University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The distinguishing characteristics of a high performing urban public high school: a descriptive analysis self-study

(USC Thesis Other)

The distinguishing characteristics of a high performing urban public high school: a descriptive analysis self-study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF A HIGH-PERFORMING URBAN
PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL:
A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS SELF-STUDY

by

Norman C. Sauce, III

____________________________________________________________________

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 2009

Copyright 2009 Norman C. Sauce, III

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For Helen Mafalda and Vincent Carmen: whose limitless love guides my moral
compass, whose infinite wisdom spans generations, whose tireless labor allowed the
upward mobility of our family, and in whose memory I evermore progress.
For Jayme Marie and Norman Charles, Jr.: whose sacrifices have afforded me
success, whose patience carefully crafted me, and whose genius directed the course of my
life.
For Stacy Ann and Toni Marie: whose watchful eyes ensured my safe passage
into adulthood, despite my own devices. Whose model of love as parents I pray to only
halfway emulate at some point in time.
For Hunter Shae, Savanna Jae, and Isabella Marie: whose origin is that of
immigrant steel workers, whose promise lights my existence, and whose endless potential
I eagerly await.
For Etta R. Hollins, Ph.D.: whose devotion to her craft inspired me even prior to
our work together, and whose careful tutelage provides the framework for the rest of my
career.
For Gilbert Hentschke, Ph.D. and Kimberly White-Smith, Ed.D.: whose gracious
acceptance, whose informed critiques, and whose limitless knowledge informed this
work.
For Jesse and Erik: whose commitment as lifelong confidants and counselors
provided the advice and example needed to counterbalance my own impulsivity.

iii

For Shawn and Strawn: whose perspectives and experiences facilitated passage
into the next phases of my personal maturation and emotional development.
For Bobby: whose keen intellect and organized disarray have inspired and will
continue to inspire and broaden my perspectives.
For Crystal: whose yin to my yang, and whose support and grace have helped
maintain my serenity.
For Autumn, Jonathan, Tony, Jaret, Jeff, Garland, “Bartzy,” “Weiney,” and
Dayna: whose eternal support and friendship provided both the sounding boards and the
welcome distractions needed to endure this process.
For every last one of my former students: whose life lessons taught me more than
they may have ever expected to learn from me and whose gifts will stay with me for the
rest of my days.
For the entire school community of “Vincent” High School: whose sacred
confines provided a haven for my growth as an educator.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables viii

Abstract x

Chapter I: Introduction 1
Purpose of the Study 1
Research Questions 2
Author’s History/Roles At the School 2
Description of the Community 4
Description of “Vincent” High School 4
Vincent High School’s Mission Statement 7
Vincent High School’s Expected School-Wide Learning 8
Results (ESLRs): A.R.I.S.E.
Academic Achievers Who 8
Real World Options 8
Independent Thinkers Who 8
Socially Aware Community Members Who 9
Effective Communicators Who 9
The California Academic Performance Index 9
Vincent High School’s API Success 10
Vincent High School’s Six Distinguishing Characteristics 12
Characteristic 1: School of Choice: Random Lottery 12
for Freshman Admissions
Characteristic 2: Medium-Sized Student Population 16
Approximately 1,250 Students
Characteristic 3: Over 50% of Teachers Trained At Same 18
Teacher Education Program (Social Justice Agenda)
Characteristic 4: Site-Created Biweekly Teacher 20
Collaboration Schedule (Staff-wide, Inter-/
Intradepartmental Meetings
Characteristic 5: Site-Created Rotating Block 22
Schedule
Characteristic 6: Site-Created “No D” Policy 25

Chapter II: Review of Related Literature 31
Introduction to the Literature Review 31
General Characteristics of High-Performing Schools 33
School Choice 43

v

School Size 57
Teacher Collaboration 73
Block Scheduling 85
School Grading Policies 95
Summary of Review of Related Literature 108

Chapter III: Methodology 111
Context of the Phenomenon 111
Vincent High School’s Six Distinguishing Characteristics 112
Explored
Purpose of the Study 113
Focus of the Study 113
Methodology 114
Approach 114
Units of Analysis 115
Sampling 115
Participants 116
Teachers 117
Characteristic #3 Status 119
Administrators 121
Students 124
Parents 128
Data Collection 130
Interview Protocol 131
Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale 134
Interview Procedure 137
Classroom Observation Procedure 138
Collaboration Meeting Observation Procedure 140
Document Analysis 141
Data Analysis 142
Qualitative Analysis 142
Quantitative Analysis 143
Validity and Reliability Issues 146
Study Limitations 147
Ethical Considerations 148

Chapter IV: Presentations of Findings 150
Overview of Findings 152
Interview Findings 154
Pull Factors 155
General Assessment 156
Participant-Generated Contributing Factors 157

vi

School of Choice Responses (Char. #1) 158
School Size Responses (Char. #2) 160
Teacher Education Responses (Char. #3) 161
Teacher Collaboration Responses (Char. #4) 164
Rotating Block Schedule Responses (Char. #5) 166
“No D” Policy Responses 168
Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale 171
Disaggregated Characteristics Value 173
Rating Scale Results
Classroom Observations Findings 180
Teacher Collaboration Meetings Observations Findings 186
Document Analysis Findings 189
Characteristic #1: School of Choice 190
Characteristic #4: Teacher Collaboration 191
Characteristic #5: Rotating Block Schedule 192
Characteristic #6: “No D” Policy 194
Summary of Findings 197

Chapter V: Discussion of Findings 199
Context of the Phenomenon 199
Findings 200
Vincent High School’s Six Distinguishing Characteristics 202
Vincent High School Compared to the Literature on 202
High-Performing Schools
Discussion of Interview Findings 207
Discussion of Pulled Factors and General 207
Assessment Responses
Discussion of Participant-Generated 209
Contributing Factors Responses
Discussion of “School of Choice” Findings 212
Discussion of School Size Findings 215
Discussion of Teacher Education Findings 220
Discussion of Teacher Collaboration Findings 224
Discussion of Rotating Block Schedule Findings 230
Discussion of “No D”: Policy Findings 235
Recommendations 245
Implications for Future Research 247
General Characteristics of High-Performing 247
Schools
School Choice 248
School Size 248
Teacher Education 248

vii

Rotating Block Schedule 248
“No D” Policy 249
Conclusions 249

References 253

Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 264
Appendix B: Classroom Observation Protocol 267
Appendix C: Teacher Collaboration Meeting Observation 270
Protocol Staff/Meeting Collaboration Observation Protocol
Appendix D: Classroom Observations Findings 272
Appendix E: Teacher Collaboration Meetings 274
Observation Findings

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Vincent High School’s Demographics (2007-2008 School Year) 7
Table 2: API Performance Level Weighting Factors 11
Table 3: Collaboration Day Schedule 21
Table 4: Vincent High School’s Daily Bell Schedule 26
Table 5: Profile of Teacher-Participants 120
Table 6: Profile of Administrator-Participants 124
Table 7: Profile of Student-Participants 128
Table 8: Profile of Parent-Participants 130
Table 9: Pull Factors Responses 156
Table 10: General Assessment Responses 157
Table 11: Participant-Generated Contributing Factors 158
Table 12: School of Choice Responses 160
Table 13: School Size Responses 161
Table 14: Teachers’ Greatest Influences 163
Table 15: Teacher Education Responses 164
Table 16: Teacher Collaboration Responses 166
Table 17: Rotating Block Schedule Responses 168
Table 18: “No D” Policy Responses 171
Table 19: Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale: Overall Mean Item Scores 174
Table 20: School of Choice: Characteristic Value Ratings 174

ix

Table 21: School of Choice: Group Mean Item Scores 175
Table 22: School Size: Characteristic Value Ratings 175
Table 23: School Size: Group Mean Item Scores 175
Table 24: Teacher Education: Characteristic Value Ratings 176
Table 25: Teacher Education: Group Mean Item Scores 176
Table 26: Teacher Collaboration: Characteristic Value Ratings 177
Table 27: Teacher Collaboration: Group Mean Item Scores 177
Table 28: Rotating Block Schedule: Characteristic Value Ratings 178
Table 29: Rotating Block Schedule: Group Mean Item Scores 178
Table 30: “No D” Policy: Characteristic Value Ratings 179
Table 31: “No D” Policy: Group Mean Item Scores 179
Table 32: Observed Instructional Strategies 186
Table 33: Vincent High School’s Daily Bell Schedule 193
Table 34: Classroom Observations Findings 272
Table 35: Teacher Collaboration Meetings Observation Findings 274

x

ABSTRACT

Vincent High School is an urban public high school with a population of working
class children of color, most of whom are English Language Learners. The school is
located in Southern California. Many schools with similar conditions produce poor
summative outcomes, however Vincent High School’s student performance on state-
mandated tests has undergone statistically significant increases from 2001-2008,
indicating substantial student learning gains during this period.
The researcher was a teacher at the school concurrent with these student
achievement gains. The purpose of the current self-study was to identify, examine, and
analyze the distinguishing characteristics of the high school, and stakeholder perceptions
of them, in order to provide the field with additional school attributes for further
exploration and hypothesis-testing. The researcher utilized his insider perspective to
identify six distinguishing characteristics of the high school to investigate and analyze in
this study.
The researcher interviewed teachers, students, parents, and administrators,
gleaning their knowledge, perspectives, and experiences with the school in relation to its
distinguishing characteristics. In order to achieve triangulation, the researcher conducted
classroom and teacher collaboration observations and performed document analysis of
school and district policies.
Findings indicate that stakeholders hold the school and its characteristics in high
esteem. Analysis of interviews revealed perceptions of the high school as a safe and

xi

educationally conducive environment, where all of the school’s characteristics have
jointly enriched the learning that takes place there. Most participants responded favorably
to the six distinguishing characteristics of the school. Additional school characteristics
emerged from participant interviews, which were also explored in this self-study.
Participants’ positive perceptions of the school and its characteristics were
substantiated in classroom and collaboration observations. Data support interview
responses that the school’s characteristics allow for educationally salient and supportive
classroom instruction and teacher camaraderie.
The purpose of this study was not to determine causality of improvements in
student academic performance as measured by standardized tests, but rather, to identify
and examine the distinguishing characteristics of the school based upon the stakeholders’
perceptions. This study focused on school practices that have shown promise at Vincent
High, for possible transfer to other school settings.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study

This dissertation reports a self-study on “Vincent” High School, where the
researcher was in his eighth year as a social studies teacher. What made this high school
of interest to the field is that its California Academic Performance Index (API) scores
have risen from 509 in 2001 to 750 in 2008. This rise, in terms of state accountability
measures, has been mirrored by the satisfaction of federal student achievement mandates
Average Yearly Progress (AYP). Vincent High School has made these gains in
standardized test scores despite the fact that it is a low-income urban public high school
consisting predominantly of students of color. This self-study chronicled, catalogued,
probed, and investigated the distinguishing characteristics of the school, and solicited
stakeholders’ perceptions. This self-study sought to present an analysis of the saliency
and fidelity of these distinguishing characteristics, as revealed through stakeholder
perceptions, observations of school meetings and classroom lessons, as well as through
analysis of official school policies and documents.
This self-study is not to determine the cause of improvement in student academic
performance as measured by standardized tests, but rather, to identify and examine the
distinguishing characteristics of the school based upon the perception of selected
stakeholders. This self-study provides those who study effective urban schools with
additional school attributes for further exploration and hypothesis testing. Implementing

2

some of these characteristics in other school settings may be found to correlate with
similar gains in student achievement, especially in high poverty high minority schools.
Research Questions

1. What are the distinguishing characteristics of a high-performing urban public
high school?

2. What are the school’s stakeholders’ perceptions of the school’s distinguishing
characteristics?

3. What is the saliency and fidelity of implementation of the school’s
distinguishing characteristics?

Author’s History/Roles at the School

The researcher was a social studies teacher at Vincent High School for eight
school years. He began teaching there immediately upon earning a teaching credential
from an accredited teacher education program. He taught U.S. History, Advanced
Placement U.S. History, and World History courses at the school.
During his tenure at the school, the researcher has served on various committees,
including one that created a new daily bell schedule in 2002. This rotating block schedule
was first implemented in 2003. The bell schedule committee also designed the template
for the school’s teacher collaboration meeting schedule. The entire staff eventually voted
and approved both the rotating block schedule and teacher collaboration meeting
schedule. The researcher also served as a committee chair when the school went through
the accreditation-renewal process in 2006. The researcher was recently hired to serve as
a Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) cooperating teacher. The purpose of this program is

3

to partner a struggling veteran who needs assistance facilitating student learning with a
another veteran teacher to help bridge performance gaps.
He served on committees that organized extra-curricular parent-turn-out events,
including cultural festivals and voter registration drives. Finally, he was a member of a
district committee of social studies teachers that created the World History benchmark
exams that our district administers quarterly as a formative evaluation in preparation for
the summative California Standards Test (CST) given in the last month of every school
year.
Teacher turnover has been steady at Vincent High School since 2001. There are
fewer than five teachers still at the school from the years that the researcher served on the
bell schedule committee from 2002-2003. The fact that he was a part of those committees
is not widely held public knowledge at the school, nor has it been openly discussed in the
years since. None of the current students at the school was enrolled there in 2002 and
2003, when the researcher served on the committee. The biography of the researcher was
not part of the discussion during interviews with the stakeholders in order to prevent
influencing participant responses and willingness to engage in an open discussion about
the rotating block schedule and teacher collaboration schedule. However, as nearly none
of the teachers and none of the current students was present at the school when the
researcher served on that committee, and as the researcher’s participation was not made
known in any way prior to or during this study, it is reasonable to conclude that this
circumstance did not influence participants or their responses in this study.

4

Description of the Community
Vincent High School is located in the city of Vincent, a small working class urban
suburb in a major Southern California Metropolis. The city of Vincent is approximately
20 miles south of a major downtown district in a sizable Southern California county,
nestled between two better-known suburbs with higher populations. One of those suburbs
is populated with a high minority population and is predominantly an urban working
class community. The other suburb surrounding Vincent is of a middle-to-upper class
socioeconomic status with a low minority population. The population of the city of
Vincent is approximately 55% Latino, 30% White, 10% African American, 5% (for all
else, see http://www.Census.gov). Vincent’s median household income in 2006 was
$39,000 (see http://www.Census.gov). The majority of the buildings in Vincent are relics
of an era long passed, when factories and industrial jobs were prevalent in the city, and
affordable apartment-style housing was developed to accommodate the blue-collar
employees. Dilapidated and antiquated buildings are a common sight throughout the city,
whose schools are in the same poor physical condition as much of the housing and
industrial structures.
Description of “Vincent” High School

Vincent High School shares some commonalities with many other Southern
California urban public high schools, such as its locatation on a major city artery, the
overwhelmingly high minority, low socioeconomic status of its student population
(approximately 95% and 75%, respectively), its deteriorated buildings, and its high

5

percentage of students designated as English Language Learners (ELL) (approximately
55%).
Despite such similarities with other schools, Vincent High School is an oasis of
standardized test achievement amongst the many urban high schools in Southern
California. In 2001 Vincent High School’s California Academic Performance Index
(API) score was 509. The school’s API score has steadily risen since 2001, reaching a
crescendo of 750 in 2008.
Vincent High School was originally opened in the “Sprawling Meadows” Unified
School District in 1960. At that time, geographic boundaries were the sole determinants
of enrollment and admissions. There were also two other comprehensive public high
schools in the Sprawling Meadows Unified District, for whom geography also
determined enrollment.
Vincent High School was closed by Sprawling Meadows Unified School District
upon the completion of the 1981 school year. The few administrators and teachers who
remain in the district from that period cite declining enrollment in the district as the
reasoon. District demographic and enrollment data from the era before closure are hard to
come by, as much time has passed, many different superintendent regimes have
concluded, and records were not digitized. Once closed, the school’s buildings were
utilized for various needs over the years: adult school, continuation school, district
offices— even storage facilities.

6

When Vincent High School was reopened in 1998, the original principal (now
deceased) gave the small staff great latitude in determining school policies and regular
practices. Accounts by the several original staff members remaining detail how teachers
and counselors were allowed to provide input and wield influence over such school
policies as the bell schedule, teacher collaboration meetings, elective course offerings,
teachers’ master scheduling, and school-wide grading policies. Classes were only offered
for freshman and sophomores in 1998. There were fewer than 300 students in each of the
initial freshman and sophomore classes, allowing for a relatively small public high school
the first few years. Enrollment has since increased to approximately 1,250. This
enrollment size is still relatively small compared to the surrounding urban high schools in
Los Angeles county, in which Vincent High School is located.

7

Table 1. Vincent High School’s Demographics (2007-2008 School Year)

Total Number of Students 1218

% Of Students on Free Lunch 668 55%

% Of Students on Reduced Lunch 215 18%

% Of students in each racial group
Chinese 4 0%
Japanese 1 0%
Korean 1 0%
Vietnamese 35 3%
Asian Indian 5 0%
Laotian 1 0%
Other Asian 3 0%
Native Hawaiian 2 0%
Samoan 1 0%
Tahitian 1 0%
Other Pacific Islander 5 0%
Filipino 18 1%
Hispanic 805 66%
Black Non-Hispanic 244 20%
White Non-Hispanic 72 6%
Decline to State 20 2%

% of students designated as English Language
Learners
English Only 544 45%
Fluent Eng. Prof. 105 9%
Initially Fluent Eng. Prof. 35 3%
Limited Eng. Prof. 147 12%
Redesignated FEP 387 32%

Vincent High School’s Mission Statement

“Vincent High School offers a positive and collaborative environment through the
leadership of students, staff, parents, community members, and administrators. We
empower students to contribute as members of a diverse and changing world by

8

encouraging positive decision-making, individual responsibility, and community
awareness.”
Vincent High School’s Expected School-Wide
Learning Results (ESLRs): A. R. I. S. E.

Academic Achievers Who

1. Demonstrate knowledge of key concepts, principles, processes, and skills in
the disciplines of English, social studies, math, science, P.E., visual/performing arts,
loreign language, and business.
2. Transfer knowledge and skills throughout the disciplines.
3. Recognize that learning is a life-long process.
Real World Options

1. Apply concepts to real life experiences

2. Translate knowledge and skills for academic, employment, and personal
futures.

3. Proactively set and pursue realistic, challenging goals.

4. Work effectively and individually and collaboratively.

Independent Thinkers Who

1. Analyze and question the political, economic, and social status quo.

2. Solve problems through analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and evaluation of
information.

3. Utilize logical reasoning in the decision-making process.

9

Socially Aware Community Members Who

1. Demonstrate personal integrity and social responsibility.
2. Interact within the civic, legal, and political systems.
3. Show appreciation for multicultural and global communities.
Effective Communicators Who

1. Listen to, read, and comprehend information.

2. Convey ideas through writing, reflection, and technology.

3. Present ideas confidently, clearly, and appropriately to diverse audiences.

The California Academic Performance Index

is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999
(PSAA). The purpose of the API is to measure the academic performance and
growth of schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to
a high of 1000. A school's score on the API is an indicator of a school's
performance level. The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A
school's growth is measured by how well it is moving toward or past that goal. A
school's API Base is subtracted from its API Growth to determine how much the
school improved in a year (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp).

California has two required standardized testing apparatuses for high schools:
California Standards Test (CST) and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
English-Language Arts, Science, and Mathematics CSTs are administered in
Grades 9 through 11 in California. Social Studies CSTs are administered in Grades 10
through 11.
The California High School Exit Exam includes two sections: English-Language
Arts and Mathematics. The Exam is administered in Grade 10, and subsequently in

10

Grades 11 and 12 for those students who are yet to pass a any section of the exam
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp).
California’s Department of Education calculates a high school’s API scores using
a formula of weighted totals from the core-content-areas-based CST and the CAHSEE.
Schools’ scores range from 200 to 1000, and each school also gets two deciles rankings
(1-10) for overall performance, and one for schools with similar demographics (size,
SES, minority population, Title I status, ELL designations, general location).
The API calculation method determines the API as the weighted average of
student scores across content areas and tests results within the school. To
calculate the API, individual student scores from each indicator are combined into
a single number (the API) to represent the performance of a school. For the CSTs,
the standards-based performance level (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic,
or Far Below Basic) for each student tested is used for the CAHSEE, a level of
pass or not pass is used. A scale score of at least 350 on the English-language arts
part or mathematics part of the CAHSEE is considered passing for the API. Each
student's test result is assigned a performance level weighting factor of 200, 500,
700, 875, or 1000 based upon the level of the test score, as shown in Table Each
student’s performance level weighting factor is multiplied by a test weight and
summed for all content areas for the school. This sum is divided by the sum of the
test weights for the school to produce a single number between 200 and 1000,
which is the API for a school. The API is calculated separately for grades two
through six, seven through eight, and nine through eleven.
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp). (See Table 2).

Vincent High School’s API Success
Vincent High school has increased its overall API score 241 points in seven years
(from 509 in 2001 to 750 in 2008). Also, Vincent High School’s deciles rankings in 2008
were a 7 overall, and a 10 for schools with similar demographics.

11

Table 2. API Performance Level Weighting Factors

From (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp).

The API score increase that Vincent High has earned in the last seven years is
monumental, indicating unprecedented growth for California high schools. In 2006, 84%
of Vincent High School’s students passed the Language Arts portion and 83% passed the
Math portion of the CAHSEE. Both of these passage rates exceed the California state
average. Because of these successes, Vincent High has met its federally mandated
Average Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for five years running. In 2006 and 2007 the
California Department of Education awarded Vincent the honor of “Title I Academic
Achievement School” for high student scores on the previously mentioned standardized
tests. Despite the numerous logistical and institutional problems that Vincent High
School faces, many of which are the same as other Southern California urban high
schools, demonstrable academic achievement is occurring at the high school, as measured
by California’s two mandated standardized tests.

CST or CAPA
Performance
Levels
CAHSEE
Score
API
Performance Level
Weighting Factors
Advanced Pass 1000
Proficient N/A 875
Basic N/A 700
Below Basic N/A 500
Far Below Basic No Pass 200

12

Vincent High School’s Six Distinguishing Characteristics

This study identifies six distinguishing characteristics of Vincent High School,
which will be discussed, probed, and examined through the perceptions of the school’s
stakeholders as possible correlates for the high school’s recent successes. Below are
definitions, school’s rationale, and chronology of each of the six distinguishing
characteristics of the school.
1. School of Choice: Random Lottery Entry for Freshman Admissions.
2. Medium-Sized Student Population: Approximately 1,250 students.
3. Over 50% of teachers trained at same Teacher Education Program (Social
Justice Agenda).
4. Site-Created Biweekly Teacher Collaboration Schedule (staff-wide, inter-,
intradepartmental meetings).
5. Site-created Rotating Block Schedule with constant sixth period
6. Site-created “No D” Policy
Characteristic 1: School of Choice: Random Lottery for Freshman Admissions

The first distinguishing characteristic of Vincent High School is its designation as
a “school of choice” by Sprawling Meadows Unified School District. This term means
that parents living within the geographic boundaries of the district have the “choice” to
send their child to Vincent High rather than to either one of the two large, comprehensive
high schools in the district. Although the “choice” exists in theory, in order to deal with

13

the demand for freshman admissions, the school utilizes a random lottery. Lottery
entrants have steadily increased in number as Vincent High’s API scores have risen since
2001. As of the 2007 school year, the school accepted only approximately 50% of lottery
entrants for freshman admissions. Lottery criteria are based purely on chance. The school
places no weight whatsoever on prior grades, discipline records, previous test scores,
English Language Development (ELD) status, socioeconomic status, recommendations,
or any other academic or affective outcomes.
Students not chosen by the lottery for freshman admissions may apply to transfer
into Vincent High School as a sophomore, junior, or senior. The likelihood of acceptance
via transfer increases after freshman year because attrition naturally occurs as the years
progress and spaces become available. There is no lottery for transfers beyond freshman
year. This acceptance is determined on a first-come, first-serve basis. Provisions of the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, which mandate the allowance of intradistrict transfers
to higher performing schools if parents so desire, has steadily increased the number of
transfers into Vincent in the last seven years. In most transfers, parents choose to send
their children to Vincent, further exemplifying its status as a “school of choice” by
Sprawling Meadows Unified School District.
Upon the closure of Vincent High School in 1981, Sprawling Meadows Unified
was left with only two high schools, both of which had well over 3,000 students- though
they were built to handle approximately 2,000 students. Despite this capacity, both
schools continued to enroll far more than their intended capacities. These two high

14

schools still have excessive enrollment figures. Both of those high schools have high
minority and high poverty student populations. They also continue to earn less than
stellar ratings (fluctuation in the 500s), as measured by the California Academic
Performance Index.
In 1998 Sprawling Meadows Unified responded to spikes in enrollment and
subsequent overcrowding in the two schools by reopening Vincent High School. Though
Vincent had been closed as a comprehensive high school for 17 years, its structures had
been maintained, as the property was in continuous use in various capacities by the
district. To allay any anxiety and/or confusion about the district drawing new geographic
lines of demarcation, Vincent High School made a rather unorthdox decision about its
admissions requirements: District personnel determined that they would not draw any
new geographic lines nor would they suddenly force students living within the district
boundaries to attend Vincent High School. Instead, consistent with the responses to
national calls for more school choice in the 1990s (Armor & Peiser, 1998; Plank &
Schneider, 1993; Schiller, Teske, & Schneider, 2001), Sprawling Meadows Unified
decided that the reopened Vincent High School would be an intradistrict “school of
choice.” This mandate meant that any student living within the geographic boundaries of
Sprawling Meadows Unified School District’s other two comprehensive high schools
could apply for freshmen admission into Vincent High School through the random
lottery.

15

Freshmen entrance was based solely on random selection by the admissions
lottery. Parents who wished for their child to attend Vincent High School entered the
admissions lottery in the Spring semester prior to the Fall semester of attendance.
Students living outside of the geographic boundaries of Sprawling Meadows Unified
were eligible to attend Vincent High, room permitting. Such Families had to submit an
application for interdistrict transfers for acceptance into Sprawling Meadows Unified,
then apply for lottery admission into Vincent High School.
The newly reopened Vincent High School provided the parents of Sprawling
Meadows Unified School District with an alternative to the two overcrowded, low-
performing, large comprehensive high schools that had presented their only options since
1981. Vincent also provided some families living outside of Sprawling Meadows’s
geographic boundaries with an alternative to their surrounding high schools, presenting
the first new option in decades. There were small, fledgling charter high schools that
emerged in the area concurrent with Vincent’s reopening. However, none of these charter
schools was as large as Vincent in terms of student capacity or campus size. The lottery
entries for freshman admissions into Vincent High School have grown every year since
1998. The lottery entries have grown at an especially accelerated rate since 2002, the year
in which Vincent’s meteoric rise up the California Academic Performance Index began.
This rise in lottery entries allowed the school’s enrollment to increase steadily from
1998-2001, when the enrollment settled at approximately 1,250.

16

Characteristic 2: Medium-Sized Student Population: Approximately 1,250
Students

The next of Vincent High’s distinguishable characteristics is its size. Urban public
high schools in large metropolitan areas that serve high percentages of students of color
are most often large to very large. Such is not the case with Vincent High School, whose
student population is approximately 1,250 students, categorizing it as a medium-sized
high school (Lee & Burkam, 2003). This size is key to understanding the increase in
Vincent High School’s API score over the last seven years. Sprawling Meadows Unified
District officials, as well as administration and teachers from Vincent and the other two
high schools in the district, have offered Vincent’s smaller size as an explanation for its
success yet neither this characteristic, nor its impact, has been formally studied by the
district or the school.
There was little enrollment demand by upper-classmen at Vincent High School in
1998-1999, the first year of its reopening after a 17-year closure. Therefore the district
made the decision only to staff for and admit freshman and sophomores in that year.
Therefore, enrollment for those first few years was quite small, with fewer than 600
students; in year one there were fewer than 500 students, as there were no upperclassmen
at all.
As the years progressed, several phenomena occurred at Vincent High School,
increasing overall enrollment and enrollment demand at the school. To begin with, by
year five there were juniors and seniors, as the original freshman and sophomores had
progressed through their high school years. This advancement meant that by year three

17

there was a full slate of freshman through senior classes, inherently increasing the
enrollment numbers beyond the original 500 of freshman and sophomores only.
Secondly, Vincent High School began to acquire a reputation throughout the district as a
safe and serene school environment. There were fewer fights, fewer large-scale outbursts
and acts of disobedience, and fewer problems with institutional control than at the other
two high schools in the district. The enduring perception of the other two high schools in
the district was that they were bastions of violence and underachievement. Both have had
well-publicized riots and lockdowns over the last decade, with constant police presence at
both schools. Vincent’s small numbers allowed it to free itself of some of the
overcrowding issues that may have been associated with such uprisings at the other two
high schools.
The other phenomenon was that Vincent High School began to show marked
student achievement gains over the other two high schools in the district. By 2002,
Vincent’s numbers began to climb up the California Academic Performance Index (API).
At a score of 530, Vincent had surpassed the other two high school’s API scores already
by its fourth year of reopening. Also, standardized test scores, overall student grades,
Advanced Placement test scores, and affective student results— such as behavior and
demeanor— began to shape perceptions within the district-community that Vincent High
School was producing higher student learning outcomes. Though the district has never
formally studied the statistical basis for these perceptions, the reputation itself was

18

enough to increase lottery applications for freshman admissions drastically at Vincent
High School by 2003 (year five of the school’s reopening).
As demand increased, and enrollment shot up, the district began to free up more
building space and hire more teachers to meet the new demand. Portable classrooms and
additional classified and certificated staff were added to accommodate the larger numbers
of students. By 2004, the sixth year of the school’s reopening, the enrollment numbers
began to level out. By that school year, overall enrollment settled at approximately 1,250
students. The enrollment numbers have remained relatively steady since 2004 with minor
fluctuation. By and large Vincent has enrolled between 1,200 and 1,300 students from
2004 through 2008. Vincent High’s current enrollment of approximately 1,250 students
qualifies it as a medium-sized high school (Lee & Burkam, 2003).
Characteristic 3: Over 50% of teachers trained at same Teacher Education
Program (Social Justice Agenda)

When Vincent High School reopened in September 1998, teachers and staff had
great latitude in shaping the school’s identity and policies. Initially, the school was only
open to underclassmen, allowing for a smallness and familiarity that fostered trust and
enabled the easy formation of teacher committees.The original principal encouraged
these committees to explore, discuss, debate, and determine issues such as grading
policies, bell schedules, extracurricular activities, and even standardized testing
schedules. To encourage participation, the principal went through various district
channels to secure extra-duty pay for teachers who joined these vital committees in the
early years of the school’s reopening. The original principal was open to the staff’s input

19

in determining how to proceed with policies, practices, and strategies for the new “school
of choice” in Sprawling Meadows Unified School District.
Several of the original staff members still work at Vincent High School, now 11
school years later. Approximately 10 to 12 teachers who came to teach at Vincent High
within the first five years of the school’s reopening still work in the district in some
capacity. This core group of teachers, some original staff members, some coming to the
school within its first five years, had great influence on the practices and policies at
Vincent High, many of which are in place eleven school years later. The original
principal was quite vocal about her desire to have the staff’s active participation in the
blue print of the school. She made a point to hire as many teachers as she could from a
prominent west coast university’s teacher education program that promotes a social
justice agenda. The close relationship between the high school and the teacher education
program continues nine years after the original principal’s retirement, and four years after
her death. (This relationship is also evident in an in-coming freshman transitional
summer program, called Summer Bridge). More than 50% (30/57) of the current teachers
at Vincent High School received their teaching credentials and Master of Education
degrees from this university.
That such a high percentage of teachers at Vincent High School was
professionally trained in the same teacher education program warrants exploration in this
study. Of further interest is the pedagogical agenda of the program, which encourages
transformative approaches, change-agent-producing, and to promote social justice. There

20

is no precedent in the literature wherein the same university trained 50% or more of the
teachers for an urban public high school. The social justice approach to training its
preservice aspiring teachers makes the program even more distinctive. Qualitative study
is needed to determine the impact, advisedness, and effects of this characteristic on
teacher attitudes, school climate, and student affective and academic outcomes. This
study will explore stakeholders’ perceptions of this unique characteristic as part of a
larger examination of the other unique, site-specific characteristics of this high-
performing urban high school.
That so many teachers came from the same social justice-oriented teacher
education program, especially in the early years of Vincent High’s reopening, contributed
to their great willingness to engage in collaborative teams. The program itself is
structured by collaborative cohorts, which transferred over into the in-service teaching
years for many of the program alums at the school.
Characteristic 4: Site-Created Biweekly Teacher Collaboration Schedule (Staff-
Wide, Inter-/Intradepartmental Meetings)

Out of the rotating block schedule that Vincent’s Bell Schedule Committee
created came the biweekly teacher collaboration meetings that Vincent High incorporates
into its schedule. As it works, every other week, random designation selects one day as a
collaboration day. On these days, the first three periods of the day are 74 minutes (instead
of 92 minutes) and the sixth period is 36 minutes (instead of 55 minutes). The students go
home at 1:32 and the teachers and administration have collaboration meetings until 3:00
pm (see Table 3 for Vincent High’s Collaboration Day Schedule):

21

Table 3. Collaboration Day Schedule

Collaboration Day Schedule
(Instructional Minutes: 297 per day)
Period Begin End
First Class 8:00 AM 9:14 AM
4 SR 9:20 AM 9:35 AM
Second Class 9:41 AM 10:55 AM
Lunch 10:55 AM 11:30 AM
Third Class 11:36 AM 12:50 PM
Sixth Period 12:56 PM 1:32 PM

The collaboration meetings vary from intradepartmental meetings and
interdepartmental meetings, to staff-wide collaboration. Most often the collaboration
meetings are intradepartmental. The topics for these meetings range from sharing lessons,
establishing department-wide pacing plans, setting acceptable standards of work and
rubrics, to creating/editing benchmark exams. The interdepartmental meetings are the
least frequent. Past topics include creating an interdisciplinary culminating project and
partnership on rubrics and acceptable standards of work across disciplines. Staff-wide
collaboration meetings occur three to four times per school year and most often provide
the opportunity to disaggregate and analyze testing data, discuss testing schedule options,
communicate/discuss effective teaching strategies, and present jointly-created
interdepartmental culminating projects and student work samples.
These collaboration meetings demand little accountability in the way of teacher
attendance and production during the meeting; teachers and departments are on the honor

22

system. Administrators occasionally float from department to department during the
meetings and join the discussions. There are only three administrators, however— not
nearly enough to have one with each department during the meetings. Sign-in sheets are
submitted to the administration after the meetings; however, a number of teachers
routinely do not attend any of the meetings and there appears to be no recourse for such
absences.
Neither the school nor the district has ever undertaken formal study of the teacher
collaboration schedule, which Vincent High School’s own teachers designed, voted on,
and implemented. An investigation of stakeholder perceptions of the collaboration
schedule is appropriate at this five-year mark particularly because teacher collaboration is
one of the characteristics school and district officials commonly cite as a possible
explanation for Vincent’s recent successes. Qualitative data are needed to substantiate
these claims. The school implemented the teacher collaboration schedule simultaneous
with its new rotating block schedule in the 2003-2004 school year. However, the
collaborative environment the school had cultivated from the day its doors reopened in
September 1998 is what led to the formal adoption of the teacher collaboration schedule,
rotating block schedule, and, later, the “No D” Policy— all of which were implemented
with consensus from teachers and administrators alike.
Characteristic 5: Site-Created Rotating Block Schedule

The original principal was enthusiastic about the idea of an alternative daily bell
schedule. Therefore, in the first year the district approved the adoption of a daily bell

23

schedule of two-hour block periods. Under this plan, periods 1-6 all met on Mondays,
with 54-minute periods. Periods 1, 2, and 3 then met on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and
were two hours each; Periods 4, 5, and 6 met on Wednesdays and Fridays, and were also
two hours each. It is unclear why, but after the 1998 school year the administration
decided to scratch this schedule model.
For the next five school years, Vincent High School employed a trimester-model
schedule with students taking only four classes per trimester. Each period met daily for
82 minutes, at the same time each day. Each trimester lasted 12 weeks, instead of the
standard 18 weeks for most K-12 semester schedules. Students could still earn the
equivalent of 12 semester course credits under the trimester system, but the school year
was divided into trimesters instead of semesters.
The trimester system quickly became unpopular amongst the teachers because
each of them had to teach at least one trimester per school year (12 full weeks), without a
free period (commonly known as a “preparation” period). Most high school teachers’
collective bargaining agreements in California have a provision whereby teachers are
entitled to at least one student-free “preparation” period per semester; the same is true of
Sprawling Meadows Unified School District. Still, deviations from this practice occur
from district to district, depending on various extracurricular and extraduty assignments
teachers may elect to take on. However, after the second year of implementation (2000),
teachers became quite vocal about a change to this trimester schedule at staff meetings,
department meetings, and in formal and informal discussions with the administration.

24

In the 2002 school year, the original principal requested that teachers volunteer to
join a newly formed Bell Schedule Committee to investigate, discuss, and suggest
possible block schedule options for the administration to approve, and the entire staff
eventually to vote on. Approximately eight teachers joined this committee, which met
biweekly for the next two school years. The bell schedule committee researched and
discussed various block schedules in use at other schools in the area and in other states.
Most of the block schedules discussed were similar to the two-hour block design used in
year one at Vincent High, or resembled in some way the trimester schedule the staff
wanted to eradicate. Therefore, the committee took those two years to design a hybrid
rotating block schedule with a constant daily sixth period to accommodate athletics,
seniors who did not need a sixth class, and other logistical concerns. The committee
created this schedule combining concepts and designs from block schedules in use at
other schools, some of which members visited or read about in educational literature.
During the 2003 school year, the committee presented the currently used rotating
block schedule and several other block-style alternatives to the administration and the rest
of the teaching staff. The original principal supported the rotating block model, and the
rest of the staff voted to adopt it by an overwhelming margin. This rotating block
schedule remains in place during the time of this research in 2008. The rotating block has
been in use at Vincent High School from 2004-2008, and the staff recently voted to
extend it to the 2009 school year. Per a collective bargaining agreement, the teachers
must vote to renew the rotating block schedule each year, which it has since 2004.

25

By and large, then, the rotating block schedule that Vincent High School
implements is an original creation of the school’s bell schedule committee, and no studies
in the literature have investigated an identical block schedule. A qualitative and
quantitative study of this rotating block schedule is necessary in large part because many
of Vincent High’s stakeholders have offered the school’s unique bell schedule as a
possible explanation for its API success over the last seven years. Still, empirical data are
needed to substantiate any relationship between the rotating block schedule and Vincent
High’s academic successes the last seven years. (See Table 4 for a copy of Vincent’s
block schedule).
Characteristic 6: Site-created “No D” Policy

The last of Vincent’s distinguishing characteristics is also the last that its own
staff specifically created: the school’s “No D” Policy. Under this policy, “Ds” are not an
option at the school as grades. If a student at Vincent High earns a 69% or below in a
course (60-69% are the scores for which “Ds” are commonly given) that student will
receive an “F.” This policy means that student academic performance that might earn a
passing grade as “D” at most high schools is considered not passing at Vincent High
School. The staff slowly but voluntarily adopted this policy between 2001 and 2002. In
2003 the original principal decreed the policy mandatory and school-wide.
The feeling amongst many of the original staff members was that because Vincent
High was the district’s designated “school of choice,” it needed to separate itself
somehow from the cycle of student failures that occurring at the district’s two other much

26

larger urban high schools. In an effort to provide some distance between Vincent High’s
policies and those of the other two high schools in the district, and to

Table 4. Vincent High School’s Daily Bell Schedule

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
8:00-
9:32
(92
min.)
1 4 2 5 3
9:38-
10:00
(22
min.)
Study Skills Study Skills Study Skills Study Skills Study Skills
10:06-
11:38
(92
min.)
2 5 3 1 4
11:38-
12:13
(35
min.)
Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
12:19-
1:51
(92
min.)
3 1 4 2 5
1:57-
2:52
(55
min.)
6 6 6 6 6

encourage the students to strive for higher academic expectations, a few teachers in the
English department began experimenting with a “No D” Policy in the second year of the
school’s reopening (1999).
For purposes of this study, Vincent High School’s “No D” Policy states that any
student earning a 69% or lower in a course (quarter and semester grades) shall receive an
“F” on his or her transcript. The option for a “D” (passing) on the transcript shall not
exist. This policy differs starkly from the standard grading policy of most schools, where

27

the option for a “D” does exist and equates to a passing grade for a course. Therefore,
Vincent High’s students could receive a “C” (passing) for earning a 70% in a course or an
“F” (failing) for earning a 69% or lower in a course. Further motivation for this policy is
that most universities shun “Ds” on high school transcripts, despite the fact that the grade
allows students to earn a passing grade for purposes of advancement toward earning a
high school diploma.
By the third year of Vincent’s reopening, (2001 school year), it had a full slate of
students at all four grade levels (freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors). The
school’s student population had swelled to over 1,000. Concurrently, knowledge of the
“No D” Policy had spread to other departments and numerous teachers in the social
studies, science, foreign language, and math departments voluntarily implemented a “No
D” Policy in their classes. At this point, there was still no official decree from the
administration either condemning or endorsing the practice. The original principal
expressed private support for the policy, but had yet to change the school’s official
grading policy to reflect the “No D” Policy that teachers were adopting on their own. No
data or information exists within the school’s records to indicate the feelings, thoughts,
and perceptions of students and parents regarding the “No D” Policy.
By the fourth year of the school’s reopening (2002), the “No D” Policy was
openly discussed at faculty meetings, formal, and informal gatherings of teachers,
counselors, and administrators. This was the researcher’s first year as a social studies
teacher, and first year teaching at Vincent High School. During this period, numerous

28

discussions about the “No D” Policy took place in faculty and department meetings alike.
Informal teacher discussions about the policy in the office, copy room, and teachers’
lounge were also widespread. At that point the original principal, who was still the
principal in 2002, openly supported the policy at faculty meetings and encouraged
teachers to adopt it, though she was yet to make the “No D” Policy the official grading
policy of the school. In 2002, teachers still had the option to give Ds on report cards—
however, private and informal teacher discussions had an element of peer pressure for all
teachers to adopt the policy.
In school-wide staff meetings just prior to the fifth year of Vincent High’s
reopening (2003), the original principal made a formal announcement orally and in
writing that it was officially adopting a “No D” Policy in all departments and courses. Per
this decree, teachers would no longer recognize or record Ds on student transcripts. The
administration would officially change any final grades submitted by teachers marked as
a D to an F on the student’s records. The school did not publically solicit the opinions of
teachers, parents, or students regarding the policy prior to its official adoption; it also did
not gather or analyze data showing the effects of the “No D” Policy for those teachers
who had informally adopted the policy in previous two to three years. After many
discussions with teachers who had informally adopted the policy, the original principal,
deciding that it was logical and reasonable, made it the official grading policy of the high
school in 2003.

29

The original principal herself notified the district administration and school board
of Sprawling Meadows Unified School District in writing and in face-to-face meetings to
apprise them of this official “No D” Policy. The then-superintendent publicly referenced
and supported the policy at district-wide staff development days, board meetings, and in
published letters and documents.
Many teachers at Vincent High openly discussed and supported the policy during
that school year (2003). By then it became widely disseminated public knowledge
amongst the district community. There was no large-scale movement of protest by
parents or students. Individual expressions of discontent by several parents consisted
basically of a small number of phone calls to the school administration protesting the
policy or asking for further clarification. At the time, some of Vincent’s teachers
publicly interpreted the lack of wide-spread parental outrage over the policy as evidence
of its merits.
Since 2003, Vincent High School has had four new principal administrations,
including one school year (2006) in which there was no principal. In 2006 two associate
principals shared operational oversight of the school. Vincent High School is now in its
third year of the latest principal’s administration, and in its 11th year since reopening in
1998. None of principal administrations since the original principal retired at the end of
the 2003 school year was employed at Vincent High School when it officially adopted the
“No D” Policy. They had neither been present throughout the process of adopting the
policy nor had witnessed its impact, effects, or evolution since 2003. And yet, despite

30

their lack of exposure to the policy prior to becoming a Vincent High principal, all four
maintained the policy and have never initiated any public discourse about the merits or
advisedness of the policy. Nor have they dedicated any public forum to a discussion
about keeping the policy in place. The “No D” Policy remains in place at Vincent High
School today, in 2008, six school years after the original principal officially instituted it
as a school-wide grading policy.
Since Vincent High School officially adopted the “No D” Policy in 2003, there
has been no formal study, evidence-gathering, data analysis, or inquiry about the impact,
effects, outputs, or outcomes of the policy on student academic achievement,
standardized test scores, stakeholder perceptions, or about the variance of its
implementation amongst teachers and departments. What are the specific objectives of
the “No D” policy? How has the “No D” Policy impacted student achievement,
standardized test scores, grade point averages, graduation rates, student motivation,
parent involvement, and student-teacher relationships? Has the “No D” Policy acted as a
facilitator or an inhibitor of any of those factors? What evidence is needed to make any
determinations? At present, these questions remain unanswered. Neither the district nor
the school administration has ever publicly acknowledged any interest in or the need for
such studies of the “No D” Policy. The policy has simply remained in place the last six
years, with stakeholders demonstrating different opinions, interpretations, and methods of
implementation of the policy. The lack of insight into the policy provides further
rationale for this study.

31

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction to the Literature Review

A comprehensive review of literature related to the six distinguishing
characteristics of Vincent High School was conducted for purposes of this study. The
published research articles discussed include peer-reviewed empirical studies and
qualitative case studies, comprehensive literature reviews, doctoral dissertations, and
theoretical position papers. The literature under review assisted in providing a
constructive frame of reference and valuable information about high-performing schools,
block scheduling, teacher collaboration, school grading policies, school choice, and
school size. A distinctive quality of the current study subject is that four of Vincent High
School’s distinguishing characteristics are site-created and appear to be unique to the
school, with few to no precedents found in the literature. These four unique
characteristics are: 50% or more of the teachers were trained at the same teacher
education program (Characteristic #3), teacher collaboration schedule (Characteristic #4),
rotating block schedule (Characteristic #5), and “No D” Policy (Characteristic #6). The
first two distinguishing characteristics of Vincent High School— School of Choice
(Characteristic #1) and Medium-Size (Characteristic #2)—were readily available in the
literature. Empirical studies of these characteristics, and their impacts on schools’
academic and affective outcomes, were examined extensively for this study.

32

Precisely because many of Vincent High School’s distinguishing characteristics
are site-created, and were implemented as hybrid creations or original ideas, the
researcher faced initial difficulties conducting a comprehensive review of study related
literature. As example, the literature offers no precedent regarding the impact borne by
the statistically high provenance of teachers from the same university teacher education
program. Likewise, the literature does not provide models for the specific design of
Vincent’s rotating block schedule or for its teacher collaboration schedule. Most of the
published empirical studies in this realm cover the impacts of
collaboration/cohorts/collegiality on preservice teacher candidates. As such, the
researcher identified a great need for more empirical studies on the academic impact of
in-service teacher collaboration. Also, the researcher discovered no standard in the
literature on the “No D” Policy and its impact on student outcomes. Though site-
generated, the “No D” Policy may be in use at other high schools; however, the
researcher did not identify any empirical or case studies discussing this specific practice.
The contextual uniqueness of these four characteristics required the researcher to
broaden the scope of literature reviewed in relation to these factors. To begin the
literature review, the researcher conducted a review of the research on the general
characteristics of high-performing schools with special attention to high-performing
urban schools, yet not exclusive attention paid to urban schools. This process helped to
form a framework of the general policies and practices of other high-performing schools,
specifically those that enroll high minority high poverty populations in urban areas.

33

Next, the researcher conducted a review of general literature on block scheduling
and its impact on academic and affective outcomes in schools. A general review of the
literature on teacher collaboration and its impact on affective outcomes followed.
However, the scarcity of empirical studies dictated that some of this literature included
collaboration/cohorts/collegiality with preservice teacher candidates. Literature
addressing school grading policies and the differences of implementation and impact on
academic and affective outcomes was reviewed next. Finally, school choice and school
size literature, which included considerations of demographic character and empirical
studies of the impact of these variables on academic and affective school outcomes was
examined. As mentioned, considerable extant literature addresses these broader school
factors.
General Characteristics of High-Performing Schools

In the past research has maintained that student and family-level characteristics
are among the strongest predictors of academic success (Rumberger & Thomas, 2000).
More recent research, however, provides a different perspective. A growing body of
literature shows that school-level characteristics are stronger predictors than family
background characteristics, such as race, environment, or socioeconomic status. Some
reports even argue that schools and districts may be able to transcend the effects of
poverty and chronic underachievement and produce high-level student outcomes (The
Education Trust, 2005; Irvine, 1988; McGee, 2003; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000).
Despite the conventional wisdom that underprivileged children and the schools they

34

attend are incorrigible,, recent studies show that urban schools can provide an effective
education and produce high-performing students despite family-level background
characteristics beyond their control. Irvine argues that research on effective schools
explains how a student’s success directly relates to the school he or she attends, claiming
that urban schools can indeed produce high results (p. 236). She further contends that we
have much to learn from urban schools where students are learning and and the
environment is orderly and pleasant (p. 236).
Substantiating Irvine’s (1988) claims, Rumberger and Thomas (2000) argue that
research on school effectiveness is premised on the belief that student achievement is
influenced by what goes on in school (p. 41). They contend that a school’s structural
characteristics and processes may determine student success. For example, Rumberger
and Thomas discuss that school size, location, and sector (public, private, magnet,
charter, academy, etc.) all influence student performance (p. 43). They further argue that
school organization/management, teaching practices, and educational climate can foster
student learning and thus influence learning outcomes. Schools’ relationships with
parents, and academic program design also relate to student performance, according to
Rumberger and Thomas (p. 44). They support this claim by showing there are lower high
school dropout rates in secondary schools where students take more advanced courses,
complete more homework, and where, according to school staffs, there are fewer internal
problems (p. 44). The central tenet of Rumberger and Thomas’s discussion is that schools

35

can control their own destinies when it comes to producing higher academic and affective
outcomes.
Relevant to this discussion, then, is research specifically addressing high-
performing schools. What are the particular characteristics of high-performing schools?
How are high-performing schools structured? How are they staffed? What are their social
climates and what is the nature of teacher-student relationships? On what principles do
they base instructional and organizational decisions? What are their relationships like to
parents and the rest of the community? How do they allocate resources? What role does
data play in their operational functionality? How do high-performing schools transcend
the effects of poverty to produce high learning outcomes? What kind of leadership do
they employ? Helping to answer these vital questions about the general characteristics of
high-performing schools are two high volume longitudinal studies and one extensive
literature review of case study research.
The Education Trust (2005) conducted an insightful longitudinal empirical study
examining the characteristics and practices of high schools that improve the academic
performance of traditionally low-performing students. The participants in this study were
three high impact North Carolina High schools, one high impact California High school,
and three unnamed “average impact” high schools with similar demographics (p. 3). All
schools involved in the study had student populations of at least 60% low-income
(defined by federal free or reduced lunch status) and/or at least 50% minority (p. 2). The
study defines “high impact” schools as those having greater than expected growth over a

36

three-year period; achievement gaps between subgroups that were less than their state
averages; and math and reading scores means on standardized tests that met or exceeded
state average scores. “Average impact” schools in the study also showed progress over
time on reducing their subgroups’ achievement gaps, but to a lesser degree than the high
impact schools. The validity and reliability of this study were both enhanced by its
mixed-methods approach and presence of a control group (average impact schools).
The findings of this study reveal much about how schools that have high
populations of low-income minority students can produce high learning outcomes. The
Education Trust (2005) divided their findings into Five Spheres: (a) Culture, (b)
Academic Core, (c) Support, (d) Teachers, (e) Time and Other Resources. They
discovered that high impact high schools all shared some commonalties fitting into these
five general spheres.
In Sphere 1 (Culture), the study found that high impact schools prepare students
for life beyond high school whereas average impact schools prepare students for
graduation. Also, in high impact schools teachers/administration stress achievement
related goals whereas average impact schools demonstrate less consistency in stating
goals and ultimate objectives. Lastly, they found that in high impact schools teachers
embrace external common standards and assessments, whereas in average impact schools
teachers simply tolerate external and internal common assessments and pacing plans (The
Education Trust, 2005, pp. 5-7). High impact schools embrace and publicize clear long-
term goals, and welcome external accountability.

37

In Sphere 2 (Academic Core), the study showed that high impact schools have
greater expectations for all students, regardless of prior performance. As one example,
teachers/counselors take responsibility for helping students achieve by removing some of
the barriers to high level courses. In average impact schools barriers to challenging
courses persist. Finally, high impact schools quite often use assessment data to make
future instructional decisions, not just to measure student performance (The Education
Trust, 2005, pp. 5-6). Essentially the staff in high impact school find a way to reduce
obstacles to academic success rather than wallowing in the face of them.
Within Spheres 3 and 4 (Support and Teachers, respectively), high impact schools
support and engage all of their students in learning through various means. In high impact
schools extra help for struggling students is mandatory: nothing is left to chance. Early
warning systems help struggling students before it’s too late. High impact schools also
partner closely with businesses and colleges to foster postsecondary opportunities.
Teacher assignments meet student needs not teacher preferences and are based on past
performance and areas of study, not convenience. High impact schools adjust class size to
provide more attention to struggling students not to meet on uniform ratios. Finally,
principals exert control over staff selection and have a clear vision about the type of
teachers that will produce high outcomes at their schools (The Education Trust, 2005, pp.
6-7).
In Sphere 5 (Time and Other Resources), The Education Trust (2005) study
discovered that high impact schools are deliberate and diligent in their use of

38

instructional time, with strict enforcement by school officials. Additionally, students who
enter already behind in reading comprehension in 9th-grade spend more time with
substantial reading instruction courses. Lastly, a larger percentage of students’ time spent
is spent in college prep courses (pp. 6-7). This study provides rich qualitative data to
explain quantitative findings. The results of this study are an excellent starting point for a
discussion of the general characteristics of high-performing schools. The study supports
Rumberger and Thomas’s (2000) arguments that schools can implement policies and
practices on their own to produce high outcomes in the face of historically
disadvantageous conditions.
McGee’s (2003) study of “Golden Spike” high-performing, high poverty schools
in Illinois is rich with qualitative data about what these schools are doing to produce high
student outcomes. McGee also provides an extensive review of previous literature on the
topic, and found that the schools he studied exemplified many of the characteristics of
high-performing schools from those studies. In his literature review, he cited North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NCREL, 2000) study of high-performing
high poverty schools in Wisconsin (p. 14). This study showed the common characteristics
of such schools to be strong leadership, effective professional development, curriculum
and instruction alignment with state standards, multiple means of soliciting parental and
community involvement, and a school structure supportive of small class sizes.
In kind, McGee (2003) cites an Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE, 2001)
survey of 90 schools with 50% or more low income students and 50% or more students

39

meeting state standards. Twenty-six schools that fit this description responded (pp. 14-
15). This survey revealed findings similar to that of the NCREL (2000) study of high-
performing high poverty Wisconsin schools. High-performing high poverty schools in
Illinois have effective visionary leadership and effective professional development that
promotes staff collaboration and is guided by a school improvement plan. These schools
have curricular and instructional designs that emphasize the basics and allow for frequent
formative assessment of student progress. Finally, these schools also heavily involve
parents and the community in the schooling process (pp. 14-15).
In his own study, McGee examined 40 high-performing high poverty schools in
Illinois identified by quantitative testing data from the state department of education. The
high-performing high poverty schools were defined as over 66% of students passing the
Illinois State Achievement Test (ISAT) in the previous three years and at least 50% of a
students categorized as low-income (per federal free and reduced lunch standards) (pp.
20-21). McGee conducted qualitative interviews with school staffs and observations in
half of the 40 identified schools. He also examined school/district-produced policy
documents from all 40 schools. The interviews/observations represented each of the six
regions of the state of Illinois (pp. 20-21). The qualitative triangulation, large sample
size, and intensity sampling strategies employed by McGee strengthen the reliability of
his findings.
The findings from McGee’s (2003) study closely resemble those of The
Education Trust (2005), NCREL (2000), the ISBE (2001) survey, and Irvine (1988).

40

McGee found the following characteristics in 90% of the 40 “Golden Spike” schools he
studied (pp. 26-37):
1. Strong Leadership: advocate high standards and expectations
2 Emphasis on early literacy

3. Good teachers

4. More academic learning time

5. Extensive Parental Involvement

McGee found the following characteristics in at least 50% of the 40 “Golden Spike”

schools studied (pp. 26-37):

1 Extensive use of data to drive instructional decisions
2 Internal capacity for accountability
3 High Quality Professional Development
4 Ready access to early childhood education programs
5 Attention to health and safety needs of children (pp. 26-37)
Similar to the findings of The Education Trust (2005) and Irvine’s (1988) findings,
McGee’s study (2003) found that the presence of strong,visionary leadership, teaching
personnel, curriculum and instruction, and community factors, were all in some form or
another of what mattered at Golden Spike schools. He found that these factors worked in
concert not in opposition to one another (p. 26).
Further supporting McGee’s (2003) findings is Irvine’s (1988) extensive review
of case study literature on high-performing schools. Irvine found strong visionary

41

leadership, instruction that enhanced (not detracted from) student learning, and the use of
loosely and tightly coupled systems as the most common characteristics of effective high-
performing urban schools. Irvine defines effective loosely coupled systems as schools
that are flexible, with limited amounts of inspection by superiors, that are able to adapt to
changing environments and meet multiple demands (p. 239). She defines tightly coupled
systems schools as those with standardized policies, agreement on rules, and feedback
about lack of compliance. The purpose of such systems is to ensure that students adhere
to school policies (publicized expectations and discipline measures) (pp. 239-240). Irvine
explains that the effective urban schools in the case studies interwove both loosely and
tightly coupled systems into their regular policies and practices (p. 239). Although all of
these studies provide insight about what effective urban schools may look like, there is
still room in the literature for more exploration. That Vincent High School does not
incorporate all of the same policies and practices as the schools discussed here warrants
further investigation into what exactly does take place at a high-performing urban high
school that may provide new insights into the field and perhaps help figure out how to
replicate positive outcomes in schools with similar demographics.
In summary, what we know about high-performing schools, especially high-
performing urban schools is that school-level characteristics may be as reliable predictors
of learning outcomes as student-level background characteristics. We know that school
organization affords some control over the quality of learning. We know that the quality
of school/teacher-parent relationships and academic program structure also influences

42

student learning and that effective urban schools prepare students for life beyond high
school. Additionally, we know that in high-performing schools, teachers embrace
external common standards and assessments and, in fact, that assessment data quite often
serve as the basis for future instructional decisions. We also know that in high-
performing schools teachers and counselors act as facilitators for student access to
advanced courses. We know that these schools have early warning systems in place to
help struggling students before it is too late and that teaching assignments are based on
what is best for students.
High impact schools often adjust class size in order to provide more attention to
struggling students. High performing schools are diligent about the efficient and
productive use of instructional time. They have strong visionary leadership, place
emphasis on early literacy, and actively solicit parent and community involvement in the
schooling process. They have high quality, relevant professional development that
promotes teacher collaboration. These schools also pay attention to the health and safety
needs of their students. High-performing schools have effective internal capacities for
accountability, yet are simultaneously flexible and adaptive. The existing body of
literature tells us a great deal about high-performing urban schools, however it still leaves
room for exploration of schools such as Vincent High School that have characteristics not
mentioned in this discussion,.

43

School Choice

There is precedence in the literature for both of the intradistrict and interdistrict
choice options that Vincent High School provides. Intradistrict choice has existed since
the 1970s, first introduced in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Harlem, New York. In such
places, families are given the option of attending any school in the district (room
permitting) or in a particular “choice school” within the district (Teske & Schneider,
2001). The latter alternative is the case with Vincent High School in Sprawling Meadows
Unified. Plank and Sykes (1999) discuss that many suburban districts have adopted
admissions lotteries to curtail overcrowding from urban students taking advantage of new
interdistrict transfer opportunities (p. 402). Although Vincent High School is not a
suburban school accommodating a mass exodus of fleeing urban students, its admissions
lottery does curtail overflow just like the suburban districts Plank and Sykes describe.
Interdistrict school choice increased in frequency and popularity in the 1990s,
with louder calls for low-income urban children to have greater access to high-
performing suburban schools (Armor & Peiser, 1998; Teske & Schneider, 2001). These
calls were no doubt due in large part to increased school accountability measures via
standardized curriculum and tests developed during the 1990s. These new accountability
measures have continued to highlight the widely known fact that affluent suburban
schools typically outperform their low-income urban counterparts. Such was the case in
Massachusetts in the early 1990s (Armor & Peiser, 1998), where repeated calls to state
government for change led to landmark legislation in 1992. The new law made

44

interdistrict transfers permissible and readily available. A controversial caveat however
was that the law required sender districts to “pay” receiver districts up to $5,000 per
transferred “choice” student. The Market Competition Thesis was the guiding theoretical
principle behind this law. This principle represents the belief that the way to improve
education is to free the captive audience, eliminate local monopolies, remove restrictions
on public funds, and provide unrestricted choice among all public and nonpublic schools
(pp. 157-158). This review will highlight the merits of this theory and its subsequent
implementation in Massachusetts later. At this point, understanding the context for these
calls for greater access to choice in public education is essential.
The notion of school is not new. Parents have exercised school choice in various
ways over the past century. In the first half of the twentieth century choice in public
education was exercised predominantly through residential choice, with the idea that one
would choose to live within the desired school district (Teske & Schneider, 2001).
Beneath the surface, however, this concept is extremely problematic because not every
area has the same cost of living, and many families cannot afford to live in the areas
where the most “desired” school districts are. Therefore, low-income parents left on the
outside looking in on the desirable high-performing school systems are stuck in what
Teske and Schneider call the “Straw Man” syndrome, taking whatever school they can
and living with the results (p. 610).
The topic of school choice includes questions of parental motivation and what
impact, if any, choice has on academic and affective student/school outcomes. Significant

45

research exists in both realms (Armor & Peiser, 1998; Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Goldring
& Shapira, 1993; Plank & Sykes, 1999; Teske & Schneider, 2001). The general
consensus is that the right to school choice increases parental satisfaction and does not
detract from academic performance (Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Goldring & Shapira,
1993; Teske & Schneider; 2001) In fact, Teske and Schneider argue that no studies in
wide publication provide reliable evidence of school choice contributing to the lowering
of student academic performance (p. 619). This fact is striking. Also worth noting is that
there are few quasi-experimental studies in circulation comparing the academic
performance of choice students versus that of nonchoice students (p. 617). That no
known significant empirical studies supporting diminished academic performance by
school choice exist is promising for school choice advocates. However there is still room
in the literature for more studies of the comparative performances of choice students and
nonchoice students.
What factors motivate parental choice? Several empirical studies indicate that
academic concerns are a parent’s primary motivation when choosing a school (Armor &
Peiser, 1998; Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Goldring & Shapira, 1993; Vanourek, Manno,
Finn, & Bierlein, 1998; Witte, 2000). For example, in Armor and Peiser’s research into
interdistrict school choices in Massachusetts, 85% of parents cited high academic
standards (N = 309 parents) as the biggest reason for choosing the new school or district
(p. 180). Likewise, Bauch and Goldring’s research of parents of Catholic school and
magnet school children (N = 456 parents) revealed that 86% cited academics as the

46

primary factor in choosing their child’s school (p. 9). Other factors in school choice
include safety, teachers, discipline policies, transportation/convenience, facilities, and
activities (Armor & Peiser; Bauch & Goldring).
Although these alternative reasons for school choice are informative, the
empirical studies themselves lack specific information about the parents in the study.
Reasons such as “safety,” “teachers,” “discipline policies,” “facilities,” and
“transportation” leave many questions. What precisely is problematic about the
school/district being left, and how does the school/district of choice rectify the specific
concerns that parents have? The literature lacks the detailed qualitative data to answer
these questions. Sidebar to this discussion is whether parents are truly qualified to gauge
school effectiveness. As Boyer, (1992), Bridge, (1978) and Wells, (1993) ask, what
expertise do parents have in determining the educational effectiveness of the schools they
may choose? (Teske & Schneider, 2001) Teske and Schneider remind us that in many
cases a school’s test scores, grade retention, graduation rates, and college attendance rates
may be difficult to locate, if at all (p. 615). Nevertheless, we know from the literature that
choice-parents are highly concerned about academics and the mitigating circumstances
related to academic performance.
Considering the high value placed on academic standards, an examination of the
academic impact of school choice on student performance seems obligatory. Many argue
that school choice is a facilitator of academic improvement and that nothing in the
literature suggests that it detracts from academic performance (Armor & Peiser, 1998;

47

Teske & Schneider, 2001; Schneider, Teske, & Marschall 2000). Yet, as Teske and
Schneider assert, little pretest/posttest or quasi-experimental data is available on the
impact of school choice on academic performance. For purposes of this discussion,
academic performance is defined as student grades and student scores on state
administered standardized tests.
Some preliminary anecdotal data supports a positive relationship between school
choice and improved academic performance. Schneider et al. (2000) discovered that
improvements in the standardized reading test scores in Harlem, New York maintained
25 years after intradistrict school choice options were first made available. These
researchers found reading scores dramatically improved in East Harlem local district two
during the 1990s, and similar reading score improvement in nonchoice schools in the
same district during the same period of time (Teske & Schneider, 2001, p. 619). Although
such findings are promising, there is no way to confirm that school choice was the single
most responsible variable for the improvements. Causality cannot be inferred from these
studies. Despite this lack of definitive data correlating school choice and academic
performance, some factors of school choice are worth considering.
At this point, what we do know about the relationship between school choice and
academic performance is that parents mainly choose schools/districts with higher records
of performance (via standardized test scores) than the schools/districts they are leaving
(Armor & Peiser, 1998; Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Goldring & Shapira, 1993; Vanourek
et al., 1998; Witte, 2000). We also know that in many cases, choice-students leaving

48

schools/districts are already higher performing than the children remaining in the
schools/districts they left (Armor & Peiser). We also know, that even academic
performance among Catholic school children (another example of school choice), when
controlling for student/family demographics, is not significantly higher than that of their
counterparts in public schools (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993).
Despite a lack of statistical significance in higher standardized test score data
from Catholic school students (controlling for student/family demographics), Bryk et al.
(1993) discovered improvement in other valuable student outcomes as a result of Catholic
school choice. These valuable student outcomes include higher graduation rates and
college attendance and lower dropout rates (Teske & Schneider, 2001, p. 618). Therefore,
the final analysis on academic performance outcomes of school choice is inconclusive.
Little data is available to argue unequivocally that school choice relates to increased
academic performance. Pretest/posttest and quasi-experimental studies on such outcomes
are missing from the literature. However, because we do not have any reason to believe
that school choice harms academic outcomes no reasonable argument can be made at this
time against it.
Educational psychology research indicates that choice fosters motivation in and
satisfaction with the education process (Ormrod, 2006). Given options along the
educational journey, students are more likely to stay engaged, be motivated, and take
greater ownership of their learning. The same argument can be reasonably made of
school choice amongst parents and students. We know that school choice fosters greater

49

parental satisfaction with their children’s education. Ogawa and Dutton’s (1994) research
tells us that overall parents are more satisfied if they have some choice in where their
children go to school (as opposed to Teske and Schneider’s [2001] “Straw Man
Syndrome,” where parents must send their children to whatever schools they live near
and accept the results). Goldring and Shapira (1993) call this parental right to choose and
residual satisfaction “Family Sovereignty” (p. 397). The basic premise of Family
Sovereignty is that parents are the best decision makers in their child’s education because
of the unique and intimate knowledge they have. Therefore, parents will be generally
more satisfied with the chosen school/district simply because they were allowed to
choose it. Similarly, Orstrom and Orstrom (1971) refer to this phenomenon as “Rational
Choice Theory.” The fundamental belief of this theory is that parents will weigh pros and
cons, along with their own personal values against those of the school choice-options
available and make a rational decision on what accommodates their needs (Goldring &
Shapira, 1993, pp. 397-398). These greater levels of parental satisfaction with school
choice have appeared to hold whether in the public or private sector (Schneider et al.,
2000).
No matter the school arrangement: public, private, charter, or voucher, parents
tend be more satisfied if they have the freedom to choose the school and/or district their
child will attend. This heightened sense of satisfaction may also lead to greater parental
involvement in the education process, which in turn may correlate to better student

50

academic performance (Henderson, 1981; Schneider & Coleman, 1993; Seeley, 1984;
Teske & Schneider, 2001).
As previously discussed, the assumption exists that greater parental involvement
in a child’s education may be related to higher academic performance. Therefore, does
parental choice correlate with parental involvement? Two large empirical studies help
answer this question. Goldring and Shapira (1993) examined parental choice and patterns
of parental involvement in four elementary schools in Israel (N = 377 parents). Bauch
and Goldring (1995) examined the same patterns of parental involvement amongst
parents of Catholic and public magnet high school students at seven different high
schools in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Chattanooga, Tennessee (N = 575 parents).
Goldring and Shapira’s (1993) study revealed that parental involvement was the
strongest predictor of student success (p. 404). Also interesting from their findings was
that amongst the high-school educated parents, satisfaction was most closely correlated
with involvement at their child’s school (r = .348) (p. 404). Conversely however, college
educated parents in Goldring and Shapira’s study most closely correlated satisfaction
with compatibility between their own educational philosophies and those of the school
(r.= 227) (p. 405). Such parents also reported satisfaction with opportunities for
empowerment within the school framework. Interestingly, the high school educated
parents from this study reported to be satisfied with their choice-school even if they were
not empowered or empowered little by the school. Finally, this study revealed school
choice does not always equate with parental involvement. Using a 4-point, Likert-style

51

scale, Goldring and Shapira asked the choice-school parents from their study (N = 377) to
rate their involvement in their child’s school. High and low SES parents alike reported
rather low levels of involvement on the scale (m = 2.29 out of 4.0). Yet both groups of
parents reported rather high levels of satisfaction with their schools of choice on the same
4-point Likert-scale (m = 3.14) (p. 404). Goldring and Shapira explained this discrepancy
between low involvement and high satisfaction by arguing that perhaps parents feel they
simply made their choice and that the rest is up to the school. They suggest the possibility
that parents are more satisfied with the mere existence of school choice, and the fact that
this choice is made does not always lead to more involvement in the process.
These findings do help to inform the field that parents are more satisfied with
schools if they have choices. These findings also tell us that lower SES parents are more
satisfied with opportunities for involvement at their child’s school, and higher SES
parents are more satisfied with school compatibility and opportunities for empowerment.
Yet these findings may lack transferability to an American context as socioeconomic
status is not universally defined. Goldring and Shapira’s (1993) study was conducted in
Israel because of a unique new elementary school choice policy implemented there in the
early 1990s. However the definition of high/low SES in Israel may be quite different than
in the United States. Too many unknown and mitigating variables are left unresolved to
provide solid transferability of these findings to choice-parents in the United States.
Bauch and Goldring (1995) research focused on variations of parental
involvement, comparing Catholic high school parents, single-focus magnet high school

52

parents, and multi-focus magnet high school parents (all of which are school choice
arrangements) (N = 575 parents). The findings suggest that Catholic school and single-
focus magnet school parents were more involved than multi-focus magnet high school
parents. They also found that Catholic school parents enforce rules that fostered
homework completion with greater frequency, and took more initiative in contacting the
school directly. Finally, the Catholic school parents reported feeling more welcome and
supported by the school when contacting the school about an issue or problem (pp.13-
15). Despite indications of greater satisfaction and support by the Catholic school parents
surveyed, researchers did find evidence of regular parental involvement, satisfaction, and
contact amongst all three groups of parents in the study. These findings are relevant to
this discussion because they provide evidence for the assertion that choice-parents are
generally more satisfied with the schools their children attend than those parents who
have no choice. However this study had no control group and no pretest/posttest design
from which to derive more definitive conclusions about factors contributing to parental
satisfaction. So there are limitations in how much credence this study gives to the present
discussion. We can reasonably infer, however, that school choice does add to parental
satisfaction with the education system.
School choice may not always serve to end inequality in the school system and
resolve issues of social stratification. Critics of school choice contend that it in fact leads
to greater social stratification and greater performance gulfs between affluent and lower-
income school districts. They contend that there is great possibility of more well-to-do

53

and higher performing students fleeing underserved districts for wealthier suburban
school districts. Bauch and Goldring (1995) call this phenomenon Dumping and
Creaming (p. 3). Armor and Peiser (1998) further this suggesting that there is an elitist
effect, whereby school choice can result in White families avoiding as much as possible
urban districts with children of color (158). Essentially, with such a phenomenon the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer. The literature does in fact suggest those who most
often take advantage of school choice options are middle-to-upper class Whites (Armor
& Peiser, 1998). The literature also tells us that affluent, predominantly White, suburban
schools/districts are not always eager to accept low-income urban students (most often of
color) (Plank & Sykes, 1999). Such revelations indicate that school choice may not
always work to the benefit of all students, especially those with the most need for more
effective alternatives,
As further illustration, in their examination of the effects of Massachusetts
interdistrict school choice law, Armor and Peisner (1998) discovered that the families
most likely to take advantage of the choice-option were White and of higher SES than
students who remained in the sender-districts (164). They found that in the 1995 school
year, 92% of all choice-students in the state were White (N = 6,219 choice students) (p.
166). They also found that the choice-students in Massachusetts were most likely to be
from families who had higher educational aspirations than the nonchoice students who
remained in the sender districts. Countering Bauch and Goldring’s (1995) Dumping and
Creaming thesis, however, Armor and Peiser (1998) found that in 3 of the 20 school case

54

studies they conducted, choice-students had lower average reading scores than the
nonchoice students who remained in their sender districts (p. 165). Yet they revealed that
overall, the mean academic achievement and SES of choice students were both higher
than nonchoice students remaining in the 10 sender districts studied in Massachusetts (p.
165).
Armor and Pesier (1998) explain that the reason more families of color did not
take advantage of school choice lack of awareness about choice options and available
subsidized transportation (p. 181). The results of this study provide significant data to
support that middle-to-upper class White families most frequently take advantage of
school choice, even when state law mandates the option to all children. These results
remind us that the flow of information is equally important as available options when
implementing systemic change.
Plank and Sykes’s (1999) research on the impact of school choice laws on 16
Michigan school districts reveals that suburban school district administrations are not
always eager to readily accept low-income urban children. In the 1990s new school
choice laws in Michigan mandated that districts could not restrict their students from
voluntarily leaving; the law also made funding for additional choice-options, such as
charter schools, more available. The law forbade districts from preventing their students
from leaving, but allowed receiver-districts to make their own policies regarding the
acceptance of new choice-students. Plank and Sykes conducted interviews with district
superintendents, school board members, teachers union presidents, principals, and

55

teachers in 16 districts impacted by the new state laws. They made some startling
findings. First, many suburban superintendents openly discussed their concerns with
suddenly having to accept “hard to educate” children from poor urban districts (p. 402).
In response to these concerns, several suburban districts colluded to create new
restrictions severely limiting the flow of urban children of color into suburban districts. In
such suburban districts, Plank and Sykes’s qualitative research showed that social and
cultural concerns trump desires for potential funding increases from the additional
transfer students. By allowing for local control over the transfer policies, the residual
effect of these new regulations was de facto segregation (p. 405).
Despite these suburban restrictions, according to Plank and Sykes (1999) , low-
income urban districts still experienced the highest number of lost transfers because many
of the urban-choice students of color flooded the fledgling charter schools in Michigan in
the late 1990s. Universities, corporate sponsors, or for-profit management firms operated
many of these schools, of which one such type that emerged in Michigan was ethnic
identity charter schools, such as Afro-Education, Armenian-Education, and Native
American charter schools (p. 403). To redress the sudden lack of suburban options, many
organizations and firms in Michigan developed such ethnic-specific charter schools to
satisfy the demand for school choice. Therefore the urban students of color who were
locked out of suburban choice found alternative modes of choice in Michigan, and
exercised those options in large numbers— as charter schools had the greatest impact of
all choice options in the aftermath of Michigan’s new school-choice laws (Plank &

56

Sykes, 1999, p. 401). Though it is promising that organizations and private firms filled
the void of school choice for urban children of color in Michigan (via charter schools). it
is equally troubling that large numbers of suburban districts appear to have colluded to
limit that very access to districts, facilities, and accompanying educational opportunities.
This study provides the field with evidence that not all are in favor of the social and
demographic shifts that school choice may bring.
In conclusion, school choice has shown promise in relating to student
achievement in the last 15 years. We know that parents overwhelmingly cite academic
concerns as the primary motivation for their school choice. We know that school choice
correlates to greater parental satisfaction, possibly leading to greater parental
involvement, which many agree, assists student achievement. But we also know that
school choice does not necessarily equate to greater parental involvement. We have
anecdotal evidence that intradistrict school choice may be associated with the improved
academic achievement of both choice and nonchoice students in that district. We also
know that most often those students who take advantage of school choice are more likely
to be White and more affluent than those who do not. Similarly, we know that not all
suburban districts (most often majority White) willingly accept urban transfer students
(most often of color). In many cases there is not a clear flow of information available on
school choice options to low income urban families. Finally, we have no reason to
believe that school choice detracts from student achievement, as these findings support
the argument for school choice. However they also reveal gaps in equity among those

57

currently taking advantage of their choice options and where the information on such is
going. Moving forward, more study of the specific academic effects of school choice is
necessary as are and policy recommendations that ensure equal access to information and
available school choice options.
School Size

The literature on school size is extensive, which is a subject of interest to Vincent
High School because Sprawling Meadows Unified School District personnel and
stakeholders are still unsure as to exactly why Vincent High has so drastically surpassed
the other two high school’s in the district in API scores. Staff of the other two schools
frequently cite the fact that Vincent High enrolls roughly one-third the number of
students of the other schools. There may be some merit to this argument, as research
shows a possible relationship between school size and academic and affective outcomes.
According to much of the research on school size, small and medium-sized schools
produce higher levels of student achievement and higher quality school climates (Cotton,
1996; Fowler &Walberg, 1991; Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Lee,
Smerdon, Alfeld-Liro, & Brown, 2000; Lee & Smith, 1997; Rumberger & Thomas,
2000). Therefore, probing this characteristic of Vincent High School further is beneficial,
especially in the context of literature on school size as it relates to school economics,
academic results, and affective climates.
The literature tells us much about school size. There are two primary strands of
research related to school size: (a) Economies of Scale and (b) Academic and Social

58

Organization. Economies of Scale refers to the impact of school size on resource
allocation, revenue streams, and per-pupil expenditures (Bryk et al., 1993; Buzacott,
1982; Kenny, 1982; Lee & Smith, 1997; Mok & Flynn, 1997). Academic and Social
Organizations refers to the study of the impact of school size on curricular structure,
curricular and extracurricular opportunities, school social climate, teacher and student
satisfaction, and academic outcomes (Lee & Bryk, 1989; Lee, et al., 1993; Lee & Smith,
1997; Monk, 1987; Monk & Haller, 1993;). The arguments are scattered and inconsistent,
yet fierce along each strand, though more data exists in relation to actual student
outcomes to support the arguments within the Academic and Social Organizations strand.
Much of the data cited as support within the Economies of Scale strand of research
relates to school demographics, expenses, employment numbers, and enrollment figures
as opposed to actual learning outcomes.
The literature reveals valuable information about school size and its impact on
school organizational structure, operational practices, expenditures, social
relations/climate, curricular offerings, and academic outcomes. For purposes of this
discussion, small, medium, large, and very large schools will be defined per Lee and
Burkam’s (2003) study of the impact of school organization and structure on drop out
rates. According to their definitions of school size categorizations: (a) Small Schools =
<600 students, (b) Medium Schools = 601-1,500 students, (c) Large Schools = 1,501-
2,500 students and (d) Very Large Schools = >2,500 students (p. 371).

59

The merits of school size have been debated for nearly 100 years— ever since
schools began systematically increasing in size at the beginning of the twentieth century
(Lee, et al., 2000). We know that large schools, especially larger high schools, usually
have greater resource strength and greater curriculum specialization (Kenny, 1982).
Large schools are assumed to have greater economic efficiency and access to larger
revenue streams (Guthrie, 1979). As such, arguments for larger school size equates it
with increased adequacy in addressing an individual student’s needs as there is more
staff on hand to satisfy each of these needs and/or create specialized programs to address
them (Monk, 1987). In theory, larger schools do indeed have the resources and staff to
tailor-make programs to address the abilities, motivation, and interests of individual
students (Lee, et al.).
The Lee, et al. (2000) study of the structures of large and small high schools,
showed that large high schools did in fact have greater curricular variety than small high
schools. These results also held true in schools in rural, urban, and suburban areas and in
a large Catholic high school as well as in three large public high schools in rural, urban,
and suburban areas in the study. Yet a key difference in broad curricular variation of the
two Catholic schools versus the three large public high schools was that the Catholic
schools did not offer vocational or nonacademic courses. All courses offered by the large
and small Catholic schools in the study were college preparation. Such was not the case
in the study’s three large public high schools; though they had a greater course variety
than the three small public high schools studied, their curriculum included a large array

60

of remedial and nonacademic vocational courses (p. 153-154). Therefore the curricular
advantages of large comprehensive high schools may be fallacious, as many of the
additional courses are vocational and nonacademic in nature.
This curricular variation may be especially harmful to low socioeconomic
students and Black and Latino children, as its manifestation in large comprehensive high
schools often leads to an educational caste system, whereby middle-class and affluent
White and Asian students remain on college preparation academic tracks while lower
socioeconomic Black and Latino children wallow in remedial and vocational courses
(Gamoran, 1989; Lee & Smith, 1997; Oakes, 1985). This process, commonly referred to
as “tracking,” is often the norm in large comprehensive high schools, only serving to
perpetuate the well-publicized achievement gap between these subgroups of students
(Bennett, 2001).
Economies of Scale advocates further argue that smaller schools must focus
curricular attention on the academic rigor of students in the middle of the ability
distribution. Because of logistical constraints, small schools must focus on core academic
programs, not specialized curricular and/or nonacademic programs, which means that the
needs of students at either end of the ability distribution may not be met. (Lee, et al.,
2000). As school enrollment increases, typically the variation in course and program
offerings of the school do as well (Lee & Bryk, 1989; Lee, et al., 1993). Although larger
schools may be able to better cater to the needs of students in the outlying realms of
ability distribution, there are still potential pitfalls for lower ability distribution students.

61

Lee and Bryk (1989) and Lee, et al. (1993) discuss that greater curricular variation and
specialization may lead to greater stratification of student achievement and students’
academic experiences (Lee, et al., 1987; Monk & Haller, 1993). This academic
stratification is what Bennett (2001) warned of in her arguments against the academic
caste systems that result from tracking. The literature needs more qualitative study of the
social and emotional impacts of these academic tracking caste systems on both high and
low achieving groups of students in these large school.
Despite this access to greater resources, dollars, and curricular programs, the
advantages of large schools rarely translate into greater equity distribution of student
achievement or higher than average student achievement (Lee & Smith, 1997).
Apparently, schools size increases negative correlate to standardized test scores, even if
student/teacher ratios are held constant (Michelson, 1972, p. 304; Wendling & Cohen,
1981). In their study of the impact of school size on drop out rates, Pittman and
Haughwout (1987) discovered an association between increased enrollment and lower
rates of student achievement, concluding that for every 400-student increase in
enrollment size, the drop out rate of the high school increased by 1% (p. 343).
A seminal empirical study that relates the impact of increased enrollment on
student achievement is that of Lee and Smith (1997). These researchers conducted
regression analysis of a National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS) data of
9,812 students from 789 public, Catholic, and elite private high schools. They analyzed
data to model student achievement growth over the four years of high school as a

62

function of the characteristics of students and of the schools they attended. What they
discovered provides insight into the relationship between school enrollment size and
student achievement. In general, smaller schools were more effective in terms of student
learning gains (p. 210). In examining school characteristics they discovered that
socioeconomic status was lowest in very small and very large schools (<600 and >2,500
respectively) (p. 211). They also found concentrations of minority students to be highest
in very large schools (p. 212). They found learning levels most equitably distributed in
small and medium-sized schools, and greatly stratified in large and very large schools (p.
213). Learning equity distribution and stratification was most evident in reading
comprehension (p. 213).
Also from this study, Lee and Smith (1997) found that students learn considerably
more mathematics in higher socioeconomic schools, which are typically smaller than
lower socioeconomic schools. Lee and Smith discovered that mathematics scores differ
by one full standard deviation as school size increased from medium to large to very
large (p. 213). However, when it came to reading comprehension, they discovered that in
high-minority schools enrolling over 1,800, students gain, on average, very little over the
course of high school (p. 215). And in the very largest schools (>2,500), regardless of
minority concentration, students gain almost nothing in math and reading comprehension.
Lee and Smith argue that large schools are quite problematic environments for learning,
especially those that enroll high proportions of minority and low-SES students (p. 215).
Lee and Smith conclude their discussion by offering that the data showed an enrollment

63

size of 600-900 students to be optimal for learning for student groups of both high and
low socioeconomic status. Such an ideal was the case for mathematics and reading
comprehension (pp. 214-215). Despite these revelations large numbers of disadvantaged
students of color still attend high schools of a size where students of their demographic
learn the least (Lee & Smith, p. 215).
All of Lee and Smith’s findings are relevant to this discussion because they found
in virtually all cases positively correlatations between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement (p. 213). Therefore, according to their results, the wealthier a student is, the
less likely he or she is to be in an overcrowded school, and the more likely they he or she
is to have higher academic outcomes than less wealthy counterparts. Lee and Smith’s
study warrants further probing of the social, emotional, and intrapersonal implications of
the detrimental effects minority students experience in being relegated to large and very
large ineffective schools.
Similarly, Fowler and Walberg (1991) studied the impact of school size on
student outcomes in 293 New Jersey public high schools, discovering negative
correlations between school size and reading, math, and writing standardized test scores.
They also noted a positive correlation between enrollment size and drop out rates. Lee
and Burkam (2003) discovered a similar trend in their examination of National Education
Longitudinal Study (1988) data from 3,840 students from 190 urban and suburban high
schools. Despite empirical evidence showing a positive correlation between school size
and drop out rates, neither study is able to explain why. Answers to the “why” questions

64

are absent from the literature on school size. More qualitative study is needed to
determine more definitively why a positive correlation exists between school size and
drop out rates, and a negative correlation exists between school size and student
achievement rates.
School district size may also be related to student achievement rates. In contrast to
the Economy of Scale arguments for increased school size, Fowler and Walberg, (1991)
found that as the number of schools in a district increases there is a negative impact on
school resource allocation (p. 200). Fowler and Walberg offer Monk’s (1984) argument
as a possible explanation for this phenomenon. Monk argues that despite perceptions that
increased size equates to increased access to resources, as schools and districts actually
grow, more money is spent on supervision and less on classroom instruction and per-
pupil services. In other words, the amount of money spent on actual classroom materials
and resources remains constant as school/district enrollment increases; however, the
increase in size means that more money must be spent on logistical and nonacademic
expenditures.
In addition, we know that greater school size does not necessarily increase the
array of core-academic and college preparatory courses offered in large comprehensive
public high schools (Lee, et al., 2000). Monk’s (1984) argument may be a viable
explanation for this fact, though more qualitative study of large high schools and districts
is needed to substantiate why increased size may not equate to increased per-pupil
spending or improved student learning outcomes.

65

Ample quantitative data in the literature shows a negative impact of increased
school size and student achievement. Evidence in the literature also demonstrates that
smaller schools produce higher affective results than their larger counterparts. There
appears to be higher extracurricular participation and student satisfaction in small
schools. Lindsay (1982) found this to be true in public K-6 schools enrolling fewer than
100 students. Fowler and Walberg (1991) found the same rates of higher extracurricular
participation and student satisfaction in their examination of studies since the early 1970s
of the impact of school size on affective outcomes (p. 191). Furthering this argument,
Pittman and Haughwout (1987) discovered that large student bodies adversely affect the
school climate and students’ ability to identify with the school and its activities. Parental
participation in a school may also be negatively correlated to school size, which is
positively correlated to student learning outcomes (Guthrie, 1979; Walberg, 1984).
Fowler and Walberg’s (1991) quantitative study of NELS (1988) data on 293
public high schools in New Jersey substantiates some of the aforementioned affective
results of school size. They discovered that large school size negatively impacts student
satisfaction, student participation, student attendance, school climate, and a student’s
ability to connect with campus (p. 200). Likewise, they found that small schools
positively impact staff interactions, foster friendly relations between staff and students,
and provide students and staff with opportunities for greater “psychological involvement”
(p. 200)—although Fowler and Walberg do not clearly define what “psychological
involvement” means.

66

Furthering discussion of the relationships between school size and affective
outcomes, Lee, et al. (2000) interject sociological research into the discussion, offering
Weber’s (1947) and Bryk and Driscoll’s (1988) arguments as possible explanations for
the apparent negative correlation between school size and affective outcomes (p. 149).
These sociologists argue that human ties and interactions decrease as organizations
increase in size. Furthermore, they argue that organizational growth can inhibit personal
connections between individuals and communal organization (Lee, et al., p. 149).
Additionally, Lee, et al. mention that Barker and Gump (1964), Bryk and Driscoll
(1988), and Garbarino (1980) all found that size did, in fact, influence social interactions
within schools (p. 149).
Lee, et al.’s (2000) qualitative study of the impact of school size on curricular and
social relations in nine high schools (three large public, three small public, one large
Catholic, one small Catholic, and one small alternative public schools) provides much
insight to the discussion. The researchers found that social relations were clearly better in
small schools (p. 149) because stakeholders are more likely to know each other, which
may foster caring and accountability (pp. 158-159). In kind, they found large schools to
be highly bureaucratic and impersonal, whereas small school members specifically
characterized their school as a family or community (pp. 158-159).
Conversely, large school members in the study by Lee, et al. (2000) specifically
stated that their schools’ biggest disadvantage was the lack of community (pp. 158-159).
There were more reported discipline problems in the large schools, and more apparent

67

anonymity. Teachers in large high schools reported more isolation and more formal
communication than teachers in small schools (pp. 161-162). A number of the large
school teachers reported that no opportunities for communication with their colleagues
existed in their schools (pp. 161-162). Even more problematic is that some large urban
high school teachers reported concerns for their safety and serious lack of school spirit (p.
159). Finally, small school teachers were more likely to report friendliness and
socializing with each other outside of school (p. 159). These findings add significant
qualitative data to the discussion and substantiate the argument that small schools foster
more caring, supportive, communal environments conducive to greater learning
outcomes.
Kathleen Cotton (1996) reviewed 103 previously published materials on the
relationship between school size and various economic, affective and academic
outcomes. She found at least 14 empirical studies showing that small schools produce at
minimum learning gains equivalent to large schools. She found at least eight empirical
studies showing that small schools produce greater rates of academic achievement than
large schools, and discovered no study demonstrating that large schools produce greater
learning gains than small schools (p. 6). On the subject of student outlook and behavior,
she found at least 16 studies strongly supporting a student preference for small schools
over large ones (p. 7). She found a similar trend in her examination of studies on social
behavior, reporting at least seven empirical studies that showed fewer discipline problems

68

in small schools versus large schools. This effect was most powerful on low
socioeconomic and minority students (p. 7).
Cotton’s (1996) findings in studies on extracurricular participation and school size
are relevant as well. She found at least 16 empirical studies that showed overwhelmingly
higher rates of participation in small schools than in large schools (p. 8). This conclusion
is in spite of the many studies showing that large schools have more opportunities for
extracurricular participation, due to greater resource allocation and revenue streams.
However, Cotton cites Hamilton’s (1983) and Schoggen and Schoggen’s (1988) studies
that showing that large schools have a very high percentage of students who do not
participate in any extracurricular activities (Cotton, p. 8). These results might explain
Cotton’s finding that students in large schools experience a greater sense of alienation,
which is in turn associated with many other undesirable student outcomes and behaviors
(p. 9).
Finally, in her literature review, Cotton (1996) discovered positive correlations
between small school size and favorable interpersonal relations in at least 12 empirical
studies, and none indicating favorable interpersonal relations in large schools (p. 10).
Cotton’s review of 103 published materials on school size and economic, academic, and
affective outcomes is rich with detail and insight. What makes her discoveries most
relevant to current discussions on school size is that all of the studies she reviews are
from 1982 or later, making them relatively recent and still worthy of consideration for
policy implications.

69

It is worth noting an empirical study of small schools that presents views sharply
contrasting with the studies previously discussed: Mok and Flynn’s (1997) mixed-
methods study of 44 Catholic and 10 public high schools in Australia. They report
finding no significant difference in academic and affective outcomes between small and
large schools.
Furthermore, the previously discussed qualitative study, Lee, et al. (2000),
discovered some potentially negative social and affective results from small schools,
explaining that some students from small high schools mentioned being uncomfortable
with how much their teachers got to know about them. They mentioned that in some
cases, small school students reported being aware that their private lives were openly
discussed amongst teachers and staff and that this detracted from their overall feelings of
warmth and comfort with the campus. The perception amongst these students was that the
school’s smallness, proximity, and familiarity made personal information readily
available, thus affecting teachers’ behavior towards them (pp. 161-162). Although Lee et
al. (2000) did not find any qualitative responses from teachers themselves to substantiate
these perceptions, it is noteworthy that smallness was not seen as socially favorable by
every small school student interviewed. Mok and Flynn (1997) provided quantitative
surveys and qualitative questionnaires to their study participants: 4,949 Year 12 students
from 44 Catholic high schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. They provided
questionnaires to 570 Year 11 students who were enrolled in classes drawn from 10
public high schools located in the four metropolitan regions (metropolitan North, East,

70

South West, and West) of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The range in size of all
participating schools was from 234-1,274 students (p. 75). The quantitative surveys
indicated no significant statistical linear relationship between school size and quality of
school life (p. 77). They reported that students described large, clean, and tidy campuses
equipped with modern technology as the most desirable characteristics of a school (p.
78). They pointed out that students did not report small school size as a desirable
characteristic. Furthermore, Mok and Flynn mention that there were 122 qualitative
references to comprehensive diverse curriculums, known to be associated with larger
high schools, as desired by students in their schools (pp. 78-79). In summary, Mok and
Flynn assert that what students most want from their high schools are small classes, large
campus, wide range of course offerings, good library, large cafeteria, excellent sports
facilities, many extra-curricular activities, and adequate sized/supplied restroom facilities
(pp. 78-79). Because of these discoveries, Mok and Flynn conclude their article by
rejecting their initial hypothesis: that students in small schools experienced more
favorable school climates than students in large schools. They argue that the data they
collected did not substantiate their hypothesis (p. 79).
Although Mok and Flynn add another dimension to the present discussion, some
aspects of their study inhibit reliability and transferability to an American school setting.
The researchers concede as much in their discussion (p. 81). First, the researchers do not
clearly define what “small and large schools” actually mean in their study. The largest
school they studied was 1,274 students, which according to Lee and Burkam’s (2003)

71

study on the impact of school size on drop out rates, is a medium-sized school. Also, 44
of the 54 schools studied by Mok and Flynn were Catholic schools, which represents an
extreme sampling bias in their participants if discussing school size and its implications
in an American setting. We know that, by definition, Catholic schools have students of
higher than average socioeconomic status and, in turn, we know that socioeconomic
status impacts schooling outcomes.
In summary: We know that large schools and large school districts have access to
greater resource allocation and revenue streams. We know that this increased access may
not always translate into greater per-pupil spending on classroom instructional material.
We know that large high schools have greater curricular offerings, curricular diversity,
and curricular specialization. Yet, we also know that this curricular variation may lead to
tracking, which can cause an educational caste system, with affluent and middle class
Whites and Asians at the top, and working class Blacks and Latinos at the bottom. We
know that small high schools have more constrained curriculums, with instruction aimed
at the middle of the ability distribution. In kind, we know that small schools have greater
equity distribution and higher average rates of student achievement. We know that 600-
900 students appears to be the ideal school size for all socioeconomic groups in terms of
math and reading comprehension gains (Lee & Smith, 1997: pp. 214-215). We know that
students learn considerably more in higher socioeconomic schools, and that high
percentages of students of color are relegated to very large schools where students who
fit their characteristics typically learn the least. We know that small schools have higher

72

affective outcomes and higher quality social climates than large schools. We also know
that as schools increase in size, social relations and interpersonal communications
diminish. We know that large high schools have lower rates of satisfaction, higher rates
of discipline problems, and increased feelings anonymity. We know that rates of
extracurricular participation are higher in small schools. Conversely, we know that there
are high percentages of students in large schools who do not participate in extracurricular
activities whatsoever. We also know there is a greater likelihood of staff communication,
collaboration, and socialization in small schools. We do know that there is a potentially
negative perception of teacher familiarity with students’ personal lives and the impact on
teacher behavior toward students; whether factual or not, the perception exists among
students, and that in itself could impact students’ general feelings of comfort toward the
small high schools they attend. Finally, we know that students desire clean, tidy,
technologically advanced school campuses with small class sizes. The last of these
features is most likely to exist in small schools, versus large or very large schools.

73

Teacher Collaboration

Neither the school nor the district has ever formally studied the impact of Vincent
High School’s teacher collaboration meetings on student outcomes. The district has
allowed the teacher collaboration schedule to continue for the last four years, despite
uncertainty about its impact on student outcomes, on teachers’ attitudes, or on teachers’
instructional practices. The literature on teacher collaboration suggests the same
uncertainty exists in the field. There seems to be little empirical data in the literature to
support a positive or negative correlation between teacher collaboration and students’
academic outcomes. There is little in the literature to support with any certainty that
teacher collaboration raises students’ standardized test scores, increases average student
achievement, lowers student drop out rates, or increases student-teacher relationships.
Conversely, there is qualitative support in the literature that teacher collaboration
may foster a greater sense of teacher community, raise teachers’ diversity awareness,
facilitate teacher learning (which may indirectly positively impact student learning), help
to improve overall school climate, heighten teachers’ sense of empowerment over
difficult school climactic conditions, invite innovation of teaching methodologies, and
strengthen the relationship between teachers and administrators. Additionally,
collaboration and collegiality have shown promise with increasing affective outcomes
amongst preservice teacher candidates. There indeed appears to be little-to-no
quantitative empirical data in the literature showing a positive correlation between
teacher collaboration and student achievement rates. Yet we have reason to believe that

74

teacher collaboration may foster positive affective outcomes on teacher attitudes,
practices, and perceptions, which may have residually positive impacts on student
achievement.
At this point in the discussion, defining the practice of teacher collaboration is
necessary. Notably, one obstacle in studying, generating, and analyzing empirical data on
teacher collaboration’s impact on student outcomes is the lack of consensus in the
literature about exactly how to implement teacher collaboration, what forms it should
take, and how to measure its outcomes. For purposes of this discussion, the author
defines teacher collaboration as teachers regularly meeting to talk to each other about
what they are doing in the classroom, what they are reading in the professional and
academic literature on instructional practices and related education issues, and the
professional work and activities they engage in; and, through these regular conversations,
meetings, and activities, teachers seek out and compare promising practices they can use
to teach their current and future students (Uhl & Pérez-Sellés, 1995: p. 259). Fullan
(1993) argues that teacher collaboration is vital and fundamental to school transformation
because it builds capacity for change in individuals and organizations. Teacher
collaboration generates routine methods for educational personnel to explore, investigate,
and positively affect instruction. Teacher collaboration is a productive strategy for
developing an organizational culture that makes self-correction the norm (Sarason, 1990,
p. 129). Additional literature (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Loven, Fine, Bryant-
Shanklin, & Martinez, 2003; Maloch, Harmon, Wilson, & Berne, 1999) suggests that

75

teacher learning communities are enriching and vital to personal reflection and improving
practice. Personal transformations may occur when teachers get together, discuss their
practice, reflect on their methods, compare/contrast their successes/failures, and absorb
constructive criticism (Wilson & Berne, 1999). Wilson and Berne, citing Lord’s (1994)
study, discuss a phenomenon known as “Critical Citizenship” (p. 195), arguing that a
group of people experiencing a common plight over time helps to forge lasting
relationships. This bond allows for a cohort of teachers to wade collectively through the
rough waters of discomfort and develop mutual trust and salutary dependency through
regular collaboration (Wilson & Berne). Wilson and Berne also contend that professional
development designs that allow for regular teacher collaboration meetings and
discussions in which teachers present new knowledge and practices, collectively discuss
issues, and effectively model ideas best facilitate teacher learning.

76

Johnston, Duvernoy, McGill, and Will (1996) add that collaboration that includes
teachers, university teacher education faculty, and/or school administrators helps to
eradicate mistrust and misperceptions held by these different groups of stakeholders
about the others. They further argue that this practice allows teachers to continue their
journey as professional learners and reflect on their own practices (p. 177). Wilson and
Berne (1999) argue that despite the difficulty of this mutual discussion and collaboration,
teachers (and preservices) learn that these interactions amongst professional peers are
crucial to their own reflection, growth, development, and self-critique as professional
educators.
Hayes (2002) argues that exposure both to varying viewpoints via regular
collaboration with professional peers and to models of success in their craft makes it
easier for teachers (preservice and in-service) to critique their own practice and bridge
performance gaps. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) argue that community discourse
facilitated via teacher collaboration allows groups of teachers to engage in collaborative
analysis, to dissect common problems and successes and to generate data and alternatives
that support positive claims and resolve lingering gaps in practice (p. 294).
Markedly, the literature contains a higher volumes of qualitative studies on the
impact of collaboration and collegiality on preservice teacher candidates than on in-
service teachers. However, a number of qualitative studies in the literature do show the
positive affective results of teacher collaboration on in-service teachers (Uhl & Pérez-
Sellés, 1995; Weinstein, Madison, & Kuklinski, 1995). Therefore, even though this

77

literature review is concerned primarily with studies relating to in-service teacher
collaboration, the impact of collaboration and collegiality on preservice teacher
candidates remains relevant because of the scant nature of such studies on affective
outcomes of in-service teachers and of academic student outcomes and because despite
differences in the professional status of in-service teachers and preservice teacher
candidates, the existing literature does suggest overall positive affective results of teacher
collaboration.
Studies by Lemlech and Kaplan’s (1990) and Wadlington et al. (1999) indicate
that arranging preservice teacher candidates into cohort-style communities of learners
and/or as collegial pairs in a teacher education program is promising for instructional
practices. These arrangements assist teacher candidates in grasping the pedagogical
content knowledge and ease the stress and uncertainty that can typify the preservice
experience. This argument is consistent with Wilson and Berne’s (1999) contention that
professional development designed to allow for teacher collaboration is the best
facilitator of in-service teacher learning. Additionally, Lemlech and Kaplan and
Wadlington et al. argue that providing preservice teacher candidates with opportunities
for modeling, discourse, and reflection establishes a valuable mental framework for
understanding practical examples of in-service teacher activities.
Similar inferences about collegiality and team teaching can be drawn from
preservice clinical practices. For purposes of this discussion, the author defines
collegiality as preservice teacher candidates engaging in clinical practice student-teaching

78

as pairs. Teacher candidate pairs are assigned to one cooperating teacher for the duration
of the student-teaching clinical practice semester. These paired preservice teacher
candidates plan lessons together, implement instructional practices and activities on a
team-basis, and offer each other constructive feedback on lessons and instructions
(Lemlech & Kaplan, 1990). This particular structural design of clinical practice student
teaching is a form of collaboration, and has shown promising affective results in
preparing teacher candidates to become aware of and improve gaps in practice (Lemlech
& Kaplan).
Collegiality is beneficial for preservice teacher candidates for several key reasons:
it allows candidates to establish camaraderie, ease anxiety, reflect on practice, establish
trust, assistant one another in planning and implementation, ease transitions, and break
new teaching responsibilities into manageable challenges (Lemlech & Kaplan, 1990;
Wadlington et al., 1999). Studies by Lemlech and Kaplan and Wadlington et al. suggest
that establishing a practice of collegiality and/or team teaching for clinical practice in
teacher education would better enable preservice teacher candidates to comprehend the
responsibilities and requirements of in-service teaching instructional methodologies.
In their research of teacher education programs designed in a collaborative
cohort-style, Maloch et al. (2003) discovered that first-year teachers from such teacher
education programs embraced the concept of community of learners. The researchers
argue that such programs instill in their teachers the need to stay in contact with and lean
on other educators for support, feedback, and continued professional development (p.

79

447). Furthermore, Maloch et al. (2003) discovered that first-year teachers from
collaborative cohort-style teacher education programs often develop electronic virtual
communities of email, discussion boards, and blogs (p. 447). These virtual communities
of teacher learners can provide much-needed professional support for first-year teachers.
Also, Maloch et al. (2003) discovered that teachers from collaborative cohort-style
teacher education programs often keep in contact with their teacher education faculty for
occasional clarification and ideas on instructional strategies and experiences (p. 447).
Because teacher education models these concepts from day one, Maloch et al. explain,
teachers naturally continue to develop and value these relationships and teacher
communities.
Maloch et al.’s (2003) research also supports that the positive impacts of pre
service teacher collaboration have residual effects during in-service teaching. For
example, Maloch et al. discuss that once they become in-service, these teachers often
embrace the concept of voluntary involvement in professional development workshops
and summer institutes (p. 447). This commitment may be because the cohort environment
allows such teacher candidates opportunities as aspiring educators to gain insight into
how much pedagogical knowledge they are yet to acquire, perhaps also highlighting gaps
in their instructional practices.
The development of trust among collaborative team members takes time, but it it
is necessary for collaborative team members to acknowledge areas of improvement in the
presence of others (Cochran-Smith & Lyte, 1999; Maloch et al. 2003; Wilson & Berne,

80

1999). There is evidence of a relationship between regular preservice collaboration and
the forging of group trust. Additionally, modeling positive collaboration and interactions
amongst peers as preservice teacher candidates appears to have residual positive affective
impacts on those same individuals as in-service teachers (Maloch et al., 2003).
With regard to fostering professional trust via technology for purposes of teacher
collaboration, Weiner (2002) proposes new “Circles of Inquiry” in the form of on-line
workshops and meeting places so that university faculty, K-12 educators and
administrators, and even community stakeholders may engage in continuous open
dialogue to discuss, deliberate, debate, and resolve recurring problems within urban
education (259). Weiner argues that establishing these “Circles of Inquiry” represents the
first step in beginning interactions between several groups of stakeholders who, of late,
have operated in almost complete isolation from each other, despite perceived common
goals. These on-line virtual communities could be used for in-service teachers to
collaborate, deliberate, dialogue, and discuss common issues in education and
instructional practice.
Although there is little empirical data to support theories of on-line virtual
communities of teacher collaboration, one study shows that such virtual discussion
boards can dispell preservice teacher candidates’ stereotypes of unfamiliar ethnic groups.
Lacina and Patience’s (2005) studied the attitudes of White preservice teacher education
students in Texas. As teacher education faculty members at a Texas university, Lacina
and Sowa (2005) required their teacher candidates to participate in a virtual on-line

81

discussion board. Lucina and Sowa required weekly participation of their teacher
candidates with pertinent issues and debate topics that were candidate-and-teacher
generated. The researchers went a step further by finding three outside educators to
participate. Two were international educators (one from Egypt and one from Japan). The
third outsider was an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher from North Carolina.
Lastly, Patience Sowa, one of the researchers, participated in the discussion board. She
was born and raised in Ghana. Researchers included this collection of diverse outsiders
for the discussion board to expose teacher candidates to unfamiliar opinions and
viewpoints. Based on qualitative journal entries of the participants, preservice teacher
candidates in Lucina and Sowa’s (2005) study experienced some positive transformation
in their attitudes towards lower socioeconomic people of color.
Many of the preservice teacher candidates who participated in the study reported
having little or no experience with people of color. Some expressed early on that they did
not feel that people from “third world” countries valued education as much as Americans
(p. 67). Similarly, many early responses of the preservice educators were rife with
ethnocentricity in all of their world views (p. 67). At the end of the semester, upon
completing participation in the on-line discussion board collaborative community, the
participants expressed that the experience helped them become aware of and be able to
face their stereotypes of people of color. Many also confided to holding erroneous views
about the circumstances of people of color and that the discussion board collaborative
community helped them to correct those views (Lucina & Sowa, 2005, p. 70). The results

82

of this study provide support to previous arguments that collaboration in the form of
structured and regular dialogue implemented via on-line discussion boards, may lead to
positive changes to preservice teacher candidates’ attitudes. More study is needed of this
phenomenon with in-service teachers.
Weinstein et al.’s (1995) study of the impact of teacher collaboration on in-
service teachers’ attitudes is relevant to this discussion as well. Their study focused on
the obstacles that a collaborative team of 8 teachers (various core academic disciplines)
and two administrators faced in raising their own expectations of 9
th
-graders at risk of
failing in an urban high school. In this qualitative study researchers attended and
catalogued the results of regular collaboration meetings between teachers and
administrators. The teachers, administrators, and two researchers met in a weekly 2-hour
meeting in which they read research literature, and designed, implemented, and evaluated
innovations, practices, and policies designed to help raise the performance of 9
th
-graders
at the school in danger of failing multiple classes (p. 127). The innovations that came
from these collaborative sessions evolved for the duration of the study (2 years),
depending on intermediary results (p. 127).
The findings of Weinstein et al.’s (1995) study are congruent with other literature
reviewed in this discussion regarding the positive impact of teacher collaboration in
raising teachers awareness, correcting gaps in practice, and improving self-efficacy and
attitudes towards the abilities of their students. The researchers found that initially the
eight teachers expressed great doubts about their students’ abilities to grasp the material

83

and about their own and their colleagues’ abilities to instruct these students effectively (p.
152). Initial teacher perceptions of many of their urban students was that they were
unwilling and unmotivated to learn, they also believed that the administration was
unresponsive to their needs (p. 152).
However, over time the collaboration meetings showed promise in changing these
defeatist attitudes amongst the participating teachers. Weinstein et al. (1995) discuss that
the collaborative meetings encouraged the creation of consistent, stimulating, and
supportive conditions for school staff to exchange, plan and take action, and evaluate
areas of needed improvement in personal practice and organizational school culture (p.
153). Furthermore, the collaborative meetings “focused on systematic inquiry, provided
resources (readings, instructional materials, practical support), built linkages between
people and between roles, empowered individuals, and reinforced positive change” (p.
153). The collaboration meetings allowed teachers to support one another and to make
necessary changes in instructional practice. The teachers also began to experience their
students differently, acknowledging new positive student behaviors and questioning
negative expectations (p. 154).
Finally, participating teachers admitted to noticing fewer constraints in their
duties as educators and, as time passed, challenges no longer seemed insurmountable, but
were anticipated and accommodated (p. 153). Although the sample size of this study is
extremely small (only eight urban high school teachers), and the study design is context-
specific, the results reveal some promise for teacher collaboration raising teacher

84

expectations of students, self-efficacy, and the willingness to accept new innovations of
instructional practice.
To conclude this discussion, let us summarize what we are yet to learn and what
we currently know about teacher collaboration. First, we have little empirical evidence to
support positive or negative impacts of teacher collaboration on students’ academic
outcomes. We have inconsistent definitions of what teacher collaboration is, how to
differentiate between its possible forms, how to implement it , what its goals and
objectives are, and how to measure its outcomes. We have a great need for quantitative
and qualitative study of issues pertaining to teacher collaboration.
We know that teacher collaboration has shown promise in producing positive
affective outcomes amongst in-service teachers and preservice teacher candidates. We
know that teacher collaboration may help to dispel in-service teachers and preservice
teacher candidates’ stereotypes about their students. We know that teacher collaboration
may help to raise the self-efficacy of in-service teachers and preservice teacher
candidates in educating the students. We know that teacher collaboration may help to
forge greater levels of trust amongst groups of in-service teachers and preservice teacher
candidates. We also know that regular collaboration involving teachers and
administration may help to foster higher levels of trust between in-service teachers and
their school administrators. We know that exposing preservice teacher candidates to the
practice of regular collaboration may raise their comfort levels for this practice later as
in-service teachers. We also know that allowing preservice teacher candidates to engage

85

in clinical practice student teaching as collegial pairs may heighten their
acknowledgement of gaps in instructional practice and improve accordingly.
We know that teacher collaboration (preservice and in-service teachers) via on-
line virtual discussion communities has shown promise in a limited number of studies in
exposing teachers to new points of view and therefore helping to dispel negative
stereotypes and assumptions about working class people of color. We have reason to
believe that transforming schools involves regular teacher collaboration and reflection,
yet there are numerous possibilities in the literature for what these practices may look
like. We also have reason to believe that the most effective forms of professional
development involve regular teacher collaboration. Finally, we have support and sound
arguments for implementing regular teacher collaboration in K-12 schools. Yet, as a
field, we still have much data to gather and analyze before we can conclude with greater
certainty what the long-term impacts are that this practice may produce.
Block Scheduling

An abundance of literature exists on block schedules in high schools. Some of
these articles are presentations of empirical findings, and some are theoretical arguments
and position papers based on previous studies and authors’ personal philosophies and
previous research. The researcher identified some seminal studies as well, which
provided a theoretical framework for several other authors’ arguments on block
schedules.

86

One difficulty in comparing/contrasting the existing bodies of knowledge on
block schedules with Vincent High’s use of blocks is that there was no precedence in the
literature found for the specific design that Vincent High uses. This discrepancy is no
doubt because a committee of Vincent teachers actually created the design itself based on
discussions and innovation of other block schedules. Much of the research focused
primarily on 4X4 semester blocks. With this model, students take four classes per
semester. Classes are two times longer than the traditional 55-minute, six periods per day
schedules because students in this 4X4 model complete a year-long course in a single
semester. Vincent High School does not utilize this model, therefore, the researcher was
not able to identify trends in the literature directly relevant to the specific structure of
Vincent’s rotating block schedule.
Despite this hindrance, probing and analyzing what the literature currently says
about block scheduling in general and the specific block schedules remains valuable.
First, we must define what “block schedule” means. Cawleti (1994) explains it as when at
least part of the day is organized into larger blocks to allow flexibility (Irmsher, 1996),
and The Center for Education Reform (CER, 1996) characterize block scheduling as a
restructuring of the school day whereby students attend half as many classes. These
definitions leave great room for interpretation and local manipulation when implementing
block schedules. The research has shown blocks to be promising in affective school
outcomes (Deuel, 1999; Irmsher,1996; McGee, 2003; Queen, 2000). But there is a school

87

of thought in the literature that argues that the datum is inconclusive and incomplete on
the impact of block scheduling (CER, 1996).
The potential benefits of block scheduling are plentiful. Blocks allow for more
class meeting time, which may translate into more in-depth learning, higher morale, and
better grades (CER, 1996). Block schedules also allow for more flexible classroom
environments; better student-teacher relations; better mastery of course material; and are
overall a more effective use of school time (Irmsher,1996). Block schedules have been
shown to be effective in raising student achievement in several longitudinal, local, and
national studies (Deuel, 1999; Queen, 2000;). Block scheduling gives teachers the
freedom to use a wider array of teaching strategies; some examples include: cooperative
learning, case method, Socratic Seminar, Synetics, Concept Attainment, Inquiry Method,
and Simulations (Queen). All of these methods are a welcome break from lecturing, and
require higher order cognition than simple passive listening during, which is not to
suggest, however, that simply implementing block schedule will eradicate the
overabundant use of lectures. In fact, there is evidence that even in innovative schools
experimenting with block schedules teachers rely far too much on the antiquated lecture
method of teaching, as much as 30% of the time (Queen & Isenhour, 1998).
These findings are significant in that they remind us that simply adopting new
innovations does not provide the whole solution. Teachers need sufficient training,
preparation, and new knowledge to adopt new innovations that will have a positive
impact on student achievement (Irmsher, 1996; Queen, 2000). Of note are Corley’s

88

(1997) findings that teaching veterans of 15-20 years are the least innovative, and the
least likely to experiment with new methods. This data reveals that veteran teachers have
a propensity for complacency when it comes to varied instruction and that effective
professional development must be a crucial component of any school or district’s plan to
adopt block scheduling. Lecture remains the most common teaching strategy in high
school classrooms (Queen, 2000), and most teachers who have transitioned to blocks
from traditional schedules report a lack of sufficient training from the district in advisable
methodologies for block schedule teaching (Hart, 2000; Jenkins, 2000). Therefore the
onus is on the school district to provide teachers with viable avenues for acquiring the
new knowledge necessary to inspire student achievement gains once they implement
block schedules.
The promise of block scheduling is significant. Several studies identify immense
stakeholder satisfaction with block scheduling via pretest-posttest and posttest-only
designs (Deuel, 1999; Hottenstein, 1998; Queen, Algozzine, & Eaddy, 1997; Shortt &
Thayer,1995). The ultimate success of block schedules in a school/district, especially
during the initial switch from traditional scheduling, hinges largely on teacher buy-in.
District and site administrators can do a lot to cultivate this buy-in by providing teachers
with opportunities to widen their array of advisable and promising instructional practices
through professional development.
Cunningham and Nogle (1996) suggest methods for block schedule training, such
as interactive lectures, warm up games, cooperative learning groups, large group

89

discussions, peer coaching, guided practice activities, creative projects, and
games/puzzles. Queen, Burrell, and McManus (2000) explain that teachers should
transition activities every 15 minutes or so during longer block schedule periods.
Teachers need exposure to these useful ideas and strategies so that block periods do not
become 90-minute lectures, as is often the case (Queen, 2000). Professional development
is thus essential for easing the transition into block scheduling and bridging teachers
knowledge gaps.
Assuming schools implement blocks in a cohesive and workable manner that is
flexible and attentive to local needs (what Irvine, [1988] refers to as a “Loosely Coupled
System”), and provide feasible and proven professional training, blocks very well may
correlate to positive student achievement gains. One such realm is in the affective results
of block schedules. To begin with, Canady and Retting (1995) note that blocks can
positively impact student-teacher relationships. These researchers note that blocks
schedules can lead to the development of better personal relationships between teachers
and students, thus contributing to improvements in student behavior, Eineder and Bishop
(1997) found that after a switch to block scheduling, 95% of teachers and 80% of
students felt that student-teacher relationships had improved. They explain that this
enhancement could perhaps be due to the block structure’s allowance of more time on
preventative discipline measures, such as relationship-building and constructive
consequences. Longer periods allow time for these options, as opposed to simply sending
students to the office. In a study of a school district over a four-year period. Queen,

90

Algozzine, and Eaddy (1997) discovered that 70%-80% of teachers, students, and parents
believed block scheduling was successful and worth continuing. These results suggest
positive affective results with the switch to block schedules. Similarly, in his research of
10 Florida high schools that had adopted block schedules, Deuel (1999) found significant
drops in formal discipline problems routing through the offices in the aftermath of the
switch. Wert (2002) found positive perceptions of block schedules by stakeholders in a
large high school, perhaps contributing to positive student achievement gains and an
increase in general satisfaction with the school.
These affective results stand to reason, as the greater length of period-time in
blocks schedules allows teachers greater flexibility when discipline problems arise.
Teacher are no longer under such intense time pressures to “get through” (term defined
loosely) the lesson. With the block’s longer period, the teacher has the opportunity to
stop, analyze, and diagnose the true nature of the misbehavior, make a rational decision,
and determine appropriate steps (be they punitive or constructive). Some examples of
constructive consequences (versus simply sending students to the office) could be a
simple private chat right outside the door, moving a student’s seat, verbal/nonverbal cues,
letters of apology, providing the misbehaving student with some means with which to
assist the teacher with class routines (i.e., passing out/collecting papers and materials),
and even assisting peers with the class material where appropriate. Block schedules
provide teachers with an additional resource that traditional schedules preclude: more
time. The potential strategies afforded by block schedules may explain some of the

91

positive affective results that Canady and Retting (1995), Eineder and Bishop (1997),
Deuel (1999), and even Hackman and Waters (1998) discovered in their research.
The heretofore positive results of block scheduling present in the literature do not
stop with affective outcomes. Several longitudinal empirical studies show that block
schedules have also had a positive impact on student achievement (Deuel, 1999; Schroth
& Dixon, 1996; Shortt & Thayer, 1995; Zhang, 2001). What we do know is that some
schools that have shown success in educating high poverty, high minority student
populations are using block schedules (McGee, 2003; Mutter, Chase, & Nichols, 1997).
In his study of 59 effective high poverty “Golden Spike” Schools in Illinois, McGee
(2003) mentions that flexible alternative scheduling, including blocks, was a common
characteristic of many of these schools. McGee also discusses many other commonalities,
but he catalogues schools that use blocks in his study. What is missing, however, from his
research in relation to this discussion is an analysis of the potential impact and
effectiveness of alternative scheduling in these schools. Though it is promising to know
that other effective high poverty schools utilize blocks schedules, it important to know
specifically why blocks may or may not be impacting student achievement in these
schools. That type of analysis is missing from McGee’s presentation. Deuel found blocks
to have a positive impact on student achievement as well. In a three-year study of 23
Florida high schools (10 block and 13 traditional) Deuel found students in block schedule
schools to have more As, Bs, and Cs. Interestingly, he discovered fewer overall Fs with
students in block schools as well. He also found that students in block schools have

92

higher grades in advanced math courses. Importantly, this study indicates that other
effective high minority high poverty schools in the United States also utilize block
scheduling, thus pointing to a common characteristic among effective schools with low-
income students. Deuel also identified the potential affective benefits of block schedules.
He discusses that teachers reported greater job satisfaction, a decrease in discipline
problems, and consensus among counselors and administrators about improvement in the
school’s climate. After the first year, all stakeholders had higher than 50% approval
ratings for the block schedules.
These findings are significant, especially considering that Deuel’s (1999)
population size was over 49,000 students for the duration of the three-year study. Missing
from his study, however, is a detailed description of the formats and models of the blocks
he studied. He utilized qualitative data, including operations and interviews, therefore
such information would have been readily available through his methods of gathering
data. Knowing exactly what the blocks looked like in schools where they showed such
academic and affective promise would be helpful.
To be sure, the available empirical data on the impact of block schedules on
student achievement are less abundant than positive affective and logistical results
(Zepeda & Mayers, 2006), which may explain why there is still quite resounding
criticism of block scheduling. Simply changing to blocks does not ensure school success
(Strock & Hottenstein, 1994). A lack of adequate staff training to help implement block
scheduling increases the chances of an ineffective transition and a failure to cultivate

93

teacher buy-in (Canaday & Rettig, 1995; Strock & Hottenstein, 1994). Strong Visionary
leadership is a common characteristic of many effective high minority high poverty
schools, and there maybe a lack of such leadership in schools that switch to blocks
(Irvine, 1988; McGee, 2003). Without such leadership guiding the school through the
unfamiliar waters of block schedules, a veteran staff entrenched in previous models may
fail to make the transition.
Also, Shortt and Thayer (1995) argue that blocks pose problems for schools when
students transfer from a school with one model of scheduling to another.
Counterbalancing Deuel’s (1999) results of significant increases in student achievement,
Schroth and Dixon (1996) and Shortt and Thayer found only slight, statistically
negligible changes in the standardized test scores of students in block schedules versus
traditional schedules. Queen (2000) discussed a Pennsylvania high school that tracked the
impact of blocks on its student achievement. School officials found little difference in
student PSAT and academic grade scores after adopting block schedules. However, this
school was suburban and there was certainly no negative impact found as a result of the
block schedule. York (1997) found similarly inconclusive results in 10
th
-grade math,
reading, and writing score comparisons of students in block versus traditional schedules
in Texas high schools. Although there were no significant statistical differences from the
blocks, there were no significant negative impact on test scores either. Next, Queen
reports that often in blocks there is lower content retention from one level of a subject to
another, and a significant overuse of lecture. Skrobarcek et al. (1997) similarly reports

94

that in blocks much instructional time wasted when teachers fail to vary instruction.
Finally, Hart (2000) asserts that often times teachers are not prepared to take full
advantage of the additional time that block schedules afford, which is why adequate and
effective professional development must accompany the transition.
In conclusion, the datum is scattered and inconclusive on the impact of block
schedules. The research shows that blocks are promising and potentially beneficial
affectively, logistically, and empirically. However there is still much to discover about
the various impacts of block scheduling on student achievement and school climates. We
know that some schools have successfully educated high poverty high minority student
populations using block schedules. We have examples of slight increases or no decrease
in student achievement scores on standardized test where blocks are in use. We know of
examples where sharp rises in overall student course-grades have occurred after school
adopted blocks. We know that there are multiple examples of stakeholders (teachers,
parents, students, and administrators) reporting great satisfaction with block schedules in
both pretest-posttest and post-only design studies. We know that multiple studies indicate
a reduction in discipline problems after schools made the switch to block schedules.
We also know that teacher, students, parents, and administrators report positive
affective outcomes upon the switch to block schedules. In such cases, student-teacher
relationships, and overall student and teacher satisfaction has improved upon the adoption
of block schedules. We also know that block schedules provide teachers with more per
period time to incorporate interactive and engaging teaching strategies and to experiment

95

with less-punitive and more constructive consequence for instances of misbehavior. At
best, this current body of knowledge on block scheduling provides rationale for
continuing its use. At worst, this current body of knowledge provides no compelling
reasons for not attempting block schedules, especially in those school environments
where there has been little-to-no improvement in student achievement. These studies
justify further exploration of Vincent High School unprecedented gains in API scores
over the last five years and its unique, locally created rotating semester block schedule.
Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of the school’s rotating block schedule also
warrants further analysis.
School Grading Policies

An examination of the literature on school grading policies reveals that Vincent
High School is not alone in its heretofore lack of formal study of the impact and effects
of its grading policy. The literature on school grading policies is deficient in formal
research on the impact of a “No D” Policy in schools. This specific policy does not
appear to be common at any level of K-12 schooling. As such, there is a glaring need for
study of the impact and effects of this policy on student academic achievement,
standardized test performance, and student motivation. Despite the apparent lack of “No
D” Policy studies in K-12 education, an adequate body of literature on the impact,
effects, designs, and perceptions of grading policies in K-12 education in general does
exist.

96

Literature on K-12 grading policies reveals inconsistencies in implementation,
lack of clarity, lack of predictive validity, lack of uniformity, lack of district guidance,
failure to incorporate teachers’ values, and inconsistent correlations between grades and
test scores (Austin & McCann, 1992; Blynt, 1992; Brookhart, 1993; Farkas, Sheehan, and
Grobe, 1990; Ma, 2001; Willingham, Pollack, & Lewis, 2002). In addition, the literature
reveals that a student’s background and contextual school factors may heavily influence
grades (Ma, 2001; Farkas et al., 1990 ). The research tells us that teachers are often
unclear on how exactly to evaluate and determine grades (Austin & McCann). Similarly,
there is often no uniformity in grading practices at the district-wide, school-wide, or even
department-wide levels (Austin & McCann; Blynt; Willingham et al.). A teacher’s prior
beliefs, perceptions, values, and variations of altruism all impact their grading decisions
(Austin & McCann; Blynt; Brookhart; Willingham et al.). Related to this phenomenon, as
Goldman and Hewitt (1975) discuss, teachers tend to adapt their grading scale to the
ability of their students (Adaptive Level Theory). Finally, the literature indicates
inconsistencies in academic performance across the subjects and corresponding
standardized test scores at the school and student levels (Farkas et al.; Ma; Willingham et
al.). These revelations suggest that all stakeholders may be left unsure of what
conclusions to draw from the grades students “earn,” as there seems to be no clearly
defined understanding of how a grade reflects how students acquire knowledge, complete
work, motivate toward, or perform in a given course.

97

Lemann (1999) and Shepard (1992) have both suggested the shortcomings and
social concerns that accompany high stakes testing. Frederikson and Collins (1989) and
Frederikson, Glaser, Lesgold, and Shafto (1990) discuss how recent efforts to reform and
improve standardized testing have focused on establishing better links between
instructional objectives and testing. Therefore, the research community acknowledges a
persistant gap between instructional objectives, from which grades are derived, and
material on high stakes standardized tests.
In kind, Willingham et al (2002) conducted an extensive study to measure the
correlations between standardized test scores and student grades. The purpose of their
study was to account for observed differences between these two domains, and to suggest
a framework that might help explain those grade and test score differences. Using
regression analysis, this study showed differences between grades and test scores by
analyzing patterns of individual and group differences. They examined data from the
National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988 (N = 8,454 seniors from 581 high schools
nation-wide).
They found a positive correlation between English, math, science, and social
studies grades and corresponding standardized test scores. However, their data misleads
because other revelations from the study showed a lack of reliability in the reported
grades themselves, calling into question the positive correlations between grades and test
scores in their results. For example, even while controlling for student and school
background characteristics, they discovered that differences in the patterns of course

98

grading amongst schools accounted for three times as much grading variation as did the
overall differences from course to course. In effect, the researchers were unable to
identify course-grading patterns within individual schools.
They also discovered a relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and test
performance, suggesting that the impact of higher-SES is more evident in test scores than
in grades. Also, their data revealed the practice of passing less academically inclined
students, partly on the basis of effort, which could have produced grades that correlated
less with tested knowledge and skill (Willingham et al., 2002, p.23). In some cases there
were discrepancies in their data between grades and test scores, which the researchers
concluded had to do with errors in grades and incomplete information about students (p.
27). They further discovered some differences between grades and test scores because
teachers adjusted grades for attendance, effort, and behavior (p. 27). For instance, some
teachers in their studies mentioned that they passed students if “they tried hard” (p. 30).
This discovery calls into question what “trying hard” means, how to measure it, how its
presence should impact grades, and how to identify it. These revelations suggests that
there was clearly a presence of grading errors and instances of incomplete information
when tabulating students grades in their data.
With such inconsistencies and lapses in the information necessary for determining
how exactly grades were tabulated, we can not view positive correlations between grades
and test scores in this study as reliable and replicable. Specifically, we can not know for
certain exactly how teachers calculated grades, what variables grades related to, what

99

inputs helped to determine them, nor what values influenced them. The results of this
study (Willingham et al., 2002) provide further evidence for the arguments that grading
policies are inconsistent and unclear in what earned grades actually mean.
Another study, by Brookhart (1993), reveals the importance of teachers’ values
and perceptions in determining grades. Researchers sought to investigate the meaning
classroom teachers associate with grades, the value judgments they make when
considering grades, and if the meaning teachers associate with grades is influenced by
whether or not they had formal training in statistical measurement (dependent variables).
Further validating the relevance of this study, Barnes (1985), Manke and Loyd (1990),
and Stiggins and Conklin (1992) all argue that classroom teachers do not follow many of
the recommended practices for grading. Furthermore, Barnes discusses that teachers are
often uncomfortable with grading in the first place. Bolstering the strength of the results
of Brookhart’s study is the presence of a control group and a treatment group.
The population sample for this study was 84 practicing teachers, all of who were
graduate students in an Masters of Science in Education (MSEd) program at Duquesne
University. The treatment group (N = 40) had formal training in statistical measurement
in the MSEd program (independent variable), and the control group (N = 44) did not have
formal training in statistical measurement (independent variable). Researchers used
qualitative (open-ended questionnaires) and quantitative (Likert-style surveys) to
determine the dependent variables.

100

The results of Brookhart’s study (1993) reveal much about how teachers think and
feel about the requirement that they determine a grade for students. First, this study
reveals that teachers view grades as token-currency, that is, students’ “pay” for work
completed during the course of the semester. This perception of grades was evident with
both the control and treatment groups. Also, teachers frequently make value judgments
when determining grades, whether they have formal statistical training or not. That is,
teachers consider the implications and consequences of the grades they give. Related to
values in grading, teachers are concerned with students’ self-esteem and future
motivation towards school work when calculating grades. These revelations suggest that
grades are not always a true indicator of actual performance.
Teachers do think about fairness as well when determining grades (Brookhart,
1993). Fairness is of course a subjective construct, and its definition will differ from
person to person, and agenda to agenda. This variance makes understanding a particular
grade as much of an exercise in perceived measurement of a teacher’s fairness as it is of
a student’s performance in the course. Brookhart’s study reminds us that teachers may in
fact determine a grade as much with altruism as with actual student performance.
Finally, Brookhart’s (1993) study reveals that formal statistical training does not
change the amount or frequency of thought teachers engage with regard to grade
determination. A key difference between the statistical training group (treatment group)
and teachers without statistical training (control group) was that the treatment group
mentioned actual student performance as the most important evidence of a grade with

101

much greater frequency than the control group (p. 136). The control group mentioned
other factors such as effort, motivation, improvement, attitude, and behavior as evidence
for a grade far more than did the treatment group. Therefore, formal statistical training
may alter the way in which teachers think about grade determination, but not necessarily
the frequency of or values present in those thoughts.
One omission from Brookhart’s (1993) study is a discussion of the type of formal
training in statistical measurement by the treatment group. Therefore the reader is not
clear exactly what measurement class teachers took, what level, what learning activities
the class entailed, and how the grade was determined. This omission detracts from the
transferability of the results. The results of this study do, however, support the argument
that a teacher’s values and levels of altruism may influence how they determine grades.
These factors make grade uniformity less likely, which adds to the uncertainty of what
grades actually mean and determine.
We know that there is great variance in the format, structure, and implementation
of grading policies. We know that these discrepancies can occur at the district, school,
and even department levels. There is a lack of clear understanding about what a specific
grade a student earns in a particular course actually means in terms of knowledge
acquired in that course. Austin and McCann (1992) conducted an extensive qualitative
study of the grading practices and policies in English and math courses in 144 districts in
a Northeastern state. They examined excerpts from school board policy manuals, district
guidelines, teacher handbooks, and departmental guidelines, all of which participating

102

schools and districts provided. Their state’s policymakers commissioned the study, whose
purpose was to provide policymakers with a description of the variations of grading
policies and procedure in their state in order for them to make informed decisions
regarding educational reform.
The results of Austin and McCann’s (1992) study show that districts recommend
that teachers use different criteria for determining grades. For example, attendance,
attitude, student performance, discipline, and class participation were factors most
frequently present in the documents they provided on grading. However there was no
uniformity in the recommended formula to which teachers could refer when making final
grade calculations. The documents also discuss systems of oversight in the documents to
ensure that teachers adhere to the recommended policies and factors, as different as they
all were. There were different numbers of districts, schools, and departments that
specifically laid out formal policies and criteria regarding grading. For example 90 of the
144 districts provided formal policies and criteria generated by their school boards. This
means that 54 of the 144 districts studied in this Northeastern state had no formal policy
of criteria officially adopted by their school boards (pp. 8-9). Similarly, only 39 of the
144 districts provided documents on grading policies and criteria generated by the
English departments, and only 37 of the 144 districts provided similar documents
generated by the math departments (pp.8-9). This means that 105 and 107 of the English
and math departments (respectively) in the 144 districts had no formal departmental
policies regarding grading practices and criteria.

103

These revelations allow great room for interpretation and gaps of clarity in
understanding what a grade earned in the English and math courses of the participating
districts actually means. What district the student was in, what school he attended, who
his English and math teachers were, and what values and judgments these teachers
brought with them to the classroom heavily influenced the meaning of the grade earned.
Finally, not one of the 144 districts in the study provided any documents whatsoever to
the researchers regarding district or school-led staff development in the realms of training
for grading practices, procedure, and criteria. This last finding suggests that various
district personnel may not yet grasp the magnitude of the variance in the grading
practices of the schools and among the teachers under their auspices.
Austin and McCann’s (1992) findings put into clear focus how those districts,
schools, departments, and individual teachers often define and practice grading
differently. There is a lack of guidance at each level in how to engage in the practice of
grading, and most attempts by grading policies to satisfy all stakeholder needs fall short
of meeting any. This study is certainly not the first to identify the great variance in
grading policies. Clough, Davis, and Summer (1984), Evans (1976), Terwilliger (1977),
Traub. Nagy, MacRury, and Klaiman (1988), and Leiter and Brown (1983) all discuss as
much. However, Austin and McCann’s study is the most comprehensive, as they
extensively examined qualitative data from math and English courses provided by high
schools representing 144 districts from the same state. The large number of districts in
the population size of the study strengthen the reliability of their results. Teachers and

104

students alike have taken notice of the variance of grading policies at all levels of K-12
education, and of the potential confusion this variance may bring. Ruth Ann Blynt (1992)
a veteran High School English teacher published a nonempirical article incorporating
student quotes, personal anecdotes, and professional experience to support her arguments
against the arbitrary nature of grading. She argues that “grading is arbitrary at best,” and
that grading is an exercise in “sorting,” and that most teachers “rank their students into
“A” through “D” categories a week or 2 after meeting their students and reading their
writing” (p. 67). Blynt’s article provides the current discussion with further support for
the “unclear nature of grades and their propensity to be laden with values and judgments”
(p. 67).
The personal anecdotes and quotations from high school students Blynt (1992)
includes are new to the discussion and reveal that many students believe that grades do
not necessarily equate to learning whereas many even confided to sacrificing genuine
learning for earning grades (p. 67). These student quotations are reminiscent of the token
economy nature of grading that Brookhart’s (1993) study indicates, even by teachers’
perceptions. Blynt justifies the randomness of grading practices by discussing that pacing
concerns for standardized tests often trump all other teacher concerns. The overwhelming
scope of material they need to cover may influence how teachers determine and utilize
grades, although grades may not adequately represent genuine learning and student
performance on the final transcripts (p. 69). Perpetuating an irrational system, Blynt
finally discusses how many teachers see a student’s bad grades as rationale for the work

105

they are doing (p. 70). Although the genuine need for teachers and the noble work they
perform is not in question, Blynt does raise some concerns with her arguments that some
teachers fail to see repeatedly high rates of student failure as a sign of ineffective
teaching and grading practices. In contrast, Blynt provides a student quotation in which
“Brian” mentions that bad grades reflect the "bad job teachers are doing" (p.70). Blynt’s
discussion provides new insight and fresh perspectives from two stakeholders not
customarily represented in the existing literature on grading: teachers and students.
Although this article is not an empirical study, the student quotations and personal
anecdotes add to the discussion on inconsistency and variance in grading, and the
subsequent potential for confusion and curtailing of genuine learning these gaps may
bring.
Student background characteristics and contextual school factors may influence
grades and academic performances as much as any other criteria in grading practices. The
findings of two empirical studies support these claims. Farkas, et al. (1990) studied
course-grade differentials for gender, ethnicity, and poverty group scores for all middle
school students in a large urban school district. The population included 25 middle
schools that varied from 1,124 to 8,381 students. Ma (2001) used regression analysis to
measure correlations between various school-level and student-level variables in stability
of academic performance across the four core subjects (reading, writing, math, and
science) amongst 6,883 6
th
-grade Canadian students from 148 schools in New Brunswick,
Canada.

106

Farkas et al. (1990) discovered that overwhelmingly males did poorer
academically than females, and Asians had significantly higher grades than Whites,
Latinos, and Blacks. They also discovered that Latinos and Blacks had poorer grades than
Asians and Whites, and poorer students had worse grades than nonpoor students. They
identified correlations between all of these student-level variables and academic
performance, the strongest of which were between males and poorer grades and Asian
students and higher grades. Farkas, et al.’s study does not delve into or discuss possible
reasons for these differentials, therefore leaving many questions unanswered. However,
their study substantiates that earned grades may relate to factors beyond specific
knowledge constructs demonstrated by students. Ma’s (2001) study showed much of the
same, with her results indicating that students were differentially successful in different
subject areas (reading, writing, math, science) and that schools were differentially
effective in these four different subject areas. Furthermore, the study indicated that the
stability of performance across the four subject areas was relatively stronger at the school
level than at the student level. Also after adjusting for student and school background
characteristics, decreases in correlation coefficients were noticeable at the school level.
These findings support the idea that what school a student attends, and the
school’s contextual characteristics, may associate with earned grades in particular
subjects. Ma’s (2001) regression analysis findings also support Farkas et al.’s (1990)
findings that student background characteristic may also relate to the grades they earn.
With the revelations from both of these studies regarding the relationship between student

107

and school characteristics and grades earned, we are left to wonder what we can actually
“know” about a student’s learning from the grades they have earned. The findings of
these two studies call into question whether grades indicate actual student performance,
motivation, and effort, or perhaps whether factors beyond a student’s control bore an
equally strong influence on the grades reflected on their transcripts.
In summary, the literature informs and enlightens us and reinforces what we know
about grades and grading policies in schools. We know there is great variance in how
teachers calculate and determine grades. We know that this variance exists at the district,
school, and department levels. We know that teachers are not given much guidance from
superiors as to what criteria they should utilize to determine grades. We know that
grading practices, policies, and criteria are not a frequent topic of training at staff
developments. We know that teachers’ values, judgments, and levels of altruism may
impact how they determine grades. In kind, we know that teachers think about the
consequences of the grades they give, which may impact the bottom line of grades
indicated on final transcripts. We know that formally training teachers in statistical
measurement does not diminish the judgmental value-laden nature of grading, nor the
frequency with which teachers think about grades. We know that teachers and students
alike view grades as a token economy, which may detract from genuine meaningful
learning. We also know that students appear to be aware of inconsistency and variance in
teachers’ grading policies, which may impact how they approach each class. We know
that some teachers may view repeated rates of student failure as justification for the work

108

they are doing, thus perpetuating an ineffective cycle of learning. We know that grades
earned may not always correlate to standardized test scores in those subjects, and that
socioeconomic status may relate to such test scores even more than grades earned in the
corresponding courses. Finally, we know that student background characteristics and
school contextual factors may relate to grades earned as much as does a student’s
acquisition and demonstration of knowledge. These revelations support the conclusion
that grading is an inexact, unscientific, and subjective practice and is as much about
personal values as tabulating objective scores.
Summary of Review of Related Literature

A thorough review of the literature related to high-performing schools, school
choice, school size, teacher collaboration, block scheduling, and school grading policies
provides a framework in which to interpret, analyze, understand, and measure the
findings of this study. The review of the literature reveals much about what the field of
education currently knows and accepts with regard to the aforementioned domains of this
study. However the literature review also reveals areas needing further research. The
findings of this study begin to fill some of the current knowledge gaps for the field of
education.
For example, it is clear that high-performing schools typically have in common
effective visionary leadership. But what does this say about high-performing schools such
as Vincent High Schools that have experienced an extended state of flux in leadership

109

concurrently with its statistically anomalous student achievement gains? The current
study provides some qualitative answers to this question.
The literature on schools of choice reveals a sharp divide in the ethnicity and
income level of families that most often take advantage of school choice alternatives:
Whiter and richer families most often choose. However additional study is needed on
schools of choice such as Vincent High School, where nearly 100% of the students is of
color and working class. The current study provides some of this needed knowledge.
School size literature reveals that smaller schools typically produce higher
academic and affective student outcomes. However more qualitative study is needed of
such “smaller” schools to better determine what the stakeholders perceive the most
desirable and advisable characteristics of these small schools to be. Additional
observational data are needed of such “smaller” schools to better inform the field as to
how educators structure, arrange, organize, and lead these effective small schools. This
study seeks to accomplish those ends.
The field of education has much data to gather and discern in order to better
understand the potential effects of teacher collaboration. Very little in scholarly
circulation offers definitive conclusions about teacher collaboration. Although this study
is not specifically a longitudinal qualitative study of teacher collaboration, it does provide
the field with additional data as to the goals, activities, patterns of communication, topics,
and stakeholder perceptions of one high school’s regular practice of teacher
collaboration.

110

The current literature on block scheduling reveals much promising data. Although
significant statistical links to positive student standardized test scores are not available,
we have reason to believe that many effective secondary schools utilize some form of
block scheduling, and that this may contribute to positive academic and affective
outcomes. The field may benefit greatly from this the findings of this study in regards to
Vincent High School’s block schedule because teachers at Vincent High School created
the block schedule itself and stakeholders perceive as contributing to Vincent High
School’s successes.
Finally, the literature on school grading polices reveals an inexact, biased, and
value-laden practice with little-to-no guidance from district and school administrations.
The author could not find grading policies identical or even similar to Vincent High
School’s “No D” Policy in the current pantheon of literature. Therefore, this study offers
the field of education the first strands of qualitative data on stakeholder perceptions of a
“No D” Policy.

111

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Context of the Phenomenon

This dissertation is a self-study on Vincent High School. In leading the self-study,
the researcher had daily access to the school’s physical environment, participants, and
functions based on his role as a social studies teacher at Vincent High School. The
access, experiences, and relationships the researcher has amassed in his eight years of
teaching at the school significantly aided the completion of the study. Also, the
researcher’s experience at the school allowed for identification of six distinguishing
characteristics of the school prior to gathering data for this study. Therefore, this study
would not have been possible in its existing format without the researcher’s intimate
knowledge of the school’s functionality and personal familiarity with many of its
stakeholders. As discussed in Chapter I, Vincent High School is an urban public high
school located in a major Southern California metropolis. The phenomenon occurring at
the school was that its California Academic Performance Index (API) scores (based on
CST and California High School Exit Exam scores) rose from 509 in 2001 to a 750 in
2008: a statistically significant and anomalous increase.
This researcher catalogued and investigated the distinguishing characteristics of
the school, probing stakeholders (students, teachers, administration, parents) perceptions
of these characteristics. The study shows an analysis of the saliency and fidelity of these
characteristics in terms of producing positive academic and affective outcomes, based

112

upon interviews with stakeholders, observations of classrooms and teacher collaboration
meetings, and school policies document analysis. This study shows those characteristics
of the high school that stakeholders perceived to contribute in a positive manner to
student achievement and affective climate. The purpose of this study is not to determine
the cause of improvement in student academic performance as measured by standardized
tests, but rather, to identify and examine the distinguishing characteristics of the school
based on the perception of selected stakeholders. But perhaps the distinguishing
characteristics of the school, and the perceptions of them, as identified in this study will
provide those interested in studying high-performing urban schools with some additional
school characteristics for further exploration and hypothesis testing. The findings of this
study may be transferable to other school environments or settings.
Vincent High School’s Six

Distinguishing Characteristics Explored

1. School of Choice: Random Lottery Entry for Freshman Admissions
2. Medium-Sized Student Population: Approx. 1,250 students
3. Over 50% of teachers trained at same Teacher Education Program (Social
Justice Agenda)
4. Biweekly Teacher Collaboration Meetings (staff-wide, inter-, and
intradepartmental)
5. Site-created Rotating Block Schedule with constant sixth period
6. Site-created “No D” Policy

113

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is applied research because, though the researcher
generated new knowledge of stakeholders’ perceptions during this study, the findings are
limited to a specific time, place, environment, and conditions. Because this study was
specific to one particular urban high school and its characteristics and policies, the
research was applied. The findings may provide the field with new insights, further
understandings, and practices in the context of producing high-performing urban high
schools. Patton (2002) describes applied research as studies not identifying universal
truths but rather ones that test applications of basic research with findings that are usually
limited to specific times, contexts, and places (p. 217). This description is appropriate for
this self-study.
Focus of Study

The focus of this study leaned more towards depth, yet breadth was certainly
present. Focus on breadth was inherently limited in this study as the researcher only
studied one particular high-performing urban high school, as opposed to numerous high-
performing urban high schools. Also, this study was largely qualitative, with only limited
quantitative analysis of value ratings offered by stakeholders during interviews. As Patton
(2002) describes, quantitative data instruments greatly lend themselves to breadth,
whereas qualitative instruments lend themselves to greater depth of study of a smaller
group of people (p. 227). McEwan and McEwan (2006) discuss that qualitative research
may allow for deep and precise understanding of the environment (p. 84-85). This study

114

gains breadth based on probing four specific groups of stakeholders perception of
Vincent High School’s characteristics. Depth was the primary focus of this study because
the researcher gathered detailed qualitative responses about the characteristics of the
school from the perspective of a few groups at the school. Patton and McEwan and
McEwan describe qualitative data collection as providing more opportunity for depth
than breadth.
Methodology
Approach
This research utilized elements of both inductive and deductive reasoning, with
inductive reasoning based on open-ended data from interviews and observations about
the saliency and fidelity of Vincent High School’s characteristics. These data allowed the
researcher to draw conclusions about the impact of each characteristic on Vincent High
School’s academic and affective outcomes. Deductive reasoning was present based on
probing themes that emerged from the literature. Specific questions in the interviews
addressed those themes and phenomena from the literature. The stakeholders’ perceptions
of these themes from the literature also allowed for analysis of whether or not they had
any impact on Vincent High School’s academic and affective outcomes.

115

Units of Analysis
There were two units of analysis for this study. The first unit of analysis was the
school itself, Vincent High School. The structure, policies, and practices (characteristics)
of the school were of interest, because all of these may have contributed in some way to
the school’s success in student achievement over the last seven years. The second unit of
analysis was the school’s stakeholders. This self-study was more than an objective
description of the school’s unique contextual characteristics because stakeholders’
perceptions of these characteristics were also of interest and the perceptions revealed in
greater detail presumed associations between the school’s characteristics and academic
and affective outcomes. Patton (2002) discusses that categories for units of analysis may
not be mutually exclusive, and studies may have more than one unit of analysis (p. 228-
230).
Sampling
The three specific sampling strategies this study employed were Intensity
Sampling, Typical Case Sampling, and Chain Sampling.
Intensity sampling. This type of sampling refers to information-rich cases that
manifest the phenomenon intensely (Patton, 2002, p. 243). To this end the researcher
gathered data from administrators and teachers who were present at the school for the
duration of the school’s rise up the California Academic Performance Index (API).

116

Typical case sampling. Patton (2002) describes this type of sampling as
illustrating what is typical, normal, or average within the unit of analysis (p. 243). The
researcher gathered these data from teachers, parents, and students who do not represent
any outlier or extreme characteristics. Rather, these were students, teachers, and parents
that the researcher’s familiarity with and quantitative school performance data indicated
as falling in the middle of the ability and outcomes distribution.
Chain Sampling. Patton (2002) describes this type of sampling as cases of interest
that arise from sampling other people who know people who would be of particular
interest to the study and/or are information-rich, and who represent good examples of the
phenomenon (p. 243). In interviews many of the participants offered unsolicited
suggestions, for others the researcher probed whether the stakeholders knew of any
individuals or characteristics associated with the school whom they felt to be particularly
responsible or greatly contributing to the school’s recent success in the realms of student
achievement and standardized test scores. These leads were followed via additional
individuals whom the researcher interviewed and observed during classroom and teacher
collaboration meeting visits.
Participants

All participants of the current study, except for two, had at least two years of
experience with the school. There was great variance in the nature of those experiences,
as four different groups of stakeholders were targeted as participants in this study.
Therefore, there was little uniformity in the years, roles, and experiences that the

117

participants had with the school. More specific information on the commonalties and
differences of participants within each category of stakeholders is described below
Teachers
A total of 13 teachers participated in this study. The teacher-participants reflected
a broad array of academic content areas. The researcher attempted to ensure that there
was equal representation of teachers from core academic subjects that are tested on the
CST (CST), and of teachers from disciplines not tested on the CST. To serve these ends,
teachers from all four core-academic disciplines tested on the CST (Mathematics,
English, Science, Social Studies) participated in this study. There were also teacher-
participants who taught special education and foreign language (Spanish), which
represent academic disciplines not tested on the California Standards Test. The specific
break down of academic disciplines is as follows: Of the core academic disciplines, three
of the teacher-participants were from the math department, two were from the science
department, three represented the English department, and three represented social
studies. Of the additional subject area teacher-participants, one was a Spanish teacher and
one a special education teacher.

118

Teacher-participants selection criteria. In accordance with the Mixed Purposeful
Sampling strategies (Patton, 2002) previously discussed, the researcher adhered to the
following criteria for selecting teacher-participants:
1. All teachers had at least four years teaching experience at Vincent High School
And at least two of the following characteristics:

2. Previous/current service in additional roles/functions within school community
beyond daily classroom duties
3. Previous/current service in some additional leadership capacity within
academic department and/or school community
4. Previous demonstration of high student outcomes via overall grades, district
benchmark scores, CST scores, and/or Advanced Placement exam scores
The selected teachers had a mean of 8.23 years teaching experience, with a range
of 4 to 15 years. These teachers also had a mean of 6.84 years of employment specifically
at Vincent High School. The range of years of employment at Vincent High School was 4
to 11. Notably, one teacher had five years of employment at Vincent High School as the
Attendance Office Clerk and five years of employment at Vincent High School as a
teacher. The racial backgrounds of the teacher-participants in this study were as follows:
Four teacher-participants were Anglo-American, three were Latino, two were African
American, and four teacher-participants were Asian. The gender break down of the
teacher-participants was seven males and six females.

119

Characteristic #3 Status
As previously discussed in Chapter I, the researcher utilized his eight years of
professional teaching experience at Vincent High School to identify Six Distinguishing
Characteristics of Vincent High School to probe in this study. One of those characteristics
was that approximately 50% or more of Vincent High’s teachers attended the same
university (with an advertised Social Justice agenda) for their teaching credentials and
masters’ of education degrees. This distinguishing characteristic has been noted as
“Characteristic #3” throughout this dissertation. To limit the presence of bias in the
findings, the researcher selected six teacher-participants that attended this particular
university’s teacher education program, and seven teacher-participants that did not attend
this particular university’s teacher education program. In Table 5 (“Profile of Teacher-
Participants”), teachers’ status for this characteristic is noted in the final column as
“Characteristic #3 Status:” A “Yes” indicates that the teacher-participant attended the
university in question for teacher education; a “No” indicates that teacher-participant did
not attend the university in question for teacher education. This status is also indicated for
administrator-participants.
120

Table 5: Profile of Teacher-Participants

Race,
Gender
Department/Subjects Years
Teaching
Exp.
Years
at
Vincent
Additional
Roles at School
Char.
#3
Status
T 1 African
American
Female
Special Education:
Special Day Class:
Math/Science
5 10 Previously
Attendance
Clerk and Currently
Dance Team Coach
No
T 2 Asian
Female
Social Studies:
US/World History
7 7 SAT Prep teacher,
AVID teacher
Yes
T 3 Asian
Male
Math: from
prealgebra
to precalculus
8 8 Prof. develop.
Planning; various
committees
Yes
T 4 African
American
Male
English: 9, 10, 11,
and 12
10 7 Black Student Union;
JV Basketball Coach,
leadership committee
No
T 5 Latino
Male
Math: all levels: intro
to
algebra through AP
Calculus
8 8 Math
Instructional Coach
Yes
T 6 White
Male
Social Studies: AP
US Hist., AP Euro
Hist., World Hist.,
US Hist., AP Gov’t.
Econ.
11 11 Social Studies Dept.
Chair, Activities
Director, Various site
committees
No
T 7 White
Male
Social Studies: US
Hist., Econ.,
Musicology
6 6 Varsity Baseball
Coach, JV Basketball
Coach, Marine
Science Academy
Teacher
No
T 8 Asian
Male
Science: Biology,
AP Biology
7 7 Technology
Coordinator,
Frosh. Basketball
Coach,
Club Advisor
Yes
T 9 Latina
Female
Foreign Language:
Spanish 1, 2, 3, AP
Spanish
5 5 Department Chair No
T 10 White
Male
Math: Algebra 1,
Geometry, Pre Calc.,
Calculus
5 5 Department Chair No
T 11 Asian
Female
Science: Chemistry,
Academic Science
4 4 MSA Teacher Yes
T 12 Latina
Female
English: English 9,
9
th
-Grade Literacy
Intervention, AVID
10, Pride, 10
th-
Grade
Honors
10 5 PRIDE Coordinator No
T 13 White
Female
English: English 9,
10,
11, 12
11 11 Department Chair,
Instructional Coach,
Staff

Yes

121

Administrators
A total of four current and past administrators of Vincent High School
participated in this study. One challenge the school has faced since reopening in 1998 is a
revolving door of administrative leaders. There have been four principals, and one school
year in which there was no principal. That particular year two associate principals jointly
served the duties of the vacant principal position. Also, there has only been one associate
principal to remain at least three years since 1999. These facts represented particular
difficulties in gathering an adequate number of administrators to participate in the study.
The current administration includes one associate principal who has served in that
position at the school for eight years. The current principal is in his third year in that
position, and there is also currently a first-year associate principal at the school.
The selection criteria for the administrator-participants of this study was that they
had to have served at the school as an administrator for at least two years, and that they
were available to the researcher to solicit their participation. These criteria left only four
individuals whom the researcher could request to participate in the study. For example,
of the four individuals who have served as principal at the school since 1998, one is
deceased, one is retired and out of touch to the district completely, one is a current
principal at another high school outside of the district, and one is now the current
principal of Vincent High School. Only two individuals are past or current associate
principals of the high school who have served in that capacity at the school at least two

122

years and whom the researcher was able to get in contact with via current contact
information on file with the school and district.
These conditions left the researcher with a pool of four individuals to request to
participate in this study, of which all four obliged. The four administrator-participants
included a current associate principal at the school of eight years, the current principal of
the school, a past principal of the school, and a past associate principal of the school. The
gender breakdown of the administrator-participants included one female (current
associate principal) and three males (current principal, past principal, and past associate
principal). The racial breakdown of these individuals was three Latinos and one White
male (past associate principal). All four of the administrator-participants were working in
that capacity either at Vincent or other high schools at the time of their participation in
the current study. The average amount of years in the profession of education of these
four individuals was 17.75 years, with a range of 10 to 23. The average amount of years
as an administrator of these four individuals was 6.75, with a range of 3 to 10. The
average amount of years at Vincent High School of these four individuals was four, with
a range of two to eight. The average amount of years as an administrator specifically at
Vincent High School of these four participants was also four, also with a range of two to
eight.
Finally, as with the teacher-participants, the researcher gathered data from the
administrators as to whether or not they attended the university that 50% of the teachers
at the school had attended (labeled as “Characteristic #3” throughout this study). This

123

informtation is relevant because stakeholders’ perceptions of this characteristic is one of
the six school characteristics the researcher investigated for this self-study. This
information is indicated on the last column of Table 6 (“Profile of Administrator-
Participants”), as with the teacher-participants, labeled as “Characteristic #3 Status.” A
“Yes” indicates that administrator attended the university inquestion for their teacher
certification; a “No” indicates that administrator did not attend that university for their
teacher certification. A more detailed description of the administrator participants is
included in Table 6.

124

Table 6. Profile of Administrator-Participants

Students
A total of 11 students participated in this study. The students who participated
reflected a diverse representation of ethnic backgrounds, grade levels, academic
performance, and extracurricular activity involvement. The researcher attempted to
ensure balance in the above categories so as to limit the possibility of skewed findings
based on an overrepresentation of perspectives from one particular group of students
Race/
Gender
Current
Title
Years at
Vincent
Years as
Administrator
at School
Years as
Administrat
or
Years as
an
Educator
Character
istic #3
Status
Admin.
1

Latina
Female
Associate
Principal
of
Vincent
High
School
8 8 8 10 Yes
Admin.
2

Latino
Male
Principal
of
another
High
School
outside
district
3 3 10 23 No
Admin.
3

White
Male
Interim-
Principal
of
another
High
School
within
district
2 2 3 11 No
Admin.
4

Latino
Male
Principal
of
Vincent
High
School
3 3 6 16 No

125

(either ethnically, academically, or extracurricular program involvement). However, the
researcher did recruit more upper classmen (juniors and seniors) than lower classmen
(freshman and sophomores) to participate. The rationale for this decision was that upper
classmen had spent two or three more years at Vincent High School than lower classmen.
As such, the upper classmen were a more informed group of stakeholders of Vincent’s
distinguishing characteristics and of their saliency and fidelity of implementation.
This rationale was in accordance with Patton’s (2002) discussion on Intensity Sampling,
utilized in this study. The grade level break down of student-participants was as follows:
four student-participants were Seniors, four student-participants were Juniors, two were
Sophomores, and one was a Freshman
The researcher’s previous experiences at the high school as a social studies
teacher greatly lent itself to the selection process of student-participants. However, the
researcher intentionally did not solicit the participation of any of his current social studies
students. This exclusion intended to limit the perceived presence of pressure,
consequences, or favoritism towards those students currently enrolled in any of the
researcher’s social studies classes. The researcher had existing informal relationships and
rapport with the eight upperclassmen selected for participation, having had the eight
upper classmen selected as history students in the one or two preceding school years. The
researcher’s previous experiences and existing informal relationships with these students
allowed him to garner knowledge of the presence of the selection criteria for these
students.

126

The first selection criterion for the student-participants was that the students were
historically high or average achievers at Vincent High School. The second selection
criteria was that they had shown a propensity for verbalizing their views and opinions via
classroom settings and/or extracurricular organizations. These selection criteria were
obviously broad, so with these two criterions established, the researcher then relied on his
existing network of relationships with previous students still at the school to solicit
participation from the upperclassmen. As for lower classmen, the researcher utilized
chain sampling (Patton, 2002) from teacher-participants to inform him of potential
student participant options fitting the same selection criteria. Chain sampling was
required to gain information about potential sophomore and freshmen student-
participants because the researcher taught only sophomores at the high school while the
current study was conducted and, as mentioned, the researcher did not solicit any of his
current students for participation. Mitigating factors such as logistics, time availability,
and interest in participating played a factor in some potential student-participants (both
upper and lower classmen) declining or accepting the invitation to partake in this study.
As previously discussed in this chapter, the researcher attempted to balance ethnicity and
extracurricular organizations in student-participants.
The ethnic breakdown of the students selected for participation was as follows:
Five student-participants were African American, five student-participants were Latino,
and one was Middle Eastern. The age range of the student-participants was 15 to 17. The
mean age of the student-participants was 16.09 years old. Seven male students and four

127

female students were selected for participation. These students represented a broad array
of extracurricular participation. The student-participants were members of athletic teams
(football, track, basketball, and baseball). They also represented campus organizations
devoted to academic enrichment (Junior Statesmen of America, Achievement Via
Individual Determination), ethnic identity organizations (Black Student Union,
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán), community service organizations (Key
Club), religious clubs (Christian Club), as well as the student council (Associated Student
Body). A total of 9 of the 11 student-participants was involved in at least one of these
extracurricular campus activities/organizations. A more detailed chart profile of the
student-participants is in Table 7.

128

Table 7. Profile of Student-Participants
Race/
Gender
Grade Years at
School
Age Additional Roles at School
Student
1

Middle
Eastern
Male
12 4 17 MSA, Track, Theatre
Student
2

Latina Female 11 3 16 Key Club, M.E.Ch.A.
Student
3

African
American
Female
11 3 16 Cheerleading, BSU, Advanced
Drama
Student
4
African
American
Female
11 3 16 BSU, AVID President,
Christian Club, Key Club,
ASB
Student
5

African
American
Male
12 4 17 Basketball Team, AVID,
Christian Club President
Student
6

Latino Male 12 2 17 Baseball Team
Student
7

Latino Male 11 3 16 Junior Statesmen of America
Student
8

Latina
Female
12 4 17 N/A
Student
9

African
American
Male
9 1 15 Freshman Football
Team
Student
10

African
American
Male
10 2 15 M.E.Ch.A.
Student
11

Latino
Male
10 2 15 N/A

Parents

A total of five parent-participants were in this study. The researcher faced the
most difficulty in soliciting parents to participate in this study, as contrasted to the
other three groups of stakeholders. Five of the 11 parents who were requested to
participate declined the invitation, citing as reasons “being too busy,” “not having enough

129

information to answer the questions,” “not being interested,” “not being able to speak
English (the researcher only speaks/reads English).” Two phone calls to the same parent
were unreturned.
The selection criteria for the parent-participants of this study were that they were
a parent or legal guardian of one of the student-participants of this study and that they
spoke English. The latter selection criteria existed only because the researcher solely
speaks/reads fluently in English. The design specificity of this study allowed for data to
be gathered and analyzed in English only. However, the researcher acknowledges that
possible parent-participants that do not speak English possessed just as much viable
qualitative data for this study as their English speaking counterparts. This exclusion was a
logistical shortcoming of the study’s design.
The researcher’s initial intent was to triangulate the qualitative data gathered via
student interviews by comparing and contrasting the student responses against those of
their parents on the exact same interview protocol questions. Therefore, the researcher’s
aim was to interview at least one parent/guardian of all 11 student-participants. However,
as discussed, the researcher was only able to secure the participation of 5 of the 11
student-participants’ parents. Of the five parents who participated in this study, all were
women and all were African American. The grade levels of the parent-participants’
children were one Senior, two Juniors, one Sophomore, and one Freshman. All parent-
participants’ children attended Vincent High School from the beginning of 9
th
-grade.
Therefore, the average number of years these parent-participants had been involved with

130

Vincent High School was 2.6, with a range of 1 to 4. Table 8 provides further description
of the parent-participants.

Table 8. Profile of Parent-Participants

Race Data Type Parent of
Student_____
Student’s
Grade
Years of
Student at
School
Parent 1

African
American
Female
Interview 3 11 3
Parent 2

African
American
Female
Interview 4 11 3
Parent 3

African
American
Female
Interview 5 12 4
Parent 4

African
American
Female
Interview 9 9 1
Parent 5

African
American
Female
Interview 10 10 2

Data Collection

Qualitative Data were the primary form of data this study collected. The
researcher gathered the data via individual interviews with teachers, administrators,
students, and parents and conducted observations of individual teachers’ classrooms and
teacher collaboration meetings. The researcher observed one period each of seven of the
teachers interviewed. Departmental collaboration meetings were observed of the four
core academic subjects tested on the CST (math, science, English, and social studies) and
of one staff-wide collaboration meeting.
Finally, for qualitative data triangulation, the researcher conducted document
analysis on school-wide policies related to grading, bell schedules, teacher collaboration,

131

and “school of choice” stipulations. Patton (2002) and McEwan and McEwan (2006)
describe interviews, observations, and document analysis as appropriate forms of
qualitative data, explaining that some or all those are needed in order for qualitative data
triangulation, which strengthens the validity and reliability of results. Some elements of
quantitative data are present in this study, as represented in the “Characteristics’ Value
Rating Scale” and school demographic data gathered from the district and school
archives.
Interview Protocol

To better understand and gauge stakeholders’ perceptions of Vincent High
School’s distinguishing characteristics, the researcher designed a 22-question qualitative
interview protocol. The specificity of the questions allowed each group of stakeholders
opportunities to provide data related directly to their opinions/experiences as members of
the school community. Moreover, the data sought in these interviews were the opinions
and experiences of the stakeholders with Vincent High School’s distinguishing
characteristics. The intent of the interview protocol was to allow the participants to first
reveal what their current general assessment of the quality of Vincent High School was,
and then to discuss what factors existed at the school that they felt contributed (or
detracted from) that quality. The interview protocol did not unveil any of the researcher’s
identified Six Distinguishing Characteristics until after first asking participants what
factors they felt contributed to student achievement at the high school.

132

Not until after first probing participants’ own assessments and contributing factors
did the interview protocol present questions about the Six Distinguishing Characteristics
preidentified by the researcher. This order intended to limit bias in the responses as much
as possible and allowed the researcher to discover which of the Six Distinguishing
Characteristics the participants would voluntarily discuss as contributing factors to
student achievement before being queued by the questions that discuss each characteristic
directly.
The interview protocol contained three questions each for the Six Distinguishing
Characteristics. The first question of each characteristic asked participants to discuss their
current perceptions of the characteristic on a personal level. For example, “What is your
assessment of Vincent High School’s rotating block schedule?” The intent of this
approach was to allow the participants to think about how the characteristic affects them
personally, before discussing its overall impact on the school and how the school
community has responded to it.
The second question of each characteristic asked the participant to offer an
analysis of the impact of that characteristic on student achievement an/or the school
climate. For example, “Do you think the rotating block schedule has had any impact on
student achievement and/or the overall school climate at Vincent High School?” The
researcher acknowledges that this qualitative approach and question design does not
determine any definitive conclusions or causality of the Six Distinguishing
Characteristics’ on student achievement gains. Rather, this question design allowed the

133

participants to concentrate on their recollections and personal experiences with each of
the Six Distinguishing Characteristics and to discuss perceptions of how each
characteristic did or did not impact student achievement and school climate at Vincent
High School. These data were relevant because stakeholders’ perceptions of a
scenario/phenomenon may dictate how they receive and engage with it.
The third question of each characteristic asked participants to discuss how they
felt the school community overall responded to the characteristic. For example, “Overall,
how do you think people have responded to the rotating block schedule at Vincent High
School?” The purpose for this question design was so that participants could recollect and
discuss their past experiences with other stakeholders’ perceptions and comments about
each characteristic. The relevance of this approach was that participants provided data on
experiences of stakeholders who were not interviewed. Some participants revealed
personal perceptions about school characteristics that were in stark contrast to what they
revealed about their friends’ and associates’ perceptions of that characteristic. In other
words, some participants acknowledged that their experiences and perceptions with
certain school characteristics were abnormal. The additional data on other stakeholders’
experiences with each characteristic provided from this third question design informed
the researcher’s analyses of the saliency and fidelity of the Six Distinguishing
Characteristics of Vincent High School.

134

Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale

The researcher devised a “Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale” and question
design incorporated into the interview protocol for the current study. The purpose of this
scale was to allow for quantitative data analyses of the qualitative data gathered via the
interview process in order to better understand the differences and similarities amng the
33 participants. The methods of quantitative data analysis utilized in conjunction with the
value ratings designations will be explained further in the next subsection of this chapter.
Now an explicit definition of the value ratings scale: In discussing each of the six
distinguishing characteristics of Vincent High School during participant interviews, the
researcher asked the participants to make a judgment on the value of impact they thought
each characteristic had on student achievement and/or school climate at the high school.
For example, the question “Do you think the rotating block schedule has had any impact
on student achievement and/or the overall school climate at Vincent High School?” asks
participants first to indicate whether or not they perceive the rotating block schedule to
have any impact whatsoever on student outcomes at the school. Once participants
indicated whether or not they felt a particular characteristic had any impact on student
outcomes at the school, the researcher then asked them whether or not they felt that
characteristic was either the “key component,” “very impactful,” simply “impactful,”
“not impactful,” “negatively impactful,” or “unclear of impact” on student
achievement/school climate at Vincent High School.

135

To define and articulate to participants the intended designated meaning of each
value rating, the researcher explained that if they felt a characteristic was a “key
component” to the school’s success, they believed it was the main identifiable reason as
to why the school has produced positive student achievement outcomes, and that without
that characteristic the school could not have expected the student achievement gains and
positive affective climate it has experienced. If they felt a characteristic was “very
impactful” to the school’s success, they felt it was a significant contributor to student
achievement outcomes and the positive affective climate at the high school, but perhaps
not the sole or most significant reason why. If the participant felt a characteristic was
simply “impactful,” they felt this characteristic was a mitigating additional positive
contributor to student achievement and affective climate outcomes at Vincent High
School, but not in a significant manner. If a participant felt a characteristics was “not
impactful,” they felt it neither added to nor detracted from student achievement gains at
the school; it was neutral. Finally, if a participant felt a characteristic was “negatively
impactful,” they felt it detracted from student achievement gains and the overall school
climate at Vincent High School.
The researcher asked participants to designate each of the identified six
distinguishing characteristics with one of the aforementioned value ratings after asking
them in a general terms what impact, if any, that characteristic had on student
achievement and/or school climate at Vincent High School. Participants were not asked
to designate a value rating for a respective characteristic if they first discussed that they

136

were unclear/unsure/did not have enough information to determine if a particular
characteristic had any impact on outcomes at the school. There were two participants who
stated they were “unclear of impact” for a characteristic. One teacher-participant stated
he was unclear for one characteristic and a parent-participant offered the same response
for two characteristics.
In conclusion, the researcher acknowledges that the stakeholder participants of
this study were not able to provide definitive scientific evidence that indicates correlation
or causality of the six distinguishing characteristics’ impact on student achievement at
Vincent High School. Nor was this conclusiveness the researcher’s intent. Qualitative
studying nature, this study sought to gather data on stakeholders’ opinions and
experiences with Vincent High School’s distinguishing characteristics. Educational
psychology research informs that individuals’ opinions and experiences with a
phenomenon may shape their receptions and willingness to engage with various
dimensions of that phenomenon (Ormord, 2006).
The Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale devised for this study allowed
participants and the researcher to establish a hierarchy of perceptions of the impact of
school characteristics on student achievement, and of the perceived value of each
characteristic on student outcomes. This portion of the data gathering process, and
subsequent quantitative analysis, triangulated with observations, and in conjunction with
reviews of relevant literature, enabled the researcher to draw conclusions about the
effectiveness and advisedness of the respective characteristics of Vincent High School.

137

Interview Procedure
All of the interviews with teachers and students took place on campus at Vincent
High School. Interviews with all participants were conducted in September and October
of 2008. The researcher recorded all teacher, administrator, and student interviews (with
all participants’ written consent) and personally transcribed the interviews by typing
while the participants spoke and relistening to audio recordings later to type additional
words and phrases that were missed in the initial live interview. All interviews took
between 30 and 45 minutes. Only one of the five parent interviews was recorded because
four of the five parent interviews took place over the phone. During the phone interviews,
the researcher transcribed the participants’ responses as they spoke.
As a social studies teacher at the high school, the researcher has a 92-minute
student-free preparation period three days per week. Five teacher interviews took place
during this student-free period in those teachers’ respective classrooms. Eight teacher
interviews took place immediately after school in those respective teachers’ classrooms.
Two administrator interviews took place during the researcher’s student-free
period, in those administrators’ offices. One administrator interview took place
immediately after school in that administrator’s office. One administrator interview took
place on a weekend at that administrator’s home.
All 11 student interviews took place immediately after school in the researcher’s
classroom. As for the parent interviews, one took place in the researcher’s classroom

138

during his student-free preparation period. The remaining four parent interviews took
place over the phone in the evenings after school hours.
Classroom Observation Procedure

Upon conclusion of interviews with teacher-participants, the researcher observed
classroom instruction of 7 of the 13 teachers who were interviewed. The researcher spent
one class period (92 minute total) in each of these seven observed teachers’ classrooms.
The purpose of these observations was to further triangulate data gathered during the
interview process (Patton, 2002; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). More specifically, the
classroom observations allowed the researcher to gather data on how instruction was
actually delivered and on classroom climates in those teachers’ classrooms. These data
were cross-referenced against that which teachers provided in the interview process about
the rotating block schedule and about teacher sharing of pedagogical methods during
teacher collaboration meetings.
The selection criteria for the teachers whose classrooms were observed were first
that they had to be one of the 13 teachers interviewed. Second, the researcher ensured
that all four core academic disciplines (math, science, English, social studies) were
represented at least once in classroom observations, as well as one elective subject
(Spanish). The classroom observations took place during the researcher’s aforementioned
student-free preparation period (three days per week). This left only seven teachers who
could be observed. Four of the remaining six interviewed teachers had their student-free
preparation periods at the same time as the researcher. The remaining two interviewed

139

teachers were serving as instructional coaches at Vincent High School and no longer had
their own classrooms. The breakdown of the seven classes the researcher observed are:
one math class (calculus), two science classes (biology and chemistry), two English
classes (English 11 and English 12), one social studies class (world history), and one
foreign language class (Spanish II).
During the course of these classroom observations, the researcher sat in the back
of the room as a silent observer. The researcher gathered and recorded data on a laptop
computer in the following domains: observable levels of student engagement, teacher-
student and student-student interactions, different types of instructional strategies, and
number of transitions during the course of the lesson. For purposes of this discussion, the
following two terms are defined:
“Student Engagement” is defined as a student or students taking an observable
active role in the education process by exhibiting behavior that contributes to their own
learning. This student participation could be by way of, but not limited to, sharing during
a class discussion, audible small group discussions with peers, asking course-related
questions of the teacher, scientific experimentation during labs, observably completing
class assignments, taking notes during a lecture and giving their attention to the teacher
and/or screen where notes are projected, giving a presentation before the whole class,
reciprocal small group teaching, and/or responding to teacher stimuli in the course of a
lesson for instructional purposes (i.e. giving a call/response, participating in a
demonstration, etc.). The rationale for this decision is that student engagement can be

140

heavily dictated by student motivation and student buy-in of the learning process and
activities (Ormrod, 2006). Therefore, the researcher sought to catalogue instances and
frequency of willing student engagement during seven classroom observations.
“Transitions” is defined as formal classroom activity that requires students to
either move physically from one place to another, change from one cognitive task to
another, change from one student-centered cooperative interaction to another, and/or
when the teacher switches from one teacher-centered instructional method to another.
Classroom observations took place during October 2008.
Collaboration Meeting Observation Procedure

The researcher also observed departmental and staff-wide collaboration meetings
in order to triangulate data gathered from interviews in regards to teacher collaboration.
Observations of collaboration meetings allowed the researcher to gather additional data
on how teachers actually interact and communicate in these meetings, their topics of
discussion, how instructional strategies were shared, and the use of student-outcomes
data in relation to instructional decisions. The researcher observed one meeting in each of
the four core academic subjects (math, science, English, and social studies). The
researcher also observed one staff-wide collaboration meeting. Collaboration meetings
are held at Vincent High School once every two weeks. On collaboration days, students
go home 90 minutes early, and teachers proceed to their designated meeting-classrooms
at that time for 90-minute meetings. These collaboration meeting observations took place
from September to December of 2008.

141

Document Analysis

Finally, for qualitative data collection and triangulation, the researcher conducted
document analysis on school and district-wide policies related to grading practices and
scales, the “No D” Policy, bell schedules, teacher collaboration goals/objectives, as well
as “school of choice” stipulations and selection procedures. McEwan and McEwan
(2006) assert that document analysis may allow the researcher to fill voids of information
remaining from the interview and observational data gathering process (p. 82).
In execution of the current study, the researcher accessed the same school and
district policy information that is readily available to the public. The researcher gathered
information for the document analysis via Vincent High School’s 2008-2009 Parent-
Student Handbook, the Vincent High School website, and from the California School
Boards Association (http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html), which has listed
the official school board-adopted policies and regulations for all school boards in the
state of California.
The researcher reviewed school and district-wide polices related to the
aforementioned areas. The intent of this document review was to identify what the
official directives are of the categories mentioned above. This review and analysis
allowed the researcher a policy-framework from which to evaluate the saliency and
fidelity of implementation of the distinguishing characteristics of the school that relate to
each of their respective school/district policies as explained in the official materials
reviewed. Finally, this document analysis allowed the researcher to better determine if the

142

stakeholders interviewed were interpreting, implementing, and actualizing those
school/district policies as they were intended, per the written letter of those policies.
Data Analysis

Qualitative Analysis

The researcher analyzed the saliency, fidelity, and impacts of Vincent High’s
characteristics based on stakeholders’ perceptions, observations of school operations, and
document analysis of school policies (Data Triangulation). The qualitative analytical
approach employed in this study is what Patton (2002) identifies as “Pure Qualitative
Strategy: Naturalistic Inquiry, Qualitative Data, and Content Analysis.” Using this
analytical approach, Patton explains, the researcher first probes the participants about
their feelings and perceptions of the phenomena under study. The researcher then asks
participants to describe themselves and their relationship with social world in which they
are immersed. The researcher observes participants’ interactions and conversations,
taking rich detailed notes throughout. The researcher conducts in-depth interviews with
participants to learn how their behaviors have been impacted by elements of the
phenomena under study. The final step is when the data are content analyzed in order to
identify patterns of participation, experiences, and change as a result of the phenomena
(Patton, p. 250). In accordance, McEwan and McEwan (2006) state that naturalistic
inquiry places the researcher “where the action is,” in a fashion that is not contrived or
controlled by the researcher, in order to better understand human behavior within a
particular organization or environment (p.77-78).

143

The researcher explicitly followed the steps qualitative analysis Patton (2002)
outlines in this study for data gathered from interviews and observations. The researcher
first probed participants’ perceptions of the unique characteristics of Vincent High
School via the interview protocol and then charted responses, and analyzed them for
emerging themes, glaring similarities, and striking differences. Categories were created
and charted based on similar themes and patterns of responses, and coded accordingly.
Next, the researcher observed participant interactions, activities, and involvement
in the school in two formats: classroom instruction and teacher collaboration meetings.
The researcher kept field notes of these observations, and chronicled and coded the
course of these observations by comparing/contrasting the observed events to what those
participants reported of their perceptions and experiences with classroom instructions and
collaboration meetings in the interview process. Consistencies and inconsistencies
between interview responses and behaviors observed in interactions were noted and
coded accordingly.
The protocol that the researcher followed to analyze the qualitative data allowed
for the identification of emerging themes and patterns of perceptions, responses and
results. This analytic approach also allowed for drawing final conclusions regarding the
saliency and fidelity of Vincent High School’s six distinguishing characteristics.
Quantitative Analysis
Microsoft Excel (2003) software was used to calculate mean item scores and
standard deviations for participants’ responses to the Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale

144

questions for each of the six distinguishing characteristics of Vincent High School. As
discussed in the “Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale” subsection of this chapter, a
summative question for each of the characteristics asked participants to make a judgment
as to whether or not they perceived that respective characteristic to be the “key
component,” “very impactful,” “impactful,” “not impactful,” or “negatively impactful” to
student achievement and school climate outcomes at Vincent High School.
The researcher then attached a scaled score to each of the different responses. For
example, a “key component” response was assigned a score of 3; a “very impactful”
response was assigned a score of 2; an “impactful” response was assigned a score of 1; a
“not impactful” response was assigned a score of 0; and a “negatively impactful”
response was assigned a score of -1. In the case of any “Unclear of Impact” responses,
the participant was deducted from the denominator in calculating the Mean Item Score
for that respective characteristic.
All participant responses to the Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale questions for
each characteristic were charted and categorized based on the four stakeholder groups
(teachers, administrators, students, parents). Microsoft Excel (2003) software was then
used to determine a mean item score and the subsequent standard deviations for each of
the six distinguishing characteristics based on all the participant perceptions for each
respective characteristic’s value rating scale responses. Rueda and Garcia (1996) utilize a
comparable analysis protocol. The process entailed collecting, coding and scoring, with
predetermined categorical selection criteria, participants’ interview responses for

145

purposes of conducting mean and standard deviation calculations of the corresponding
qualitative data gathered.
For further explanation of what particular mean item index scores indicate: if a
particular characteristic had a final calculated mean item score of 3.0 on the
Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale, then all participants who answered the value rating
question for that characteristic reported that characteristic to be the key component of
Vincent High School’s positive student achievement and school climate outcomes,
without which the school would not have experienced the API growth that it had.
Continuing this pattern, a final calculated mean item score of 2.0 indicated that all
participants reported this characteristic to be very impactful, a significant reason, but not
the key component to Vincent High School’s student achievement and school climate
outcomes.
In continuance, a final calculated mean item score of 1.0 indicated that all
participants reported that characteristic to be impactful, a mitigating positive contributor,
but not significantly responsible for Vincent High School’s positive student achievement
and school climate outcomes. A final calculated mean item score of 0 indicated that all
participants reported this characteristic not to be impactful, or neutral, to student
achievement and school climate outcomes at the school. Lastly, a mean item score of -1.0
indicated that all participants reported that characteristic to be negatively impactful, in
fact detracting from positive student achievement and school climate outcomes at
Vincent High School.

146

Validity and Reliability Issues
Data Triangulation allowed for greater reliability and validity of the study’s
findings. The classroom and collaboration meeting observations provided additional
validity and reliability checks of the data gathered in the interviews and document
analysis (Patton, 2002; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). The observations were used to
triangulate data gathered about the stakeholders’ opinions and experiences with the
characteristics of Vincent High School gathered in the interviews. These observations
allowed for additional qualitative data sources against which to compare and contrast
interview results.
Document analysis completed on school-wide policies related to grading, bell
schedule, teacher collaboration, and school of choice protocol provided a basis from
which to determine if the school’s actual practices mirror its stated policies. One issue
that may call into question the reliability of the results of the Characteristics’ Value
Rating Scale quantitative analysis is the sample size discrepancy among stakeholder
groups interviewed for this study. There was an imbalance in the amount of participants
from each stakeholder group. The number of teachers (13) and students (11) was
significantly greater than the number of administrators (4) and parents (5) who
participated. Therefore individual participants’ responses from the administrator and
parent stakeholder groups influenced their respective groups’ Mean Item Scores to a
greater degree than individual teacher and student participants’ Reponses.

147

Study Limitations
The potential transferability of the findings of this study may be limited because
this dissertation is a self-study of one particular school. This self-study did not uncover a
specific statistical linkage or causality between one or several school policies and
increased API scores. This fact may limit the audience or potential interest in this study,
as many in educational hierarchy want the “magic-bullet” remedy to improving
standardized test scores. Additionally, Vincent High School’s API scores is the only
metric examined or discussed in the current study to establish the school’s educational
saliency. The acknowledgement of this limitation is not intended to disparage the
California Academic Performance Index. However, the researcher recognizes that
ultimately, this particular quantitative index is not the sole measure of schools’ or
teachers’ effectiveness.
Another limitation of this study was the heavy reliance on stakeholder
perceptions. There is always the potential for bias, misconception, miscommunication,
and interviewee disinterest with this type of data collection. All of which may skew the
data gathered and, residually, the study’s findings. In relation, the number of parent
participants for this study was limited for reasons related to time constraints, lack of
expressed interest, and linguistic barriers. The total number of observations of teacher-
participants’ classrooms was limited based on logistical constraints. As this dissertation
was a self-study, the researcher was a full-time teacher at the school being studied.
Therefore he was only able to observe teachers’ classes during one particular free period.

148

The researcher was not able to observe teacher-participants who had the same student-
free preparation period as the researcher. The study could have benefited from classroom
observations of all 11 teacher-participants who are still currently teaching.
This study was also limited by time constraints. The data were gathered over two-
and-a-half months, rather than over a year or more. Having longitudinal data cataloguing
a phenomenon over several years may increase the reliability of the findings (Patton,
2002). This study does not have the benefit of longitudinal data collection to strengthen
the analysis and subsequent findings. One final limitation is that three parents of student-
participants were not able to participate themselves because of the researcher’s inability
to speak, read, and write their native language (Spanish). Lack of sufficient time and
resources prevented a translator for interviews and data transcription. This limitation
disallowed three potentially viable parent-participants to be interviewed for this study.
Ethical Considerations

The researcher typed a formal letter of explanation of the study, its design,
purpose, and methods to provide for each participant prior to their involvement. Patton
(2002, p. 271) recommends full disclosure in a qualitative study. He explains that
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are more likely to approve a study if all participants
have full knowledge of and consent to their participation— which they did in order to
participate in this study. Patton (p. 273) also suggests solicitation of cooperation from
representatives of all groups involved in a program/organization to enhance the quality of
the gathered data and to foster greater comfort with participation. The researcher did just

149

that by securing participation from parents, administrators, students, and teachers. To
ensure confidentiality, all names on all pieces of qualitative data gathered were
concealed. Finally, student-participants had to receive formal signed consent from their
parents before they were able to participate in this study.

150

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Urban school reform movements have much to learn from the practices at Vincent
High School. The school has made great strides and marked progress toward providing
all of its students with genuine access to the state mandated curriculum during the last
seven years. As evidence of Vincent’s successes, the school’s California Academic
Performance Index (API) score (based on CST and California High School Exit Exam
scores) has 241 overall points from 2001-2008: a statistically significant and anomalous
increase. The high school is an urban public school with a predominant student
population of working class children of color. The school employs 60 full-time teachers
and enrolls approximately 1,250 students. Of the students, 73% receive federally
subsidized free or reduced lunch, and for 56% of them English is their second language.
The school is located in a major Southern California metropolis, where most large urban
public high schools that enroll students with similar background characteristics produce
student achievement outcomes of a lesser caliber.
In an effort to inform the field of Vincent High’s regular practices and policies,
the researcher catalogued and investigated the distinguishing characteristics of the school.
This study identifies the characteristics of the high school that stakeholders perceive to
contribute in a positive manner to student achievement and affective climate outcomes.
Interview questions allowed the researcher to investigate stakeholders’ (teachers,
administrators, students, parents) perceptions of multiple aspects of the school’s

151

characteristics, including what drew them to the school, their general assessments of the
school and contributing factors, as well as their perceptions of the quality, impact, and
receptions of each of the school’s preidentified Six Distinguishing Characteristics.
Interview responses, observations of both classroom instruction and teacher
collaboration, along with document analysis of official school and district policies, jointly
contributed to the researcher’s analysis of the instructional salience and fidelity of the
school’s characteristics in terms of relating to positive academic and affective outcomes.
The study findings this chapter presents are organized into five sections with six
categories that reveal stakeholders' perceptions and the implementations of the
distinguishing characteristics of Vincent School. The five sections are: (a) Interview
Responses, (b) Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale, (c) Classroom Observations, (d)
Teacher Collaboration Meetings Observations, and (e) Document Analysis. The six
categories correspond to the Six Distinguishing Characteristics of Vincent High School,
which are (a) School of Choice, (b), School Size, (c) Teacher Education, (d) Teacher
Collaboration, (e) Rotating Block Schedule, and (f) “No D” Policy. Participants'
perceptions are compared within and across stakeholder groups for the “Interview
Responses” and “Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale” sections. The researcher
acknowledges that causality has not be determined with this dissertation

152

Overview of Findings
The results of interviews with 33 participants suggest that stakeholders
acknowledge Vincent High School to be a safe and peaceful atmosphere and perceive the
school as a high quality learning environment. The school factors that were most often
discussed as drawing stakeholders to the school, either to work, attend, or send their
children, were its relatively small size, safety, academic reputation, and colleague/sibling
familiarity. The participant-generated contributing factors that were mentioned most
often were: effective/youthful teachers, positive social climate, the small size, effective
site leadership, the “No D” Policy, and teacher collaboration.
Participant responses to questions about the six distinguishing characteristics of
the school suggest that all six characteristics are perceived as positive contributors to the
success of the high school. Not all six distinguishing characteristics are perceived with
the same value rating. The data gathered in interviews suggest that stakeholders perceive
the youthfulness and effectiveness of the teachers, the “No D” Policy, and the size of the
school as significant and major factors in explaining the school’s student achievement
and affective climate successes the last six years. Analysis of the data also reveal
perceptions that the rotating block schedule is a significant contributor to the school’s
successes, although not as impactful as the teaching staff, “No D” Policy, or the small
size. Finally, the teacher collaboration meetings, the high percentage of the teachers from
the same teacher education program, and the school of choice designation are perceived

153

as positive mitigating circumstances at the school, although neither is perceived as
significant contributors to the school’s successes.
Observations of classroom instruction and teacher collaboration meetings allowed
the researcher to triangulate qualitative data gathered in regards to the school size, teacher
education, teacher collaboration, and the rotating block schedule. Specifically, the
domains of interview responses triangulated in observations were the school’s affective
climate, instructional practices, efficiency of instructional time, student engagement, and
opportunities for teachers’ development and improvement.
The results of observations were in accordance with the overall findings of the
interview process. The classrooms and collaboration meetings observed were positive
atmospheres of respect, collaboration, collegiality, open communication, student –
centered instruction, and high to very high levels of engagement by students and teachers.
Teacher collaboration meetings appeared to be focused on improving instructional
practices and on analysis of successes and failures with student performance data.
Classroom instruction appeared to be dynamic and cooperative, with frequent transitions
from one instructional and/or cognitive task to another.
Document analysis of official school and district policies related to the six
distinguishing characteristics of Vincent High School reveals much room for
interpretation. The examined policies demonstrate general heuristics for administrators
and teachers to follow, and are scant on specific instructions and guidelines. Policies
examined applied to school of choice admissions, teacher collaboration, bell schedules,

154

and grading. District-level school of choice admissions policies clearly define Vincent
High School as a school of choice with a random lottery for admissions whereby previous
academic, behavioral, extracurricular records may not be considered. Site-level teacher
collaboration policies related to goals, objectives, procedural protocol, and timelines are
unclear and unspecific, leaving great room for interpretation and variance of outcomes.
District-level polices dictating daily bell schedules allow site administrators to implement
whichever bell schedule they deem to produce the greatest learning gains for the time
spent— although the policy does not delineate how that cost/benefit analysis shall be
conducted, defined, or determined. Finally, district-level policies related to grading are
the most specific and overt of all the documents examined. District-level policy defines
grades as an accurate and impartial measure of student performance in a given subject,
that parents and students have the right to be regularly updated on student progress before
final summative semester grades are given. District and school-level policies clearly
define Vincent High School as a school of choice with a “No D” Policy, and that
parents/students must be notified via various published mediums prior to enrollment.
Interview Findings

The following results are based on interviews with 33 stakeholders associated
with Vincent High School. Thirteen were teachers or instructional coaches, 11 were
students, 5 were parents, and 4 were current or past administrators.

155

Pull Factors
Findings from this study indicate that the school’s medium size (Lee & Burkam,
2003), safety, high academic reputation, and colleague/sibling familiarity are the
conditions offered by participants as the factors that “pulled” them to the school.
Colleague/Sibling familiarity was defined as individuals being informed of and drawn to
the school based on existing relationships with colleagues, siblings, or older children that
attend/work at, or previously attended/worked at the school.
“Pull Factors,” for purposes of this discussion, are defined as those characteristics,
aspects, circumstances that attracted families, and professionals to attend and/or work at
Vincent High School. Pull factors could have been school characteristics and/or
individuals’ and families’ circumstances that motivated them to solicit attendance or
employment at Vincent High School. For example, one student indicated that, “my
parents wanted me to go to Vincent because it’s safer and has higher academic policies
than the other schools, and my older sister went here too.”
The intent of this question was to determine exactly what attracted stakeholders to
Vincent High School and was especially relevant considering Vincent High School is a
“school of choice,” with no geographic boundaries or lines of demarcation for students
living within the designated area of Sprawling Meadows Unified School District. A
summary of “Pull Factors” responses is listed in Table 9.

156

Table 9. Pull Factors Responses

Responses Total
N = 33
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n= 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
Positive
Academic
Reputation
16
(48%)
2
(48%
0 9
(82%)
5
(100%)
Colleague/Sibling
Familiarity
14
(42%)
4
(14)
3
(75%)
6
(54%)
1
(20%)
Safety 10
(30%)
1
(8%)
0 5
(45%)
4
(80%)
Small Size 10
(30%)
4
(31%)
1
(25%)
2
(18%)
3
(60%)

General Assessment

Findings from this study reveal that stakeholders perceive Vincent High School to
be a high quality or medium quality learning environment. A significant majority, or 76%
of participants, indicated that they felt Vincent was a learning environment of high
quality, and none indicated the opinion that it was less than medium quality. A quotation
from a teacher-participant that exemplifies this sentiment is as follows:
Our administration puts necessary pressure on us to succeed but we also have
autonomy to do what we want to as teachers to strive for change. This makes it
easy to get teachers to accept new ideas because most teachers are young and
willing to cooperate and try new things. We do a lot of things across the board
here that help students learn and do well. That’s why we have a high quality
learning environment here.

For this discussion, “high quality learning environment” is defined as a school
where students are provided with authentic access to the curriculum and have teachers
who are well-equipped with instructional methodologies that contextualize and
conceptualize the material; where the vast majority of students make marked timely

157

progress towards graduation and regularly demonstrate their learning via multiple
performance outcomes including course grades, district benchmark exams, California
High School Exit Exam, and CST.
The intent of this question was to allow the participants to first assess their
experiences with Vincent High School, and use those as a basis to determine the level of
quality of the school. The participant-identified quality of the school then provided a
framework from which to base the rest of the interview. Results of this question are
shown below in Table 10.

Table 10. General Assessment Responses

Responses Total
N = 33
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n = 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
High
Quality
Learning
Environment
25
(76%)
9
(69%)
3
(75%)
10
(91%)
3
(60%)
Medium
Quality
Learning
Environment
8
(24%)
4
(31%)
1
(25%)
1
(9%)
2 (40%)

Participant-Generated Contributing Factors

Findings from this study indicate that stakeholders perceive the school’s
effective/youthful teachers, positive social climate, “No D” Policy, and teacher
collaboration as the factors most responsible for the school’s success over the last seven
years. All of the factors mentioned as a result of this question were participant-generated
ideas, with no queues from the researcher. Examples of student quotations explaining

158

why youth contributes to teachers’ effectiveness include that “they are young and can
relate to us,” “they understand what we’re going through,” and “they have the energy to
put the extra time in to help us.” To further exemplify, a student stated:
Teachers are really good here, even with the budget cuts. I did not want to leave
because I know my teachers care about me here. A lot of teachers here are high
quality, and use their personal experiences to help us learn the material better.
They care about us and they know how to apply curriculum to real life.

This quotation articulates a significant finding and an additional characteristic of the
school that the researcher did not identify--but is worthy of future inquiry.
This question allowed participants to identify and articulate all of the factors,
aspects, characteristics of the school they felt contributed to (or detracted from) the
general quality before the researcher made any mention of the six distinguishing
characteristics of the high school. Results of this question are shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Participant-Generated Contributing Factors
:
Responses Total
N = 33
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n = 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
Effective/Youthful
Teachers
26
(79%)
8
(62%)
4
(100%)
10
(91%)
4
(80%)
Positive Social
Climate
18
(55%)
7
(54%)
1
(25%)
8
(73%)
2
(40%)
“No D” Policy 5
(15%)
2
(15%)
3
(27%)

Teacher
Collaboration
4
(12%)
2
(15%)
2
(50%)

School of Choice Responses (Char. #1)

Findings from this study imply that stakeholders associated with Vincent High
School appear to be satisfied both with the “school of choice” designation of the school

159

and the corresponding random lottery for freshman admissions. Stakeholders perceived
the status as a positive peripheral contributor to Vincent High School’s successes, but not
a key component nor a significantly impactful characteristic Common responses to this
characteristic were that it contributes to student learning, attracts involved parents to the
school, attracts highly skilled, motivated students to the school, that it provokes
disappointment for those families not chosen in the random lottery, and that there is a
public misconception that the school selects only highly skilled students for admissions.
A quotation from an administrator explains further:
The policy attracts motivated parents, but this is not to say their kids
automatically score higher but it does attract more involved and more motivated
parents…I think the perception is that we are like a magnet or a charter school.
This is a misperception even within our own district. There is some confusion that
we are selecting based on academic criteria but that is not the case.

The school of choice questions allowed participants to reveal their own personal
assessment of the designation. They were then asked to explain if they felt this
characteristic had any impact (positive or negative) on student achievement and the
school climate. Finally, they were asked to explain what their knowledge of other
stakeholders’ opinions/experiences with the “school of choice” designation of Vincent
High School. Table 12 lists the results of these questions.

160

Table 12. School of Choice Responses

Responses Total
(N = 33)
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n = 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
Contributes to
Learning
22
(66%)
9
(69%)
3
(75%)
7
(64%)
3
(60%)
Attracts
Involved
Parents
17
(52%)
8
(62%)
4
(100%)
2
(18%)
3
(60%)
Attracts Highly
Skilled
Motivated
Students
15
(45%)
6
(46%)
1
(25%)
5
(45%)
3
(60%)
Unfair to
Families not
Chosen
13
(39%)
3
(23%)
2
(50%)
4
(36%)
4
(80%)
Causes Public
Misconceptions
12
(36%)
11
(85%)
1
(25%)

School Size Responses (Char. #2)

Findings reveal that participants of the current study perceived Vincent High
School’s medium size (approx. 1,250 students) (Lee & Burkam, 2003) to be a significant
and major explanation for student achievement and standardized test score gains from
2001 to 2008. Representatives from all four stakeholder groups stated that they felt
Vincent’s relatively small size directly contributed to student learning. Additional
common responses for this characteristic were that it allows for more individual teacher
attention and smaller class sizes, and that the size enhances a positive social climate. A
parent quotation further informs:
The school is just the right size because I feel the if a school is overcrowded there
are too many kids in a classroom, it’s too hard to teach, too hard to grade papers,
and too hard for teachers to keep track of the kids. Small school size equals a

161

good learning environment, small size is positive. Bigger schools are harder for
teachers to keep track of the kids and their learning.

The school size questions allowed participants first to reveal their own personal
assessment of the size of Vincent High School, then to explain if they felt this
characteristic had any impact (positive or negative) on student achievement and the
school climate. Results of these questions are shown in Table 13.

Table 13. School Size Responses

Responses Total
(N = 33)
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n = 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
Contributes to
Learning
29
(88%)
11
(85%)
4
(100%)
9
(82%)
5
(100%)
Allows for
More Teacher
Attention/Small
Classes
26
(79%)
7
(54%)
3
(75%)
11
(100%)
5
(100%)
Enhances
Positive School
Climate
26
(79%)
11
(85%)
4
(100%)
7
(64%)
4
(80%)

Teacher Education Responses (Char. #3)

The researcher gauged the lingering impact of the university in question’s mission
statement of preparing social justice educators devoted to providing working class urban
children of color with a meaningful equitable education on the daily practices of
Vincent’s teachers. The researcher also sought to probe the opinions of those teachers
who did not attend the university in question. Therefore the researcher selected six
teachers that did attend (characteristic #3 Status: “Yes”) and seven teachers that did not
attend (characteristic #3 Status: “No”) the university in question for teacher training.

162

The first interview question about this characteristic asked teachers to identify
what has been the greatest influence on their teaching practices. Of the 13 teacher-
participants asked this question, only one indicated that the teacher education program
was the greatest influence on daily teaching practices. This teacher did attend the
university in question. Of the remaining five teachers with a characteristic #3 status of
“Yes,” none stated that the teacher education program was the greatest influence on
his/her practices. Also, none of the teacher-participants who had a characteristic #3 Status
of “No” indicated that his/her respective teacher education program was the greatest
influence on teaching practices.
Additional influences indicated by teacher-participants were their relationships
with colleagues, their own professional experiences, and professional development
workshops. Table 14 lists teachers’ influences responses .
Next, all participants were asked for their own personal assessment of the
circumstance at Vincent High School whereby more than 50% of teachers had received
their pedagogical training at the same university. They were then asked to explain if they
felt this characteristic had any impact on student achievement and the school climate.
Students and parents were not informed of the university’s social justice agenda, and all
four administrators already knew of it.

163

Table 14. Teachers’ Greatest Influences

Responses Number of Teacher Responses
(N = 13)
Relationships with Colleagues 6 (46%)
Own Professional Experiences 3 (23%)
Professional Development Workshops 2 (15%)
Teacher Education Training 1 (8%)
No Response 1 (8%)

Findings indicate that stakeholders at Vincent High School feel that this
characteristic has had a positive impact on Vincent High School. Reasons include: this
characteristic has provided the school with a continuous stream of effective teachers, it
contributes to student learning, it allows for consistency of instructional practices, and
that the teacher familiarity afforded from this characteristic enhances the affective school
climate. Many stakeholders at Vincent High perceive the close relationship the school has
had with the university in question in a positive light, and feel that it has contributed to
the school’s academic and affective outcomes. Furthermore, 24% of participants
indicated that evidence of the university’s social justice agenda bears an influence of the
school. For example, one teacher with a Characteristic #3 Status. “Yes” stated:
When you have a high quality institution…you have high quality teachers. We
have been able to wrangle in a number of high quality teachers from that program.
The social justice agenda has set up those teachers to have a greater appreciation
of our students. These teachers have sought out environments like ours to teach
underserved students. But I have seen some very good teachers come from some
very good and very bad programs besides that one.

There was, however, an indication from some participants that Vincent High School’s
high percentage of teachers from one particular teacher education program detracts from

164

ethnic and intellectual diversity at the school. Table 15 presents the results of these
questions .

Table 15. Teacher Education Responses

Responses Total
N = 33
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n = 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
Provides School
with Flow of
Effective Teachers
18(55%)
8
(62%)
2
(50%)
5
(45%)
3
(60%)
Contributes to
Learning
16
(48%)
3
(75%)
3
(75%)
7
(64%)
3
(60%)
Allows for
Consistency of
Instruction
16
(48%)
3
(75%)
3
(75%)
8
(73%)
2
(40%)
Enhances Positive
School Climate
12
(36%)
6
(18%)
2
(50%)
4
(36%)

Evidence of Social
Justice Agenda
8
(24%)
4
(31%)
3
(75%)
1
(9%)

Detracts for
Ethnic/Instructional
Diversity of
Teachers
4
(12%)
1
(3%)
2
(18%)
1
(20%)

Teacher Collaboration Responses (Char. #4)

Interview responses to the teacher collaboration questions reveal that stakeholders
at Vincent High School concur that teacher collaboration was an advisable practice. The
participants stated that teacher collaboration allowed teachers to improve their
effectiveness and build staff camaraderie, that it contributed to student learning, allowed
the school to achieve consistency of instructional practices across the curriculum, and
increased the practices of data-driven decision making. A teacher-participant elaborated:

165

Collaboration in general is a good idea, teachers getting together to share ideas
and methods can only be beneficial to the school. A drawback though is that
school wide collaboration is more of like a faculty meeting with not much
collaboration on lessons units etc…Departmental Collaboration is very important!
Collaborating allows teachers to have common pacing, grading, curriculum in
same classes. Sharing is positive, it is Very Impactful on student learning because
teachers collaborating on lessons and ideas allow us to transfer successful
methodologies.

This quotation reveals the dichotomy of teacher-responses provoked by this set of
questions, including the positive aspects of departmental collaboration and the negative
aspects of the school’s staff-wide collaboration. The negatives responses were that it had
become a bit redundant, and that time was not always used efficiently or effectively. The
participants who discussed this topic did so in the context of teacher collaboration as an
advisable routine at Vincent High, but they expressed that it needed some calibration to
make it a more effective use of time. None of the 33 participants mentioned that teacher
collaboration detracted from student learning, or should be eliminated from the regular
practices at Vincent High School.
The teacher collaboration questions allowed participants to reveal their own
personal assessment of the biweekly meetings intended to allow teachers to collaborate
on instructional practices, data analysis, pacing, behavioral measures, and assessment
strategies at Vincent High School. They were then asked to explain if they felt this
characteristic had any impact on student achievement and the school climate. Finally,
they were asked to explain their knowledge of other stakeholders’ opinions/experiences
with teacher collaboration at Vincent High School. Table 16 presents the results of these
questions.

166

Table 16. Teacher Collaboration Responses

Responses Total
N = 33
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n = 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
Improves/Increases
Teachers’
Instructional
Practices
27
(82%)
9
(69%)
4
(100%)
11
(100%)
3
(60%
Contributes to
Learning
21
(64%)
6
(46%)
3
(75%)
9
(82%)
3
((60%)
Not Always
Effective Use of
Time/Needs
Innovation
13
(39%)
12
(92%)

1
(20%)
Allows for
Consistency of
Instruction
10
(30%)
3
(23%)
2
(50%)
3
(27%)
2
(40%)

Rotating Block Schedule Responses (Char. #5)

Interview responses in the current study indicated that stakeholders associated
with Vincent High School felt that the site-created rotating block schedule in use at the
school was a significant contributor to the school’s student performance outcomes.
Overall, participants explained that they felt the school’s rotating block schedule
contributed to student learning and allowed more time for student cognition of course
material. Responses were also that the rotating block schedule allowed students more
time to complete homework and in-class assignments. Furthermore, participants stated
that they believed the rotating block schedule allows teachers more time to differentiate
instruction, and that the time rotation is positive because its features allow each
individual class period to meet at three different times of day per week.

167

Some student and teacher evaluations of the positive aspects of time rotation
included: “meeting at different times helps us stay awake the on days the class isn’t first
period of the day,” “the time rotation helps to distribute chronic tardies throughout all
classes, not just first period,” and “it’s good that the rowdy after-lunch period only meets
one time a week after lunch.” Additionally, participants indicated that they perceived the
rotating block schedule to allow teachers to focus on greater depth during instruction.
Lastly, a smaller percentage of stakeholders discussed a residual positive effect of
the rotating block schedule in that it emulates a college environment. A parent elaborated
further:
The block schedule is very positive! This is because students are not in same class
everyday, it breaks up the monotony, it helps them to concentrate and complete
assignments for that class. The extra day between class meetings helps them to get
things done. The 92 minute periods helps students the grasp the material too.

This quotation is representative of the majority of responses about the rotating block
schedule. Most participants indicated a multitude of positive aspects of the rotating block
schedule.
The rotating block schedule questions allowed participants to reveal their own
personal assessment of the schedule in use at Vincent High School. They were then
asked to explain if they felt this characteristic had any impact on student achievement and
the school climate. Finally, they were asked to explain their knowledge of other
stakeholders’ opinions/experiences with the rotating block schedule at Vincent High
School. Table 17 lists the results of these questions.

168

Table 17. Rotating Block Schedule Responses

Responses Total
N = 33
Teachers
n = 13
Administrators
n = 4
Students
n = 11
Parents
n = 5
Contributes
to Learning
25
(75%)
7
(54%)
3
(75%)
11
(100%)
4
(80%)
Allows More
Time for
Cognition
21
(64%)
6
(46%)
2
(50%)
9
(82%)
4
(80%)
Allows More
Time for
Assignment
Completion
19
(56%)
3
(23%)
1
(25%)
11
(100%)
4
(80%)
Allows for
Differentiated
Instruction
15
(45%)
9
(69%)
3
(75%)
2
(18%)
1
(20%)
Time
Rotation is
Positive
15
(45%)
8
(62%)
1
(25%)
4
(36%)
2
(40)
Allows for
Depth of
Instruction
14
(42%)
7
(54%)
2
(50%)
4
(36%)
1
(20%)
Emulates a
College
Environment
5
(15%)
2
(15%)
1
(25%)
2
(40%)

“No D” Policy Responses (Char. #6)

Stakeholders clearly perceived the “No D” Policy to be the most impactful of
Vincent High School’s Six Distinguishing Characteristics. Findings from the current
study revealed that stakeholders, especially students, held the policy in high regard. All
stakeholder groups indicated that this characteristic has been immensely beneficial in
changing the culture of the school and in raising student performance levels.
Participants of the current study believed the “No D” Policy to be a major and
significant contributor to Vincent High School’s positive academic and affective

169

outcomes. The overwhelming majority, or 85%, perceived this characteristic to motivate
students to strive for higher levels of achievement. Another significant finding was that a
slightly smaller majority, or 76%, of participants indicated that the “No D” Policy
directly contributes to student learning. Student participants had the highest percentage of
responses for the student motivation and student learning themes of the “No D” Policy.
When pressed for further explanation, one student stated that the policy “makes us work
harder,” “makes us realize that a ‘D’ is not acceptable,” and “pushes us to give our best
everyday.” These quotations provided further insight to the phenomenon that emerged
from interviews that stakeholders, especially students of Vincent High School, perceived
the “No D” Policy to motivate students and contributed mightily to their learning.
There were additional themes from interviews with high percentages of responses
from participants. First of these themes is the perception that the “No D” Policy
establishes high standards and expectations at the school. A significant majority of
power-wielding stakeholders (teachers and administrators) of Vincent High School
believe this characteristic to be directly responsible for increased expectations and higher
standards at the high school. Also, participants across stakeholder groups discussed that
the raised expectations from the “No D” Policy may in turn help to increase the academic
rigor of classroom instruction. For example, one teacher stated, “the ‘No D’ Policy makes
us all conscious of the possibility for higher rates of fails, which makes us rise to the
challenge of teaching better.” There is also the perception that the “No D” Policy helped
to emulate a college environment.

170

Additionally however, a small but noteworthy percentage of 21% of participants
indicated that they felt the “No D” Policy was at times unfair, unclear, and inconsistently
implemented at Vincent High School. When pressed for more explanation, one student
said that “some teachers give students who are close to a 70% a ‘C’ if they like them or
an ‘F’ if they don’t like them.” The same student explained further that students were
aware of this potential bias, and in fact try less when they believe the teacher does not
like them. Participants who mentioned this response discussed that inconsistent
implementation of the “No D” Policy could actually detract from student learning.
The “No D” Policy questions allowed participants to reveal their own personal
assessment of the “No D” Policy in use at Vincent High School. They were then asked to
explain if they felt this characteristic had any impact on student achievement and the
school climate. Finally, they were asked to explain their knowledge of other stakeholders’
opinions/experiences with the “No D” Policy at Vincent High School. Table 18 presents
the results of these questions.

171

Table 18. “No D” Policy Responses
Responses Total
Number
of
Responses
Teachers
N = 13
Administrators
N = 4
Students
N = 11
Parents
N = 5
Motivates Students
to Achieve
28 11 2 10 5
Contributes to
Learning
25 9 4 10 2
Establishes High
Standards
25 11 4 7 3
Increases
Academic Rigor
16 7 2 5 2
Emulates College
Environment
13 5 2 4 2
Unfair/Inconsistent 7 3 2 2

Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale

As discussed in Chapter III of this dissertation, the researcher asked participants
to make a judgment as to the value rating they felt each of the six distinguishing
characteristics of Vincent High School had on student achievement and affective climate
outcomes at the school. Participants were asked this question for each characteristic. This
step was the last one of the interview. Participants were asked to determine their value
rating for each characteristic: key component, very impactful, impactful, not impactful, or
negatively impactful on student achievement and affective climate outcomes. “Key
Component” indicated that the participant felt the characteristic was the main one
responsible for Vincent High School’s successes, of which without Vincent High would
not have experienced the positive outcomes it has. “Very Imapactful” indicated the
participant felt that characteristic was a significant major contributor to Vincent High
School’s successes, but not the main reason. “Impactful” indicated the participant felt that

172

characteristic was a positive mitigating contributor, but not a significant reason why
Vincent High has produced the positive outcomes that is has. “Not Impactful” indicated
the participant felt that characteristic was neutral, and not responsible positively or
negatively in any way for Vincent’s outcomes. Finally, “Negatively Impactful” indicated
the participant felt that characteristic detracted from positive student achievement and
affective climate outcomes at Vincent High School.
In conducting mean and standard deviation calculations for the Characteristics’
Value Rating Scale, a numerical scale with a range of 3 (Key Component) to -1
(Negatively Impactful) was utilized. In the case of any “Unclear of Impact” responses,
the participant was deducted from the denominator in calculating the Mean Item Score
for that respective characteristic. The results of this analysis better informed the
researcher in concluding the saliency and fidelity of each distinguishing characteristic.
Numerical calculations of the six distinguishing characteristics’ value ratings
suggested that stakeholders at Vincent High School considered the “No D” Policy as the
most significant reason for Vincent High School’s successes in achieving high student
outcomes. This characteristic’s mean item score of 2.030 was the highest rating of all six
distinguishing characteristics, and greater than one full standard deviation above the
overall mean. Many participants indicated a perceived-causal relationship between the
“No D” Policy and the school’s student achievement successes. With overall mean item
scores of 1.969 and 1.813 respectively, the school’s size and the rotating block schedule

173

were both perceived as major contributors to Vincent’s success, although not to a degree
as equivalent to the “No D” Policy.
Next, teacher collaboration achieved an overall mean item score of 1.406,
indicating that stakeholders perceive it to be somewhat impactful on Vincent High
School’s positive student outcomes, although not significantly. Finally, the teacher
education characteristic and the school of choice designation were both perceived as
positive mitigating peripheral contributors that have not detracted from student
achievement at the high school; however, participants indicated they felt the school
would have experienced similar rates of student achievement even without the presence
of these final two characteristics. The mean item scores of 1.242 and 1.031 these
characteristics earned respectively, indicated as much. The overall and disaggregated
intergroup results of the mean and standard deviation calculations of the Characteristics’
Value Ratings Scale responses are listed in the next subsection of this chapter (Table 19.)

Disaggregated Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale Results

Results Presented by Distinguishing School Characteristic and Stakeholder
Groups. Note: In the case of any “Unclear of Impact” responses, the participant was
deducted from the denominator in calculating the Mean Item Score for that respective
characteristic.

174

Table 19. Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale: Overall Mean Item Scores

Characteristic Overall
Mean Item Score
M+/-___SD
#1 School of
Choice:
1.031 M-1.334SD
#2: School Size

1.969 M+ 0.937SD
#3: Teacher
Education
1.242 M- 0.823SD
#4: Teacher
Collaboration
1.406 M- 0.426SD
#5: Rotating Block
Schedule
1.813 M+ 0.559SD
#6: No D Policy

2.030 M+ 1.085SD

Note. Overall Mean Rating: 1.582. Standard Deviation: 0.413.Variance: 0.0352.

Characteristic #1: School of Choice--Value Rating Scale Analysis (Tables 20-
21).
Table 20. School of Choice: Characteristic Value Ratings

Rating Teachers
N = 13
Administrators
N = 4
Students
N = 11
Parents
N = 5
Key
Component
0 0 2 0
Very
Impactful
4 2 0 1
Impactful 4 1 6 2
Not Impactful 4 1 3 2
Negatively
Impactful
0 0 0 0
Unclear 1 0 0 0

175

Table 21. School of Choice: Group Mean Item Scores

#1 School of
Choice
Teachers
(N = 13)
Administrators
(N = 4)
Students
(N=11)
Parents
(N = 5)
Group Mean
Item Scores
1.00 1.25 1.090 .8

Note: Combined Group Mean Item Score: 1.031. Standard Deviation of Group Mean
Item Scores: 0.188. Variance: 0.0352.

Characteristic #2: School Size--Value Rating Scale Analysis (Tables 22-23).

Table 22. School Size: Characteristic Value Ratings

Rating Teachers
N = 13
Administrators
N = 4
Students
N = 11
Parents
N = 5
Key
Component
6 0 3 4
Very
Impactful
3 3 2 0
Impactful 3 1 5 1
Not Impactful 1 0 1 0
Negatively
Impactful
0 0 0 0
Unclear 0 0 0 0

Table 23. School Size: Group Mean Item Scores

#2 School
Size
Teachers
(N = 13)
Administrators
(N = 4)
Students
(N = 11)
Parents
(N = 5)
Group Mean
Item Scores
2.076 1.750 1.636 2.6

Note. Combined Group Mean Item Score: 1.969. Standard Deviation of Group Mean
Item Scores: 0.432. Variance: 0.187.

176

Characteristic #3: Teacher Education--Value Rating Scale Analysis (Tables 24-
25).
Table 24. Teacher Education: Characteristic Value Ratings

Rating Teachers
N = 13
Administrators
N = 4
Students
N =11
Parents
N = 5
Key
Component
0 0 1 0
Very
Impactful
7 2 3 1
Impactful 3 2 4 3
Not Impactful 3 0 3 1
Negatively
Impactful
0 0 0 0
Unclear 0 0 0 0

Table 25. Teacher Education: Group Mean Item Scores

#3 Teacher
Education
Teachers
(N = 13)
Administrators
(N = 4)
Students
(N = 11)
Parents
(N = 5)
Group Mean
Item Scores
1.307 1.50 1.181 1.00

Note. Combined Group Mean Item Score: 1.242. Standard Deviation of Group Mean
Item Scores: 0.211. Variance: 0.0443.

177

Characteristic #4: Teacher Collaboration--Value Ratings Scale Analysis (Tables
26-27).
Table 26. Teacher Collaboration: Characteristic Value Ratings

Rating Teachers
N = 3
Administrators
N = 4
Students
N = 11
Parents
N = 5
Key
Component
0 0 2 1
Very
Impactful
3 2 3 1
Impactful 8 2 6 2
Not Impactful 2 0 0 0
Negatively
Impactful
0 0 0 0
Unclear 0 0 0 1

Table 27. Teacher Collaboration: Group Mean Item Scores

#4 Teacher
Collaboration
Teachers
(N = 13)
Administrators
(N = 4)
Students
(N = 11)
Parents
(N = 5)
Group Mean
Item Scores
1.076 1.50 1.636 1.75

Note. Combined Group Mean Item Score: 1.406. Standard Deviation of Group Mean
Item Scores: 0.238. Variance: 0.087.

178

Characteristic #5: Rotating Block Schedule--Value Ratings Scale Analysis
(Tables 28-29).
Table 28. Rotating Block Schedule: Characteristic Value Ratings

Rating Teachers
N = 13
Administrators
N = 4
Students
N = 11
Parents
N = 5
Key
Component
2 0 4 1
Very
Impactful
6 2 5 2
Impactful 3 1 2 1
Not Impactful 2 1 0 0
Negatively
Impactful
0 0 0 0
Unclear 0 0 0 1

Table 29. Rotating Block Schedule: Group Mean Item Scores

#5 Rotating
Block
Schedule
Teachers
(N = 13)
Administrators
(N = 4)
Students
(N = 11)
Parents
(N = 4)
Group Mean
Item Scores
1.615 1.25 2.181 2.0

Note. Combined Group Mean Item Score: 1.813. Standard Deviation of Group Mean
Item Scores: 0.385. Variance: 0.172.

179

Characteristic #6: No D Policy--Value Ratings Scale Analysis (Tables 30-31).

Table 30. “No D” Policy: Characteristic Value Ratings

Rating Teachers
N = 13
Administrators
N = 4
Students
N = 11
Parents
N = 5
Key
Component
4 1 9 0
Very
Impactful
4 3 1 1
Impactful 5 0 0 3
Not Impactful 0 0 0 1
Negatively
Impactful
0 0 1 0
Unclear 0 0 0 0

Table 31. “No D” Policy: Group Mean Item Scores

#6 “No D”
Policy
Teachers
(N = 13)
Administrators
(N = 4)
Students
(N = 11)
Parents
(N = 5)
Group Mean
Item Scores
1.923 2.25 2.545 1.00

Note. Combined Group Mean Item Score: 2.030. Standard Deviation of Group Mean
Item Scores: 0.668. Variance: 0.449.

180

Classroom Observations Findings

Upon conclusion of interviews with teacher-participants, the researcher observed
classroom instruction of 7 of the 13 teachers who were interviewed. These seven teachers
were selected for observation firstly because they were interviewed for this study.
Another logistical factor in their selection was the convenience factor in both teacher and
researcher schedules. These seven teachers had classes to teach during the researcher’s
student-free preparation period, which is when observations took place. The researcher
spent one class period (92 minute total) in each of the seven observed-teachers’
classrooms. The purpose of these observations was to further triangulate data gathered
during interview process. More specifically, observations allowed the researcher to gather
data both on how teachers delivered instruction and on classroom climates.
The researcher gathered and recorded data in the following domains: observable
levels of student engagement, teacher-student and student-student interactions, different
types of instructional strategies, and number of transitions during the course of the lesson.
For purposes of this discussion, the following two terms are defined:
1. “Student Engagement” is defined as a student or students taking an observably
active role in the education process by exhibiting behavior that contributes to their own
learning. Examples of student engagement could be, but is not limited to, sharing during
a class discussion, audible small group discussions with peers, asking course-related
questions of the teacher, scientific experimentation during labs, observably completing
class assignments, taking notes during a lecture and giving attention to the teacher and/or

181

screen where notes are projected, giving a presentation before the whole class, reciprocal
small group teaching, and/or responding to teacher stimuli in the course of a lesson for
instructional purposes (i.e., giving a call/response, participating in a demonstration, etc.).
2. “Transitions” is defined as formal classroom activity that required students to
either physically move from one place to another, change from one cognitive task to
another, change from one student-centered cooperative interaction to another, and/or the
teacher switching from one teacher-centered instructional method to another. The data
gathered during classroom observations were cross-referenced against that which
teachers provided in the interview process about the rotating block schedule and about
teacher sharing of pedagogical methods during teacher collaboration meetings.
Observations of seven classrooms revealed that student engagement was medium
to relatively high at Vincent High School. In all seven classes, the researcher observed no
less than 69% of students in a given class engaged in the classroom learning activities.
The average percentage of students clearly engaged was 90%, with a range of 69% to
100%. Additionally, in four of seven classes, the researcher observed 100% of students
engaged and attentive to the instructional activities for the duration of the 92-minute
period. These four classes had enrollments of 34, 25, 32, 37. Understandably, keeping a
small class of 20 or fewer engaged is much easier. However the smallest size of the four
100%-engaged classes observed was 25, with a maximum of 37. The remaining three
observed classes had student engagement percentages of 69% (9/13), 76% (28/37), and
86% (30/35) respectively. These percentages of student engagement are not ideal nor the

182

apex of effective teacher instruction. However, the lowest percentage of 69% still
represented a significant majority of students in the class engaged and attentive to the
learning process, as do the 76% and 86% observed engaged classes as well.
As a side note, in the three classes with less than 100% of students observed
engaged, examples of student disengagement included sleeping, side conversations,
listening to music players, texting/dialing cell phones, walking around the room
aimlessly, and completing assignments for another class.
The researcher sat in the back of each classroom and kept track of each
instructional activity as well as the frequency of transitions from one instructional activity
to another. The findings from classroom observations indicated that teachers at Vincent
High School do in fact frequently transition from one activity to another, avoid doing the
same thing for entire 92-minute periods, and cater to multiple learning styles through the
differentiated instructional decisions they make. For example, the researcher observed an
average number of 5.7 instructional transitions per observation, with a range of 3-11.
There were no fewer than three transitions observed in any class, with no obvious trend
of one particular academic discipline transitioning more or less than another. The
different activities included teacher-centered and student-centered instructional models.
Teacher-centered activities included traditional teacher lectures, teacher lectures
with graphics on the board and power point visuals, teacher demonstrations of lab
experiments, as well as teachers leading class discussions and call and response exercises.
Some student centered instruction observed included students working in small groups to

183

compute/complete problems in class; small groups engaged in reciprocal teaching, class
presentations, and constructive peer criticism of student presentations. Instructional
transitions occurred every 15-25 minutes in all cases, and in each case the seven teachers
observed called attention to the fact that the class was transitioning to something new.
The researcher observed one Spanish class, one math class, two science classes,
two English classes, and one social studies class. During observations of all classes there
was an noticeable atmosphere of mutual respect and positive interaction between the
teacher and students, and among the students themselves. All seven teachers avoided
confrontation with students, allowed students to speak freely and encouraged impromptu
student questions. Students were given opportunities to teach each other various aspects
of the material. Teachers used humor, noncombative light sarcasm, and verbal analogies
to keep students’ attention and interest. Students were permitted to respond to teacher and
student-generated questions and class-discussion topics. There were no confrontations or
disputes between teachers and students or student and student at any time. The researcher
acknowledges these observed positive teacher and student behaviors may not be the norm
in each respective class. However positive and open communication amongst teachers
and students was on full display during each of the seven observations.
Teachers utilized a vast array of instructional strategies during classroom
observations. There was an equal amount of teacher-centered and student-centered
instructional designs. Teachers lectured, demonstrated lab experiments, facilitated class
discussions and whole group dialogues, as well as led call and response translations.

184

Teachers also allowed students to facilitate their own and each other’s learning via
student presentations, pair/share activities, collaborative math computations,
collaborative pairs conducting lab experiments, and providing feedback of other students’
presentations. Similarly, teachers frequently transitioned from one instructional activity
to another during observations. Frequent instructional transitions might help explain why
the researcher observed high to very high levels of student engagement in nearly every
class. Students volunteered to ask questions of the teacher and the whole class, respond to
teacher questions and student-generated questions. Students were observed taking notes
during lectures, and discussing in small clusters the aspects of visual stimuli used during
teacher-centered instructions (i.e., powerpoint images projected on a screen).
High percentages of students were engaged in lab experiments in the science
classes, assisted each other with computations in the calculus class, discussed with each
other and the teacher controversial issues during the social studies class, fully participated
in call and response translations during Spanish class, and made presentations and
provided each other feedback in the English classes. The researcher again acknowledges
that these high levels of student engagement during observations may not be the normal
mode of operations in those classes, but were on full display during the researcher’s
observations (See Appendix E, Table 35 for a summary list of the behavioral domains
observed during observations: student engagement, teacher-student interactions,
instructional strategies, transitions).

185

Furthermore, the seven classroom observations allowed the researcher to discern
if there were any trends or consistency of instructional practices across the gamut of
academic disciplines. The seven classes were Spanish II, calculus, biology, English 12,
world history, English 11, and chemistry. There were in fact five common instructional
practices witnessed in some form or fashion in these seven classes. Therefore there was
some consistency of practice in the classrooms. First of these common strategies is
Collaborative Group Work, which is defined as students working in small groups of 2-4
completing an assignment or cognitive task together. This strategy was observed in five
classes: calculus, biology, English 12, English 11, and chemistry.
Another commonality was Multiple Intelligence Instruction. This strategy is
defined as the activation of multiple student learning modalities during teacher-centered
instruction. This strategy was observed in five classes as well: Spanish II, biology, world
history, English 11, chemistry. Thirdly, Traditional Teacher-Centered Lecture was
observed in four classes: calculus, biology, world history, and chemistry. Next, the
researcher observed Student Groups Reciprocal Teaching in three classes: calculus,
English 12, English 11. This instructional strategy is defined as students working in
groups (usually 2-6), taking turns in instructing each other in course material. This
interaction was observed by students reading about a designated component of course
material or calculating a designated problem individually, then reconvening the group to
inform each other of what they read or how to calculate the problem.

186

Finally, Student-Centered Class Instruction was observed in both the English 12
and the English 11 classes. With this instructional strategy, individual students or teams
of 2-5 went before the class to present a power point, skit, and/or poster they created on
course material. The commonalties of instructional strategies observed were across the
academic spectrum, with all classes but one utilizing multiple strategies per session.
Table 32 details the full results of common instructional strategies.

Table 32. Observed Instructional Strategies

Instructional
Strategies
Spanish
II
Calculus Biology Chemistry English
12
English 11 World
History
Collaborative
Group Work
X X X X X
Multiple
Intelligence
Instruction
X X X X X
Traditional
Teacher-
Centered
Lecture
X X X X
Student
Group
Reciprocal
Teaching
X X X
Student-
Centered
Class
Instruction
X X

Teacher Collaboration Meetings Observations Findings

The researcher observed five teacher collaboration meetings. Four of the
collaboration meetings were departmental (math, English, social studies, science), and
one was staff-wide, with teachers from all departments present. Observations of
collaboration meetings allowed the researcher to gather data on how teachers interact and

187

communicate in these meetings, their topics of discussion, how they share instructional
strategies, and how they use student-outcomes data in relation to instructional decisions.
Collaboration meetings were held at Vincent High School once every two weeks. On
collaboration days, students go home 90 minutes early, and teachers proceed to
designated classrooms for 90-minute meetings.
These observations revealed that the teaching staff uses collaboration meetings to
share ideas and feedback on instructional strategies, curricula pacing plans, behavioral
measures, supplemental teaching resources, formative and summative assessment data
analysis, as well as colleague-classroom observations. All four of the departmental
collaboration meetings spent the time solely discussing and/or demonstrating the
aforementioned topics. For example, during the social studies collaboration meeting, the
researcher observed a teacher demonstrating his use of web-based videos embedded
within power point presentations he shows his students. In the English department
collaboration meeting, two different teachers demonstrated for their colleagues the
methods they use to teach students how to write essays. And during the math
department’s collaboration meeting, three teachers shared aloud the instructional
strategies they witnessed while observing their math colleagues teach, and then allowed
the observed-colleagues to elaborate further for the rest of the department.
There were cases of department-head-led discussion, pair sharing of pacing plans,
and reviews of supplemental materials, as well as time for teacher-pairs to plan lessons

188

and review previous student performance data (i.e., assignments, benchmark exam
results, state standardized test data) in all five of the collaboration meetings observed.
The lone staff-wide collaboration meeting revealed a similar use of time. Teachers
reviewed affective and academic student outcome data and discussed the data’s meanings
and significance. In this meeting teachers in interdepartmental teams of three to four
people reviewed information from the previous academic school year regarding student
suspensions, office referrals, and lunch detentions. They also reviewed and discussed the
meaning/significance of student standardized testing outcome data in the same
interdepartmental teams. In either case, the focus of discussion and activities was on
analysis and improvement of student-outcomes, teachers’ roles in such student outcome
improvements, and the data necessary to measure these improvements. In all
collaboration meetings observed, departmental (four total) and staff-wide (one total),
teachers communicated professionally, equitably, and collegially. There were no
observable disputes, arguments, combative interruptions, insulting comments, or
instances of raised voices. The researcher again acknowledges these positive patterns of
communication may not always be the case in the teacher collaboration meetings at
Vincent High School. Positive and open collegial dialogue were, however, the standard
modes of communication observed by the researcher (see Appendix D, Table 34 for a
detailed summary of the goals, quality of teacher communication, activities, and focus of
each of the teacher collaboration meetings observed).

189

Document Analysis Findings

The researcher conducted document analysis on school and district-wide policies
related to grading practices, bell schedules, teacher collaboration goals/objectives, as well
as “school of choice” stipulations and selection procedures. The researcher accessed the
same school and district policy information that is readily available to the public. The
information gathered for the document analysis was collected via Vincent High School’s
2008-2009 Parent-Student Handbook, the Vincent High School website, and from the
California School Boards Association website
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html), which has listed the official board-
adopted policies and regulations for all school boards in the state of California.
The intent of this document review was to identify what the official directives are
of the categories mentioned above. This review and analysis allowed the researcher a
policy-framework from which to evaluate the saliency and fidelity of implementation of
the distinguishing characteristics of the school, and to better determine if the interviewed
stakeholders were interpreting, implementing, and actualizing those school/district
policies as they were intended, per the written letter of those policies. A careful review of
the school and district-polices related to “school of choice” admissions, teacher
collaboration, bell schedules, and grading leave much to interpretation, vague
explanation, and room for great variance of implementation. The results of the document
analysis in each category is explained in this subsection.

190

Characteristic #1: School of Choice

Formal policies published by the Sprawling Meadows Unified School District
School Board regarding admissions and school of choice protocol for Vincent High
School were explicit. Official school board policy makes it clear that Vincent High
School is a “school of choice” for families residing within the geographic boundaries of
the district, and that a random lottery determines enrollment eligibility. The board
policies stipulated that there must be a random unbiased selection process, of which the
district subsequently adopted a random lottery procedure. The board policy on these
issues reads:

“Vincent” High School is the school of choice for students residing within the
“Sprawling Meadows Unified School District” attendance area. As such, there are
no attendance boundaries that determine placement for students. Students and
their parents may choose to attend “Vincent” High School.… The
Superintendent…shall…establish a random, unbiased selection process
for…admission. (http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html)

Therefore, the school board was clear that parents must choose to send their children to
Vincent High School, and that neither personal relationships nor any other form of unfair
influence may be considered in the process of selection. Such potentially influential
factors included previous academic and athletic performance. The board policy with
regard to these factors reads: “Admission to a particular school shall not be influenced by
a student's academic or athletic performance.”
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html).
Vincent High School’s parent-student handbook also makes it clear that the
school is a “school of choice,” and, in order to attend, parents and student must agree to

191

support the philosophy and goals of the school (“Vincent” High School, 2008). However,
the school board policy did stipulate that younger siblings of students already attending
Vincent High School shall be given priority in determining their enrollment status to the
high school if their parents choose to send them to the high school as well. This policy
read “Schools receiving requests for admission shall give priority for attendance to
siblings of children already in attendance in that school”
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html). This rule revealed that the school
board acknowledged that all earnest attempts should be made to keep siblings together, in
spite of the school’s random lottery for admission. Lastly, the school board mentioned
that students living outside the district’s boundaries should have an avenue into Vincent
High School. The policy reads, “The Superintendent or designee shall determine the
capacity of each school…for the admission of students from outside a school's attendance
area”
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html). Therefore, space permitting, students
residing outside of district boundaries may also “choose” to attend Vincent High School.

Characteristic #4: Teacher Collaboration

The Sprawling Meadows Unified School District, and its school board did not
publish any policies or materials related to Vincent High School’s teacher collaboration
schedule, meetings, protocol, topics, goals, or objectives. In conducting document

192

analysis for this particular characteristic, the researcher had only one document that
Vincent High School’s administration produced to rely upon and examine. This
document, “Vincent High School Department Reflection Sheet: 2008-2009,” was a
handout that each department received prior to, filled out during, and subsequently
submitted to a designated associate principal of the high school at the conclusion of each
biweekly collaboration meeting.
The document required each department to identify and write down their goals for
the meeting; how the results of the meeting tie into broader school wide goals of literacy
across the curriculum; how progress toward the current goals/results of the meeting will
be measured; and the next meeting’s topic. Analysis of this document revealed a scant
heuristic for departments to follow while conducting their collaboration meetings, but did
not provide specific instructions, timelines, or procedures for attaining departmental and
school-wide collaboration goals and objectives. This fact left the potential for great
variance in how teacher collaboration meetings actually materialized, and the tasks that
each meeting accomplished at Vincent High School.

Characteristic #5: Rotating Block Schedule
The researcher had only two documents to examine related to Vincent High
School’s rotating block schedule. The first document was simply a copy of Vincent High
School’s daily rotating block bell schedule (listed below). The second was the one board
policy relating to scheduling published by the Sprawling Meadows Unified District

193

School Board. As discussed previously in Chapter I of this dissertation, a committee of
teachers from the high school created the daily bell schedule in use at Vincent
High.(Table 34).

Table 33. Vincent High School’s Daily Bell Schedule
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
8:00-9:32 (92 min.) 1 4 2 5 3
9:38-10:00 (22 min.) Study Skills Study Skills Study Skills Study Skills Study
Skills
10:06-11:38 (92 min.) 2 5 3 1 4
11:38-12:13 (35 min.) Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
12:19-1:51 (92 min.) 3 1 4 2 5
1:57-2:52 (55 min.) 6 6 6 6 6

The board policy related to school scheduling was open-ended, yet clear that local site
control of daily bell schedules is permissible. The policy read “The school day shall be
arranged and scheduled by the administration so as to offer the greatest return
educationally for the time spent, within the limitations of school facilities and
requirements of state law and regulations”
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html). This policy, as it was written
explained why and how the original principal of Vincent High School was able to adopt
the unique and site-created rotating block schedule that she did. The policy does not

194

identify a particular bell schedule to be used district-wide, but rather gives site-
administrators great latitude in utilizing whichever bell schedule they deem achieving the
“greatest educational returns for time spent.”

Characteristic #6: “No D” Policy

Official school-site, district, and school board policies related to grading were
extensive. The School Board of the Sprawling Meadows Unified School District defined
what they believed grades to be, the purpose of grades, standards from which grades
should be derived, the principal’s role in overseeing grading, students’ opportunities to
demonstrate mastery, the role of behavior and attendance in grading, the parameters of
the “No D” Policy, and parental rights of notification. Some of these board policies were
reinforced in the 2008-2009 Vincent High School Parent-Student Handbook.
The Sprawling Meadows Unified District school board explained “that grades
serve a valuable instructional purpose by helping students and parents/guardians identify
the student's areas of strength and those areas needing improvement...and course
grades…represent an accurate evaluation of the student's achievement.” Board policy
also states that grades should be impartial, and based on consistent observation of
students’ mastery of course material. Behavior, effort, and attendance are not to be
considered or weighted in the final tabulation of student grades, but rather indicated in
separate columns on final report cards (http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html).
Therefore, the school board acknowledged that grades serve a vital and essential purpose

195

in the schooling process, and should be an accurate indicator of student performance in
respective courses. In kind, the school board asserted that grades should be fair and
uniform, and that principals have the duty of ensuring equity of implementation of
grading systems across the curriculum
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html).
Additionally, board policy explicitly stipulated that parents and students have the
right to be notified as to how students’ grades will be evaluated and of grading scales in
use in each class. Related to this right of notification, the officially published school
board grading policies, as well as Vincent High School’s 2009 Parent-Student Handbook,
list the following grading scale in use in all courses at Vincent High School (Vincent
High School Parent/Student Handbook: 2009-2009): (a) “A (90-100%) Excellent
Achievement 4.0 grade points, (b) B (80-89%) Better than Average Achievement 3.0
grade points, (c) (70-79%) Average Achievement 2.0 grade points, (d) F (0-69%) Fail.
Unsatisfactory Achievement-No Credit-0.0 grade point.” The above grading scale used at
Vincent High School conspicuously was absent of “Ds.” As mentioned throughout this
dissertation, Vincent High School has a “No D” Policy, whereby an overall grade of 69%
or lower in any course is in fact a failing grade (“F”) and earns no credit toward
graduation. The official school board policy of Sprawling Meadows Unified and the 2009
Vincent High School Parent-Student Handbook both stated this policy firmly:

196

As a policy, “Vincent” High School has adopted a “No D” Policy for all class
work, progress reports, and final report cards. Students not receiving a 70% of
higher in any course will be issued a failing mark. (Vincent High School
Parent/Student Handbook: 2009-2009;
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html).

This policy clearly states in both district and site-published materials that D’s are not a
grading option at Vincent High School, and that students not receiving a minimum 70%
in any course would not receive credit towards high school graduation for that course. A
final caveat related to the “No D” Policy was that the district did have policies related to
parental and student notification of the policy. With regard to this assurance of
notification of the policy, the school board policy reads:
To ensure that students and their families fully understand the implications and
consequences of the “No D” Policy, Vincent High School must notify and
communicate to students, parents/guardians, and staff in the following manners:
* Introduced at feeder school presentations for the 8
th
-grade students and their
parents/guardians
* Explained at mandatory orientation meetings for incoming 9
th
-grade students
and their parents/guardians
* Discussed with students and their parents/guardians during 4-year planning
conferences
* Reviewed at all grade-level parent meetings at the beginning of each school
year
* Included in the Vincent High School student handbook/planner
* Included in all Vincent High School teachers’ syllabi
* Included in the Vincent High School faculty handbook

(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html.)

197

Therefore, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that all, if not nearly all, of Vincent
High School’s students and parents were aware of, and agreed to the “No D” Policy as a
stipulation of their attendance at this “school of choice.” What is not mentioned,
however, in any official school board or school-published materials was specifically how
teachers should weigh various tasks, assignments, exams, quizzes, projects (etc.) and
what degrees of rigor they should imbedded in them. These aspects of grading were
presumably left to teachers’ discretion.
As final subscript, the researcher could not locate any official policies or materials
released, authored, or published by the school district, school board, or site administration
related to Characteristics #2 and #3 (“School Size” and “Teacher Education Program,”
respectively). The documents discussed and analyzed in this section were the only such
policy documents the researcher could find related to any of the Six Distinguishing
Characteristics of Vincent High School identified in this self-study. Both district and
school administrators were solicited for information on documents related to
Characteristics #2 and #3, and no administrator had knowledge of any such additional
documents/policies related to these two characteristics omitted in this document analysis
section.
Summary of Findings

A review of the findings of this study revealed that the stakeholders of Vincent
High School held the school and its characteristics in high esteem. The participants of
this study overwhelmingly responded that Vincent High School was an environment

198

conducive to high learning outcomes, was safe, and is bolstered with effective young
teachers. Additionally, the vast majority of participants responded favorably to the Six
Distinguishing Characteristics of Vincent High School, with all Six Characteristics
achieving an overall minimum value rating of “impactful.”
Classroom and collaboration meeting observations substantiated the positive
perceptions of Vincent High School and its characteristics as expressed in interviews.
Stakeholder behaviors revealed classroom instruction to be largely dynamic, student-
centered, engaging, and with frequent instructional transitions. Observations of
collaboration meetings revealed that the regular practice focused on improving
instruction,and was in general student performance-centered, data-driven, professional,
and collegial. Finally, document analysis of district and school polices related to grading,
school of choice, bell schedules, and teacher collaboration left much to interpretation and
subsequently the high potential for variance of implementation and outcomes of the
respective policies.

199

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Context of the Phenomenon

Vincent High School is an urban public high school with a student population of
working class children of color, the majority of whom qualify for free or reduced lunch,
and are classified as English Language Learners (ELL). The total enrollment is
approximately 1,250 students. The school is located in a major Southern California
metropolis. A high percentage of schools nationally with similar conditions are mired in
low academic achievement and poor summative outcomes. The phenomenon that
occurred at Vincent High School is that its California Academic Performance Index
(API) scores (based on CST and California High School Exit Exam scores) rose from 509
in 2001 to a 750 in 2008: a statistically significant and anomalous increase, indicating
immense student learning gains over the same period.
The purpose of the current study was to identify, examine, and analyze the
distinguishing characteristics of the high school, and stakeholder perceptions of them, in
order to provide those who study effective urban schools with additional school
attributes for further exploration and hypothesis-testing. This self-study provides the field
of education with modeled school polices and practices that have shown great promise at
Vincent High, for possible transfer to other school environments and settings.
Implementing some of these characteristics in other schools, especially those servicing

200

high percentages of working class students of color, may facilitate reforms that allow for
greater levels of student achievement and supportive affective social climates.
Explicitly, this self-study catalogued and investigated six identified distinguishing
characteristics of Vincent High school. The current study probed the perceptions that
members of various stakeholder groups (students, teachers, administrators, parents) held
of the impacts of these characteristics on the academic and affective outcomes produced
at Vincent High School. For data triangulation and to inform results from interview
responses, observational data were gathered from the classroom instruction of seven of
the teacher-participants and from five teacher collaboration meetings. Document analysis
was conducted as well on official school and district policies related to Vincent’s
distinguishing characteristics. The researcher recognizes that causality has not been
determined with this dissertation.
Findings

A review of the findings of this study revealed that the stakeholders of Vincent
High School held the school and its characteristics in high esteem. Interviews revealed
that stakeholders perceived the high school to be a safe and educationally conducive
environment, in which all of the school’s characteristics have jointly enriched the school
in a positive manner. The vast majority of participants responded favorably to the Six
Distinguishing Characteristics of Vincent High School, with all six characteristics scoring
an overall mean item score of at least “impactful” on the Characteristics’ Value Rating

201

Scale devised for the study. An additional characteristic of the school emerged from
participant interviews as well: youthful effective teachers.
Classroom and collaboration meeting observations substantiated the positive
perceptions of Vincent High School and the characteristics expressed in interviews..
Observational data support interview responses that the school’s distinguishing
characteristics allow for educationally efficient and supportive classroom instruction and
teacher comaraderie.
Surprisingly, document analysis of district and school polices related to the six
identified distinguishing characteristics of the high school left much to interpretation and
provided stakeholders with only scant heuristics upon which to base related decisions.
However, positive outcomes related to the school’s distinguishing characteristics
occurred in spite of limited clarity from the official policies intended to guide their
implementation. The researcher will now discuss the findings and offer an analysis and
conclusion of each element of the findings of this study, based on relevant literature
reviewed, interview responses, observational data, and document analysis. Each of the
Six Distinguishing Characteristics of Vincent High School will be discussed in such a
manner. Policy recommendations for urban school reform and implications for future
research, based on findings from the current study, will follow the discussion of findings.

202

Vincent High School’s Six Distinguishing Characteristics
1. School of Choice: Random Lottery Entry for Freshman Admissions
2. Medium-Sized Student Population: Approximately 1,250 students.
3. Over 50% of teachers trained at same Teacher Education Program (Social
Justice Agenda)
4. Site-Created Biweekly Teacher Collaboration Schedule (staff-wide, inter-,
intradepartmental meetings)
5. Site-created Rotating Block Schedule with constant sixth period

6. Site-created “No D” Policy

Vincent High School Compared to the Literature on
High-Performing Schools

The research literature indicates that schools can control the learning outcomes of
the students they enroll, despite the personal challenges and obstacles those students may
bring with them to school (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Education Trust, 2005; Irvine,
1988; McGee, 2003; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000). One such way schools can control the
learning outcomes they produce is by way of the quality and caliber of teachers they
employ (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). The review of studies on the highest performing
school systems globally inform that hiring only the best and brightest is the most reliable
way to improve school performance outcomes. Vincent High School’s long standing
symbiotic relationship with a selective and prominent West Coast University appears to
provide the school with a continuous stream of historically high academically performing

203

individuals who are now teachers. Evidence from the current study reveals that this
characteristic may be a credible method by which to improve schools.
High-performing schools also have internal capacities that make them adaptable,
flexible, and able to provide teachers with multiple and recurring opportunities to learn
from each other, calibrate practices, and review and reflect upon school-wide areas of
needed change (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Irvine, 1988; McGee 2003). From the United
States, to Finland, to Japan, providing regular and relevant opportunities for teachers to
convene and learn from each other is a common characteristic in high-performing schools
(Barber & Mourshed, 2007). The aforementioned descriptions apply precisely to the
situation at Vincent High School. Examples include teacher-committees creating Vincent
High’s rotating block schedule, teacher collaboration schedule and functions, and the
school’s “No D” Policy.
The literature also reveals that high-performing schools embrace external
standards and utilize assessment data as the basis for future instructional decisions (The
Education Trust, 2005; ISBE, 2001; McGee, 2003; NCREL, 2000). These descriptions
appear accurate in describing Vincent High School. For example, the researcher observed
all departments engaged in discussions about students’ formative assessment results and
preparing for tutorials on the district’s newly-purchased assessment data analysis
software.
Additionally, the literature on high-performing schools divulges that class size is
often adjusted to provide more attention to struggling students (The Education Trust,

204

2005; NCREL, 2000; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000). This adjustment was not exactly the
case at Vincent High School. However Vincent’s medium size (Lee & Burkam, 2003)
does enable its overall enrollment to be significantly less than the large urban high
schools common in the Southern California’s sprawling metropolis.
The researcher was able to substantiate, via classroom observations, that teachers
used instructional time effectively, efficiently, and dynamically. High-performing school
research exposes this common practice in such schools (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; The
Education Trust, 2005; McGee, 2003; Irvine, 1988; ISBE, 2001; NCREL, 2000).
Teacher collaboration, relevant professional development, and safety also appear
frequently in the literature on high-performing schools (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; The
Education Trust, 2005; Hayes, 2002; ISBE, 2001; Irvine, 1988; McGee, 2003; NCREL,
2000; Wilson & Berne, 1999). The literature on teacher collaboration is inconsistent and
divergent, however. The current study provided relevant additional data on how to
structure and implement effective teacher collaboration. What was congruent from the
literature and the current study was that regular teacher collaboration appears to be the
norm in high-performing schools ( (Fullan, 1993; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). This
occurrence is not unique to the United States, however. There are instances in the
literature from the United States, as well as Asia and Europe of high-performing schools
engaging in on-going teacher collaboration (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). Vincent High
School provides further evidence of the potentially transformative impact of willing,
honest, and reflective teacher collaboration.

205

The researcher did not observe any professional development workshops or
sessions for this study. But in three of the five teacher collaboration meetings observed,
department heads referenced and informed about upcoming professional development
tutorials on the district’s new data analysis software. Finally, Vincent High School’s
stakeholders perceive it as a safe environment. Classroom observations supported this
assessment, as there were no instances witnessed of students’ or teachers’ safety
compromised nor threatened in any fashion.
The current study informs the field of some aspects of high-performing schools
for which there is a void in the knowledge base. Literature on high-performing schools
overwhelmingly states that effective visionary leadership is a vital component (The
Education Trust, 2005; ISBE, 2001; Irvine, 1988; McGee, 2003; NCREL, 2000). A
contrasting aspect of Vincent, however, was that its successes have occurred over the last
seven years (2001-2008) despite the fact that the school has had four different principals,
and a year of no principal. This revolving door of administrators is not uncommon to low
performing urban schools. But what of a high-performing urban school with frequent
turnover in principals? How has the school continued to produce high student
achievement gains without consistent leadership? Which school characteristics may have
contributed to these successes despite the frequent changes in leadership at the top (or
lack thereof for one year)? Findings from the current study provided some answers to
these pertinent questions.

206

The current study revealed detailed qualitative data on Vincent High School’s Six
Distinguishing Characteristics. Four of these characteristics were unique to the school
and site-created. Neither precedents nor supporting data were found in the current
research on these four distinguishing characteristics exactly as they were implemented at
Vincent High School. The current study buttressed existing scholarly arguments for
school choice and small school size as possible contributors to learning gains and positive
social climates in urban schools (Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Bryk et al., 1993; Cotton,
1996; Fowler & Walberg, 1991; Goldring & Shapira, 1993; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Lee, et
al., 1993; Lee, et al., 2000; Lee & Smith,1997; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000; Teske &
Schneider, 2001).
In conclusion, standardized testing student achievement data (California
Standards Test, California High School Exit Exam) from Vincent High School provided
substantial evidence that since 2001 the school has made great strides in providing
students with genuine access to the required curriculum. Furthermore, chronicling of the
school’s distinguishing characteristics and of stakeholders’ perspectives provided by this
self-study reveals some of the story of that success.
At present, we have evidence that stakeholders associated with Vincent High
School perceived the school to be highly effective, safe, and reputable. The researcher’s
observational data substantiated positive stakeholder responses about the school’s social
climate and its characteristics. Therefore this study adds additional relevant strands to the

207

knowledge base on the structure, policies, and design of high-performing schools,
especially those that service high percentages of working class urban children of color.
Discussion of Interview Findings

Discussion of Pull Factors and General Assessment Responses

Participant responses to the “Pull Factors” and “General Assessment” questions
were consistent with the research literature on school choice options. In order to attend
Vincent High School, families must first choose to enter the random lottery. The school
choice research literature reports that academic concerns are the overwhelming reason
that parents take the initiative to send their children to schools when they have an option
to choose (Armor & Peiser, 1998; Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Goldring & Shapira, 1993;
Vanourek et al., 1998; Witte, 2000). One hundred percent of students and 100% of
parents who participated in the current study indicated positive academic assessments of
Vincent High School.
In kind, 81% of students and 100% of parents responded that the positive
academic reputation drew them to choose to enter the lottery to attend Vincent High
School. Similarly, the literature informs us that school choice is highly correlated to
parental satisfaction (Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Goldring & Shapira, 1993; Teske &
Schneider; 2001; Teske & Schneider, 2001). In accordance with these revelations, nearly
every parent and student participant of the current study indicated satisfaction with the
educational experience at Vincent High School.

208

The research literature on high-performing schools and school choice is congruent
with interview responses in regard to the safety of Vincent High School. High-
performing school literature indicates that such schools pay attention to the health and
safety needs of their students (The Education Trust, 2005; Irvine, 1988; ISBE, 2001;
McGee, 2003; NCREL, 2000). Additionally, school choice research literature indicates
that safety is a paramount concern for parents who choose to send their children to
schools beyond the geographic boundaries of their local assigned public school (Armor &
Peiser, 1998; Bauch & Goldring, 1995). Educational psychology research demonstrates
that positive perceptions and choice in education facilitate feelings of empowerment and
motivation, which may correlate to positive student achievement outcomes (Ormrod,
2006). Therefore we have reasons to conclude that stakeholder perception of safety at
Vincent may have greatly contributed to it at the school.
Responses to the two questions discussed above offered additional support to the
existing body of knowledge in the field that academic concerns usually trump all else
when families choose schools, and in turn that this choice contributes to higher rates of
parental satisfaction. Vincent High School was perceived as a safe “high quality learning
environment” by the majority of stakeholders associated with the school and they are
drawn to the school because of these perceptions. The client-participants’ responses to
these questions lent support to the relevance of the selection of Vincent High School for
the current study. The school is a an urban public high school, was producing high
student outcomes, and was highly regarded by its stakeholders.

209

Discussion of Participant-Generated Contributing Factors Responses

The research literature is congruent with two of the responses to the interview
question that asked participants to generate their own hypotheses as to the school-level
factors they perceive to have contributed to its high performance outcomes. First of these
factors, offered by 79% of participants, was that “effective teachers” was the primary
contributor to Vincent High School’s high achievement and affective outcomes. The
research literature is abundant with studies that substantiate, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, in local and global contexts, that the best predictor of student success is the
quality and effectiveness of the teacher (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Carey, 2004;
Darling-Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998; Haycock, 2004; Wenglinsky, 2000). The
current study did not statistically measure teacher quality, effectiveness, or outcomes.
However, anecdotal evidence via standardized testing data indicates that effective
instruction took place at Vincent High School, The fact that a significant percentage of
participants indicated “effective teachers” in interview responses supports the existing
literature that school administrators and legislative policy makers must ensure that our
children are bestowed with only well-trained and prepared instructors.
In addition to citing “effective teachers” at Vincent High School, the youth of
Vincent’s teachers was cited by 79% of participants as a contributor to the school’s
successes. Stakeholders explained that Vincent’s relatively young teachers had the
energy, enthusiasm, willingness, and adaptability to grow, develop, and put the necessary
time in to be effective teachers. This finding provides a strand for further relevant

210

research. The current study did not gather overall data on Vincent High School’s
teachers’ ages or years on the job. Such data were gathered solely for the 13 teachers who
participated in the study. The mean years on the job of the 13 teacher-participants was
8.23.
An average of eight plus years on the job hardly qualifies Vincent High as a
school with a high number of novice or young teachers. This reality leaves a knowledge
gap worthy of further inquiry. The literature on teacher effectiveness suggests a strong
positive relationship between teachers’ years of experience and the student learning
outcomes they produce (Carey, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998;
Haycock, 2004).
Therefore there is significant incongruence between this finding from the current
study and the research literature on the same topic. However the current study does beg
the questions: Is there a relationship between teachers’ age and their perceived
effectiveness? And are younger teachers better received by school stakeholders? Neither
the current study nor the research literature reviewed answered these questions thus
presenting an area in need for future research. Participants’ responses clearly showed,
however, that they see a relationship between the youthful ages and enthusiasm of the
current crop of teachers and the positive outcomes produced at Vincent High School.
Finally, more than half of participants discussed the school’s positive social
climate, facilitated by its relatively small size, as a significant reason why the school has
produced the outcomes that it has. This finding was consistent with school size research,

211

which informs that small and medium-sized schools produce higher levels of student
achievement and greater qualities of school climates (Cotton, 1996; Fowler & Walberg,
1991; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Lee, et al., 1993; Lee, et al., 2000; Lee & Smith, 1997;
Rumberger & Thomas, 2000). Conversely however, there is strong evidence that
reducing class size is not a reliable method to improve academic achievement, especially
literacy rates (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). The same literature indicates that teacher
effectiveness is a more reliable predictor of student performance levels than class size
(Barber & Mourshed). Therefore results from Vincent High School support arguments
that smaller overall school size rather than smaller class size improves school academic
performance.
There is further evidence, however, that small schools often have higher affective
outcomes and higher quality social climates than large schools (Cotton, 1996; Pittman &
Haughwout, 1987). Therefore the current study supported that stakeholders in small and
medium schools are typically very satisfied with this school characteristic, and attribute
positive and educationally conducive school atmospheres to those sizes.

212

Discussion of “School of Choice” Findings

The literature on school choice is starkly different than participants’ responses to
the “school of choice” questions. The choice that Vincent High affords to families is
perceived by stakeholders as a positive peripheral contributor to Vincent High School’s
successes, but not considered by participants to be a key component or significantly
impactful characteristic. This conclusion is based on the relatively low overall mean item
score of 1.031 that the “school of choice” characteristic earned on the Characteristics’
Value Rating Scale. Furthermore, the majority of stakeholders who participated in this
study informed that they believed Vincent High would have experienced the same or
similar positive student achievement and affective outcomes without this characteristic.
This incongruence between this finding and what the school choice literature reveals is
noteworthy.
School choice literature informs that there is good reason to believe that higher
graduation rates, college attendance, and lower dropout rates very often accompany
school choice (Bryk et al., 1993; Teske & Schneider, 2001). The same strand of literature
indicates that school choice correlates to greater parental satisfaction. Greater parental
satisfaction may correlate to greater parental involvement, which may assist student
achievement (Bauch and Goldring, 1995; Goldring and Shapira, 1993; Teske and
Schneider,).
School choice has shown promise in links to student achievement the last 15 years
(Armor & Peiser, 1998; Teske & Schneider, 2001). Related to this potential, a slight

213

majority of participants of the current study indicated that they felt the “school of choice”
designation at Vincent High attracts motivated and involved parents. Additionally, 45%
of participants believe this designation attracts highly skilled motivated students. The
overwhelming majority of participants of this study stated that the type of parents and
students this choice-designation attracts allows for student learning to occur. The latter-
response contradicts other responses by the same population of participants that the
“school of choice” designation is barely impactful on student learning at Vincent High
School.
These revelations provided ample evidence that Vincent High School’s “school of
choice” designation may have contributed to student achievement at the school to a far
greater degree than stakeholders realize or indicated for the current study. The literature
informs that the “school of choice” characteristic of Vincent High School may be a
significant contributor to the school’s high student achievement outcomes, even though
stakeholders did not appear to realize the potential degree of impact of school choice on
positive learning and climate outcomes.
Most often those students who take advantage of school choice are White and
more economically advantaged than those who do not (Armor & Peiser, 1998; Bauch &
Goldring, 1995; Plank & Sykes, 1999). Vincent High School’s student enrollment is 99%
nonWhite. Therefore the school provides a pertinent additional data source for examining
school choice beyond the context of “White Flight” out of urban districts and inner-cities
(Armor & Peiser). Vincent High School gives promise for potentially high academic and

214

affective outcomes for a choice-school of predominately working class students of color
to be examined in future inquiries.
An interesting phenomenon, however, emerged from interviews. Although
Vincent High’s “school of choice” designation does not represent “White Flight,” (Armor
& Peiser, 1998; Bauch & Goldring, 1995; Plank & Sykes, 1999), stakeholders discussed
that they felt the “school of choice” designation was misleading and fosters community
misconceptions. A small percentage of participants specifically mentioned that they hear
community members, teachers, students, and administrators from other schools (both
within and outside the district) talk about how Vincent High School “hand picks only the
smart kids, and that is why they do so well.”
A review of district policies related to Vincent’s random lottery uncovered that
the reported-community misconceptions were incorrect. Acceptance to Vincent High
School was based solely on random chance in the admissions lottery. These perceived
misconceptions might help to explain why the random admissions lottery perpetuated
feelings of angst and resentment for those families not selected. Their children were
denied access, whereas stakeholders’ children selected in the admissions lottery gain
access to a neighborhood school with a track record of success and safety. This
circumstance did seem inherently unfair, and justifiably a cause of immense resentment
for those families not selected in Vincent High School’s random lottery.
Both participants’ responses and findings from the literature indicated that a
family’s choice to be at Vincent High contributed to student achievement and parental

215

satisfaction. The literature reveals that school choice may be far more impactful on
positive student outcomes than participants of the current study comprehend. Providing
families with public school choices beyond their designated neighborhood school appears
to be one way to improve student achievement, increase stakeholders’ positive
perceptions, and produce more harmonious school environments. Findings from this
study give credence and authority to arguments for school choice. The researcher
recommends implementing some equitable form of public school choice that expands
access to school possibilities for working class urban children. The process cannot be rife
with collusive clandestine exclusionary discriminatory practices, however (Plank &
Sykes, 1999). The current study supports that increased school choice options provide
additional ammunition in the fight against perpetual school failure and high student drop
out rates in working class urban environments.
Discussion of School Size Findings

Stakeholders perceived Vincent High School’s medium size of approximately
1,250 students as a major indication of why Vincent High School has made the gains and
achieved the successes that is has. As evidence, the school size characteristic had an
overall mean item score of 1.969 on the Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale. This overall
mean item score is very close to 2.00, which would indicate perception of the
characteristic as a “very impactful” significant contributor to Vincent High School’s
student achievement gains and positive affective outcomes the last seven years (2001-
2008). Participants felt this characteristic to be significantly more responsible for Vincent

216

High School’s successes than all other characteristics, with the exception of the “No D”
Policy.
The findings from this study were congruent with the literature on school size. We
have compelling evidence that small and medium-sized schools produce higher levels of
student achievement and a greater quality of school climate (Cotton, 1996; Fowler &
Walberg, 1991; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000; Lee, et al., 1993;
Lee, et al., 2000; Lee & Smith,1997). The findings from the current study support these
assertions at Vincent High School. We also know that an association exists between
school size and student achievement. Lee and Smith discuss that small schools often have
greater equity distribution and higher average rates of student achievement.
Representatives from all four stakeholder groups of the current study stated that
they felt Vincent’s size contributes to student learning. A high percentage of participants
also indicated that they felt Vincent’s size allowed for more individual attention from
teachers, smaller class sizes, and that the size enhanced safety, familiarity, and the overall
social climate of the school. Stakeholders at Vincent High School were happy with the
school’s size and feel it is a significant contributor to student learning and positive
affective outcomes at the school. Interview findings discussed here relate closely to
revelations from the research literature about the advisedness and salience of smaller
school size as a means to produce higher rates of student achievement and more
advantageous learning environments.

217

In contrast, an association appears between increased enrollment and lower rates
of student achievement and higher drop out rates (Fowler & Walberg, 1991; Lee &
Burkam, 2003; Lee & Smith, 1997; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). As schools increase in
size a negative correlation to their students’ standardized test scores emerges, even if
student/teacher ratios remain constant (Michelson, 1972, p. 304; Wendling & Cohen,
1981). The current study did not compile and analyze longitudinal quantitative data
definitively to support or refute these assertions in regards to size and student
achievement at Vincent High School. We do, however, have anecdotal evidence from the
current study to support that stakeholders perceived these contentions to be the case. The
student achievement rates at Vincent High School were much higher than many at the
larger urban public high schools in Southern California. Stakeholders at Vincent perceive
its smaller size to be a major reason why.
Some literature reveals that small schools often have higher affective outcomes
and higher quality social climates than large schools. (Cotton, 1996; Pittman &
Haughwout, 1987). Large high schools often have lower rates of satisfaction, higher rates
of discipline problems, and greater feelings of anonymity (Cotton, 1996; Fowler &
Walberg, 1991). Congruent with these findings from the literature, 79% of participants in
the current study indicated associations between Vincent’s size and an overall high
affective climate.
Classroom observations validated the school size literature and stakeholder
responses about size’s association with positive classroom environments and teacher-

218

student familiarity. In all classroom observations the researcher saw positive affective
environments. There were no instances of hostility or conflict between teachers or
students. The researcher observed teachers calling on numerous students per period by
name, indicating familiarity. There were instances of teacher humor and encouragement
of student questions and contributions. Although it is not clear how much Vincent High’s
overall enrollment size is responsible for teacher-student familiarity and positive
classroom environments, findings from this study indicated that these phenomena appear
to be the norm at the high school, lending additional support for the argument that smaller
school size contributes to higher rates of student achievement in urban schools with
predominant student populations of working class children of color.
There was one final yet significant connection between the literature and the
findings of the current study, which is that there are greater likelihoods of staff
communication, collaboration, and socialization in small schools (Barker & Gump, 1964;
Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Fowler & Walberg, 1991; Garbarino, 1980; Lee et al, 2000). The
current study investigated perceptions and actual practices of teacher collaboration at
Vincent High School. These findings will be discussed at length in a later subsection of
this dissertation. In accordance with the literature, interviews and observational data
supported that Vincent High’s size appeared to foster positive and collegial teacher
collaboration at the school.
The interview and observational findings as well as quantitative analysis of
participants’ perceptions from the current study, along with findings from the review of

219

relevant literature all suggested that Vincent High School’s size may be a significant
contributor to the school’s positive academic and affective outcomes. There appears to be
a strong relationship between school size and student performance outcomes. Stakeholder
perceptions from the current study validate this correlation from the literature. Small and
medium schools (Lee & Burkam, 2003) provide students greater access to the curriculum,
a more enriching educational experience, have more positive affective social climates,
and appear to be the most advisable environments for educating working class children of
color; though such students’ are often relegated to very large schools where those fitting
their characteristics typically learn the least (Lee & Smith, 1997). Therefore the
researcher can reasonably conclude that Vincent High’s medium size of approximately
1,250 students was an advisable and educationally salient characteristic. Transferring or
implementing a similar enrollment size characteristic at schools that educate high
numbers of working class students of color would be a positive step towards reversing the
cycle of perpetual failure of many overcrowded urban schools.

220

Discussion of Teacher Education Findings

The literature supports that close K-12/university relationships can be beneficial
to the learning of both the novice teachers and their respective students (Hallian &
Khmelkov, 2001; Hamm, Dowell, & Houck, 1998; Morey, Benzuk, & Chiero, 1997).
There is also evidence that high-performing schools in North America, Asia, and Europe
make deliberate and concerted efforts to recruit high performing individuals to teach at
their schools (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). A slight majority of participants of the current
study indicated that they felt Vincent High’s relationship with a prominent Tier-I research
university’s teacher education program provided the school with a steady stream of
effective teachers, which contributes to student learning. Participants perceive both
conditions of the prominence of the university-in-question and the high percentage of
teachers at the school from that university as contributing equally to Vincent High’s
performance outcomes.
The fact that that greater than 50% of Vincent High School’s teachers attended
the same teacher education program (with an advertised social justice agenda) appears to
be a rather unique characteristic for an urban public high school. Stakeholders rated this
characteristic with an overall mean item score of 1.242, representing that stakeholders
perceived the characteristic positively and as mildly impactful on academic and affective
outcomes at the high school. This score also indicates that participants felt that the
teacher education characteristic is a positive mitigating contributor with residual benefits

221

for the school’s success, but not as a significant reason why the school has achieved its
success.
Findings of the current study enhanced existing understandings in the field of the
exponential power to produce high student outcomes when teachers are well-prepared
and fully trained in content, pedagogical, and pedagogical-content knowledge from
accredited teacher education programs (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Darling-Hammond,
2000; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Laczko-Kerr
& Berliner, 2002). The current literature is clear: the cost of children to have ineffective
teachers is too steep to bear. Children with successive years of effective teachers far
outpace the reading abilities of their counterparts with consecutive years of ineffective
teachers (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Carey, 2004). Participants of this study stated firmly
during the interview process that student learning at Vincent High School was directly
attributable to the high caliber of teachers at the school. Vincent High had a high
percentage of fully credentialed licensed teachers. All but one teacher-participant of the
current study was fully credentialed. Results from this study supported that ensuring high
teacher quality is a necessary step to improve schooling outcomes, especially amongst
those schools that serve the most needy children.
Furthermore, findings provided evidence that K-12 public schools may benefit
from a close relationship with a particular university teacher education programs (Hallian
& Khmelkov, 2001; Hamm et al.,1998; Morey et al., 1997). The current study did not
investigate and catalogue all dynamics of this relationship at Vincent High School, rather

222

it investigated stakeholder perceptions of this relationship, and stakeholders’ thoughts on
how academic and affective outcomes have been impacted by that relationship. Interview
responses are clear and consistent. Stakeholders believed that student learning and
teacher collegiality have both benefited from the relationship the original principal
established with a prominent West Coast university, whose teacher education program
has an advertised agenda of social justice as its theoretical underpinning.
Interview responses also suggested that a portion of stakeholders at the high
school see lingering positive evidence of the university-in-question’s social justice
agenda on the campus. There was a slight perception therefore of a positive influence of
the university-in-question’s social justice agenda on the attitudes and practices of
Vincent’s teachers. These responses were promising and suggest this theoretical
underpinning was not perceived to be harmful to student learning, and is probably
peripherally beneficial to student achievement and social climate outcomes.
Another issue raised by a small percentage of participants is worthy of discussion.
Four participants (one teacher, two students, one parent) indicated that such a close
relationship with one university has detracted from the ethnic diversity of teachers, and
has decreased the range of teachers’ instructional practices and philosophical approaches
to teaching. There is evidence in the literature on teacher preparation that lends credence
to these responses. Sleeter (2001) and Zeichner (1999) both discuss the lack of ethnic
diversity in the pre- and in-service teaching force in America, and the urgency for this to
change. This condition appears to be a national dilemma, and not unique to the university

223

in question, nor to Vincent High School. However, these interview responses are a
reminder of the pressing need for ethnic diversity in the teaching force, especially for
those students from diverse backgrounds.
The researcher triangulated one frequent response mentioned in the interview
process in regards to the teacher education characteristic. The response was that the high
number of teachers from the same teacher education program allows for teacher
familiarity and collaboration, which may in turn positively contribute to the affective
school climate. The researcher observed teachers interact and collaborate in four
departmental and one staff-wide collaboration meetings. In all five meetings the
researcher witnessed all teachers present communicating in a way that was collegial,
positive, professional, assistive, familiarly, and cooperative. It was evident that teachers
at Vincent High School were comfortable asking each other for ideas and innovations,
freely observing each other teach, and problem solving together on a regular basis. This
evidence was promising for the potential unexpected benefits of staff familiarity from
high percentages of common attendance at the same teacher education program, and
supported the circumstance at Vincent High School as a positive contributor to the
school’s affective outcomes.
Findings of the current study suggested this relationship with a prominent West
Coast university may have allowed for consistency of instructional practices, a steady
stream of driven enthusiastic new teachers, and a schema that enhances teacher
collaboration at Vincent High School. The literature supports that providing a well-

224

trained and prepared teaching force is vital. Vincent High has been able to do this via its
close relationship with the prominent university-in-question. Therefore, the researcher
can firmly conclude that a consistent relationship with a local teacher education program,
whose mission is consistent with that of the K-12 school/district and whose approach to
teacher preparation is in accordance with the needs for the respective K-12 school’s
students, is an advisable approach toward reforming and improving public education.
Pains must be taken by the district and school administration to investigate and ensure
that the university’s theoretical and practical methodologies are consistent with the needs
of the school.
Discussion of Teacher Collaboration Findings
A high percentage of participants of the current study indicated that they felt
teacher collaboration allowed teachers to increase and improve upon their instructional
strategies, contributed to student learning, and facilitated consistency of instructional
practices at Vincent High School. The teacher collaboration characteristic’s overall mean
item score of 1.406 on the Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale indicates an average
perception of more than “impactful” on academic and affective outcomes. Stakeholders
perceive teacher collaboration as an advisable and effective characteristic that has
positively contributed to students’ learning at Vincent High School.
The current literature on teacher collaboration lacks consistent definitions of how
to differentiate between its possible forms, how it should be implemented, what its goals
and objectives are, and how to measure its outcomes. We also have little empirical

225

evidence to support positive or negative impacts of teacher collaboration on students’
academic outcomes. Despite knowledge gaps and uncertainties, Fullan (1993) and
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) argue that transforming schools involves regular teacher
collaboration and reflection.
Findings from the current study provided the field with an additional heuristic
model for how teacher collaboration at a secondary school can be transformative and
educationally salient. The current study provides qualitative data in support of regular
teacher collaboration as a means for teachers to cultivate staff camaraderie, to improve
and increase the array of pedagogical strategies, and to foster data-driven decision
making. The current study does not conclusively connect teacher collaboration and
student academic performance with quantitative statistical analysis. Nor does the current
study definitively attribute student performance gains at Vincent High School with
teacher collaboration.
In kind, teacher collaboration has shown some promise in earlier research in
producing positive affective outcomes amongst in-service teachers and preservice teacher
candidates. (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Maloch et al,, 2003; Wilson & Berne, 1999;
Weinstein et al., 1995; Uhl & Pérez-Sellés, 1995). Teacher collaboration also appears to
be common in many American states, and even Japan, in school systems showing high
student outcomes for long stretches of time (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). A desirable
benefit of teacher collaboration is that it may foster greater levels of trust among in-
service teachers, K-12 administrators, and universities’ teacher education faculty

226

(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Johnston et al., 1996; Maloch et al.; Weinstein et al.;
Wilson & Berne, 1999). Finally, the most effective forms of professional development
involve regular teacher collaboration and effective collaboration, allowing in-/preservice
teachers to bridge performance gaps (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Hayes, 2002; Wilson &
Berne, 1999). Findings of the current study provided compelling qualitative data that
stakeholders perceive student performance at Vincent High School to be partially
attributable to teacher collaboration.
Collaboration meeting observations from the current study supported the existing
literature that teacher collaboration may foster greater levels of trust between in-service
teachers and K-12 administrators (Cochran-Smith & Lyte, 1999; Johnston et al., 1996;
Maloch et al 2003; Wilson & Berne, 1999; Weinstein et al., 1995). The results of
observations indicated that collaboration meetings were environments where teachers
have the requisite trust, confidence, and willingness to engage in activities and
discussions that enable them to improve their practices. Meetings involved teacher
discussions on their observations of other departmental colleagues, and explanations
detailing the instructional practices they witnessed in colleagues’ classes. There were
tutorials, led by respective department heads, on the proper use of the district’s new
assessment data analysis software. The researcher observed supportive, communicative,
collegial, professional, and assistive collaboration meetings. Trust was necessary and
abundantly evident in all collaboration meetings observed.

227

Finally, classroom observation findings from the current study supported that the
most effective forms of professional development involve regular teacher collaboration
and colleague observations, both of which may allow in-service teachers to bridge
performance gaps (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Hayes, 2002; Wilson & Berne, 1999).
Colleagues jointly designing and observing the implementation of classroom lessons is a
common feature of Japan’s school system (Barber & Mourshed). In accordance, the
researcher observed discussions and demonstrations of new instructional practices during
collaboration meetings that carried over into classroom practices. Collaboration meetings
at Vincent High are a venue for debriefing about observations of colleagues,
demonstrating new instructional strategies, and reviewing student performance data upon
which to base future pedagogical decisions. Teacher collaboration at Vincent was a
means for teachers to become exposed to new possibilities in the classroom and
reexamine current and past practices.
Teacher-led professional development, performed through regular collaboration
and observation, presents teachers with opportunities to improve instructional practices
(Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Hayes, 2002; Wilson & Berne, 1999). At Vincent High,
academic departments allowed time during their collaboration meetings for small group
subject-specific teacher collaboration. Teachers met in small groups of three to four
teachers who taught the same subject (i.e., English 10, Algebra I) in two departments.
Teacher-groups collectively designed new lessons and established common pacing guides
for particular units. Two different academic departments allotted time for actual teacher

228

demonstrations of particular teaching strategies and the use of technology in classroom
instruction. Teachers themselves presented innovations, ideas, and strategies to their
colleagues. They fielded questions, clarified lingering confusion, and presented handouts
with further explanation. Observation findings demonstrate that teacher collaboration as
implemented at Vincent High School presents its teachers with multiple opportunities to
increase their repertoire and improve their existing teaching practices. Vincent High
School is an example of a school transforming and improving itself though the practice of
regular teacher collaboration, initiated and created by the school’s own teaching staff
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Fullan, 1993).
There was a significant caveat in spite of the positive teacher behaviors observed
in collaboration meetings. School-site and district-wide policies associated with teacher
collaboration were ambiguous and limited in specific expectations, goals, objectives, and
evidences of success or shortcomings. Vincent High School’s administration offered its
teachers, departments, and department heads very little in the way of expectations,
protocol, and guidelines for their collaboration meetings. The only “policy” available to
examine for the current study was a single form to be filled out by department heads
during collaboration meetings. The form does not delineate appropriate activities,
discussion topics, respective time allotments, or types of demonstrations suitable and
acceptable by administration for teacher collaboration. The findings from teacher
collaboration meeting observations were promising, but this promise appears to be in
spite of a lack of detailed school policies governing its implementation.

229

Findings from the current study provided the field with data to supplement
existing understandings of how to implement teacher collaboration at a secondary school.
The data included a daily bell schedule, information on frequency, discussion topics,
meeting activities, the potential benefits of collegial supportive atmospheres in said
meetings, and interview data with resounding stakeholder support for the instructional
saliency and positive impact of teacher collaboration on both academic and affective
outcomes. The researcher substantiated stakeholders’ positive perceptions via
collaboration meeting and classroom observations.
Evidence in the literature supports that teacher collaboration assists positive
affective interteacher relationships and does not detract from student academic
performance (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Cochran-Smith, 1999; Hayes, 2002; Maloch et
al., 2003; Uhl & Pérez-Sellés, 1995; Weinstein et al., 1995; Wilson & Berne, 1999).
Therefore the researcher can affirm that implementing the regular practice of teacher
collaboration is an advisable and promising component of school reform and school
improvement. School administrators must make clear, however, their expectations,
desired goals and objectives, timelines, and evidences of progress when implementing
teacher collaboration. The current study illuminates the possible benefits of teacher
collaboration— but without clear expectations and guidelines from administrators it is
unlikely that the outcomes of teacher collaboration at Vincent High School would be
replicated elsewhere. Teacher empowerment at Vincent High, facilitated by years of
teacher input in school policies, participating in site reform, and holding each other

230

accountable, appears to have assisted the high school to overcome the common obstacles
impeding student learning in many working class urban schools.
Discussion of Rotating Block Schedule Findings

Overall, the majority of stakeholders at Vincent High School perceived the
rotating block schedule to be a major and significant contributor to the school’s positive
academic and affective outcomes. More than three-fourths of participants stated that the
rotating block schedule at Vincent High School contributes to student learning. This
percentage represented a significant majority of participants and included a cross-section
of all four stakeholder groups. The rotating block schedule’s value rating mean item score
of 1.813 bears out the perceptions indicated above.
At present, the research literature on the long-term impact of block schedules on
academic outcomes is inconclusive (CER, 1996; Queen, 2000; Shortt & Thayer, 1995;
York, 1997; Zepeda & Mayers, 2006). Though the current study does not fill in this
particular knowledge gap, it provides additional qualitative data to support the
implementation of block schedules in urban schools as a means to improve learning
outcomes and positive affective climates.
Findings supported that block schedules may be perceived as a significant
contributor to positive academic and affective outcomes in urban schools with high
percentages of working class students of color. Approximately 64% of participants
mentioned that they felt the rotating block schedule allows students more time during
individual class periods to process and learn the material, which enhances students’

231

abilities to learn the material. Educational psychology research supports this assumption
(Ormrod, 2006). These functions of the rotating block schedule support the claim that
Vincent’s block schedule contributes to student learning.
Some literature empirically supports increased student achievement scores on
standardized tests in schools utilizing block schedules (Deuel, 1999; Queen, 2000;
Schroth & Dixon, 1996; Shortt & Thayer, 1995; Zhang, 2001). These findings accord
with results of other studies detailing some schools with histories of success educating
high poverty high minority student populations using block schedules. (Deuel, 1999;
McGee, 2003; Mutter et al., 1997; Wert, 2002;). As such, Vincent High School has a high
minority student population and has made great strides in successfully raising its
California Academic Performance Index score at an unmatched rate in the state the last
seven years.
Research literature indicates that, in some cases, overall student course grades
rose after schools adopted block schedules (CER, 1996; Deuel, 1999; Wert, 2000). The
current study did not quantitatively or statistically link improved student grades with the
adoption of the rotating block schedule at Vincent High School. The majority of
participants of the current study, however, indicated that they perceived the rotating block
schedule to be at least partially responsible for this phenomenon. In kind, multiple
examples in the literature of stakeholders (teachers, parents, students, and administrators)
report great satisfaction with block schedules in both pretest-posttest and post-only
design studies. (Deuel; Hottenstein, 1998; Queen et al., 1997; Shortt & Thayer,1995).

232

Findings from the current study showed great stakeholder satisfaction with the rotating
block schedule at Vincent High, as 76% indicated that they felt it contributed to student
learning. When stakeholders perceive conditions at the school to facilitate student
learning, and student performance data supports that conclusion, there are lower rates of
student discipline. The literature offers cases of reduced discipline problems reported by
teachers and administrators in some schools that have switched to block schedules
(Deuel, 1999; Irmsher,1996). The current study did not specifically track discipline rates
at Vincent High School. The vast majority of participants did indicate, however, that they
have experienced few disruptions, fights, problems, or obstacles to learning at Vincent
High School, and the researcher’s classroom observations supported these assertions.
This finding provides further support for the positive outcomes that participants of the
current study linked to the rotating block schedule at Vincent High.
Frequency of student discipline problems may be closely related to the quality of
teacher-student relationships (Ormrod, 2006). Current research on block schedules states
that overall student and teacher satisfaction and student-teacher relationships have been
catalogued as improved upon the adoption of block schedules (Canady & Retting, 1995;
Eineder & Bishop, 1997; Irmsher,1996). The current study did not probe whether
stakeholders perceived a causal-relationship between the rotating block schedule and the
quality of student-teacher relationships at Vincent High. Participants did overwhelmingly
report high quality interactions and relationships between teachers and students at the
school, and the researcher’s classroom observations again supported these statements.

233

Though no participant specifically credited the rotating block schedule for the school’s
positive affective climate, such environments are common in schools with some form of
block schedule, including, but not limited to, Vincent High School (Canady & Retting,
1995; Deuel, 1999; Eineder & Bishop, 1997; Hackman & Waters, 1998; Irmsher,1996;
Queen, 2000; Queen et al., 1997). Therefore findings from this study supported the
current research that the implementation of block schedules in urban schools with high
percentages of working class children of color may improve student outcomes.
Vincent High School was a positive model of the dynamic and divergent
instructional activities that can accompany the adoption of a block schedule at a school
that effectively incorporates it into regular practice. The literature informs that block
schedules provide teachers with more time to incorporate greater varieties of interactive
and engaging teaching strategies and to experiment with more constructive consequences
for instances of misbehavior (Cunningham & Nogle, 1995; Irmsher,1996; Queen, 2000).
High percentages of participants’ responses and the researcher’s classroom observations
support these conclusions.
Confirming the literature, Vincent High’s rotating block schedule allowed
teachers more period time to incorporate a wider array of instructional strategies
(Cunningham and Nogle, 1995; Irmsher,1996; Queen, 2000). Nearly half of participants
offered that 92-minute periods allow teachers to provide a greater depth of instruction.
Observational findings support that at Vincent High School teachers did in fact utilize the
rotating block schedule to differentiate instruction and frequently transition from one

234

learning activity to another during each period. The rotating block schedule afforded
teachers with opportunities to differentiate and offer a greater depth of instruction during
class meetings. Therefore there was no evidence that the rotating block schedule in use at
Vincent High School was in anyway harmful to student learning, and in fact findings
from the current study supported the contrary. We have reason to believe, based on
interview and observational data from the current study, that Vincent High School’s
rotating block schedule supports student learning at the high school.
Notably, the research warn that the adoption of block schedule does pose the
threat of an overuse of teacher-centered lecture in the classroom (Queen, 2000; Queen &
Isenhour, 1998; Skrobarcek et al., 1997). This practice did not appear to be a problem at
Vincent High School. Observations of classrooms supported that teachers at Vincent
High differentiate instruction and utilize student-centered instructional classroom
activities. Block scheduling at Vincent High appears to present teachers the requisite time
to incorporate a broad assortment of pedagogical methodologies during individual class
session. Teachers do, however, need ample opportunities for meaningful enriching
professional development to ease the transition to block schedules at a school to ensure
that block schedule do not digress into simply to longer lectures (Corley, 1997 Hart,
2000; Irmsher, 1996; Jenkins, 2000; Queen; Strock & Hottenstein, 1994).
Stakeholders of Vincent High School supported the rotating block schedule in use
at the school and perceive it to be somewhat responsible for the school’s positive
academic and affective outcomes. The fact that representatives from all four stakeholder

235

groups voiced such high praise of the rotating block schedule was significant. There was
no obvious bias in favor of or opposed to the block schedule based on stakeholder group
identification. Observational data reveal the dynamic and divergent learning possibilities
of longer class meetings. Findings from the current research literature resoundingly
support that a block schedule is an advisable and potentially successful feature to adopt at
an urban school. The researcher can recommend a rotating block schedule as a potentially
effective tool in reforming urban schools.
The current study affirmed the literature, informs on, and supports the positive
pedagogical possibilities of block schedules, and the affinity for it that stakeholders can
develop if they experience it for a length of time. Findings provided anecdotal evidence
that student academic achievement and student-teacher relationships may improve
subsequent to the implementation of block scheduling. There is no known present
evidence to refute this assertion. Schools looking to adopt a block schedule can look to
this study for a template of what the daily bell schedule can be, and for ideas of
classroom instruction under such a schedule. Finally, as the literature advises, the
researcher reminds administrators to seek teachers’ input in the design and to allow for
professional development opportunities to facilitate the transition to a block schedule.
Discussion of “No D” Policy Findings (Characteristic #6)

Participants associated with the school perceived the “No D” Policy in use at
Vincent High School to be the most significant and impactful contributor to student
achievement. Interview responses by teachers, students, and administrators concurred that

236

the “No D” Policy is most accountable for the success of the school in the last seven
years. This conclusion can be drawn based on the value rating of 2.030 that this
characteristic scored on the Characteristics’ Value Rating Scale devised for the current
study. This score was greater than 2.00, which represents a perception of “very
impactful.” Furthermore, the “No D” Policy had the highest overall mean item value
rating score of the Six Distinguishing Characteristics of Vincent High School. On
average, all stakeholder groups perceived the “No D” Policy to be more than a significant
major contributor to positive student outcomes at the high school. Most stakeholders
perceived a causal relationship between the policy and the school’s high academic
outcomes since its inception in 2003.
The themes that emerged from interviews of the current study provided the field
with the first glimpses of stakeholder opinions of a “No D” Policy. That perceptions are
from those directly affected by the policy amplifies the relevance of these findings. The
researcher could not identify any existing studies in the literature that probed stakeholder
perceptions of the effectiveness, advisedness, and impact of a “No D” Policy in
secondary schools. These findings begin to fill that void in the literature.
The research literature does inform that teachers do not receive adequate guidance from
superiors as to the appropriate criteria in determining grades, and are often unclear how
to calculate students’ final grades (Austin & McCann, 1992). Document analysis on
Sprawling Meadows Unified School District’s grading policies reveals a similar scenario
in the district and at Vincent High School. District policy is clear: Vincent High School

237

is a school of choice whereby families agree to a “No D” Policy by attending the school.
However, as the literature discusses, there was no guidance, no published official policy,
no intra-/interdepartmental uniformity as to how various assignments, assessments, tasks,
and participation should be weighted in calculating final grades. The criteria for grading
calculation was solely left to a teacher’s whims and discretion. The absence of the “D”
option for a passing a course increases the stakes of final course grades immensely.
Lack of guidance and uniformity, and lack of official district/site/departmental
grading polices, allow for great variance in how final grades are calculated and
determined (Austin & McCann, 1992; Blynt, 1992; Brookhart, 1993; Farkas et al., 1990;
Ma, 2001; Willingham et al., 2002). Variance and inconsistency in grading policies allow
teachers’ values, judgments, and levels of altruism to impact how they determine final
grades (Austin & McCann; Blynt; Brookhart; Willingham et al.). Absence of guidance
from superiors and residual grading inconsistencies often lead to a lack of uniformity in
grading practices at the district, school, and even department levels (Austin & McCann;
Blynt; Willingham et al.).
Document analysis of Sprawling Meadows official grading regulations revealed
the same uncertainty discussed in the literature. Absent from school district and board
polices related to grading is an explanation of what “student achievement” means and
exactly how to demonstrate “mastery.” There was a lack of direction on weighting of
assignments, quizzes, exams, class participation, attendance, and so forth. As is, the
policy allows teachers great latitude to formulate their own grading calculations based on

238

existing beliefs, values, and biases. Vagueness in the grading polices at Sprawling
Meadows Unified School District’s left the same room for interpretation and subjective
judgments that the literature tells us makes grading an inexact science.
Therefore, does this circumstance at Vincent High present teachers with another
opportunity for their personal opinions to impact students’ lives in positive or negative
ways? One particular finding from the current study enlightens the question: Nearly 25%
of participants indicated they felt the “No D” Policy was unfair and inconsistently
implemented at Vincent High School. This response was congruent with previous studies
that indicate possible inconsistent implementation of, and values-laden biases inherent in,
the practices of grading caused by a lack of uniformed grading polices and guidance from
school district administrations (Austin & McCann, 1992; Blynt, 1992; Brookhart, 1993;
Willingham et al., 2002).
Despite revelations in the literature of pervasive inconsistency in grading
practices, many participants of the current study offered an assortment of positive
responses to the “No D” Policy questions. Positive comments included that the policy
established high standards and expectations, increased academic rigor, and emulates a
college environment at Vincent High School. Client-stakeholders (students and parents)
indicated perceptions that this phenomenon led to increased levels of student
performance. Whether or not the policy has directly led to improved or increased
effectiveness of instructional practices is unclear—the current study indicated that the
perception exists amongst stakeholders that it has. This finding is promising for

239

advocates of a “No D” Policy and support that the “No D” Policy has made a positive
impact on student outcomes produced at Vincent High School.
More than three quarters of participants indicated that the “No D” Policy directly
contributed to student learning and motivated them to succeed academically. Observation
findings from classroom instruction provided substantiating anecdotal evidence of
impressive student motivation and willingness to engage in the learning activities within
Vincent High School’s classrooms. Wilson et al., (2000) discuss a high minority high
poverty junior high school with a nontraditional grading system that has shown great
promise to motivate students of color in taking ownership and initiative for their and their
classmates’ learning.
Interview and observation data from the current study supported that the “No D”
Policy may motivate students at Vincent High School. Overwhelmingly, 85% of
participants concurred that a residual positive benefit of the school’s “No D” Policy was
that they perceived it to motivate students to strive for higher academic achievements
than they would without the policy. Wilson et al. (2000) found comparable results with a
similar student population at the nontraditionally grading junior high school they
chronicled. Notably, since Vincent High School has adopted the “No D” Policy (in
addition to the Rotating Block Schedule and Teacher Collaboration schedule) the
school’s California Academic Performance Index score has risen 241 total points.
Therefore, we do have promising findings from the current study that support the use of a
“No D” Policy in a secondary school. The fact that such a high percentage of participants

240

stated they felt the policy contributed to student learning and motivated students to
engage in their own learning was compelling qualitative evidence to support its
implementation. In contrast to findings discussed above, some studies suggest that there
may be a relationship between teachers’ subjective feelings and values, and their actual
grading practices (Austin & McCann, 1992; Blynt, 1992; Brookhart, 1993; Willingham et
al., 2002;). A relatively small percentage of participants from the current study mentioned
this problem at Vincent High School. If true, this approach would be in opposition to
Sprawling Meadows Unified School District’s official policy that “grades should be
based on impartial, consistent observation of the quality of the student's work and his/her
mastery of course content and objectives”
(http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html). The stakes of such a values-based
practice were heightened with the absence of the option for a “D,” which represents a
passing grade towards the attainment of a high school diploma. Therefore this subject
warrants further inquiry.
There was not an abundance of evidence from interviews or observations that
subjective grading was frequent at Vincent High School. However one student-
participant stated that he perceived the “No D” Policy as “negatively impactful” because
he and several students he knew were “victimized” by the policy because of teachers who
“did not like them.” One of 33 participants stating this problem is hardly overwhelming
evidence. However, it is conceivable that many teachers’ at Vincent High School do rely

241

on values and judgment in grade tabulation and that this idea was simply not indicated by
32 other participants of the current study.
As was also discovered by a previous longitudinal study on districts from another
state, the Sprawling Meadows Unified School District gave little guidance as to how
teachers should formulate final grades at Vincent High School (Austin & McCann, 1992).
This scenario leaves open the possibility of inconsistency in how grades are determined
from class to class, even within same departments. A small percentage of participants of
the current study viewed this scenario as unfair, and one indicated the “No D” policy
detracted from student achievement. Therefore this gap of understanding represents a
significant area in need of further inquiry before definitive conclusions may be drawn on
all dimensions of the “No D” Policy at Vincent High School.
Findings from the current study posed as many questions as they begin to answer
with regard to a “No D” Policy at an urban public high school. For example, we have
reliable qualitative data that most stakeholders at Vincent High School perceive the
policy as increasing student achievement. Conversely, the literature on grading practices
reveals grading as an inexact and inconsistent practice that lacks uniformity and guidance
from superiors, and is wrought with uncertainty as to how grades earned translate into
acquired knowledge. Therefore it is pertinent to concede that at present we do not have
quantitative statistical analysis to support or refute stakeholders’ positive perceptions of
the “No D” policy at Vincent High School.

242

Discerning any patterns to students’ grade point averages, graduation rates, and
standardized test scores since the advent of the policy at the school is vital. Quantitative
statistical analysis may answer these questions and would be beneficial in future inquiry.
Some relevant themes from the literature that were left unanswered and beyond the scope
of the current study, but warrant future study. Because of the uniqueness of its “No D”
Policy, Vincent High School presents an environment whereby the field could benefit
greatly from subsequent statistical analyses of the school’s corresponding grading
practices and achievement histories.
First of these themes is that grades earned may not always correlate with
standardized test scores in respective subject areas, and that SocioEconomic Status (SES)
may have a greater correlation to test scores than grades earned in corresponding courses
(Ma, 2001; Farkas et al., 1990; Willingham et al., 2002). Greater understandings of the
implications of the “No D” Policy could be gained through quantitative statistical
analysis and by looking for numerical correlations between students’ grade point
averages and respective test scores over the same period.
Quantitative statistical analysis could measure for an association between
students’ SocioEconomic Status and their standardized test scores at Vincent High
School for the years prior and subsequent to the adoption of the policy. Correlation
analysis could be conducted with overall student grade point averages and graduation
rates at the school in the years prior and subsequent to the adoption of the policy. This
scheme may be useful because some literature on grading practices discusses that

243

students’ SES may correlate to test scores to a greater degree than grades earned in the
corresponding courses (Willingham et al., 2002). Such pre-/postquantitative statistical
analyses on student outcomes at Vincent High School would better inform the field in
analyzing and evaluating the impact of the “No D” Policy at Vincent High School.
Thirdly, with the advent of the “No D” Policy at Vincent High School, additional
qualitative inquiry would help to determine if the Adaptive Level Theory has taken place
at the school during the same period. According to this theory, teachers often adapt their
grading level to the ability of their students (Goldman & Hewitt, 1975). Determining if
the policy has in fact led teachers to decrease the rigor of their grading and lower their
expectations for student grades is worthwhile. In response however, 49% of participants
of the current study did indicate that they felt the “No D” Policy was directly responsible
for increasing academic rigor at the school. This incongruence between the literature and
interview responses calls for further inquiry.
Finally, the literature informs that teachers may view repeated rates of student
failures as justification for the work they are doing, perpetuating an ineffective cycle of
learning (Blynt, 1992). Vincent High School presents a unique environment to probe for
the presence of this phenomenon in future study because, as a school of choice, it has a
school administration that is free to remove students who are deficient in credits after
several years at the school (“Referral and Placement Process”). Removed students are
sent to home schools or other viable educationally conducive settings. Students who fail
courses become deficient in credits towards graduation. Teachers were surely aware of

244

the propensity for students with high numbers of fails to be removed from the school.
Therefore, how does this circumstance influence teachers’ behavior patterns and levels of
motivation to work with or against individual students based on their preconceived
notions of them? Future qualitative inquiry of this heretofore unanswered question would
better inform the field of the larger impact of the school’s “No D” Policy.
The current study provided needed qualitative data in areas where the literature on
grading practices are scant. The literature on grading policies in K-12 schools discusses
the practice of grading as an inexact science based on values and judgment, and viewed
by most as a token economy. As mentioned previously, the researcher was not able to
find any existing studies that probed or discussed stakeholders’ perceptions, opinions, or
judgments of a “No D” Policy at any level of K-12 education. Therefore, the current
study fills a void in the literature by providing qualitative data on this very topic. Despite
the new additions to the literature, some findings from the current study are congruent
with the research literature on general grading policies.
Stakeholders of Vincent High School with firsthand experience with the “No D”
Policy were probed for their judgments of the policy. Findings indicated that stakeholders
view the “No D” Policy as the most significant and impactful of all characteristics
examined in this study, and the key reason why the school has produced high academic
and affective outcomes the last seven years. Findings began to fill a knowledge gap for
the field of education, but not conclusively. This study began the discussion on the merits
of such a policy. Results showed strong support and promise for a “No D” Policy.

245

However the immense pertinence of grading as the determinant of students’ grade-level
retention or advancement, as well as the troubling revelations from the literature on the
inexact inconsistent nature of the practice, add dimensions to the discussion not resolved
by the current study.
Vincent High School provides an environment whereby future quantitative
analysis may inform the field to a greater degree than does the current study about the
overall impact of a “No D” Policy on student performance outcomes at high poverty high
minority urban high schools. Based on the as yet unanswered questions, the researcher
must conclude the discussion on this characteristic by stating that presently a
recommendation cannot be made of wholesale adoption of a “No D” Policy as a means to
reform and improve urban education. The researcher can confidently state that this study
provides the field with promising qualitative evidence that such a policy may produce
desired positive effects on students’ motivation and performance on standardized tests.
But we still have much to investigate and discern as a field in order to determine the
policy’s impact with greater certainty.
Recommendations

The following subsection is a list of policy and practice recommendations for
legislators, school site, and district administrators to reform urban schools, born of the
findings, analyses, and conclusions from the current study.
1. School and district administrations should involve and empower teachers to be
a part of the process of researching and implementing instructional and systemic policy

246

innovations and improvements at the site levels with the goal of improving student
achievement outcomes.
2. Schools’ and districts’ leadership should solicit parental and community safety
concerns and attempt to adhere to those concerns revealed for their local schools.
3. State and local policy makers should implement systems that afford greater
options of choice in public schools. Options may include, but not be limited to,
academies, magnets, charters, open geographic enrollment, site-based student learning
communities, vocational learning.
4. State and local policy makers should ensure that open enrollment options do
not allow chosen-districts to deny entrance to working class students who are exiting
their designated-schools/districts
5. State policymakers should create urban public high schools of between 600-
1200 students (Lee & Burkam, 2003)
6. Schools and districts should establish close working relationships between
themselves and local universities for preservice teacher training and for in-service
teachers’ continued professional growth
7. Schools and districts should implement regular teacher collaboration meetings,
both intra- and interdepartmental and staff wide and allow teachers to participate in the
process of delineating clear goals, objectives, evidences of progress, appropriate
activities, and discussion topics, with the intent of increasing teachers’ understandings of
additional instructional strategies, building staff camaraderie, achieving consistency of

247

practices across the curriculum, and utilizing data-driven decision making, all with the
intent of improving student achievement outcomes.
8. Schools and districts should solicit teacher input in devising a type of rotating
block schedule that meets the local needs of the school in question. Administrators should
provide ample and ongoing professional development opportunities to ease teachers’
transition to the schedule; this change may include regular teacher collaboration.
Implications for Future Research

The following subsection presents a list of research questions for the field of
education that was generated by the findings from the current study. Each of the issues
for potential future research is categorized based on the aspect or characteristic that
spawned its relevance. All of the potential research questions might better inform future
decisions on whether and how the Six Distinguishing Characteristics of Vincent High
School have enhanced positive social and learning outcomes for stakeholders associated
with the school, and on the possible transferability of any of the Six Distinguishing
Characteristics to other school environments.
General Characteristics of High-Performing Schools

1. Is there a relationship between teachers’ age, years on the job, and their
perceived effectiveness?
2. How do teachers’ ages impact students’ interactions with them?

248

School Choice
1. What are the perceptions, experiences, academic performances of those
students who are not selected by Vincent High School’s admissions lottery? What impact
does this circumstance have on their educational experience?
School Size
1. Is there a relationship between overall school size and average class size?
2. Is there a relationship between overall school size and individual teacher
attention?
Teacher Education
1. What is the long-term impact of a social justice agenda on teachers’ thought
patterns and pedagogical practices?
2. How does a close relationship between a K-12 school and one university’s
teacher-education program impact the ethnic diversity of teachers, the range of teachers’
instructional practices, and philosophical approaches to teaching?
Rotating Block Schedule
1. What do pre-/post-test statistical analyses of student performance data (grades,
graduation rates, standardized test scores) from before/after the rotating block
schedule adoption reveal about student academic outcomes at Vincent High
School?

249

“No D” Policy
1. What do pre-/post-test statistical analyses reveal about how the “No D” Policy
has impacted students’ standardized test scores, grade point averages, and graduation
rates?
2. How has the “No D” Policy impacted students’ motivation, parental
involvement, student-teacher relationships, and teachers’ instructional practices at
Vincent High School?
3. Is there a numerical correlation between students’ SES and standardized test
scores at Vincent High School from 2001-2008?
4. Does the “No D” Policy impact teachers’ behavior patterns towards individual
students or groups of students?
Conclusions

Vincent High School has shown the field of education the limitless possibilities of
improvements and high rates of student achievement that may accompany empowering
teachers to be involved in school reform. Vincent is a high school where teachers have
consistently been given the capacity, by site and district administration, to research,
deliberate, and decide upon some of the regular practices that high percentages of
stakeholders of the school perceive very favorably, and that the literature supports as
advisable. These teacher-generated and approved innovations included the school’s
relationship with a prominent university, teacher collaboration schedule, rotating block
schedule, and “No D” Policy. What is most significant of these practices is that each had

250

its impetus and/or persists at the school with teachers’ continued input and support.
Vincent High is a shining example for the field of the potentially monumental changes
that can occur through bottom-up innovation. Teachers themselves are well-informed of
their own daily challenges and the instructional obstacles their students face. The current
study provided substantial evidence that involving teachers with policy measures to
overcome logistical and systemic obstacles can have immense long-term benefits for
urban students and their schools.
Vincent High School is a place that, despite its status as a working class urban
school with a high percentage of students of color and English Language Learners, has
shown demonstrable and marked student performance improvement the last seven years
(2001-2008). Many schools located in similar urban environments are often hindered by
low achievement, high dropout rates, and safety concerns. The school’s characteristics
and circumstances have synergistically impacted school outcomes in an increasingly
positive manner since it reopened in 1998. These processes have allowed Vincent High to
avoid some of the pitfalls that hamper other urban schools. Vincent’s student
performance data have been on an upward trajectory since 2001, and has garnered the
attention of many scholarly and professional organizations as a result. The field can learn
from examples of student achievement demonstrated at Vincent High School.
The current study provided the field of education, as well as any interested outside
agencies, with an insider’s perspective of the distinguishing characteristics of the school,
and of stakeholders’ perceptions of those characteristics. The current study also provided

251

the field with observational data to enhance and better facilitate any potential attempts to
transfer some of those characteristics to other school settings. Those interested in
adopting changes and reformative innovations in urban schools may look to the current
study as rationale and a heuristic guide to do so.
The research literature on high-performing urban schools lacks data on several of
the characteristics currently in place at Vincent High School. For example, the current
study provides the field with additional qualitative data on perceptions of the impacts of
employing 50% or more of teachers from the same university, a regular school-
sanctioned teacher collaboration schedule, the features of a unique site-created rotating
block schedule, and a “No D” Policy. The current body of literature on effective urban
schools will benefit from the findings in the current study.
There are pertinent and vital revelations from the current study that may further
inform those engaged in school reform. For example, findings from the current study, as
well as the research literature, supported that the option of school choice, smaller school
size, teacher collaboration, and alternative block schedules may be a means to improve
academic and affective outcomes within urban schools. Findings from the current study
supported that having a high percentage of teachers from the same university, as well as
adopting a “No D” Policy may be means through which to improve student performance,
create affective social climates, and perhaps increase student motivation.
The current study posed as many questions as it may answer, however. We are
now better informed, as a field, on stakeholder perceptions of the value ratings of the Six

252

Distinguishing Characteristics of Vincent High School. Yet we are left with a number of
potential research questions to enhance the field’s understandings of the total
implications of the Six Distinguishing Characteristics on urban schools. Finally, as much
as the current study enlightens us about the possibilities for urban school reform, the
quest for this knowledge is on-going and demands the continued concerted coordinated
efforts of scholars and practitioners alike. Our children deserve it.

253

REFERENCES
Armor, D., & Peiser, B. (1998). Interdistrict Choice in Massachusetts. In P. Peterson &
B. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 157-186). Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution.

Austin, S., & McCann, R. (1992). Here’s another arbitrary grade for your collection: A
statewide study of grading policies. Research for Better Schools, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, 1992.

Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems
come out on top. McKinsey & Co. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/socialsector/resources/pdf/Worlds_Schoo
l_systems_final.pdf.

Barker, R., & Gump, R. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size and student
behavior: Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Barnes, S. (1985). A study of classroom pupil evaluation: The missing link in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 46-49.

Bauch, P., & Goldring, E. (1995). Parent involvement and school responsiveness:
Facilitating the home. school connection in schools of choice. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(1), 1-21.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Blynt, R. (1992). The sticking place: Another look at grades and grading. The English
Journal, 81 (6), 66-71.

Boyer, E. (1992). School choice. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.

Bridge, G. (1978). Information imperfections: The achilles' heel of entitlement plans.
Social Review, 3, 512.

Brookhart, S. (1993). Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142.

254

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The school as community: Theoretical
foundations, contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers.
Madison, WI: Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin.

Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., & Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Buzacott, J. A. (1982). Scale in production systems. New York: Pergamon.

California Department of Education website: Retrieved March 15, 2008 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov

California School Boards Association website: Retrieved November 15, 2008 from
http://www.gamutonline.net/indexframes40.html

Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high
schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education, Inc.

Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher
effectiveness to close the achievement gap. Education Trust: Thinking K-16, 8(1),
3-33.

Cawleti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Association.

The Center for Educational Reform. (1996). Scheduling: On the block. Making Schools
Better for all Children Publications. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from
http://www.edreform.com

Clough, E. E., Davis, P., & Summer, R. (1984). Assessing pupils: A study of policy and
practice. Windsor, England: The NFER-Nelson Publishing Company.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-304.

Corley, E. (1997). Teacher perceptions regarding block scheduling: reactions to change.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research
Association, Chicago, 1997.

Cotton, K. (1996). The schooling practices that matter most: school size, school climate,
and student performance. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No: ED401088).

255

Cunningham, D., & Nogle, S. (1996). Implementing a semesterized block schedule: Six
key elements. High School Magazine, 63, 29-33.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Arizona State University: Education Policy Analysis
Archives. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S., & Helig, J. (2005). Does teacher
preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America and
teacher effect, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1-28. Retrieved
March 25, 2007, from http:// epaa/v13n.42 .

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the ‘highly qualified teacher’ challenge.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33).

Deuel, L. L. S. (1999, October/November). Block scheduling in large, urban high
Schools: Effects on academic achievement, student behavior, and staff
perceptions. The High School Journal, 83(1), 14–25.

The Education Trust, (2005). Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High
Schools Accelerate Learning for Struggling Students. The Education Trust,
Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.edtrust.org.

Eineder, D.V., & Bishop, H. L. (1997). Block scheduling in the high school: The effects
on achievement, behavior, and student-teacher relationships. NASSP Bulletin, 81,
45-54. Retrieved January 25, 2008 from
http://www.evaluationtools.org/files/guidelines%20for%20Observations.pdf

Evans, F.B. (1976). What research says about grading. In Simon, S.S., & J A. Bellance
(Eds.), Degrading the grading Myths: A primer of alternatives to grades and
marks. Washington, D.C: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.

Farkas, G., Sheehan, D., & Grobe, R. (1990). Coursework mastery and school success:
Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district. American
Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 807-827.

Fowler, W., Jr., & Walberg, H. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189-202.

256

Frederiksen, J.R. & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing.
Education Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.

Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M.G. (1990). Diagnostic monitoring
of skill and knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London:
Falmer Press.

Gamoran, A. (1989). Measuring curriculum differentiation. American Journal of
Education, 97, 129-143.

Garbarino, J. (1980). Some thoughts on school size and its effects on adolescent
development. Journal of youth and Adolescence, 9(1), 19-31.

Goldman, R.D., & Hewitt, B.N. (1975). Adaptation-level as an explanation for
differential standards in college grading. Journal of Educational Measurement,
12(3), 149-161.

Goldring, E. B., & Shapira, R. (1993). Choice, empowerment, and involvement: What
satisfies parents? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 396-409.

Guthrie, J. (1979). Organizational scale and school success. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 1(l), 17-27.

Hackman, D., & Waters, D. (1998). Breaking away from tradition: The Farmington High
School, NASSP Bulletin, March 1998, pp. 83-92.

Hallinan, M. T., & Khmelkov, V. T. (2001). Recent developments in teacher education
in the United States of America. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(2), 175-
185.

Hamilton, S. F. (1983). Synthesis of research on the social side of schooling. Educational
Leadership 4 (5), 65-72.

Hamm, D., Dowell, D., & Houck, J. (1998). Service as a strategy to prepare teacher
candidates for contemporary diverse classrooms. Education, 119 (2), 196-204.

Hart, W. (2000). A comparison of the use of instructional time in block-scheduled and
traditionally high school classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

257

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters a lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 3-14.

Haycock, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: If good teachers matter, why don’t we
act like it? Education Trust Thinking K-16, 8(1), 1-3.

Hayes, M. (2002). Assessment of a field-based teacher education program: Implications
for practice. Education, 122(3), 581-586.

Henderson, A. (Ed.). (1981). Parent participation-student achievement: The evidence
grows. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Hottenstein, D. (1998). Intensive scheduling: Restructuring America’s sSecondary
schools through time management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Illinois State Board of Education. 2001. Commonalities of high poverty-high
performing schools. Unpublished Report. 2001. (Cited in McGee, 2003).

Irmsher, K. (1996). Block scheduling. ERIC Digest, Vol. 104.

Irvine, J., (1988). Urban schools that matter: A summary of relevant factors. The Journal
of Negro Education, 57(3), 236-242.

Jenkins, E. (2000). A comparative study of teaching strategies reported by North
Carolina High School teachers in block and traditional schedule schools.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Jerald, Craig (2001). Dispelling the myth revisited: Preliminary findings from a nation
wide study on “high flying” schools. The Education Trust, Washington, D.C.
Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.edtrust.org.

Johnston, D.K., Duvernoy, R., McGill, P., & Will, J.F. (1996). Educating teachers
together: Teachers as learners, talkers, and collaborators. Theory into Practice,
35(3), 173-178.

Kenny, L. (1982). Economies of scale in schooling. Economics of Education Review,
2(1), 1-24. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.LearningPT.net.

Lacina, J.G., & Patience, S. (2005). Preparing for multicultural schools: Teacher
candidates dialogue online with teachers from Egypt, Japan, Ghana, and the U.S.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 61-75.

258

Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of "Teach for America" and
other under- certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of
harmful public policy, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved
May 3, 2003 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/.

Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A Multilevel Model of the Social Distribution of High
School Achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172-192.

Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The Organization of Effective High
Schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 19,
171-267. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Lee, V. E, & Burkam, T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school
organization and structure. American Education Research Journal, 40(2), 353-
393.

Lee, V. E., Smerdon, B., Alfeld-Liro, C., & Brown, S. (2000). Inside large and Small
high schools: Curriculum and social relations. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 22(2), 147-171.

Lee,V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1997). High school size: Which works best, and for whom?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 205-227.

Leiter, J., & Brown, J.S. (1983). Sources of elementary school grading. Raleigh, NC:
North Carolina State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED.
236 135).

Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of American meritocracy. NewYork:
Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

Lemlech, J., & Kaplan, S. (1990, Spring). Learning to talk about teaching in clinical
teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 12(1), 13-19.

Lindsay, P. (1982). The effect of high school size on student participation, satisfaction,
and attendance. educational evaluation and policy analysis, l(4), 57-65.

Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role
of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education:
Perspectives on national standards in education, (pp. 175-204). NY: College
Entrance Examination Board.

259

Ma, X. (2001). Stability of school academic performance across subject areas. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 38(1), 1-18.

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2006). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

McGee, G. (2003). Closing Illinois’ achievement gap: Lessons from “Golden Spike” high
poverty high performing schools. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association annual meeting, Chicago, 2003.

Maloch, B; Flint, A. S., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J. C., Bryant-Shanklin, M., &
Martinez, M. (2003). Understandings, beliefs, and reported decision making of
first-year teachers from different reading teacher preparation programs. The
Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 431-457.

Manke, M. P., & Loyd, B. H. (1990). An investigation of non-achievement related factors
influencing teachers' grading practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the National Council on Measurement in Education, Boston, April, 1990.

Michelson, S. (1972). Equal school resource allocation. Journal of Human Resources, 7,
283-306.

Mok, M., & Flynn, M. (1997). Does school size affect quality of school life? Issues in
Educational Research, 7(9), 69-86.

Monk, D. H. (1984). The conception of size and the internal allocation of school district
resources. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(1), 39-67.

Monk, D. H. (1987). Secondary school size and curriculum comprehensiveness.
Economics of Education Review, 6, 137-150.

Monk, D. H., & Haller, E. J. (1993). Predictors of high school academic course offerings:
The role of school size. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 3-21.

Morey, A. I., Benzuk, N. S., & Chiero, R. T. (1997). Preservice teacher preparation in
the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 4-24.

Mutter, D., Chase, E., & Nichols, R. (1997, Winter). Evaluation of a 4x4 block schedule,
ERS Spectrum, pp. 3-8.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL, 2000). Wisconsin’s High
Performing/High Poverty Schools. November, 2000.

260

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How do schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale
University Press.

Ogawa, R., & Dutton, J.S. (1994). Parental choice in education: Examining the
underlying assumptions. Urban Education, 29, 270-292.

Ormrod, J.E. (2006) Educational psychology: Developing learners (5
th
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, N.J: Merrill.

Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of
public administration. Public Administration Review. 31, 203-216.

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

Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Influence of high school size on dropout rate.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 337-343.

Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (1999). How choice changes the education system: A Michigan
case study. International Review of Education, 45(5/6), pp. 385-416.

Queen, J. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Beta Kappa, 83(2).

Queen, J., Algozzine, R., & Eaddy, M. (1997). The success of 4X4 block scheduling in
the social studies. Social Studies, November/December, p. 251.

Queen, J., Burrell, J., & McManus, S., (2000). The teaching process: A year long guide.
C. Columbus, OH: Merrill Education.

Queen, J., & Isenhour, K. (1998). The 4X4 block schedule. Princeton, NJ: Eye on
Education, Inc.

Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996) Teachers' perspectives on literacy assessment and
instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. Elementary
School Journal, 96(3), 311-332.

Rumberger, R., & Thomas, S. (2000). The distribution of drop out and turn over rates
among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73(1), 39-67.

261

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schiller, K., Plank, S., & Schneider, B. (1993). Are they schools of choice? A response to
Sosniak and Ethington. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 99-
104.

Schneider, B., & Coleman, J. (Eds.) (1993). Parents, their children and schools. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.

Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice
and the quality of American schools. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Schoggen, P., & Schoggen, M. (1988). Student voluntary participation and high school
size. Journal of Educational Research, 81(5), 288-293.

Schroth, G., & Dixon, J. (1996). The effects of block scheduling on student performance.
International Journal of Education Reform, 5, 472-476.

Seeley, D. (1984). Home-school partnership. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 383-393.

Shepard, L. A. (1992). Uses and abuses of testing. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Educational Research, (pp. 1477-1485). NY: Macmillan Publishing.

Shortt, T., & Thayer, Y. (1995). What can we expect to see in the next generation of
block scheduling? NASSP Bulletin, 79, 53-62.

Skrobarcek, S., Chang, H-W., Thompson, C., Johnson, J., Atteberry, R., Westbrook, R.,
& Manus, Alice. (1997). Collaboration for instructional improvement: Analyzing
the academic impact of a block scheduling plan. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 104-111.

Sleeter, C. E. (2000-2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher
preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research in
Education, 25, 209-250.

Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers' hands: Investigating the practices of
classroom assessment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Strock, G. E., & Hottenstein, D. S. (1994). The first-year experience: A high school
restructures through Copernican Plan. The School Administrator, 51(3), 30-31.

262

Terwillinger, J.S. (1977). Assigning grades--philosophical issues and practical
recommendations. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 10(3), 21-
39.

Teske, P., & Schneider, M. (2001). What research can tell policymakers about school
choice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(4), 609-631.

Traub, R., Nagy, K., MacRury, & Klaiman, R. (1988). Teacher assessment practices in a
senior high gchool mathematics course (Final Report). Toronto: Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education.

Uhl, S., & Pérez-Sellés, M. (1995). The role of collaboration in school transformation:
Two approaches. Theory into Practice, 34(4), pp.258-264.

United States Census Bureau website: Retrieved February 23, 2008 from
http://www.Census.gov

Vanourek, G., Manno, B., Finn, C., & Bierlein, L. (1998). Charter schools. In P. Peterson
& B. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 187-211). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.

Vincent High School (2008-2009): Vincent High School Parent/Student Handbook:
2008-2009. Handbook prepared by high school.

Wadlington, E., Slaton, E., & Partridge, M.E. (1999). Alleviating Stress n pre-service
teachers during field experiences. Education, 119(2), 335-345.

Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational
Leadership, 41, 19-27.

Weber, M. (1947). Theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T.
Parsons, Trans.). New York: MacMillan.

Weiner, L. (2002). Evidence and inquiry in teacher education: What’s needed for urban
schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 248-53.

Weinstein, R., Madison, S., & Kuklinski, M. (1995). Raising expectations in schooling:
Obstacles and opportunities for change. American Educational Research Journal,
32(1), 121-159.

Wells, A. (1993). Time to choose: America at the crossroads of school choice policy.
New York: Hill & Wang.

263

Wendling, W. W., & Cohen, J. (1981). Education resources and student achievement:
Good news for schools. Journal of Education Finance, 7, 44-63.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into
discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ : Education Testing Service.
Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.ets.org/research/pic

Wert, B. (2002). The benefit of block scheduling on a large high school. Unpublished
masters thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ.

Willingham, W.W., Pollack, J. M., & Lewis, C. (2002). Grades and test scores:
Accounting for observed differences. Journal of Educational Measurement,
39(1), 1-37.

Wilson, B., Corbett, D., & Williams, B. (2000). Teachers College Record, Date
Published: October 30, 2000. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from
http://www.tcrecord.org/Home.asp. ID Number: 10619.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.

Witte, J. (2000). The market approach to education: An analysis of America's first
voucher program. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

York, T. (1997). Scheduled high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Houston.

Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher,
28(9), 4-15.

Zepeda, S., & Mayers, R. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of
Educational Researc, 76(1), 137–170.

Zhang, G. (2001). Academic performance differences between students in block and
traditionally scheduled school. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association, 2001.

264

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Thank you for coming today. My name is Norman Sauce. I am a social studies
teacher at Vincent High School, as I have been for the last 8 years. I am also a doctoral
student, conducting a self- study on Vincent High School for my doctoral dissertation for
my degree at the University of Southern California. I am trying to determine what the
distinguishing characteristics of the high school are. I am also trying to determine if
there may be any relationship between those characteristics and student achievement and
the overall climate at the school. Finally, I am trying to determine how consistently
school policies/practices are implemented and followed at the school, and if there is
perhaps any relationship between school policy implementation and student achievement
and overall climate at the school. Your input today may help me better understand what
the policies/practices of Vincent High School are, and how consistent, effective, and
advisable these policies/practices are towards perhaps raising student achievement. Any
and all information on your experiences with the high school that you choose to share
would be appreciated. Your participation is voluntary. I am recording our interview
today, but only for purposes of transcribing later. If you do not want to be recorded, you
can still participate. Your name or any other personal information will not appear on
any of the documents, apart from the consent form. Answer the questions to the best of
your recollection. You are free to answer or not answer any questions you choose. And of
course you are free to leave at any time. This interview usually takes between 30 and 45
minutes. Do you have any questions for me?..........

1) Could you begin by briefly describing how long and in what roles you have
served at Vincent High School?

2) Can you briefly explain what factors contributed to you deciding to work
at/attend Vincent High School?

3) What is your general assessment of the quality of the school?

4) In your opinion what factors contribute to quality of school?

5) What changes, if any, would you make to Vincent High School’s structure,
policies, practices, and/or characteristics to make it a more effective learning
environment? And why?

265

6) What is your assessment of Vincent High School’s designation as a “school of
choice” by Sprawling Meadows Unified School District?

7) Do you think Vincent High School’s designation as a “school of choice” by
Sprawling Meadows Unified School District has had any impact on student
achievement and/or the overall climate?

8) Overall, how do you think people have responded to the fact that Vincent
High School is designated as a “school of choice” by Sprawling Meadows
Unified School District?

9) What is your assessment of Vincent High School’s size (approximately 1,250
students)?

10) Do you think Vincent High School’s size (approximately 1,250 students) has
had any impact on student achievement and/or the overall climate?

11) What has been the greatest influence on your practices as an educator?

12) What is your impression of the fact that 53% (30/57) of Vincent High
School’s teachers attending the same teacher education program?

13) Do you think this fact has had any impact on student achievement and/or the
overall climate at Vincent High School?

14) What is your assessment of Vincent High School’s teacher collaboration
meetings?

15) Do you think the teacher collaboration schedule has had any impact on
student achievement and/or the overall climate at Vincent High School?

16) Overall, how do you think people have responded to the teacher
collaboration meetings at Vincent High School?

17) What is your assessment of Vincent High School’s rotating block schedule?

18) Do you think the rotating block schedule has had any impact on student
achievement and/or the overall climate at Vincent High School?

266

19) Overall, how do you think people have responded to the rotating block
schedule at Vincent High School?

20) What is your assessment of Vincent High School’s “No D” Policy?

21) Do you think Vincent High School’s “No D” Policy has had any impact on
student achievement and/or the overall climate at the school?

22) Overall, how do you think people have responded to the “No D” Policy at
Vincent High School?

23) Is there anything else you would like to add that I did not ask you in this
interview?

Thank you very much for your participation today. Your input is an invaluable tool to
help us better understands what the distinguishing characteristics of Vincent High
School are, and why the high school has experienced the recent student achievement
gains that it has. I greatly appreciate your time.

267

APPENDIX B

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

(adapted from Wadlington et al., 1999)

Course__________Department___________Date_______Period_________Time__________

A. Teaching Methods

How did the teacher:

1. Introduce the lesson to the students?

2. Organize activities in the lesson?

3. Transition from one activity/aspect of the lesson to the next?

4. Utilize materials (i.e. books, charts, manipulatives, maps, etc.) during the
lesson?

5. Encourage higher level thinking?

6. Encourage students to respond and discuss?

7. Deliver explicit instructions/assignments?

8. Clarify confusion or misunderstanding?

268

9. Make the lesson interesting/relevant to the students?

10. Provide Closure?

Classroom Teacher’s Name___________________ Course__________ Date_______

B. Management of Students

How Did the Teacher:

1. Manage students’ behavior and routines?

2. Reinforce appropriate behavior?

3. Discourage inappropriate behavior?

4. Monitor students’ understandings?

C. Environment

How Did the Teacher:

1. Arrange the students during the lesson?

2. Position him/herself while teaching the lesson? Did teacher
positioning affect quality of delivery/instruction in any way?

269

3. Position/organize materials while teaching the lesson? Did this affect
quality of delivery/instruction in any way?

4. Encourage respect and courtesy for teacher and fellow students?

Classroom Teacher’s Name___________________ Course__________ Date_______

D. Learning Theories

1. Did the teacher’s methodologies/activities/instruction seem to be
grounded in any educational learning theories? If so, which theories
and what is the connection?
Examples, but not limited to:
A. Socio-Cultural Theory {Vygotsky};
B. Constructivism {Piaget};
C. Social Cognitive Theory;
D. Multiple Intelligence Instruction {Gardner};
E. Behaviorism {Pavlov};
F. Transformative Education {Freire})
G.
2. Did this teacher implement any of the learning theories in an
exemplary way? If so, why? If not, how could this teacher improve
their implementation of any of the learning theories?

My Final Thoughts and Analysis of the Results of this Lesson:

270

APPENDIX C

TEACHER COLLABORATION MEETING OBSERVATION
PROTOCOL

STAFF MEETING/COLLABORATION MEETING OBSERVATION
PROTOCOL

(adapted from Social Policy Research Associates for the Innovation Center for
Community and Youth Development: Resource Sheet:
www.evaluationtools.org/files/guidelines%20for%20Observations.pdf )

Date_____________________

Location_________________

1) What type of meeting is being observed (i.e. staff meeting; intra-, inter-, staff-
wide collaboration meeting)?

2) How many teachers and administrators are present?

3) What academic departments are represented at the meeting?

4) What are the roles of those present at the meeting?

5) Did the meeting begin on time?

6) Where is the meeting taking place?

7) Is the physical environment adequate to hold this meeting? Is it conducive to
an effective meeting?

271

8) Are there any goals/objectives of the meeting? Are they clearly articulated in
any way?

9) Is there a clear and definable sequence of activities/topics discussed?

10) How do the participants interact and communicate with each other?

11) Do all participants appear to be engaged and involved in the meeting?

12) What are the tones of voice used by the participants towards each other?

13) What is the physical demeanor of the participants?

14) Who speaks to whom? What is the balance of conversation? Does this appear
to vary by gender/ethnicity of the participants?

15) What appears to have been accomplished in this meeting?

16) What tasks are left unfinished by this meeting?

17) Do the results of this meeting appear to have any relationship with student
achievement and school climate?

My Final Thoughts/Analysis of this Meeting:

272

APPENDIX D

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS FINDINGS

Table 34. Classroom Observations Findings

Teacher Class Student
Engagement
Teacher-Student
Interactions
Instructional
Strategies
Transitions
9 Spanish
II
Very High:
34/34 engaged
Positive
Frequent Affirmations
Frequent TR assistance
Laughter
1.Quick Writes
2.Call/Response
3.Class sings in
Spanish
4.Visual Images:
Verbal
translations
5.Students
translate in
Workbooks
6
10 Calculus Medium: 9/13
engaged
Cordial
STs ask questions: TR
answers quickly
No affirmation of ST
input
1.Pairs of STs
compute warm
up problems
2.TR reviews
computations/
answers
aloud
3.TR lecture
with overhead
4
8 Biology Very High: 25/25
engaged
Positive
Frequent TR formative
assessment questions
aloud
Teacher Humor
STs ask questions freely
Communication-rich
environment

1.TR Lecture w/
visuals drawn on
grease board
2.TR
demonstrates lab
procedure
3.STs conduct
experiment in
pairs
4.Whole class
discussion
5.STs complete
lab questions in
pairs
3

273

(Table 34, Continued)
Teacher Class Student Engagement Teacher-Student
Interactions
Instructional
Strategies
Transitions
4 English
12
Medium: STs passive
listeners to other ST
presentations
28/34 appeared
watching
Positive
TR humor
STs share about
others’ presentations
Non-confrontational
1.ST
presentations
with
powerpoints
2.Socratic
dialogue about
each
presentation
4
6 World
History
Medium: STs passive
listeners to TR lecture
29/35 appeared engaged
Light-hearted
Frequent TR humor:
STs frequently laugh
TR asks formative
assessment questions
aloud: STs free to
answer

1.Teacher
lecture with
powerpoint
2.Students
answer opinion
questions
independently
3. Students
complete
summative
assignment in
pairs
4
12 English
11
Very High: 32/32
engaged
Positive
STs prepare
presentation in teams
TR moves around
class answering
questions
Frequent TR
affirmation during
presentations
TR and STs openly
share positive
thoughts on
presentations
1.Collaborative
teams of STs
prepare
presentations
2.Teams of 3-4
STs present
posters
3.TR asks each
team summative
questions after
4.Class offers
feedback on
each
presentation
8
Teacher Class Student Engagement Teacher-Student
Interactions
Instructional
Strategies
Transitions
11 Chemistr
y
Lecture: Medium: 30/37
engaged
Lab: Very High: 37/37
engaged
Light-Hearted
Light TR sarcasm
during lecture
TR calls on non-
volunteers for
formative assessment
questions
TR moves around
room during lab:
STs ask questions
freely during lab
1.TR lecture
with powerpoint
2.STs conduct
experiments at
stations during
lab
3.STs rotate lab
stations every 2
minutes (8
stations total)
4.TR leads class
discussion on
results after lab
11

274

APPENDIX E

TEACHER COLLABORATION MEETINGS OBSERVATION
FINDINGS

Table 35. Teacher Collaboration Meetings Observation Findings

Meeting Goals Teacher
Communication
Activities Focus
Staff
Wide
1.Analysis of
Affective/Academic
Outcomes from
Previous school Year
2.Refinement of
Department Goals from
previous school year
Interdepartmental
Teams:
Professional
Collegial
Positive
No-off topic
discussions
55/60 Teachers
present
1.Interdepartmental teams
review/analyze/discuss
affective/academic
outcomes data from
previous year
2.Departments
refine/revise
goals/objectives for the
new school year

1.Improving
student behavioral
and academic
performance
2.Departments
establish pacing
and assessment
goals for new
school year
Social
Studies
1.Analysis of
Standardized Test Data
from previous school
year
2.Sharing of
technology strategies in
the classroom
Department-Head
leads discussion:
Professional
Collegial
Positive
No-off topic
discussions
8/8 dept. teachers
present

1.Whole department
reviews/analyzes/
discusses previous year’s
social studies standardized
test data
2.One social studies
teacher demonstrates use
of power points and
internet-based video
technology during lectures
1.Improving
student
standardizes test
performance
2.Incorportate
technology into
instruction
Math 1.Planning upcoming
parent night
2.Sharing Instructional
Practices
3.Review Dept.-wide
assessments
4.Subject-specific
collaboration

Department Head
leads first portion
Teachers work teams
of 3-4
Professional
Collegial
Positive
No off-topic
discussions
10/10 dept. teachers
present

1.Dept head leads large
discussion on plans for
upcoming parent night
2.Colleagues then share
strategies learned from
colleague observations
3. dept head leads tutorial
on new assessment data
analysis software
4.Subject specific teams of
3-4 collaboratively plan
lessons

1.Increasing
Parent
Involvement
2.Sharing of
colleague
successes
3.Increasing Data
driven instruction
4.Encourage TRs
to observe each
other teach
5.Collaborative
lesson planning

275

(Table 35, Continued).

Meeting Goals Teacher
Communication
Activities Focus
English 1.Review of new
district curricular
program and pacing
plan
2.Share instructional
strategies for writing
3.Review/Analyze
previous year’s
standardized
assessment data
4.Grade level
collaborative lesson
planning
Department Head
leads first portion
Teachers work in
teams of 3-4
Professional
Collegial
Positive
No off-topic
discussions
10/12 dept. teachers
present

1.Dept head leads large
discussion on new district
mandated literacy
curriculum and pacing
plan
2. Two individual TRs
share different
instructional strategies
with group for teaching
writing
3.Dept Head informs TRs
of new assessment data
analysis software, uses,
and how/where to go for
full training
4.Grade-level teams of 3-4
meet to collaboratively
lesson plan

1.Common
Pacing and
Curriculum
2.Impriving
Students’ writing
3.Data driven
instruction
4.Collaborative
lesson planning
Meeting Goals Teacher
Communication
Activities Focus
Science 1.Plan Department
Parent Night
2.Create system of
common lab reports
3.Review department
pacing plans
4.Discuss new
assessment data
analysis software
Department Head
leads the meeting
Teachers freely
respond/add
input/feedback
Professional
Collegial
Positive
No off-topic
discussions
7/8 dept. teachers
present

1.Collective brainstorming
and planning of upcoming
department parent night
2.Each teacher shares with
group their lab report
protocol for students:
group discussion on each
3.Each teacher shares
positive aspects of
colleague observations
4. Dept Head informs TRs
of new assessment data
analysis software, uses,
and how/where to go for
full training

1.Increasing
Parent
Involvement
2.Common
instructional
practices and
assessment
3. Sharing of
colleague
successes
4. Encourage TRs
to observe each
other teach
5. Data driven
instruction

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Vincent High School is an urban public high school with a population of working class children of color, most of whom are English Language Learners. The school is located in Southern California. Many schools with similar conditions produce poor summative outcomes, however Vincent High School's student performance on state-mandated tests has undergone statistically significant increases from 2001-2008, indicating substantial student learning gains during this period.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Improved math achievement in an urban high school: a case study of a high school in the Vista Unified School District

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

The middle college high school: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Sauce, Norman C, III (author)

Core Title The distinguishing characteristics of a high performing urban public high school: a descriptive analysis self-study

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/04/2009

Defense Date 03/11/2009

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

Tag block scheduling,grading policies,high performing schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,rffective teachers,school reform,school size,schools of choice,teacher collaboration,Teacher Education

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Advisor Hollins, Etta R. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), White-Smith, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email Rainmaker0378@AOL.com,Rainmaker0378@Hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2173

Unique identifier UC1431321

Identifier etd-Sauce-2827 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-228488 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2173 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Sauce-2827.pdf

Dmrecord 228488

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sauce, Norman C, III

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