-secondary
education or training.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
21. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful opportunities to make their
community a better place.
____Very much ____ Quite a bit ____Some ____Very little
22. What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
189
APPENDIX C
Observation Log
Date: ________________________________ Page ________ of ________
Observation Log
School Class Leadership Meetings
School
Culture
Curriculum &
Instruction
Leadership Student
Engagement
Additional
Observations
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at Urban
High Schools
190
APPENDIX D
Interview Questions
Suggested personnel to interview: Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services, Principals, Assistant Principals of Instruction, School Board
Members, Counselors, Teachers, Support staff, Parent groups and community
groups, Extra-curricular Activities Leaders (minimum of 5 interviews)—maybe
focus group or department chairpersons or during a designated prep period.
Questions:
Tell me about this school/school district
What are you most proud of at this school/school district? What areas would you
like to improve within the school/school district?
What is the vision or mission of the school? Are there common goals in which all
stakeholders are focusing upon? If so, please tell me about them.
What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement at your
school/school district?
What role do you feel student engagement (defined by cohort group) contributes to
student achievement at your school/school district?
What do you feel are the strengths of the school/school district?
Would you consider your school/school district high performing? Why or why not?
If so, how?
Is your school/school district unique? If so, how?
How does the school/school district prepare students beyond high school?
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at
Urban High Schools
191
APPENDIX E
Documents
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at Urban High Schools
How we would identify high performing schools?
API score
Similar School Ranking
What do we need to know?
CAHSEE passage rate
Discipline (suspensions, expulsions, rewards)
School sponsored activities
Attendance
Graduation rates
Student Demographics (SES, free/reduced lunch, mobility, ELL)
Parent education level
Course grades (GPA)
How would we find this information?
California Department of Education (Data Quest- http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/)
WASC Report- Self study report & recommendations
School Accountability Report Card
District Website
School Website
School Handbook
Student/Parent Handbook
192
APPENDIX F
High School Survey of Student Engagement
193
194
195
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Factors which may contribute to academic achievement in an outperforming urban high school with a career technical education curriculum
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
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 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
Outperforming nontraditional urban school: a high school case study
PDF
Factors that contribute to narrowing the achievement gap for elementary age students: a case study
PDF
Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban 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
Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap
PDF
A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school
PDF
A case study of an outperforming elementary school closing the achievement gap
PDF
Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
PDF
Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
Student engagement in high-performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school
PDF
School-wide implementation of systems and structures that lead to increased achievement among students of color: a case study of a high-performing, high-poverty urban school
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ett, Juliette Avery
(author)
Core Title
A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
04/02/2008
Defense Date
03/17/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement,High School,OAI-PMH Harvest,Urban
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee chair
), Hocevar, Dennis J. (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ett@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1080
Unique identifier
UC1119311
Identifier
etd-Ett-20080402 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-67056 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1080 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Ett-20080402.pdf
Dmrecord
67056
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ett, Juliette Avery
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
Tags
achievement