University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
SCHOOL-WIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION: LESSONS FROM A HIGH-PERFORMING,
HIGH-POVERTY URBAN SCHOOL
by
Hilarie Dyson
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Hilarie Dyson

ii
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my three daughters, Courtney, Kylie, and
Kamryn. May this piece of work inspire them and remind them of the importance
of education, helping others, and always having faith in God. I want them to re-
member that hard work = success!
This work is also dedicated to Lynn Sheffield, whose hard work and passion
for inner city youth did not go unnoticed or unappreciated. This work embodies the
vision that she had for students of color: equal access and high academic achieve-
ment.
This work is also dedicated to the extraordinary administrators, teachers,
staff, parents, and students who participated in this case study by providing a
wealth of information of effective practices for similar schools to follow.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge the important contributions of Dr. Kathy Stowe, Committee
Chair; Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Committee Co-Chair and Committee Member; and Dr.
Larry Picus, Committee Member.
All the grace and glory be to God, who planted the seeds of inspiration and
guided and lit my path for the desire to complete this work of knowledge to
improve the lives for children.
I thank my husband, James, and daughters Courtney, Kylie, and Kamryn for
their understanding and patience during the past 3 years. They had to put up with
books and papers all over the house, Mommy always having to “read” or
grumbling, “I can’t go. I have to work on my paper” but it is all over. It is now time
to have fun and celebrate. I thank my mother for babysitting when I had to attend
class, my father for reading and providing feedback and encouragement, and my
brother for making sure that I got to the gym to help my mental and physical sta-
bility.
Thanks to the USC Tuesday cohort team and the members of the thematic
dissertation team for all of their help, support, and encouragement.
A special thank you goes to two people who have no idea of the impact that
they have had on my life. Dr. Lorraine Monroe inspires me as an educator and
motivated me during the writing of this dissertation. Words cannot express the
gratitude and appreciation that I have for Dr. Kenneth Ulmer and The Family of
Faith. God has used Bishop Ulmer to bring me closer to him; he is wonderful
teacher and pastor who has taught me to believe and walk by faith.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................x
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY............................................................1
Background of the Problem............................................................................3
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................6
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................7
Research Questions.........................................................................................7
Importance/Significance of the Study ............................................................8
Limitations......................................................................................................9
Delimitations ..................................................................................................9
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................10
Organization of the Dissertation...................................................................12
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................13
Historical and Cultural Overview.................................................................13
Historical Overview................................................................................13
Impact of Race and Culture in American Education..............................18
The Achievement Gap ..................................................................................20
The Classroom and Beyond....................................................................22
Barriers to Student Achievement............................................................23
Effective Practices ........................................................................................30
Effective School Structure and Systems.......................................................35
Leadership ..............................................................................................36
School Climate and Culture....................................................................39
Standards-Based Instruction...................................................................40
Data-Driven Decision Making................................................................43
Professional Development......................................................................46
Conclusion....................................................................................................48
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................50
Qualitative Research Design ........................................................................50
Sample and Population .................................................................................51
Instrumentation.............................................................................................52
Theoretical Framework.................................................................................53
Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................55
Observations ...........................................................................................55

v
Interviews ...............................................................................................58
Artifact/Document Analysis...................................................................59
Data Analysis..........................................................................................60
Ethical Considerations..................................................................................61
Chapter Summary.........................................................................................62
Chapter 4: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION.................................63
Community Profile .......................................................................................66
School Profile ...............................................................................................68
Data Findings and Analysis..........................................................................68
Research Question 1: Trends and Patterns .............................................68
School Performance on Standardized Tests .....................................70
Student Attendance...........................................................................77
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1................................80
Research Question 2: Organizational Structures and Systems...............82
Organizational Structures .................................................................82
Organizational Systems ....................................................................88
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2................................99
Research Question 3: School-Wide Practices ......................................100
Use of Data .....................................................................................100
Monitoring of Teachers ..................................................................104
Professional Development..............................................................105
Effective Instruction .......................................................................106
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3..............................110
Research Question 4:Construct of Race ...............................................112
Historical and Societal Influence....................................................112
Culturally Responsive Teaching.....................................................114
Summary of Findings for Research Question 4..............................116
Analysis and Discussion.............................................................................117
Chapter Summary.......................................................................................118
Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...122
The Purpose of the Study............................................................................122
Summary of Findings .................................................................................123
Research Question 1: Trends and Patterns of Student Performance ....123
Research Question 2: Organizational Structures and Systems.............125
Research Question 3: School-Wide Practices ......................................127
Research Question 4: Construct of Race ..............................................129
Areas of Notable Success .....................................................................130
Areas of Ongoing Growth ....................................................................131
Implications for Practice.............................................................................132
Recommendations for Further Research ....................................................133
Conclusion..................................................................................................134
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................135
APPENDICES
A. ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .................................141

vi
B. TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL................................................143
C. CLASSIFIED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL............................................145
D. PARENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL...................................................147
E. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL....................................149
F. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION PROTOCOL ..........150
G. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATION
GUIDING QUESTIONS .......................................................................152
H. LEADERSHIP TEAM QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTIONS ...............153
I. PICTURE OF STANDARDS POSTED IN CLASSROOM .................154
J. CLASSROOM BULLETIN BOARDS .................................................155
K. GUIDELINES FOR STUDENT DISCIPLINE .....................................157
L. SDAIE STRATEGIES...........................................................................158
M. IWT ........................................................................................................160
N. PARENT INVOLVEMENT PLAN.......................................................161
O. SAMPLE OF GRADING RUBRIC ......................................................162

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Test:
Percentages of Students on Grade Level in Reading and
Mathematics...........................................................................................3
Table 2: Socially Acceptable Behavior, Discriminatory Assumptions,
and the Policies and Practices They Support.......................................24
Table 3: Research Sources of Essential Structures and Systems for
Improvement of Student Achievement................................................37
Table 4: Comparison of Learning Modes of Field-Independent and
Field-Dependent Students....................................................................43
Table 5: Performance-Based Assessments ........................................................45
Table 6: Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research
Questions (RQ)....................................................................................53
Table 7: Data Collection Instruments Used in the Present Study......................57
Table 8: Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions (RQ) .................59
Table 9: Participants in the Semistructured Interviews at the Study School .....65
Table 10: Demographic Data for the Study School, 2006-2007..........................69
Table 11: Student Attendance Rates at the Study School, 2002-2007 ................79

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentages of fourth-grade students scoring below basic on
the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)
tests in 2005.........................................................................................21
Figure 2: Percentages of emergency credentialed teachers and students
eligible for free/reduced-price meals...................................................27
Figure 3: Theoretical framework of the study.....................................................54
Figure 4: Conceptual framework to improve student achievement ....................56
Figure 5: Data analysis process...........................................................................60
Figure 6: Ethnic distribution of students in the study school..............................67
Figure 7: Academic Performance Index (API) for the study school,
1999-2007............................................................................................71
Figure 8: Comparison of API growth scores for the study school,
school district, and state of California, 2004-2007..............................71
Figure 9: Scores on the mathematics portion of the California Standards
Test for the study school, 2004-2007 ..................................................73
Figure 10: English-language Arts (ELA) scores on the California Standards
Test (CST) by the study school, the study school district, and
California.............................................................................................74
Figure 11: Mathematics scores on the California Standards Test (CST)
at the study school by subgroup, 2003-2007 .......................................75
Figure 12: English-Language Arts (ELA) scores on the California Standards
Test (CST) at the study school by subgroup, 2003-2007 ....................76
Figure 13: Results of the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) at the study school, 2006-2007 ...........................................78
Figure 14: Suspension data for the study school, 2002-2007 ...............................79
Figure 15: Expulsion data for the study school, 2002-2007 .................................79
Figure 16: Assessments used to test California students in grades 2-11...............84
Figure 17: School-wide systems observed at the study school.............................88

ix
Figure 18: Teaching staff stability at the study school .........................................95
Figure 19: Classroom systems that impact instruction practice in classrooms...101
Figure 20: Kindergarten rubric............................................................................103
Figure 21: Sociocultural theory of learning ........................................................111
Figure 22: Process of cognitive development.....................................................114
Figure 23: Influence of culturally response teaching on the academic
performance of students of color at the study school ........................117
Figure 24: Theme 1 emerging from the case study.............................................118
Figure 25: Theme 2 emerging from the case study.............................................119
Figure 26: Theme 3 emerging from the case study.............................................120
Figure 27: Theme 4 emerging from the case study.............................................121

x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to identify structures and systems imple-
mented in a high-performing high-poverty urban school to promote high academic
achievement among students of color. The researcher used a sociocultural theoreti-
cal framework to examine the influence of culture on the structures and systems
that increased performance by African American and Hispanic students. Four
research questions guided the study:
1. What are the trends and patterns of student performance among students
of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with high
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational structures and systems implemented to
support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and
systems?
Qualitative data were collected through interviews, observations, and arti-
fact collection. A single case study method was employed and collected data were
triangulated to capture and explore the rich details of the study.
The study focused on a high-performing high-poverty urban elementary
school located in southern California. The school population consisted of 99% stu-
dents of color and 93% were economically disadvantaged. The school was selected
for making significant and consistent growth in Academic Performance Index and
Adequate Yearly Progress over a 3-year period.

xi
The school-wide structures and systems studied were (a) leadership, (b)
school climate and culture, (c) standards-based instruction, (d) data-driven decision
making, and (e) professional development. Four common themes emerged from the
findings: (a) instructional leadership that focused on teaching and learning; (b) high
expectations for all students; (c) school-wide focus on student achievement using
standards, data, and culturally responsive teaching; and (d) positive relationships
and interactions among students, teachers, parents, and community.
Suggestion for future research include a deep examination of how and why
culturally relevant pedagogy supports students of color, research on leadership and
its impact on creating a positive school climate and culture to produce high student
achievement by students of color, and the impact of early education programs on
student achievement among poor students and students of color.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Public education in America has made educational advances through school
reform. However, the school reform efforts have not improved the quality of educa-
tion for all students. There is a historic pattern of low academic achievement among
African American and Hispanic students. These two groups share the common
experience of attending urban schools in high-poverty areas that often place low
expectations and biases on the learning capacities of students of color. Students of
color experience inequities of educational opportunities, oppression, cultural
neglect, racism, and various forms of segregation within schools (Kuykendall,
2004).
Many public schools have implemented reform efforts; however, many
more public schools are failing to improve academic performance for students of
color. Both African American and Hispanic students are not meeting grade-level
standards and are failing at disproportionate rates (Wynn, 2002). Extensive research
attributes this failure to the beliefs and practices of educators and the inconsistent
and ineffective implementation of school reforms (Kuykendall, 2004; Noguera,
2003; Wynn, 2002). According to the California Department of Education (CDE;
1992), there is a large percentage of African American and Hispanic students
achieving at low academic levels.
In response to the nation’s concern over the academic and racial achieve-
ment gap in America, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB; 2001). NCLB was the beginning of an educational reform movement
aimed at creating a standards-based accountability system. Every state was

2
mandated to develop standards aligned with curriculum and assessment. The goal
of NCLB was to ensure that “no child was left behind” and that 100% of American
students would be proficient in English-Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics by
2014.
California public schools participate in two accountability systems. The
California Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (CDE, 2006) developed
the Academic Performance Index (API) and NCLB Act of 2001 developed the
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Both systems require schools to meet established
targets annually. API assesses student growth on assessments and AYP assesses
whether schools are meeting an annual measurable objective.
NCLB requires all states to test students in grades 2 through 8 and report
scores disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and other demographic characteristics
associated with educational disadvantage (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). These
data provide evidence of the underachievement of students of color and, more
important, the large number of African American and Hispanic students who
continue to fail in the U.S. educational system. Table 1 shows the percentages of
African American and Hispanic students who are on grade level in reading and
mathematics. These data displays the achievement scores for White, Hispanic, and
African American students. The achievement scores demonstrate an achievement
gap between African American and Hispanic students and their White peers.
Closing the achievement gap is a challenge faced by schools across the nation.
This study seeks to understand the impact of race and culture on education
for students of color using a sociocultural theoretical framework. A conceptual
framework was used to guide the school structures and systems. It was designed by
the researcher using an adapted version of Michael Wynn’s School Improvement

3
Table 1

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Test: Percentages of
Students on Grade Level in Reading and Mathematics

Ethnicity 4th-grade reading 8th-grade mathematics

African American 13% 7%
Hispanic 16% 9%
White 41% 37%

Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), by U.S. Department
of Education, 2004, Washington, DC: Author, retrieved December 30, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Planning Framework (Wynn, 2002). The framework was systematically formulated
to link the structure of leadership in four systems: (a) school climate and culture,
(b) standards-based instruction, (c) data-driven decision making, and (d) profes-
sional development. Together, the systems work to increase student achievement.
Background of the Problem
Historically, students of color have exhibited low achievement. Abigail
and Stephan Thernstrom’s No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning
(Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003), identified the gap in academic performance
between White students and students of color. According to the authors, “This is an
educational crisis that is worse than fifteen years ago” (p. 8). The educational gap
was beginning to close in the 1970s through the mid-1980s but widened in 1988
and continues today. No Excuses described the educational gap as a “racial gap in
academic achievement” (p. 1) due to racial inequality and the failure of America to
provide students of color a good education (Carter, 2001). Most school districts use

4
“racial gap in academics” as a euphemism to excuse the poor job of educating
students of color.
There have been many attempts to improve public education for African
American and Hispanic children (Bennett, 2001). The 1954 landmark Supreme
Court decision Brown v. Board of Education provided equal access and educational
opportunity for “colored” children and the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Educa-
tion Act (ESEA) provided equal access and opportunities to students living in
poverty, many of whom were students of color. In spite of these efforts, students of
color continue to achieve at low academic levels.
Underachievement by African American and Hispanic students has deep
historical roots (Kuykendall, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Noguera, 2003;
Thernstrom & Thernstrom; 2003). To understand this underachievement, one must
understand the historical events that impacted and shaped education for African
American and Hispanic people. From slavery and immigration to the Civil Rights
Movement, African Americans and Hispanics have had to assimilate and struggle
for equal rights in America’s cultural, social, and economic structures that still exist
today.
Typically, students of color and students living in poverty face the
challenge of succeeding in high-poverty urban schools. Kozol (1991) illustrated the
disparities that existed in public schools across the United States serving poor,
minority students, and more affluent students. Kozol visited schools across
America and wrote about the differences in education that existed between the poor
and more affluent districts. In urban schools in impoverished areas Kozol observed
students being taught by unqualified teachers in run-down, overcrowded facilities
that lacked basic supplies such as textbooks or facilities such as science or

5
computer labs. One extreme example was bathrooms being used as classrooms.
This was in stark contrast to the students in affluent suburban areas who experi-
enced manicured and fully equipped facilities, including auditoriums, student
lounges, libraries with books, and extensive computer labs, as well as advanced
placement courses and well-qualified teachers. Civil rights leaders referred to such
conditions as stemming from racism.
Noguera (2003) also illustrated the inequalities that existed in urban public
schools at that time. However, Noguera went a step further and analyzed the source
of these inequities. Noguera collected data and studied high-wealth and high-
poverty cities to compare how race and class shaped the culture of schools and
communities. He concluded that race and class were deeply embedded and contri-
buted to the issues and problems faced by students within structures of public
education. The complex relationship between race and class and public education
are reflected in his study of four districts in northern California: San Francisco and
Berkeley (high wealth) and Oakland and Richmond (high poverty). The examina-
tion of the social context within inner-city schools further illustrates the challenges
and issues that impact students of color and urban public schools.
Wade Nobles in Infusion of African and African American Content in the
School Curriculum (as cited in Wynn, 2005) stated, “Culture is to humans as water
is to fish” (p. 131). This analogy provides an understanding of culture and its
influence on the total environment. According to Wynn (2005), culture is observed
in families and within school systems. A positive school culture is essential to
African American and Hispanic student achievement. Culture should be integrated
in the curriculum, teaching methodology, leadership, instructional practices, and
school climate (Gay, 2000; Hilliard, 2003; Wynn, 2005). Ultimately, schools and

6
teachers must recognize that “the aim and purpose of education is cultural”
(p. 131).
In the next 15 to 20 years 85% of the new work force will come from the
population of people who have historically had the most limited educational and
economic disadvantages: students of color, immigrants, and women (Salamon,
1991). Therefore, it is critical for America to invest in all people, despite their race
or culture, by providing them the needed skills, knowledge, and training to build a
wealthy nation that can compete globally.
Despite the federal and state involvement in education, several reports
document the low level of academic achievement of students of color and students
living in poverty. Public schools in America are still in need of reform. Schools are
complex organizations that serve students from culturally diverse backgrounds.
Results of California’s standardized tests demonstrate low academic achievement
by African American and Hispanic students (CDE, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
Public schools in the United States have produced varying levels of
academic achievement by students. The majority of those who underachieve are
students of color (Noguera, 2003). While many students of color fail to achieve in
public schools, there are also students of color who achieve at high levels in high-
poverty urban schools. It is important to identify the organizational structures and
systems that are perceived to contribute to high student performance and how high-
performing schools implement the systems school wide. What is not known is how
culture impacts effective implementation of school-wide school systems. The

7
challenge is to replicate practices of high-poverty, high-performing urban schools
in schools with similar populations that are low performing.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify structures and systems imple-
mented to promote high academic achievement among students of color. The study
used a theoretical framework to understand the sociocultural context of education
and its influence on the structures and systems that produce and support high levels
of student performance by African American and Hispanic students. The intended
outcome was to provide urban school leaders a framework to transform their low-
performing schools into positive learning environments where all students achieve
at high academic levels.
Research Questions
Four research questions guided this study:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students of
color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with high
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational structures and systems implemented to
support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and
systems?

8
Importance/Significance of the Study
Historically, students of color in high poverty urban schools have been
associated with low student achievement. In poverty-stricken schools one of the
greatest obstacles that students of color face is to overcome low expectations.
These low expectations come in the form of excuses focused on the students’
deficits. These deficits include living in poverty, lack of parental support, lack of
resources, discipline problems, language skills, and working below grade level
(Wynn, 2002). However, Collins and Tamarkin (1990) clearly articulated and her
research substantiated that “all children are born achievers and all they need is
someone to help them become all they have the potential to become” (p. 35). The
role of leadership is fundamentally important to a student’s educational success
while most significantly contributing to the wealth of the nation (Salamon, 1991).
Urban public schools deal with the pressures and mandates to close the
achievement gap between students of color and poor students and their White and
affluent peers. The challenge for urban school leaders is to meet the needs of all
students and increase student performance, specifically by students of color.
Therefore, this study identified and examined the specific practices that meet the
unique needs of African American and Hispanic students and students living in
poverty. Furthermore, the researcher sought to understand how the systems and
structures are effectively implemented for culturally diverse students in order to
produce high levels of achievement.
The findings in this study will provide state and educational leaders,
policymakers, educators, and universities a better understanding of the historical
and cultural context of education for students of color and the required support
structures to improve student achievement with students from culturally diverse

9
backgrounds. This study examined culture and its impact on effective implementa-
tion of the systems and practices that led to high student achievement with students
of color.
Limitations
The study is limited by the sample size and the span of time spent at the
school site. The findings may not generalize to populations of students and schools
that do not have highly similar features and characteristics. In addition, interactions
with the school’s administrators, teachers, staff, parents/guardians, and others were
limited to the information that they chose to provide to the researcher during the
study. Furthermore, the researcher’s bias, as well as the biases of the participants in
the study, might have influenced the validity of the data in the study.
Delimitations
The delimitations include the study of one elementary school in the Laurice
Unified School District located in southern California. The study is delimited to the
information, data, and documents established by the researcher and used during
interviews and observations. The definition of a high-performing, high-poverty
school was determined by the dissertation group and the school to be studied met
the following criteria: 75% of the student population receiving free and/or reduced
meals, school-wide trajectory of API and AYP growth over 3 years including all
subgroups, and minimal movement of two deciles within 3 to 5 years. Delimita-
tions were determined by a group of doctoral candidates who were focused on
cultural practices and promoting effective classroom instruction.

10
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined for the purpose of this study.
Academic performance index (API): A number summarizing the perform-
ance of a group of students, a school, or a district on California’s standardized tests.
A school’s API score is used to compare it with 100 schools of the same type that
are most similar in terms of students served, teacher qualifications, and other
factors (EdSource, 2007).
Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be
responsible for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or
sanctioned for their success or lack of success in doing so (EdSource, 2007).
Achievement gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement
tests between certain groups of students (EdSource, 2007).
Adequate yearly progress (AYP): A set of annual academic performance
benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and subpopulations of students
must achieve for the state to receive federal funding under Title I of NCLB. In
California, the measures includes (a) specified percentages of students scoring
proficient or advanced on California Standards Tests (CST) in ELA and Mathe-
matics, (b) participation of at least 95% of students on those tests, (c) specified API
scores and gains, and (d) for high schools, a specified graduation rate or improve-
ment in the rate (EdSource, 2007).
California Content Standards: Standards that describe what students in the
state of California should know and be able to do in core academic subjects at each
grade level (EdSource, 2007).
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) Program: A program that provides
supplemental, differentiated, challenging curriculum and instruction to gifted and

11
talented public school students who are deemed by their districts to be intellectually
gifted or especially talented in leadership or visual and performing arts.
High-performing: School-wide trajectory of API and AYP growth over 3
years for all subgroup, with minimal movement of two deciles within 3 to 5 years.
High-poverty: Seventy-five percent of the students are on free or reduced-
price meals.
School climate: The sum of the values, cultures, practices, and organiza-
tional structures within a school that cause it to function and react in a particular
ways (McBrien & Brandt, 1997).
School culture: A system of shared meaning held by staff of a school that
distinguishes that school from other schools (Robbins & Langton, 2001).
Standards-based instruction: An approach to teaching and learning focused
on clear expectations of what all students should know and be able to do.
Standards-based reform: Multiple components that integrates a unifying
vision and goals with coherent instructional guidance and restructured governance
systems (EdSource, 2003).
Structure: Institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place
by federal, state, or district policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official
structure of schools, not subject to change at the local school site, such as funding
mechanisms (federal, state, local), personnel policies (hiring, evaluation, credential-
ing, etc.), use of instructional time, class size, and program regulations.
Students of color: Students who are African American/Black or Hispanic/
Latino.
Systems: A method or way of doing something. The school processes or
practices that are necessary functions to a school’s success. Coordinated and

12
coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students, parents, funds, faculties, etc.)
at the school site to ensure that school visions, missions, and goals are met.
Urban: High population density.
Urban school: A school located in a dense, highly populated area.
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the
rationale for studying high-performing, high-poverty urban schools and the context
of culture in creating environments in which African American and Hispanic
students will achieve high levels of academic success. In addition, chapter 1
presents the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research
questions, the importance of the study, the study’s limitations and delimitations,
and the definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is an analysis of the literature with an
overview of the historical, cultural, and economic issues of the study. The literature
is organized around the structures and systems of high-performing, high-poverty
schools, effective practices that increase student achievement, and examples of
high-performing, high-poverty urban schools. Chapter 3 presents the methodology
of the study, description of the selected sample, data collection techniques and
instruments, and analysis of data. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study as
they relate to the research questions and frameworks. It also presents an analysis of
the results. Chapter 5 summarizes the major findings of the study, with their
implications, and presents recommendations for future study.

13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter contains five sections that ground the study in research and
provide an in-depth analysis of the structures and systems that contribute to
effective classroom instruction in an urban high-performing, high-poverty school.
The first section provides a historical and cultural overview of American education
and the impact that it has had on the performance of African American students.
The second section focuses on the achievement gap and identifies the barriers to
student achievement. The third section reviews research on effective practices
within successful high-poverty schools. The fourth section provides the theoretical
framework and an analysis of specific structures and systems that produce student
achievement. The fifth section concludes the need for the study.
Historical and Cultural Overview
Historically, high-poverty urban schools with large concentrations of
students of color have been associated with low student achievement (Conchas,
2006; Kozol, 1991; Kuykendall, 2004; Noguera, 2003). The disparities in student
achievement among students of color and students living in poverty are not new.
The period from 1896 to 2001 had court cases and legislation to improve the
conditions for learning of African American and Hispanic students.
Historical Overview
Dating back to 1896, the Supreme Court, in the Plessy v. Ferguson case,
ruled that African American students were able to be educated only in “separate but
equal” learning facilities. This ruling was essentially a way of causing African

14
American students to further endure slave-like conditions, even pertaining to their
education.
In 1954 the Supreme Court banned segregation in schools with the Brown v.
Board of Education decision, ruling that separate but equal learning facilities were
“no longer acceptable” by law. However, American public schools continue to have
problems with racial and cultural inequality (Bireda, 2002; Conchas, 2006).
Students living in poverty and students of color experience run-down school facili-
ties, inadequate instructional materials, unqualified teachers, and low expectations
(Kozol, 1991). These types of conditions are most often observed in schools
located in high-poverty areas.
In the 1960s Lyndon B. Johnson launched the so-called War on Poverty to
create funding and programs to end poverty through education and job training.
During this same time two important educational components were created: Head
Start and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Head Start was
created to prepare low-income preschoolers academically and socially for school.
The program serves 3- and 4-year-olds and their families who are at or below
federal poverty levels. ESEA provides special funding, called Title I funds, to meet
the needs of educationally deprived students. Both of these programs were enacted
to counteract the historical disadvantage of students living in poverty and students
of color.
In July 1966 Equality in Educational Opportunity, usually referred to as the
Coleman Report, was published. The Coleman Report was the result of achieve-
ment and aptitude tests disaggregated by ethnic and cultural groups. The outcome
of this report had a large impact on public schools. Marzano (2003) reported that
“it dealt a veritable deathblow to the belief that schools could overcome students’

15
backgrounds” (p. 2). The Coleman Report stated that schools accounted for only
10% of the variance in achievement, whereas 90% was accounted for by family
background. Coleman and his task force took the position that schools can do little
toward the academic success of students who lack family resources.
In 1973 Marian Wright Edelman challenged Coleman’s belief that little
could be done to help children overcome the family backgrounds into which they
were born. Edelman challenged the Coleman Report by establishing the Children’s
Defense Fund (CDF). CDF’s mission is to build a community aware of its
children’s needs and to ensure “every child a healthy start, a head start, a fair start,
a safe start, and a moral start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the
help of caring families and communities” (CDF, 2007). CDF fulfills its mission
through outreach programs and being a strong voice in lobbying for increased
Medicaid coverage for poor children and secured government funding for childcare
and early education programs such as Head Start. The strong, effective slogan
voiced by Marion Wright Edelman, “no child will be left behind,” communicates
the expectation and impact that schools and communities can have on student
learning (CDF, 2004). This involves the commitment of not allowing any child to
fail.
In April 1983, 17 years after the Coleman report, A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform was released. The National Commission on
Excellence in Education (NCEE) reported the quality of education in the United
States. The Commission reported concerns about K-12 public education in America
and proclaimed, “the educational foundations of our society are presently being
eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a

16
people” (NCEE, 1983, p. 4). This report portrayed the economic and technological
decline in education and its impact on the future of the nation.
NCEE presented recommendations in five areas: (a) content, (b) standards
and expectations, (c) time, (d) teaching, and (e) leadership and fiscal support. In the
area of content, the commission recommended the strengthening of the high school
graduation requirements. All students would be required to take a minimum num-
ber of years in the basic subjects of English, mathematics, science, social science,
computer science, and foreign language in order to graduate from high school.
The five recommended areas for improvement were detailed with strategies to
strengthen the education offered to American students. The outcome would be
highly educated American students with the ability to compete globally.
Schools, colleges, and universities were called on to adopt standards and
higher expectations for student performance and conduct. The academic standards
would be rigorous and measurable, while at the same time schools would devote
more time to meeting the new standards. This would be accomplished through
more effective use of the school day, a longer school day, or a lengthened school
year. In the area of teaching, focus was on improving the preparation of teachers
and making teaching a more rewarding and respected profession.
Leadership and fiscal support would be imperative to provide public
accountability to the proposed school reform. Educators and elected officials were
to be held responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve the
reforms. Citizens would provide the fiscal support and stability required to
accomplish the reform through their votes and support of legislation.
Fifteen years after A Nation at Risk, an education manifesto maintained that
U.S. schools were still failing children. In April 1998 A Nation Still at Risk

17
(Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998) was signed by 37 prominent education
reformers. The report revealed that dropout rates had declined and college attend-
ance had risen but risks were still present, specifically for poor and students of
color. The report found that since 1983 over 20 million Americans in the 12th
grade had not been able to read on a basic level, 6 million Americans had dropped
out of high school, 13% of all African American students ages 16-24 were not in
school and did not have a high school diploma, 17% of first-generation Hispanics
had dropped out of high school, and 30% of entering college freshman needed
remedial courses in reading, writing, and/or mathematics. This manifesto revealed
how students were leaving school lacking the basic skills in reading, writing, and
mathematics. Without these basic skills, students of color would continue to
achieve at the bottom quarter of national and state assessments.
A Nation Still at Risk (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998) affirmed that
not much had changed for students of color since 1896 and Plessy v. Ferguson. The
writers of the manifesto summarized their findings by describing the school as
separate and unequal and described poor students and students of color attending
the worse public schools. Specifically, poor students of color were taught by less-
knowledgeable teachers, had low expectations placed on them, and had the least
power to improve and change the system to benefit themselves. That study’s find-
ings suggested change in the form of standards, assessment, and accountability.
In 2001, as a response to the nation’s concern about educational opportunity
in America, George W. Bush signed the NCLB. NCLB was the educational reform
movement toward increased accountability, testing, and standards. This accounta-
bility system places pressure on schools to improve student performance. Student
performance is publicly released in a report demonstrating a school’s AYP. NCLB

18
requires schools to produce evidence that all students are learning regardless of
background, race, culture, language, or disability. The evidence of learning is based
on student performance on state-mandated standardized tests. The standardized test
scores are disaggregated by race, economic disadvantage, gender, English language
learners, and special education students. Across the nation, the results of the
standardized tests reveal disparities in student achievement.
The enactment of NCLB placed political pressure on schools to raise
achievement for students who historically have experienced educational inequities.
For the first time in United States history, schools must look at student performance
by race and socioeconomic differences. But most important, schools are required to
eliminate the gaps in student achievement (Noguera, 2003).
Impact of Race and Culture in American Education
The relationship of race and culture on student performance continues to
impact education in America. Fifty-three years after Brown v. Board of Education
racial inequity continues to be a problem in U.S. public schools (Bireda, 2002).
A student’s race and culture are significant barriers and “arbiters of their school
experience, opportunities, and academic success” (p. 3). Wynn (2005) revealed that
students of color have less access to gifted and talented programs and advanced
placement courses. Students of color are also more likely to drop out of school and
less likely to graduate than White students. According to the Office of Civil Rights
(2001, as cited in Wynn), African American students are 17% of the national
enrollment but constitute 32% of school suspensions and 31% of expulsions.
Historically, differences in student performance and academic achievement
have been attributed to genetics and intelligence (Hernstein & Murray, 1996). In

19
the United States African American and Hispanic people are considered inferior to
Europeans. This has been reflected in the pre-civil rights era in the form of slavery
and colonization and in the post-civil rights era in the form of subordination and
exploitation. The ideology of White supremacy is persistent today. This ideology is
a form of racism based on racial prejudice combined with social, cultural, and
economic power (Tatum, 1997). The racism is observed in patterns of privilege and
inequality in schools between White students and student of color, a condition
known as institutional racism.
Institutional racism “is racism that covertly or overtly resides in the poli-
cies, procedures, operations, and culture of public or private institutions, reinforc-
ing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in return” (Sivanandan,
1999, p. 1). This has a direct bearing on the quality of schools that students of color
attend (Noguera, 2003). African American and Hispanic students generally attend
the lowest-performing schools in high-poverty areas. Studies have revealed that
students of color are more likely to be in less challenging educational programs and
experience the negative practices of tracking, ability grouping, and low teacher
expectations (Kuykendall, 2004).
Sociologists argue that not only is race and culture an issue but that “social
capital” creates unequal resources and causes disparity in school achievement
(Bourdieu, 1977; Coleman, 1987; Noguera, 2003). Social capital is a concept used
to describe the benefits individuals acquire through social networks as a result of
race and class. Social capital brings the benefit of jobs, loans, educational oppor-
tunities, resources, and services (Noguera).
Conchas (2006) viewed social capital as familial and nonfamilial resources
that provide information and support necessary for positive educational outcomes.

20
The familial source of social capital is the influence of the home and family on the
student. This can include interactions between parent and children, parent participa-
tion in the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), family structure (two-parent vs.
single-parent), and parents’ educational expectations for the child. The nonfamilial
sources of social capital are the influence of friends, teachers, and communities
around the student. Within the school context this could be relationships with
school personnel and the social networks formed to provide access to resources and
opportunities (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Research on social capital shows that poor students and students of color
often lack the access to resources and social networks that White and middle-class
students have as a leverage tool in schools. Social capital for White students results
in poor students and students of color usually attending the lowest-performing
schools while White and middle-class students attend the better schools in more
affluent areas (Noguera, 2003).This demonstrates how race, class, and culture
impact education and the differences in access to opportunities based on race and
economic status. These factors affect the achievement of poor students and students
of color.
The Achievement Gap
The results of the 2005 national reading test showed the academic gap
between poor students and African American students in comparison to their White
and affluent peers. Figure 1 displays the percentages of fourth-grade students who
scored below basic on the NAEP in 2005.
Public schools in the United States have produced varying degrees of
student achievement levels throughout the past century. Despite many school

21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
58% 54% 24% 24%
African American
Socio-economically
disadvantaged
Affluent
White

Figure 1. Percentages of fourth-grade students scoring below basic on the National
Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in 2005. Source: Educational
Achievement and Black-White Inequality, by National Assessment of Educational
Progress, 2007, retrieved January 23, 2008, from ncesed.gov/programs/coe/2007/
section4/tableXLS.asp?tableID=723-32

reform movements, public schools are faced with gaps in academic achievement by
students of color: African American and Hispanic students, as well as students
living in poverty (Johnson, 2002). The achievement gap is complex and multi-
faceted. It was a concern with President Johnson’s War on Poverty, the 1965
ESEA, Ron Edmond’s and J. S. Coleman’s research on effective schools, and
currently a challenge with the 2001 NCLB.
The NAEP reports similar findings. The NAEP administers a national test
in grades 4, 8 and 12. For the past 40 years NAEP has provided assessment data for
America’s students. NAEP interprets test scores as: (a) far below basic, (b) below
basic, (c) basic, (d) proficient, or (e) advanced. Evidence from NAEP demonstrates

22
that reading and mathematics score averages are little higher than they were in the
1970s (Boudett, City, & Murname, 2005).
The Classroom and Beyond
The crisis of underachievement by African American students goes beyond
the classroom walls into the cities of the nation. Underachievement among African
Americans is a major societal problem that negatively impacts the nation. To
understand the depth of the problem, Michael Wynn, in Empowering African
American Males: Teaching, Parenting, and Mentoring Successful Black Males
(2005), presented statistics on African American and White students related to high
school performance, course enrollment, and graduation: 13% of African American
students ages 16-24 had not earned a high school diploma, while the rate for White
students was 7%; 17.5% of African American students and 9.3% of White students
in K-12 had been retained at least one grade; 30% of African American high school
students took advanced mathematics courses, compared to 45% of Whites students;
27% of African American high school students took advanced English courses;
12% of African American high school students took science courses as high as
chemistry and physics; African American students took Advance Placement exams
at a rate of 53 per 1,000 students, while the rate for Whites was 185 per 1,000; the
average SAT scores for African American students was 433 (verbal) and 462
(mathematics), while the scores for Whites were over 22% higher at 529 (verbal)
and 531 (mathematics); and the average ACT score for African American students
was 16.9 and 21.8 (30% higher) for White students.
The statistics point out the achievement gap between African American and
White students. The underachievement by African Americans begins before they

23
begin school and causes low high school graduation and college enrollment rates.
This underachievement negatively impacts societies with high African American
unemployment rates, low participation in the American labor force, and increased
crime rates. This is evident with African American men representing 49% of prison
inmates (U.S. Department of Justice, 1990).
A student’s race and class negatively impacts educational outcome and
creates barriers to academic success in U.S. public schools. This persistent and
pervasive disparity in African American educational attainment provides the
rationale for the study. It is in the best interest of the United States to improve the
quality and educational outcomes for students of color.
Barriers to Student Achievement
The achievement gap reveals students who are provided a quality education
versus students who continue to be left behind. Research supports the premise that
the achievement gap results from institutional structures and systems not meeting
the unique needs of students of color (Bireda, 2002; Hilliard, 2003; Johnson, 2002;
Kunjufu, 1989; Kuykendall, 2004; Noguera, 2003; Oakes, 1985; Perry, Steele, &
Hilliard, 2003; Steele, 2003; Tatum, 2007). The separate and unequal opportunities
existing in schools contribute to underachievement by African American and
Hispanic students and students living in poverty (Conchas, 2006). In From Rage to
Hope: Strategies for Reclaiming Black and Hispanic Students Kuykendall took the
position that educational institutions support policies and perpetuate belief systems
that result in barriers toward academic success for African American and Hispanic
students. Table 2 displays behaviors, policies, and practices that perpetuate deficit
thinking and discrimination toward students of color.

24
Table 2

Socially Acceptable Behavior, Discriminatory Assumptions, and the Policies and
Practices They Support

Restrictive
or demeaning
Socially acceptable Discriminatory organizational
behavior assumption policy or practice

Expressing the belief that
academic success depends
solely on the home
environment.
Schools or individual school
employees cannot enhance
student achievement and
performance.
Failure of school or district
to develop standards and
learning goals for students
of color.
Using negative labels to
describe low-achieving and
underachieving students.
Students of color are
intellectually inferior to their
White counterparts.
Use of tracking and ability
grouping and the
implementation of a low-
level curriculum aligned
with non-existent jobs. A
preponderance of vocational
courses for students of color
that limit their performance
on standardized test.
Deciding to treat all students
the same.
Students who need more
academic support and
assistance should and will
get it at home.
Failure of school or district
to implement policies that
provide extra help to
students who need it –
especially students of color
who are likely to be victims
of low expectations or
outreach in earlier grades.
Allowing the best teachers
to teach the best student in
the best schools.
Good teaching should not be
wasted on failing students.
Allowing teachers with the
weakest academic
foundation to teach at
predominately Black and
Hispanic schools.
Encouraging students of
color to pursue athletics and
entertainment as a career
choice.
Blacks and Hispanics are
more brawn than brain.
More funds are spent on
gym equipment than
academic equipment. School
buildings are old and
unkempt, although the
physical education program
may be strong. Educational
advancement is de-
emphasized.

25
Table 2 (continued)

Restrictive
or demeaning
Socially acceptable Discriminatory organizational
behavior assumption policy or practice

Providing more structure
and discipline for student of
color.
Students of color are more
likely to not conform and
misbehave, so stricter rules
and consequences for
misbehavior are required.
Development of school rules
that stifle expression and
creativity and punish
students for displaying
cultural communicative
and/or behavioral norms
unique to their respective
subcultures.

Source: From Rage to Hope: Strategies for Reclaiming Black and Hispanic
Students (p. 55), by C. Kuykendall, 2004, Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

The literature reveals a diversity of opinions on the reasons behind the gap
and the factors that affect African American and Hispanic student performance and
achievement in schools. Explanations often point to deficits within children, socio-
economic level, language, culture, and neighborhood (Johnson, 2002; Kuykendall,
2004).
Thompson in, Through Ebony Eyes: What Teachers Need to Know but are
Afraid to Ask About African American Students (2004) presented theories on the
cause of the African American achievement gap: low teacher expectations, under-
prepared teachers, parent-are-at-fault theory, “acting White” theory, “fourth grade
failure syndrome,” theory of cultural discontinuity, tracking, theory of structural
inequality, deficit-deprivation theory, and peer-pressure-and lure-of-street-life
theory.
For the purpose of this research, focus will be on five practices found to be
directly controlled by leaders in school organizations: (a) underprepared teachers,

26
(b) low teacher expectations, (c) cultural discontinuity, (d) tracking, and (e) struc-
tural inequality. These five factors contribute to failure and promote inferior educa-
tional opportunities for students of color in urban public schools (Noguera, 2003;
Thompson, 2004).
Urban schools serving disadvantaged students have a disproportionately
larger number of teachers with emergency credentials or waivers. A correlation
exists between emergency credentialed teachers and high-poverty students (Figure
2). Although NCLB requires a “highly qualified” teacher in every classroom, urban
public schools with high concentrations of poor and students of color have diffi-
culty in meeting this mandate. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES; 2001a, 2001b) schools with 90% of their students on free or
reduced-price meals contain one fourth of all teaching staff with no credential.
Schools have difficulty in attracting and retaining quality teachers. High-poverty
schools experience high teacher vacancy rates, disproportionate numbers of
beginning teachers, and a large percentage of teachers wanting to transfer to
schools in more affluent areas (Kozol, 1991).
Educators argue about whether a highly qualified teacher does a better job
at teaching than an emergency credentialed or beginning teacher. Futernick (2002),
in Why Teacher Quality and a Teaching Credential Matter, responded, “Having
professional teaching credentials makes one eligible to teach but does not guarantee
the quality of teaching” (p. 23). It is more likely that a credentialed teacher would
be more effective in the classroom than one who lacks the professional training and
classroom experience. Quality teachers must be determined prior to hiring through
the interview process and after using evaluation and assessment tools to determine
their effectiveness.

27

Figure 2. Percentages of emergency credentialed teachers and students eligible for
free/reduced-price meals. Source: Educational Achievement and Black-White
Inequality, by National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2007, retrieved
January 23, 2008, from ncesed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section4/tableXLS.asp?
tableID=723-32

Marzano (2003), in What Works in School: Translating Research into
Action, presented evidence on the importance of an effective teacher in a class-
room. “The most important factor affecting student learning is the teacher” (p. 72).
There is a major difference in student achievement between an effective teacher
and a less effective teacher. Sanders and colleagues (Wright, Horn, & Sanders,
1997, as cited in Marzano) revealed the impact that an effective teacher can have
on student achievement. The results of a five-subject achievement test showed that
effective teachers produced gains of 53 percentage points in student achievement
and less effective teachers produced gains of 14 percentage points in student
achievement.
Teacher quality is critical to student achievement. Underachievement by
students of color is often blamed on poverty and cultural differences, yet studies
show that schools systematically assign the neediest students, who most often are

28
the students of color, to the least effective teachers (Haycock, 1998; Kuykendall,
2004).
There is also a direct correlation between teacher expectations and student
achievement. The Pygmalion theory (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) supports the
premise that when teachers expect students to do well, the students tend to do well
and when teachers expect students to fail, the students tend to fail. Teachers’ low
expectation of students of color in classrooms is not a new phenomenon. Teachers
often lower their academic standards and expect less from students of color.
Teachers believe that students of color lack the mental ability to learn at high
levels. These negative attitudes and false beliefs result in low expectations and an
unchallenging curriculum, resulting in low achievement. Marva Collins, renowned
educator and founder of the Westside Preparatory School in Chicago, declared,
“All children are born achievers and all they need is someone to help them become
all that they have the potential to become” (p. 32). This belief and expectation has
a positive impact on student achievement and should permeate the climate and
cultures within schools. Therefore, high expectations should guide the systems in
education. Public schools should exhibit a belief system of high expectations for
African American and Hispanic students versus the counteractive system of low
expectations. High expectations for all students would put an end to the low-ability
tracking that occurs in schools.
Academic tracking is a system used in schools by which students are
assigned to classes based on their intellectual ability. The different categories are
usually advanced, average, and low. Students of color are often placed in these
categories based on deficit beliefs, using indicators such as race, culture, and social
capital. Tracking contributes to unequal educational opportunities and learning

29
outcomes for African American and Hispanic students (Noguera, 2003). Poor and
minority students are largely overrepresented in special education programs and
low-ability tracks and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. This
practice in classrooms and programs profoundly impacts student outcomes. By
providing all students a quality teacher with high expectations and challenging
curricula, students of color would be guaranteed an equitable grouping practice,
thereby eliminating the need for the practice of tracking (Kuykendall, 2004).
Even with the elimination of tracking, students of color would have to
overcome a system of cultural discontinuity. The theory of cultural discontinuity
implies a gap between African American and Hispanic students’ culture and
American school culture (Delpit, 2006; Hale, 2001; Hilliard, 2003: Kuykendall,
2004; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Noguera, 2003; Thompson, 2004; Wynn, 2002). The
traditional American school system promotes the Eurocentric view (White middle
class) and ignores the strengths of diverse cultures (Gay, 2000). Cultural discontin-
uity results in a lack of pluralistic curricula, incongruent teaching and learning
styles for diverse students, academic tracking, ability grouping, test bias, and
negative labeling that creates barriers for students of color.
This disconnect between cultures is observed in instructional practices, test
administration, and curriculum throughout the school environment. Hale (2001), in,
Learning While Black, highlighted the cultural disconnect in public schools seen in
the communication and interaction among teachers and students of color, for
example, the way in which teachers question students, the structure of interaction,
and textbooks lacking the history of diverse cultural groups.
Despite legislation and many school reform movements, African American
and Hispanic students continue to underachieve in public schools across the nation

30
(Conchas, 2006). As a result, a large number of urban schools are challenged to
solve the problem of underachievement. Therefore, attention should be directed
toward the schools that are successful with students of color. Research identifies
some successful high-poverty schools where students of color achieve at high
levels.
Effective Practices
Despite historical trends, research-based structural and systemic practices
have contributed to student performance in high-poverty urban schools. Marzano
stated, “Schools can have a tremendous impact on student achievement if they
follow the direction provided by research” (2003, p. 8). Ron Edmonds is the
pioneer in effective schools research. Edmonds challenged Coleman’s hypothesis.
In contrast to Coleman’s views on a school’s inability to influence student achieve-
ment with a student lacking family support and involvement, Edmonds attempted
to prove the opposite.
Edmonds’s (1979) research resulted in evidence demonstrating the large
impact schools can have on student achievement. The Effective Schools research
found that successful schools have strong leadership and a safe and orderly
environment. High expectations are held for students and there is a focus on
teaching, with frequent monitoring of student progress. Edmonds’s research
demonstrated the influence and impact that schools can have on student
achievement.
School research confirms that, in order for high poverty urban schools to be
successful, a variety of elements must be present. Carter (2001), in No Excuses,
Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High Poverty Schools, advanced the notion that

31
low-income schools can create high student achievement. Carter shared the view of
effective schools research and identified seven common traits of high-performing,
high-poverty schools: Principals must be free and they use measurable goals to
establish a culture of achievement; master teachers bring out the best in a faculty;
rigorous and regular testing leads to continuous student achievement; achievement
is the key to discipline; principals work actively with parents to make the home a
center of learning; and effort creates ability.
Principals are often faced with the challenge of leading schools with high
levels of poverty, diverse student populations, persistent achievement gaps, and a
large number of adults who hold low expectations for students of color. Carter’s
research is an excellent example of high-poverty schools implementing effective
practices that result in high achievement among students of color.
Schools and leaders must work to overcome the bureaucratic and cultural
barriers that ordinarily keep poor children and students of color behind and failing
in urban public schools. Barriers often come in the form of excuses used to provide
substandard education to poor students and students of color. Despite the deeply
rooted political, social, and cultural barriers, courageous leaders increase and
sustain achievement among students of color.
Successful schools have courageous leaders, demonstrate high expectations,
and ensure achievement for all students. Blankenstein (2004) identified six prin-
ciples that create school environments into learning communities that increase
student achievement. The first and most important guiding principle is to develop a
common mission, vision, values, and goals. The mission provides a broad overview
of the purpose. A shared vision is the framework for establishing expectations and
goals that guide school-wide student achievement. It is the vision that directs the

32
school leadership, curriculum and instruction, teacher training, parent and com-
munity involvement, hiring practices, and policies and practices.
In many low-performing schools a barrier to student achievement is the
belief that students of color are incapable of high academic achievement
(Kuykendall, 2004; Wynn, 2002). The attention and focus are on students’ deficits,
for example, living in poverty, lack of resources, behavior problems, lack of
language skills, and working below grade level. The vision, mission, values, and
goals are guiding documents used to create a positive school climate and culture
and focused, meaningful teacher and staff training. Therefore, a clearly defined
vision provides the foundation to guide school-wide improvement (Wynn, 2002).
Attention should be directed toward the 90/90/90 Study (Reeves, 2000).
This study used 4 years of test data on schools containing more than 90% minority
students with more than 90% of the students eligible for free or reduced-price
meals. Findings showed that more than 90% of these students met or achieved high
academic standards. The contention that poor students of color can achieve at high
academic levels was well documented in this study. The research found five
characteristics attributable to student success within the schools: (a) a focus on
academics, (b) clear curriculum choices, (c) frequent assessment of student pro-
gress and multiple opportunities for improvement, (d) an emphasis on writing, and
(e) external scoring on assessments. Previous research has not solely emphasized
the subject of writing. More attention was given to instruction and curriculum,
monitoring of teaching and learning, assessment, and providing extended learning
time.
The Frederick Douglas Academy affirmed research by Dr. Lorraine
Monroe. This public school located in central Harlem is an excellent example of a

33
high-poverty school that accepted “no excuses,” believed and declared to students
that “failure is not an option,” and achieved a 100% graduation rate. This high-
poverty, high-performing school student body was 80% African American, 20%
Latino, 75% living below the poverty line, and more than one half from single-
parent homes. Most notable, 90% of the defined student population was accepted
into colleges and prestigious universities across the world. This public school is in
the slums of New York but is operated like a private academy. The students were
regular public school students and were not specially selected to attend the school.
The student outcomes speak to the high expectations set at the school. The students
are not looked on as poor and disadvantaged but as students who can and will
achieve academic success.
Dr. Lorraine Monroe, principal of the academy, held the belief that children
from poor and disadvantaged neighborhoods can achieve in inner city public
schools. Dr. Monroe shared her vision of education and how teachers and education
can transform the lives of students. Every student was held to high expectations of
not only attending college but attending a prestigious and/or Ivy League university.
Exceptions and excuses were not tolerated.
The students were held to high standards and were told that they were not
responsible for their home life; who their parents were, and where they came from,
but “they are expected to attend school and be on time every day, wear a uniform,
and give the teachers the things that will allow them to work them into their bright
future” (Monroe, 1997, p. 24). This level of expectation prepares students for
college by helping them to realize their own achievement potential while holding
them individually responsible for the quality of their high school education.

34
The Frederick Douglas Academy attributes successful student outcomes to
the education that students receive through the practice of standards, good teaching,
discipline, and all being parallel to academic rigor. The students must respect the
adult in the classroom before any learning can take place, which is a standard not
often upheld in high-poverty public schools. The teachers provide an education to
these students that most people pay thousands of dollars for in private schools, and
as such, expect their students to behave like they are paying this kind of tuition. It
could be said that the students pay for their education with model behavior and
academic excellence. The children at Frederick Douglas Academy come from
disadvantaged backgrounds but are given a rigorous course load, such as Japanese
as a foreign language, and are expected to do well in the classes with no excuses.
Corporate sponsors supplement the Academy’s budget to provide students with
educational experiences such as, ballets, theatre, and trips to South Africa, Israel,
and Paris. Enculturation is principle to education at all levels. The more underprivi-
leged students are exposed to lessons in culture as a part of their education, the
more they can appreciate the finer points of education and be able to formulate
larger goals and have a broader idea of their academic potential. These trips add a
competitive edge to the student’s rigorous academics.
Student success can be attributed to strong instructional leadership,
standards-based teaching, academic rigor, high expectations, school-wide disci-
pline, and providing enrichment opportunities. This single school model demon-
strates how students of color living in poverty can be motivated to learn and
achieve at high academic levels. The challenge is to create this same success for
students of color in low-performing public schools across America.

35
The Frederick Douglas Academy and the “no excuse schools” improve
student achievement by effectively aligning resources with student learning. The
resources are used to ensure an equitable education to all students. Based on the
evidence-based adequacy model, there are actions schools must take to improve
achievement results (Picus, 2004) The six key elements to school improvement are
(a) focus on educating all students, (b) use data to drive decisions, (c) adopt a rigor-
ous curriculum and align to state standards, (d) support instructional improvement
with effective professional development, (e) restructure the learning environment,
and (f) provide struggling students with extended learning opportunities. The
evidence-based adequacy model captures many of the practices suggested in the
literature but goes a step farther to provide a detailed analysis of how schools can
ensure equitable learning opportunities for all students.
Research has provided effective practices to increase student achievement
for decades but has not addressed how to implement the practices for students of
color in high-poverty schools. This study seeks to address the sociocultural context
in public education and how schools can embrace and build on the cultural and
linguistic capital that students bring to school. Culture can mitigate the structures
and systems that have historically worked against students of color.
Effective School Structures and Systems
Effective implementation of school structures and systems has a positive
impact on classroom instruction in high-performing schools. Various research
methodologies indicate a significant relationship between certain school-wide
practices and student achievement. High-poverty, high-performing schools share

36
common elements that influence and impact student achievement school-wide
(Carter, 2001; Kuykendall, 2004; Lyman & Villani, 2004; Monroe, 1997).
Research confirms that, despite the challenges, students of color can achieve
and succeed in high-poverty schools. Table 3 identifies specific school-wide
structures and systems demonstrated by research to improve student achievement.
These successful structures and systems include a positive school climate and
culture, standards-based instruction, professional development, data-driven
decision making, and leadership as a structure to frame and support the systems.
Leadership
Urban schools are complex organizations and research indicates the role of
leadership as “the single most important aspect of effective school reform”
(Marzano, 2003, p. 172). Effective leadership is critical to the successful imple-
mentation of school-wide systems that eradicate the disparities and inequities that
cause underachievement by students of color. The structure of school leadership
can transform school environments to places where all students are successful
learners (Edmonds, 1979; Elmore, 2000; Johnson, 2002; Kuykendall, 2004).
Despite repeated notice that leadership is an important element of student success, a
substantial body of research reveals that there is not one best definition for leader-
ship. Peters and Waterman (1982) called attention to leadership as being patient,
highly visible, tough when necessary, active, and coalition building. Deal and
Peterson (1999) defined leadership as having vision, trust, and passion and noted
that leaders use symbols and create heroes at all levels. Kouzes and Posner (1997)
established a connection between the leader and colleagues. They concentrated on
leadership as building teams with spirit and cohesion.

37
Table 3

Research Sources of Essential Structures and Systems for Improvement of Student
Achievement

Data-
School driven
Research climate decision Professional
source Leadership Instruction and culture making development

Deal & Peterson X X X X X
Edmonds X X
Marzano X X X X
Blankenstein X X X X X
Monroe X X X X
Picus X X X X
Kuykendall X X X X
Wynn X X X X
Allington X X X X
90/90/90 Study X X
Carter Study X X X
Washington Report X X X X X

Urban public schools need a strong instructional leader focused on raising
student achievement. To improve achievement will take a bold, courageous leader
who can confront and eliminate the disparities and inequities that cause the under-
achievement by students of color. To meet and confront the urban school
challenges, a school leader must not demonstrate one particular leadership style
but use multiple styles.

38
Bolman and Deal (2003) described leadership not from a single theory but a
theory using multiple frames: structural frame, human resource frame, political
frame, and symbolic frame. The frames provide a leader the opportunity to under-
stand and view multiple perspectives using one lens. A school principal can use the
single lens to determine what is important, what information to collect, what the
problem is, and what plan of action should be taken.
A structural leader focuses on clarity and consistency between the school
structure and the roles of all stakeholders. Structural leaders must have the ability
to effectively analyze and solve problems. The leader establishes a clear vision in
order to maintain effective systems school-wide to reach the goals and mission of
the school (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
A human resource leader balances the needs, skills, feelings, and motivation
that exist between staff and the school. Leaders in schools are servant leaders who
work to support, advocate, and empower the entire school community. The empha-
sis on relationships and interpersonal interactions helps the school to function
effectively to produce successful student outcomes (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The political leader understands the nature of politics and has the ability to
obtain necessary resources in the face of conflict. School leaders must assess the
distribution of power and interest of teachers, parents, school board members, and
community groups for the success of the school. This is accomplished through
coalition building and building alliances with community stakeholders (Bolman &
Deal, 2003).
The symbolic leader creates the symbols and rituals of the school. School
leaders use symbols to communicate the beliefs and meaning of the school vision.

39
Symbolic leadership is charismatic and inspirational through the celebrations and
ceremonies for students and staff (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Leadership is a complex role and a leader is required to simultaneously
implement the systems to produce positive student outcomes. Leaders must think
systemically and systematically. School leadership uses multiple frames to create
the conditions for students of color to learn and be successful. Effective reform
requires deep change to occur on the student, teacher, and school levels (Marzano,
2003). An effective leader must operate from the four frames of leadership in order
to implement standards-based instruction, a positive climate and school culture,
data-driven decision making, and professional development.
School Climate and Culture
Climate and culture are not only important to school achievement and
student learning but represent a strong predicator of student outcomes (Danielson,
2002; Deal & Peterson, 1999; Monroe, 1997). Deal and Peterson defined school
culture as the “unwritten rules and traditions, norms, and expectations that seem to
permeate everything; the way people act, how they dress, what they talk about or
avoid talking about” (p. 2). School climate and culture is the total environment.
Tagiuri (1968) defined climate as the physical and material components, the social
dimension and patterns of relationship between people, and the beliefs and values
of the organization.
High-performing schools have strong cultures and the school cultures are
infused in all systems and practices of the school. This requires a symbolic leader
with the ability to watch, listen, reflect, analyze, and interpret in order to shape a
cultural pattern that supports student and teacher learning. The symbolic leader

40
advocates, creates, and sustains a school culture and instructional program focused
on student learning. This is developed with a focus on all students, high expecta-
tions, supportive learning environments, and parent and community involvement.
A positive school climate and culture should have high expectations for all
students. Student expectations would be clearly defined in the mission and vision
statements for learning (Blankenstein, 2004; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Wynn, 2005).
A shared vision is one that is communicated and supported by the entire school
community. The vision expresses the core beliefs and values about learning and
achievement for students and staff and is communicated in newsletters, banners
throughout the school, and every document in the school.
A supportive learning environment values and respects diversity. This is
informally communicated to the school community with the belief and potential in
all students achieving. This is accomplished through understanding the diverse
needs of the students and implementing practices that are culturally relevant to
teaching and learning (Delpit, 2006; Gay, 2000). School-wide discipline policies
should promote and reflect culturally responsive practices in relation to student
behaviors.
Standards-Based Instruction
Standards-based instruction provides systemic and comprehensive
curriculum that historically has not been offered to students of color and students
living in poverty (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003). Standards-based instruction is an
approach to teaching and learning focused on clear expectations of what all
students should know and be able to do. The Ohio study called the National
Science Foundation State Systemic Initiative Project found that standards-based

41
teaching supports student achievement. The major findings were that standards-
based teaching resulted in improved achievement and attitudes for students of color
in urban schools. Also, the teachers who participated in standards-based training
developed more positive relationships with students of color and the students
scored higher on achievement tests (Johnson, 2002). Standards-based instruction is
important because it allows all students, regardless of background, to be held to the
same high standards and have the opportunity to become proficient in the academic
skills set by the state. The passage of NCLB brought standards and accountability
to improve student achievement and equity in the nation’s public schools.
For effective teaching, not only must curriculum and instruction be aligned
to standards but teachers must use culturally relevant approaches to create mean-
ingful instruction for diverse students. Culturally relevant pedagogy is a practice
used to build and effectively teach culturally diverse students instead of devaluing a
student and their background (Delpit, 2006; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
This is teaching using philosophies and methods that respect, value, and use posi-
tive strengths of a student’s home culture and language. The majority of public
school teachers are White females and the majority of the student populations are
students of color. Many of these teachers hold (often unconsciously) negative
beliefs and deficit thoughts about students of color and their capability to learn
(Johnson, 2002; Kuykendall, 2004; Scheurich &Skrla, 2003; Wynn, 2002). It is
important to change negative belief systems that prevent students from learning.
Teachers must become aware of and understand teaching practices that are
effective with culturally diverse students.
Hale-Benson (1982) and Kuykendall (2004) are among the scholars to
provide research on the importance of African American and Hispanic students

42
receiving instruction and teaching congruent to their learning style. Kuykendall
stated, “Students who find their culture and learning style reflected in both the
substance and organization of the instructional program are more likely to be moti-
vated, less likely to be disruptive, and more likely to benefit from the learning”
(p. 71). Research (Kuykendall) identified students of color as field-dependent
learners. Field-dependent learners learn best in student-centered and small-group
activities. Table 4 summarizes the differences between field-dependent and field-
independent learners.
A variety of instructional strategies must be used to facilitate student
interest and learning. Student engagement and motivation relies on a student-
centered environment and a positive relationship with the teacher. Positive teacher-
student interaction has a powerful impact on student performance (Kuykendall,
2004; Wynn, 2005). This positive interaction is displayed through enthusiasm,
praise, encouragement, compliments, hugs, and when necessary, constructive
feedback. Frequent interaction with teachers provides students with the support and
encouragement to achieve.
Kuykendall (2004) indicated that active learning is a learning style that is
more effective with African American students. For example, activities and dis-
cussions in small cooperative groups are more effective than drill and practice
exercises. Extended learning time and enrichment opportunities also improve and
increase performance among student of color (Marzano, 2003; Picus, 2004; Wynn,
2005). This can be implemented in the instructional system during school or in
programs before and after school.

43
Table 4

Comparison of Learning Modes of Field-Independent and Field-Dependent
Students

Field-independent students prefer Field-dependent students prefer

Independent projects, working alone
Hypothesis-testing approaches
Solving problems
A focus on details, moving from
specific
Clear grading criteria with specific
feedback
A teacher-centered environment
Group projects, sharing, discussions
Personal examples, anecdotes, stories
Relating learning to their own
experiences
A focus on the big picture, moving from
the general to the specific (whole-word
language experience, reasons for rules)
Praise, assurance, working to please
others, frequent interaction with teachers
A student-centered environment

Source: From Rage to Hope: Strategies for Reclaiming Black and Hispanic
Students, by C. Kuykendall, 2004, Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Standards-based instruction in the classroom is not only curriculum that is
aligned to standards but it is curriculum that is aligned to students’ culture,
preexisting knowledge, and interest.
Data-Driven Decision Making
Data-driven decision making uses data as a tool to analyze and support
student learning. It requires frequent monitoring of school data to guide and
improve teaching. According to Johnson (2002), the use of data helps schools to
create a culture of inquiry by asking pertinent questions and searching for real
answers. “Creating a culture of inquiry involves analyzing relevant data, probing

44
perceptions about why things are as they are, and examining the academic culture,
including issues of access, equity, and opportunities to learn” (p. 12).
Data can improve achievement among all students, which means that it has
the power to dig deep into the beliefs and practices within school organizations that
impede student progress. This form of accountability allows the school community
to monitor student learning and teacher effectiveness. Frequent monitoring of
teaching and learning requires collecting and analyzing relevant data (Bray, 2003).
Student learning is monitored by formative and summative standardized
assessments. An example of a standardized assessment is the California Standard-
ized Test (CST), which contains multiple-choice and true-and-false questions.
Evidence of student learning is also monitored through performance-based assess-
ments (Bray, 2003). Examples of performance-based assessment can be observa-
tions of student performances and behaviors, student products, and paper or digital
portfolios. Table 5 displays performance-based assessments.
Successful schools focus on data-driven decision making and use more than
standardized tests to monitor instruction (Bray, 2003). Student success is measured
in multiple ways using performance-based assessments as indicators of student
success.
Disaggregating data by race, ethnicity, gender, and economic status helps to
analyze the patterns for groups that are beneficial for some and create barriers for
others (Johnson, 2002). Structural leaders ensure that data are analyzed in patterns
by grade levels, tracks, classrooms, and students to determine the strengths and
weaknesses of each student (Datnow, Park, & Wohlsetter, 2007; Johnson). Data
should be analyzed in a systemic way. Johnson (p. 76) provided seven questions
that to guide and compare data:

45
Table 5

Performance-Based Assessments

Product Performance Process focused

Research paper
Story or play
Poem
Portfolio – paper or digital
Art exhibit
Science project
Model
Video/audiotape
Spreadsheet
Lab report
Oral presentation
Dance
Science lab demonstration
Athletic skills
Dramatic reading
Enactment
Debate
Musical recital
Keyboarding
Oral questioning
Observation
Interview
Conference
Process description
Think aloud
Learning logs

Source: Assessing Learning the Classroom, by J. McTighe & S. Ferrara, 1998,
Washington, DC: National Education Association.

1. Are there any patterns by racial/ethnic groups?
2. What groups are doing well?
3. What groups are behind? On target? Ahead?
4. What access and equity issues are raised/
5. Does the data surprise you or does it confirm your perceptions?
6. How might the school or classroom practices contribute to the successes
and failures? For which groups of students?
7. How do we continue doing what’s working and address what’s not
working for students?

46
Data analyzed and examined data using these questions improve
achievement among all students. It has the power to dig deep into the beliefs and
practices within school organizations that impede student progress. With structural
leadership and effective leadership teams, achieving equity is a continuous process
that requires the study of disaggregated data, making decisions based on the data,
and reviewing new data to evaluate improvement (Datnow et al., 2007; Johnson,
2002). Data-driven discussions are a collaborative process in a school community
that uses inquiry, practice, and reflection so that all stakeholders are committed to
improve student learning. As the stakeholders are engaged in this rich discussion,
professional development emerges.
Professional Development
Professional development is a comprehensive system used to support
teaching and learning (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2001). Professional
development requires active involvement, long-term planning, problem solving,
release time, experimentation, risk taking, administrative support, small group
activities, peer feedback, demonstrations, coaching, and leader participation in
activities. Research has shown a relationship between effective research-based
professional development and improved student performance (Blasé, 2004; Creasy
& Paterson, 2005).
The purpose of professional development is to help personnel to become
more individually and collectively effective in helping all students to achieve the
intended results of their education. Effective professional development demands a
focus on content, process, and context sustained over time. The content should be
research based, should focus on specific teaching skills or discipline, and should

47
meet the needs of culturally diverse students. Process involves the awareness of
best practices, ongoing coaching for the teachers, and opportunities for teachers to
reflect and participate in dialogue. The process is evaluated at several levels. The
context of effective professional development is focused, with strong administrat-
ive support, and is deeply embedded in the daily practice of the school (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998).
Professional development is multifaceted and emphasizes five elements that
are important for the success of teaching and learning: (a) training, (b) modeling,
(c) coaching, (d) conversation, and (e) review of student work. Training is the
process of learning a new skill or practice. The content in training is focused and
driven by the analysis of the data. The analysis refers to the difference between the
goals and standards for student learning and the current performance of the student
(Hawley & Valli, 1999). Modeling gives the learner an opportunity to observe the
skill or practice in action. This provides an understanding of how the practice or
strategy is implemented successfully. Coaching and conversation allow specific
feedback and conversation on the implementation of the new practice or strategy.
This oral feedback is given in a supportive environment and allows for further
follow-up and support. The process of reviewing student work is used to assess the
whether the new practice or strategy had an impact on student learning.
High-quality professional development leads to collegiality and profession-
alism among teachers. To improve learning, school communities and institutions
require a focus on shared learning opportunities for all members of the school
community. Professional learning communities can improve student outcomes by
creating a supportive learning environment with shared leadership and values,
applied and collective learning, and shared personal practice (Blasé & Blasé, 2004).

48
Conclusion
There is an achievement gap in American schools between students of color
and their White peers (Education Trust 2003a, 2003b; NCES, 2001a, 2001b). The
myth that high-poverty students and students of color always equal low academic
achievement has been shown to be false in this literature review. The cited research
has demonstrated that, when certain school-wide practices are implemented, all
schools and students can be high performing (Edmonds, 1979; Kuykendall, 2004;
Monroe, 1997; Wynn, 2002). To improve student achievement, all organizational
structures and systems in educational institutions must provide fair and equitable
opportunities for students of color. This can be achieved with clear goals, high
expectations, and culturally responsive instruction and assessments aligned to
standards (Johnson, 2002).
The systems are interwoven and continuously work together to produce
positive outcomes for all students. The implementation of the systems must be
focused, systemic, and purposeful. The cited research identified common practices
and systems in high-performing, high-poverty schools. However, what is not
known is how these systems are implemented and practiced to produce high student
achievement by African American students. Specifically, how does the imple-
mentation of policies, practices, and strategies meet the unique cultural needs of
African American students?
Performance and achievement by students of color will not increase without
fundamentally transforming educators’ practices, processes, and belief systems
(Johnson, 2002).
We must work to remove the blinders of stereotypes, monocultural instruc-
tional methodologies, ignorance, social distance, biased research, and
racism. We must work to destroy those blinders so that it is possible to
really see, to really know the students we must teach. (Delpit, 2006, p. 27)

49
To increase student performance, it is imperative for schools to engage and
commit all stakeholders to focus on the opportunity to learn for students of color by
eliminating institutional barriers. Most critical is the role of leadership in establish-
ing a climate of high expectations that permeates the atmosphere and guides the
implementation of the interwoven systems within the school environment.
This study seeks to uncover what is required to create urban schools that are
successful in serving the needs of students living in poverty and students of color. It
is the hope of the researcher to provide to schools the best practices to improve
education for students of color.

50
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter contains six sections to provide the research methodology for
the study. The first section introduces the qualitative design. The second section
describes the sample and population and includes an overview of the school and
participants. The third section describes the instrumentation and the relationship of
the instruments to the research questions. The fourth section presents the theoretical
and conceptual frameworks. The fifth section describes the data collection pro-
cedures and the data analysis process. The sixth section reviews ethical considera-
tions of the study.
Qualitative Research Design
The purpose of this study was to identify school-wide structures and
systems that promoted high student performance in a high-poverty, high-perform-
ing urban school. The researcher identified three structures—standards, principal
leadership, and assessment—and four systems—school climate and culture,
standards-based instruction, data-driven decision making, and professional
development. The researcher used a sociocultural framework to examine the role of
culture on the implementation of school-wide structures and systems in promoting
academic achievement among students of color. One southern California element-
ary school was selected for study to address four research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among student of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with high
concentrations of students of color?

51
3. How are the organizational structures and systems implemented to
support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and
systems?
A thematic dissertation group designed tools and instruments for data
collection and analysis. The qualitative study included interviews, observations,
and artifact analysis. The method of combined data collection allowed the
researcher to triangulate the data sources, which provided accuracy and credita-
bility to the findings (Patton, 2002).
A qualitative case study approach was applied to identify effective school-
wide practices that promoted high student achievement among African American
and Hispanic students. A qualitative case study brought deep meaning to the factors
that impact achievement in the school environment.
Sample and Population
The case study examined a single elementary school located in a high-
poverty urban area in southern California. A thematic dissertation group of doctoral
students in the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education
identified high-poverty, high-performing urban schools with large concentrations of
students of color. The elementary school chosen for this case study was selected
through purposeful sampling based on the following eligibility criteria: (a) urban
southern California public school, (b) receiving Title I fund, (c) 75% of students
qualified for free or reduced-price meals, (d) 60% of student population students of
color, (e) minimum of 3 years of consistent growth in API and AYP for all

52
subgroups, and (f) student population of at least 400 students. The school selected
had made significant and consistent growth in API and AYP over an 8-year period.
Success for All Elementary School (SFA; a pseudonym) was a K-5 urban
elementary school located in the Laurice Unified School District (pseudonym). It
was located in a small urban area plagued by drugs, crime, and violence. It was a
year-round school with four tracks and 1,050 students. The student population was
85.4% Hispanic, 14.4% African American, and 66% English language learners.
The school participants in the study included the principal, three assistant
principals, leadership team, literacy coach, Title I coordinator, kindergarten teacher,
second-grade teacher, fifth-grade teacher, office technician, and two parents (one
African American and one Hispanic).
Instrumentation
A variety of instruments was used to gather information about the effective
practices of this high-performing, high-poverty urban school. The instruments were
designed by the students in the dissertation group. The research questions and
theoretical frameworks guided the development of the observation guides and inter-
view protocols. All interview protocols were field tested prior to use in the study.
The instruments included semistructured interviews with the site adminis-
trators (appendix A), two teachers for a minimum of two grade levels (appendix B),
classified staff (appendix C), and parents (appendix D); field observations guides
for classrooms (appendix E), physical environment (appendix F), professional
development (appendix G), and leadership team (appendix H); and artifacts
(appendices I through O). Semistructured interviews allowed the researcher to
respond to new or emerging ideas given by the respondent (Merriam, 1998). The

53
instruments were designed to address the research questions of the study. Table 6
displays the alignment of instruments and research questions.

Table 6

Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions (RQ)

Instrument RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4

Administrator interview x x x x
Teacher interview x x x x
Parent interview x x x x
Classified interview x x x x
Classroom observation guide x x x x
Professional development guide x x x x
Leadership team guide x x x x
Documents and artifacts x x x x

Theoretical Framework
Figure 3 displays the theoretical and conceptual framework that provided
the foundational influences that impacted student achievement for students of color.
The first and second sections of the theoretical framework focused on historical and
contemporary societal and educational influences. The third section sought to
identify school systems and structures that influenced and supported student
achievement. The fourth section focused on student outcomes.

54

Figure 3. Theoretical framework of the study.

The theoretical framework was developed collaboratively by the members
of the dissertation group. The team identified relevant literature to develop the
framework. The theoretical framework was grounded in research using the theories
of social capital, sociocultural, and critical race theory. The theoretical framework
supported the following research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of student performance among students
of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?

55
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to
support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and
systems?
The conceptual framework was adapted using the School Improvement
Planning Framework (Wynn, 2002). Figure 4 illustrates how the structure of leader-
ship and four systems impact positive student achievement. Race and culture influ-
ence school systems and structures and impact student performance. Evidence of
student performance was provided in the trends and patterns observed in school
data. The four systems were school climate and culture, standards-based instruc-
tion, data-driven decision making, and professional development. Each system
worked systemically and integrated to produce successful student outcomes. The
conceptual framework was grounded in research reviewed in chapter 2. The con-
ceptual framework related to research questions 1 through 3.
Data Collection and Analysis
The theoretical and conceptual framework for the four research questions
established the instruments needed to gather data and understand the factors that
contributed to the school’s success. Data were collected through observations,
interviews, and artifacts. Data instruments were developed collaboratively by the
team, using the theoretical framework and research questions (Table 7).
Observations
Observation was a method of data collection in which behavior was
observed and detailed descriptive information was recorded (Patton, 2002).
Merriam (1998) pointed out that what was written down and recorded from an

56

Figure 4. Conceptual framework to improve student achievement.

57
Table 7

Data Collection Instruments Used in the Present Study

Data collection method Data sources

Demographic information Definition of high-poverty, high-performing urban
school
Ethnic configuration of students
API and AYP score of school
Interview Principal
Teacher
Parents
Observation Physical Environment
Climate and Culture
Classrooms, playground, meetings, cafeteria, office
Artifacts Meeting agendas
School-wide schedules
Single school plan
Grading rubrics
Assessment scores
California Standards Test (CST) data
Budgets
Student work
Policies (school discipline, grading, student selection
and placement, referral)
Other: mission and vision statement, school goals,
bulletins, bulletin boards, symbols, traditions, and
assemblies

58
observation became the raw data of the study. The observational guide was
designed by the dissertation group as an instrument to observe the indirect and
direct behaviors in the school environment. What happened in the school and
classrooms was multidimensional and complex to observe. The theoretical and
conceptual framework provided a lens to observe school and classroom activities.
The conceptual framework provided five areas to observe effective practices:
(a) leadership, (b) school climate and culture, (c) standards-based instruction,
(d) data-driven decision making, and (e) professional development.
Interviews
The purpose of the interviews was to gather information from people
regarding factors that could not be directly observed (Patton, 2002). The interview
was a two-way exchange of information that allowed the interviewer to obtain
detailed descriptions and interpretations on activities and practices of the school.
According to Creswell (1998), interviews play a critical role in a data collection
process. Interviews are one of the most important sources for information in the
case study (Patton). The researcher aligned the interview questions to the research
questions (Table 8). According to Creswell, interviewing involves a series of steps:
(a) use purposeful sampling to identify interviewees, (b) determine the type of
interview that would be most useful to answer the research questions, (c) use ade-
quate recording procedures, (d) design an interview protocol, (e) determine the
place and time for interviewing, (f) obtain consent from the interviewee, (g) during
the interview, stick to the questions within the specified time frame and be respect-
ful and courteous. Conducting an interview was aimed at digging below the surface

59
Table 8

Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions (RQ)

Interview question RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4

1 X X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X
5 X
6 X X X X
7 X X X

of a topic in an effort to uncover the deeper thoughts or concepts that were not
anticipated at the beginning of the study (Creswell).
Artifact/Document Analysis
Schools use records, documents, artifacts, and archives to provide a source
of information about their organization and program (Patton, 2002). Schools pro-
duce materials such as handbooks, agendas, plans, contracts, policies, regulations,
minutes of meetings, memoranda, and other records. These types of documents
were a source of information on the school’s activities and practices and generated
ideas for questions during the observation and interviews (Merriam, 1998).
Documents play a significant function in the case study (Patton, 2002).
Information collected via artifacts can provide rich evidence to corroborate the
findings of the case study (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). For example, single-school

60
plan and results from achievement tests provided valuable information that was
used to confirm findings and ensure validity of the study.
Data Analysis
The purpose of the study was to examine school-wide structures and sys-
tems that were perceived to contribute to high student performance among African
American and Hispanic students. Participant interviews were audio taped (except
for the principal, who did not grant permission to be audio taped), reviewed, and
transcribed to provide rich descriptive data. In all cases, interviews and observa-
tions were handwritten by the researcher to capture what was observed. Physical
setting was also observed and reflected on by the researcher (Gall et al., 2007).
Data analysis was conducted to address the four research questions. Figure 5
demonstrates the series of steps taken in the data analysis process.

Figure 5. Data analysis process.

61
The collected data were coded for common categories, patterns, and themes
(Creswell, 1998). Content analysis was used to analyze themes that emerged from
the data. Each research question was assigned a specific color using a highlighter
pen. The transcribed notes were coded for common themes based on the four
research questions of the study. The notes were written in a narrative form, describ-
ing the people, settings, themes and categories found during the study. Further-
more, the data collected from interviews, observations, and artifacts were analyzed
according to the theoretical and conceptual frameworks to determine their signifi-
cance and impact on student performance.
Collection and analysis of multiple sources of data established validity and
credibility in the case study (Merriam, 1998). This qualitative case study used
interviews, observations, artifacts, and a theoretical and conceptual framework to
triangulate the data. By combining multiple theories, methods, and sources of data,
the researcher hoped to enhance internal validity and overcome problems of weak-
ness and bias often associated with single case studies (Merriam).
The researcher adhered to the recommendations given by Patton (2002) to
avoid bias and to ensure validity. The triangulation of data methods (interviews,
observations, and artifacts) helped to limit the problem of bias and increase the
validity and reliability of the data.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher secured permission to perform the study in accordance with
university and district procedures and policies. Participation in the study was
voluntary, confidentiality and protection of human subjects were adhered to,
informed consent was obtained prior to the start of the study, and the researcher

62
changed the names of the participants, school, and district. The researcher con-
ducted a single-case study in cooperation with ethical standards and guidelines set
by the school district and Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of
Southern California.
Chapter Summary
This chapter describes the procedures used by the researcher to acquire
evidence and analysis for the purpose of answering the study’s research questions.
Specifically, it identifies the (a) sample and population, (b) instruments and
methods used to address the study’s research questions, (c) qualitative data analysis
process used by the researcher, and (d) ethical considerations employed by the
researcher. The information presented in this chapter was based on the theoretical
and conceptual frameworks and was aligned with the researched literature.

63
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings from the case study of a high-poverty,
high-performing urban elementary school. The qualitative study identified and
examined the school-wide structures and systems that promote high academic
achievement among African American and Hispanic students, who historically and
presently underachieve. A case study approach was used to collect and analyze data
to gain an understanding of the implementation of effective practices and the
importance of culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy to student learning. A
thematic dissertation group developed a theoretical framework that guided the
study. The framework focused on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and effective
schools research (Edmonds, 1979; Marzano, 2003). The data were organized and
analyzed to address the research questions and related themes.
The findings were directly related to the following four research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of student performance among students
of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high poverty urban schools with high
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational structures and systems implemented to sup-
port school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and
systems?

64
The purpose of this case study was to identify organizational systems and
structures that were perceived to promote high academic achievement among
students of color. In addition, the study was designed to understand how socio-
cultural learning impacted effective implementation of school-wide instruction for
students of color. The study school, SFA, was chosen because it met the following
criteria: (a) urban public school located in a densely populated area with diverse
racial and ethnic cultures, (b) Title I school, (c) high-poverty school indicated by
75% or more of the student population receiving free or reduced-price meals,
(d) 60% of the student population students of color, (e) minimum of 3 years of
consistent growth in API and AYP for all subgroups, and (f) population of at least
400 students.
In November and December 2007 the researcher conducted interviews with
administrators, teachers, classified staff, and parents at SFA. The interviews
occurred over a 5-day period and were conducted at SFA in a location selected by
each participant. All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim,
except for that of the principal, who did not grant permission to be recorded. The
principal identified teachers to be interviewed and the teachers gave verbal consent
to participate in the study. The researcher interviewed five teachers.
Eight instruments were developed by the dissertation group and were used
to collect data: The instruments included semistructured interviews with the site
administrators (appendix A), two teachers for a minimum of two grade levels
(appendix B), classified staff (appendix C), and parents (appendix D); field
observations guides for classrooms (appendix E), physical environment (appendix
F), professional development (appendix G), and leadership team (appendix H); and
artifacts (appendices I through O). Data were also gathered from artifacts and from

65
the CDE Web site. The triangulation of these multiple data sources enhanced the
validity and reliability of the case study. Table 9 displays the stakeholders who
participated in the semistructured interviews.

Table 9

Participants in the Semistructured Interviews at the Study School

Instrument School participants

Administrator interview Principal
Assistant Principal
Assistant Principal, Special Education
Assistant Principal, Intervention
Teacher interview Kindergarten teacher
Second-grade teacher
Fifth-grade teacher
Literacy Coach
Title I Coordinator
Classified interview Office technician
Parent interview African American parent of kindergarten student
Hispanic parent of fourth-grade student

This chapter begins with the background of the community to establish the
historical and contemporary societal influences that created barriers and impacted
student performance and achievement. Introduction of the history and demo-
graphics is important because it demonstrates the historical, social, and economic
barriers with which students, families, and the educators were confronted. How-
ever, data analysis and findings of the study revealed how the school community

66
worked to mitigate the multiple barriers and produce high student achievement by
students of color.
Community Profile
SFA (pseudonym) was located in a small residential district within a large
urban city. Prior to 1945, that was the only area of the city where working-class
African Americans could live, resulting in the area being predominantly Black.
Other areas of the city were off limits for African Americans, who were often
verbally and physically attacked while passing either on foot or in an automobile
(Wikipedia, 2008).
During World War II three housing projects were built for workers in the
war industry. The projects were originally integrated; however, by 1960 they were
nearly 100% Black, due to other areas excluding Blacks by various means such as
covenants (Wikipedia, 2008).
The Black community became angry with the unfair treatment by police and
inadequate public services (education within schools and medical treatment in hos-
pitals) which led to rioting by Black residents. The many days of rioting claimed 35
lives and caused over $200 million in damages (Wikipedia, 2008).
The 1970s brought three of the city’s most notorious gangs, which
increased gang-related crimes and homicide rates. During this same time many
Blacks left the city and were replaced by immigrants from countries such as
Mexico and Central America (Wikipedia, 2008).
The 1980s and 1990s brought an epidemic of the drug known as crack
cocaine. Crack cocaine contributed to increased violence and crime and continues
today. In 1992 a race riot erupted, killing 58 people and causing $1 billion in

67
property damage. Between 1989 and 2005 the Police Department reported more
than 500 homicides in this small area (Wikipedia, 2008).
The 2000 census reported the population of the area as 22,847, with the
following racial breakdown: 61.7% Hispanic, 36.9% Black, and 1.4% other.
Tension between Hispanics and Blacks caused violence, which is currently
increasing. While the majority of the residents are now Hispanic, the political
power in the area is held by Blacks, chiefly because a large percentage of the
Hispanics are not U.S. citizens (Wikipedia, 2008). The area has one of the lowest
household incomes ($17,987), resulting in 49% of the families living below the
poverty line. Historically, the area has been known as an impoverished Black
ghetto and continues to remain one of the poorest and most crime-ridden areas in
the urban area. In spite of all this, SFA, located in this area and serving 99%
African American or Hispanic students (Figure 6), reported an API score of 738.

Black
Hispanic
Other
36.9%
61.7%
1.4%

Figure 6. Ethnic distribution of students in the study school. Source: LAUSD
Profile Page, by Los Angeles Unified School District, 2008, retrieved March 12,
2008, from http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=school.profile
.content&which=5548

68
School Profile
SFA is located in an urban area. The school is located within blocks of three
housing projects. The school community consists of 37 classrooms, library, teacher
resource room, auditorium, parent resource room, and a large playground. The
school is operated year round, with four academic tracks serving 1,050 students in
kindergarten through fifth grade. At the time of the study the racial and ethnic
makeup of the school was 99% students of color: 85% Hispanic, 14% Black, and
1% other. About 66% of the students were English language learners. As reported
in the school’s profile, 95.9% of the teachers were fully credentialed and 4.1% were
university or district interns (Table 10).
Data Findings and Analysis
This section presents the findings related to each research question and
specifies the data collected and the interview questions that were asked of each
participant.
Research Question 1: Trends and Patterns
Research question 1 asked, What are the trends and patterns of student
performance among students of color? The question focused on student outcomes
in academic achievement in high-poverty schools with students of color.
Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory was used to analyze the data. To answer
research question 1, the researcher collected student performance data from SFA,
the CDE Web site, and Data Quest. Student achievement data were reviewed and
analyzed. Trends and patterns in student performance were noted in the API and
patterns emerged in the collection of other student data, such as scores on
standardized tests in ELA and Mathematics, student attendance, suspension and

69
Table 10

Demographic Data for the Study School, 2006-2007

Demographic Data

Grades served K-5
Students 1,050
Academic Performance Index (API) 738
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Yes
Similar school ranking 10
Percentage of students economically disadvantaged 93
Student ethnic/racial distribution
Students of color 99%
Hispanic 85%
Black 14%
Other 1%
Percentage of program participants
Student with disabilities 5%
Limited Language Proficient 66%
Attendance rate 95%
Suspension rate 2%

expulsion referrals, and student reclassification data. An analysis of data led to the
following findings related to research question 1.
1. SFA was recognized as a Title I Achieving School for the 2006-2007
school year.

70
2. SFA made AYP growth for 3 consecutive years, resulting in the school
exiting from program improvement (PI) status.
3. SFA experienced +379 growth in API from 1999 to 2007.
4. In 2006 SFA’s API score surpassed the state average by 13 points and the
district average by 75 points.
5. SFA maintained 95% daily student attendance for 4 years.
6. Student suspension decreased by 50%.
7. A higher percentage of SFA’s students scored proficient or advanced
levels on CST in mathematics than did their peers at the district or state levels.
School Performance on
Standardized Tests
Figure 7 displays the API performance by students at SFA from 1999
through 2007. The findings based on API data began in the year 1998-1999, when
the base API was 359. The interim goal for California schools was to have an API
base of 800. For 7 years SFA had steady growth, reaching an API score of 738 in
2007. The pattern of growth began in 2000 with a 43-point increase and growth
continued between 40 and 69 points each year; however, in 2003 SFA had a signifi-
cant 98-point increase, from 477 to 575. Each year the API base increased by two
digits, although the school experienced only a 5-point increase in 2007.
School-wide API growth targets were met for 2007; however, the Hispanic
and English learner subgroups did not meet their targets. Socioeconomically
disadvantaged students met the subgroup target with 739. Data reported school-
wide tends to mask the actual performance of various subgroups. Disaggregated
data reveal the academic achievement gaps between subgroups.

71
Academic Performance Index 1999 to 2007
359
402
438
477
575
624
664
733 738
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 7. Academic Performance Index (API) for the study school, 1999-2007.

Having met API for 2 consecutive years brought SFA out of PI status.
Figure 8 illustrates how SFA compared with the district and the state of California.

API Growth Scores from 2004 to 2007
0
200
400
600
800
School
District
State
School 613 664 733 738
District 634 649 658 664
State 689 709 720 727
2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 8. Comparison of API growth scores for the study school, school district,
and state of California, 2004-2007.

72
SFA made a concerted effort to improve teaching and learning, which
resulted in increased test scores. In 2004 SFA (613) scored 21 points below the
district (634) and 76 points below the state (689); however, in the year 2005 SFA
(664) surpassed the district (649) by 15 points and had begun to close the gap with
the state (709). In the year 2006 SFA surpassed both the district and state with an
API score of 733, a 75-point difference between SFA’s score and the district score
of 658 and a 13-point difference between SFA’s score and the state score of 720. In
2007 SFA’s API score of 738 outperformed the district by 74 points and the state
by 11 points.
SFA not only met API but met the federal accountability of AYP criteria
measured by (a) percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the CST
in ELA and Mathematics, (b) participation of at least 95% of the student popula-
tion, and (c) API score and gains. This criterion measured African American and
Hispanic students, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and English learners.
AYP results for 3 years demonstrated that the school met 17 of the 17 AYP criteria.
All students, regardless of race, language, or background were learning and demon-
strating AYP. Figure 9 presents the findings in mathematics on the CST. The find-
ings began in 2004, with 37% of the students scoring at proficient or advanced,
compared to 31% in the district and 40% statewide. Scores revealed that SFA
students had scored 6% higher than the district and only 3% below the state.
In 2005 SFA outscored both the district and the state. Forty-six percent of
the SFA students scored proficient or advanced in comparison with 35.1% in the
district and 45% statewide. SFA students experienced a 9% increase from 2004 and
closed the statewide gap by 1%.

73
0
20
40
60
2004 2005 2006 2007
Percent of Students Scoring at the Proficient or
Advanced Level in Math on the California Standards
Test
School
District
State

Figure 9. Scores on the mathematics portion of the California Standards Test for
the study school, 2004-2007.

In 2006 SFA reported 54.7% of the students scoring at proficient or
advanced on the CST, compared to 38.1% in the district and 48% in the state. The
school experienced an 8.7-point increase, creating a 16.6-point difference with
students in the district and a 6.7-point difference with students in the state.
The test results for 2007 continued to demonstrate an upward trend in
mathematics. SFA had 58.2% (3.5-point increase) of their students scoring
proficient or advanced in mathematics, compared to only 38.8% (1.4-point
difference) at the district level and 48.5% (9.7-point difference) at the state level.
CST data demonstrated a positive pattern of growth for 3 consecutive years in
mathematics. SFA students had outperformed students on the district and state
levels.
Figure 10 presents the findings for the ELA on the CST. In ELA the SFA
students did not outperform students on the district or state level. Data analysis
demonstrate a growth pattern with ELA data. In 2004 CST data for ELA showed
that 14% of the all SFA students scored at or above proficient, compared to 25.7%

74
0
10
20
30
40
50
2004 2005 2006 2007
Percent of Students Scoring at the Proficient or Advanced Level
in English Language Arts on the California Standards Test
School
District
State

Figure 10. English-language Arts (ELA) scores on the California Standards Test
(CST) by the study school, the study school district, and California.

in the district and 37.4% in the state. In 2005 SFA had an 8.5-point increase; SFA
students scored 22.5%, in comparison to 29.2% in the district and 41.9% in the
state. This was a difference of only 2.6 points with the district and 16.6 points with
the state. In 2006 there was a significant increase of 14.1 points; 36.6% of SFA
students scored proficient or advanced in ELA, in comparison to 32.4% in the
district and 44.8% in the state. The school outperformed the district by 4.2 points
although the state outperformed SFA by 8.2 points. There was a slight dip in ELA
scores in 2007. The school had 31.6% of students score proficient or advanced, in
comparison to 36.6% in 2006. The SFA score dropped 5 points. This was 1.8 points
below the district (33.4%) and 13.9 points below the state (45.5%).
Figure 11 presents the findings for Mathematics on the CST by subgroups
of students at SFA. In 2004 all subgroups scored low: 39.4% (Hispanic), 38.5%
(English Learner), 37.1% (Socioeconomically Disadvantaged) 22.5% percent
(African American), and 12.8% students with disabilities. In 2005 all SFA
subgroups made growth except for students with disabilities. Students with

75
Math CST by Subgroup
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
school-wide
African American
Hispanic
Socioeconomic
Disadvantaged
English Learners
Students w/Disabilities

Figure 11. Mathematics scores on the California Standards Test (CST) at the study
school by subgroup, 2003-2007.

disabilities scored 3.8%, a decrease of 9 points from the 2004 school year.
However, all other subgroups increased by as much as 14 points (36.8% African
American) to an increase of 6 points (47.3% Hispanic). In 2006 there was growth
in all subgroups except African Americans, who dipped from 36.8% to 33.3%, a
3.5-point decrease. Students with disabilities had an 8.2-point increase, with 12%
scoring proficient or advanced. Hispanics experienced a two-digit increase of 10.6
(57.9%), with a 9.7-point increase (54.8%) for English Learners and a 7.5-point
increase (54.8%) for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Consistent growth
continued in Mathematics in 2007. All subgroups increased the percentage of
students scoring proficient or advanced in Mathematics. Students with disabilities
had the highest increase, 9 points (21.1%), and other groups averaged a 3-point
gain, with 61.5% Hispanic, 58.7% Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, 57.1%
English Learners, and 36.4% African Americans scoring proficient or advanced on
the CST in Mathematics.

76
Figure 12 presents the findings for ELA on the CST. When disaggregated
by subgroups, scores for ELA by SFA students in 2004 showed a wide range:
14.6% (Hispanics), 14% (Socioeconomically Disadvantaged), 12.7% (English
Learners), 10% (African Americans), and 7.6% (Students with Disabilities).

English Language Arts CST by Subgroup
0
10
20
30
40
50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
school-wide
African American
Hispanic
Socioeconomic
Disadvantaged
English Learners
Students w/Disabilities

Figure 12. English-Language Arts (ELA) scores on the California Standards Test
(CST) at the study school by subgroup, 2003-2007.

However, students who scored proficient or advanced in 2005 brought gains
for all subgroups except students with disabilities. In 2005 African American
students had the highest gain in students scoring proficient or advanced, 14 points
from 10.0% to 22.1%. Scores showed that Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
students (46%, 9-point gain), English Learners (45.1%, 7-point gain), and
Hispanics (47.3%, 6-point gain) scored proficient or advanced. Students with
disabilities scored 3.8% (9-point decrease) in ELA. In 2006 there was consistent
growth in all subgroups. Three out of the four groups experienced double-digit

77
increases. Hispanic students increased by 16 points (38.5%), English Learners 14.9
points (34.1%), Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students 13.8 points (36.3%),
students with disabilities 4.2 points (8%), and African American students 2.5 points
(24.6%). In 2007 students with disabilities had consistent patterns of growth with a
5.2-point increase (13.2%). All other subgroups experienced a decrease in scores:
English Learners 7 points (27.1%), African Americans 6.4 points (18.2%),
Hispanic 4.9 points (33.6%), and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students 4.8
points (31.5%).
Figure 13 shows the results of the California English Language Develop-
ment Test (CELDT) for SFA students in 2006 and 2007. English Language
Learners made gains from 2006 to 2007, shown by a decrease in early intermediate
and early advanced ratings, with a corresponding increase in intermediate and
advanced ratings. In the first year recorded for this study (2006) 655 students were
classified as English Learners. Thirty-seven students changed categories, resulting
in 5.65% being reclassified. In the second year (2007) 618 students were classified
as English Learners and 82 students were reclassified. Therefore, 13.27% were
reclassified, an increase of more than 50% from the previous year.
Student Attendance
Staff and parent interviews recognized student attendance to be critical for
academic achievement. Student average daily attendance at SFA was 95%. The
office technician attributed the high rate of attendance to “kids love coming to
school.” Students were motivated by certificates, awards, and trophies distributed
during school-wide assemblies. Perfect attendance was recognized and rewarded.

78
California English Language Develpment Test (CELDT) Results
0
10
20
30
40
Beginning Early
Intermediate
Intermediate Early
Advanced
Advanced
2006
2007

Figure 13. Results of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
at the study school, 2006-2007.

The school also had a counselor whose sole responsibility was to make calls and
visit homes when students were absent. The goal was to reduce absenteeism.
Table 11 shows 5 years of student attendance data for SFA. During this 5-
year span the school averaged 95% attendance rate. Also important were high rates
of stability and low rates of transiency among students. Based on research, SFA
should have had low stability and high transiency rates; however, the rate of
stability averaged 80% and the transiency rate averaged 40%.
Suspension and expulsion data were examined to identify trends and
patterns among students of color. Figures 14 and 15 summarize these data. In 2003
the school had a total of 36 suspensions, 26 of them Black students and 10 of them
Hispanic students. During this same time Black students were 2 times more likely
to be suspended than their Hispanic peers. In 2004 suspension continued to
increase, with a total of 43 suspensions: 31 Black students and 12 Hispanic
students. Interviews with administrators showed the suspensions to be due to

79
Table 11

Student Attendance Rates at the Study School, 2002-2007

Academic year Stability (%) Transiency (%) Attendance (%)

2006-2007 79.30 42.41 94.88
2005-2006 78.16 41.18 95.11
2004-2005 81.03 38.87 94.99
2003-2004 79.44 38.62 95.76
2002-2003 82.26 37.55 94.38

Suspension Data
0
20
40
Black 26 31 6 11 8
Hispanic 10 12 13 21 10
Other 0 0 0 1 0
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

Figure 14. Suspension data for the study school, 2002-2007.

Expulsion Data
0
2
4
Black 0 0 0 0 1
Hispanic 0 2 1 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

Figure 15. Expulsion data for the study school, 2002-2007.

80
enforcement of zero tolerance policies. A review of district policy and the
California Education Code provided evidence to support data from the interviews.
In 2007 the school reported the lowest number of suspensions of students in
the past 5 years. Staff attributed this to an effective school-wide discipline program.
Eighteen students were suspended, a decrease of 50%. One student was expelled
due to behavior jeopardizing the health and safety of other students and adults. The
principal supported and worked hard to provide proper and appropriate conditions
for “a safe and orderly environment” conducive to teaching and learning.
Summary of Findings for Research
Question 1
The findings related to research question 1 demonstrated a positive pattern
of student performance and achievement in a high-poverty school with 99%
students of color. SFA had impressive gains when compared to the district and the
state: The 2004-2007 API growth for SFA was 125 points, compared to a 30-point
growth for the district and a 38-point growth for the state of California. SFA’s API
score was 359 in 1999 but by 2007 it had increased to 738, a 379-point increase.
Special education students progressed and demonstrated growth. They
accounted for only 5% of the student population but accounted for 21.1% of
students’ proficient or advanced ratings in Mathematics and 13.2% of the proficient
or advanced ratings in ELA. Special education students had the highest gain in
Mathematics of all subgroups in 2007.
However, there were some gaps in achievement. There was a 5-point
decrease in students scoring proficient or advanced in ELA in 2007, a drop from
36.6% to 31.6%. African Americans students continued to underperform in both

81
Mathematics and ELA. Hispanic students surpassed African American students in
both Mathematics and ELA. These findings are discussed in chapter 5.
Findings related to this research question contradict the Coleman Report.
That report claimed that family background accounted for 90% of the variance in
student achievement while schools accounted for only 10%. However, despite the
challenges and barriers in the community, SFA students performed and academic
achievement increased. School data provided evidence of a strong pattern of
growth: API and AYP was met for all subgroups, daily student attendance averaged
95%, and low suspension and expulsion rates were consistent, in comparison to
state and national rates, among students of color.
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning provided the framework for
these findings. The sociocultural theory highlights the social basis of learning.
Student performance occurred because of the positive interactive processes and the
face-to-face interaction between school personnel and students. These positive
interactions obscured the negative societal influences that confronted these students
daily. What often are considered excuses and barriers to educational attainment by
poor students and students of color were conquered. SFA implemented a school-
wide system that gave meaning and value to these students: a positive school
climate and culture. A culture of high expectations and standards supported all
children and facilitated learning instead of learning being dictated by geographic
area, cultural or socioeconomic background, ethnicity, or disability. For this reason,
student performance data demonstrated a positive trend and pattern in academic
achievement by poor students and students of color.

82
Research Question 2: Organizational
Structures and Systems
Research question 2 asked, What are the organizational structures and
systems that are perceived to contribute to high student performance in high
poverty urban schools with high concentrations of students of color? This question
was developed to identify school-wide structures and systems that were perceived
to influence and support high performance by students of color in high-poverty
urban schools. Data collection was guided by frameworks using research from
Marzano (2003), Wynn (2002, 2005), and Vygotsky (1979). Organizational struc-
tures and systems are important and together form an integrated framework of how
to raise student achievement. The structure defines the systems and practices of the
school’s instructional program. Structures and systems must work in synchronicity
to improve student performance.
The thematic dissertation group defined organizational structures as insti-
tutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by federal, state, or
district policy and widely accepted as the official structure at the school level. The
following organizational structures were perceived to directly impact student
achievement: standards, principal leadership, and assessment.
Organizational Structures
Standards. Standards were identified by the researcher as a school structure.
Standards are mandated by the state of California and local district policy. Accord-
ing to the 2006-2007 single-school plan and interviews, each grade level used the
state content standards as a foundation for all instruction and learning. The aca-
demic standards clearly define what students should learn and master at each grade

83
level for the core academic subjects: ELA, Mathematics, History/Social Science,
and Science.
Results from interviews provided insight on school-wide use of standards.
Specifically, one interview question asked the interviewee to “describe how
expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made clear for teachers,
students, and parents.” One teacher answered,
They’re made very clear! The expectations are based on the state standards.
The grade-level standards tell what the students should learn on each grade
level. It [academic expectation] is continuously made clear. Everybody is
on the same page. Everybody knows what the expectations are.
All 12 interview participants agreed that standards were important and
resulted in everyone knowing the academic expectations. The Assistant Principal
said,
Content standards are important. Our students can achieve and that is our
expectation. This is what our school vision is about. Student achievement,
academic rigor, and content standards are our focus. I think this has really
been our success. It doesn’t matter whether you are Latino or Black, this is
the state standard and you are teaching to the standard. We are saying these
are the standards, these are the school expectations and it is just clear that
this is what we expect.
Marzano (2003) acknowledged the importance for teachers to have clear
and specific content standards for each grade level. During classroom observations
the researcher observed academic standards posted on the walls. Standards were
also written and placed in pocket charts to display which standard(s) was being
addressed for the day (appendix I). All student work was standards-based. Class-
room bulletin boards displayed student work labeled with standards (appendix J).
The use of standards was prevalent and provided all students the opportunity to
learn. The use of standards conveyed a powerful message of high expectations and
every student having the same opportunities for instruction.

84
Assessment. California law requires public schools to assess test students in
grade 2-11, using standards tests. Thus, the researcher categorized mandated state
and district assessments (summarized in Figure 16) as a school structure.

State Assessments District Assessments
Standardized Testing & Reporting
(STAR)
California Standards Test (CST)
California Achievement test (CAT/6)

Open Court reading (OCR) assessments
Math assessments
Reading fluency tests
Quarter assessments

Figure 16. Assessments used to test California students in grades 2-11.

Principal leadership. Leadership was identified by the researcher as a
structure. Specifically, principal leadership emerged as a school-level structure
critical for effective implementation and management of the four school-wide
systems: school climate and culture, instruction, data-driven decision making, and
professional development. According to the district’s Principal Handbook, the
school structure requires an administrator to “ensure that all the appropriate infra-
structures are in place so that the best teaching and learning can occur” (p. 1).
Interviews consistently credited principal leadership for school improve-
ment. As a parent talked about how successful the school was, she said, “You
should be doing a paper on Ms. X,” implying that the success of the school was due
to the principal. The principal had been at the school for 5 years and was described
by staff and parents as “an excellent leader.” Every parent and staff interview

85
indicated that the principal was responsible for transforming the school. One
teacher commented, “It comes from the principal.” Another said, “Having a
principal who sees student achievement is important.” The assistant principal
stated, “It is the leadership! Having a principal who reads research, encourages her
staff, really means what she says, and is professional. . . . I think it makes a world
of difference.” A parent responded,
I have heard that people know of this school and are bringing [students]
here from private schools. They are bringing them back because it is so
different! But it starts with an administrator and WE have a strong
administrator!
The researcher shadowed the principal for a day. The researcher concluded
that the principal operated in Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames of leadership:
structural frame, human resource frame, political frame, and symbolic frame. She
was a bold and courageous leader who worked to transform the school environment
into a place where all students would learn and teachers would teach. Her focus
was on students and instruction. She explained,
Everybody knows that this is a place where you come to teach, to educate
kids. I got all the other distracters out of the school day so that everyone in
the school knew that the only thing that mattered was instruction. As a
teacher, you no longer had to worry about whether your classroom was
going to be broken into, whether there was going to be toilet tissue in the
stalls in the morning, whether the inside of the school was going to be
clean, or whether you were going to have the instructional materials that
you need. You had everything you need: a safe and orderly environment.
Now nothing should be preventing you from teaching.
As a structural leader, she focused school stakeholders on what mattered
most: “student learning.” One teacher said, “The principal has a clear sense of what
is important and what is needed to accomplish the goals.” The school’s vision and
mission statement were used to create goals and maintain school-wide systems
focused on student achievement. Data coordinated and controlled the school-wide

86
systems and were essential to their effectiveness. The principal resolved problems
by defining roles and responsibilities of coaches, coordinators, and administrators.
These key players were a part of the leadership team that met weekly. The
researcher observed the principal, coaches, coordinator, and three assistant princi-
pals planning professional development during a leadership team meeting.
The human resource frame was used to support and build trust among staff
and parents. The principal was known to facilitate meaningful conversations and
discussions among staff, parents, and the community in order to produce successful
student outcomes. Monthly parent advisory meetings were held and parents were
encouraged to speak about their feelings and needs within the school and com-
munity. In the school auditorium, a parent advisory meeting was parent led and
translated in Spanish. The entire meeting was conducted by parents and the princi-
pal came to the meeting to give her report. “Principal’s report” was listed as an
agenda item. Parents were empowered and active participants in the school’s
decision making.
As a political leader, the principal built coalitions and alliances with parents
and within the community. For example, “Coffee with the Principal” provided
parents and the school community the opportunity to communicate with the princi-
pal over coffee and snacks. She also networked with outside resources, which
resulted in the Chaka Khan Foundation adopting the school. Each year the founda-
tion selects 50 students from elementary schools and tracks them through high
school. Classes and workshops are offered to college-bound students and their
families. Upon successful completion of high school, students are awarded a
scholarship to the college of their choice. Community involvement supported the
school’s goals and objectives.

87
Courageously, the principal built an alliance with gang members living
within doors of the school, despite differences in values and beliefs between the
two. Her role in a school with the responsibility of student safety and the role of a
gang member in a community with the priority of claiming territory by any means
necessary prompted her actions. In the face of conflict the principal built an alliance
based on trust and respect. She forged a “truce” with the neighborhood gang during
hours of school operation. Education and safety of children became a shared value
and priority when the principal stated, “These are all our babies,” making student
safety a shared priority to include their children.
As a symbolic leader, the principal put meaning into the school vision in
order to accomplish and achieve the school’s goals. There were symbolic acts that
kept the staff, students, and parents focused on student and school goals. The
school’s motto was “College Prepared, College Bound” and the main hallway
displayed a bulletin board that read, “An Elementary School Plan for Students With
College-Bound Dreams.” Pictured were SFA students wearing graduation hats,
along with the results from CST for ELA and Mathematics. Also, the principal pur-
chased college T-shirts and folders for students, and students and staff participated
in “college day” by wearing T-shirts and sweatshirts from colleges and universities.
These were all created to promote the vision and expectation of postsecondary
education for all students
In the principal’s office sat a large ceramic eagle with its wings spread.
The eagle was symbolic of strength and achievement. The Assistant Principal
commented,
We read to our students the story “The Eagles Who Thought They Were
Chickens.” The eagle serves as a reminder of how the students can fly and

88
soar to great heights when they believe in themselves and put their mind to
it. Our students know they are not chickens. We are powerful eagles!
The story helped students to believe in themselves and created meaning and
purpose for them. This eagle embodied the culture of high expectation expressed by
the school. It served as a visible symbol of strength and power that each student
had over learning. Symbols, rituals, and celebrations were used to empower and
motivate students to achieve.
Organizational Systems
Principal leadership coordinated and implemented the school-wide systems
that supported effective teaching and learning. Four distinct systems were identified
and effectively implemented at SFA: positive school climate and culture, standards-
based instruction, data-driven decision making, and focused professional develop-
ment. Figure 17 illustrates this combination of school-wide systems.

Figure 17. School-wide systems observed at the study school.

89
School climate and culture. The SFA student population was 99% students
of color and 93% economically disadvantaged students. Teaching staff consisted of
45% Hispanic, 29% White, 17% African American, 7% Asian, and 2% Pacific
Islander. Positive teacher-student interactions were observed. Teachers greeted
students by name, smiled, and were frequently observed socially interacting with
students on their duty-free breaks and lunches. Students reciprocated and were
often observed running toward teachers and staff to initiate interaction. Students,
teachers, and staff all appeared to be happy and comfortable in the school
environment.
A clear mission statement was one of the seven correlates identified in the
Effective Schools research used to guide and ensure academic success for all
students. The SFA mission statement is:
The school mission is to provide a challenging learning environment in
partnership with parents, students and staff to build individual excellence
and a desire for lifelong learning.
The mission statement was posted in the school office and was written on all school
correspondence. SFA used their mission statement to guide and focus their efforts
in planning and implementing the systems to improve academic achievement. The
mission statement was clearly articulated in the beginning of the year to teachers,
parents, and students. Student excellence was the focus.
According to Johnson (2002), the mission represents the overall purpose of
the school and the vision states what must be done to fulfill the mission. The princi-
pal focused on student strengths instead of deficits. Positive beliefs were concep-
tualized in the school’s vision. The vision stated in the School Handbook is,
[The school], with the assistance and support of the local district, will be a
nurturing and caring community, focused on developing a healthy intellec-
tual, emotional, and social school life, where students and teachers share the

90
joy and rigor of learning and where students gain equitable access to post-
secondary options that enhance individual and community quality of life.
This vision supported academic achievement by envisioning high school and
college graduation for all students. This was supported through the efforts of a
program called Bound for College. The program provided awareness and exposure
to college. Once a month, fourth- and fifth-grade students and their parents attended
classes at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). One parent said,
Some of our inner city kids are going to UCLA right now and the school
pays for them. A lot of kids living around here are not exposed, so this is an
amazing opportunity for kids around here. You walk in a classroom and you
see our kid’s self-confidence–the way they talk. I heard our kids were help-
ing the kids of the lawyers at UCLA. I am so proud of this school. The best
thing I have done is bring my daughter to this school.
Vision drove efforts of the principal, teachers, parents, and students. The
vision affirmed the belief that every student in the school was a capable learner and
college bound. Bulletin boards, banners, and college T-shirts purchased by the
school affirmed the school vision. Detailed essays written by students lined the
school hallways. The essays spoke of the colleges and studies that students wanted
to pursue. “College Prepared and College Bound” was a belief and expectation that
was powerfully felt by students, staff, and school. The Assistant Principal summed
it up: “We share the same beliefs and it is driven by the school vision and mission.
We are all on the same page.”
Expectations. High expectations came in the form of academic and behavior
standards. A students’ level of performance was not dictated by where the student
came from; instead, the school focused on cultivating a school climate and culture
driven by high expectations. One teacher said,
We have high expectations for every student, regardless of where they are
coming from. Our goal is to take them where they are and move them
forward—always making growth.

91
Standards and expectations were communicated at the beginning of the
school year with Back to School Night for parents and school assemblies for the
students. They were enforced regularly and discussed when appropriate. Back to
School Night was held on three nights: K/1, 2/3, and 4/5. Teachers were
responsible for preparing a grade-level computer-assisted presentation focused on
learning standards and expectations for behavior. The evening began in the audi-
torium for a 20-minute graphics presentation. Grade-level standards were distri-
buted to the parents. Teachers communicated what students were expected to learn.
Translation services were provided to ensure that parents understood and would be
able to ask questions. Parents visited their children’s classrooms to meet the
teachers and set up parent-teacher conferences. This format allowed teachers to
take time to explain the standards and expectations of the school. This reduced the
number of parents walking around during the presentations because specific grade
levels presented each night in the auditorium. Parents having several children at the
school could sit and listen in one place.
The researcher asked parents, “How do you know what your child needs to
learn and how does the school communicate that?” They responded that Back to
School Night was one of the ways the school communicated what their children
had to learn and the school’s expectations for behavior.
Conduct assemblies were held to communicate expectations to students.
Student assemblies covered expectations for learning and behavior. Teachers were
responsible for reviewing the standards and expectations in the classroom every
day for a month. Teachers modeled and had students put the expectations into
practice as they toured the school during the first few days of the semester. The
outcome was that students understood what behavior was expected in the

92
classroom, cafeteria, and auditorium, and on the yard. Students knew how to
navigate through the school. As one teacher said,
We have a school-wide discipline policy and children follow it. The
administrators are really good at supporting us. We have classroom rules
and they are posted. Students and parents know what is expected and know
the consequences.
The Literacy Coach added,
The expectations are made very clear! Everybody knows what the expecta-
tions are. The discipline policy is posted in classrooms and all around the
school. You don’t see fights or kids having problems on the yard. The disci-
pline policy is working.
Everyone was responsible for enforcing the standards of behavior, not just the
administrators or teachers. The researcher observed cafeteria staff, plant manager,
and clerical staff reminding students how to conduct themselves.
All interviewees reported no major discipline problems in the school and
the administrators reported a decrease in student office referrals. During the study,
the researcher did not observe any major discipline problems in classrooms,
cafeteria during recess or lunch, or on the yard. Students displayed typical student
behavior, such as running in areas intended for walking; however, when they were
reminded by an adult, the behavior ceased. Evidence was supported by referral,
suspension, and expulsion data.
The School-Wide Discipline Plan (appendix K) states, “It is the belief of the
staff that every child has the right to a safe school and positive learning environ-
ment.” The discipline plan was posted throughout the school: classrooms, main
office, library, and boards in school hallways. Certain behaviors were not tolerated
and resulted in out-of-school suspension or expulsion. Zero tolerance behaviors
included bullying, harassing, threatening and/or intimidation; fighting or causing

93
physical injury to another person; bringing a knife, weapon, or other dangerous
objects to school; inappropriate touching; and vandalism.
Discipline and making expectations clear to all stakeholders had been a 5-
year process. The school had to refine the policy and rules. To facilitate the process
of discipline, the school leadership council had developed a plan with the coopera-
tion and support of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. This was an
important step; the principal spoke about her first year at the school.
Every time I looked in the office, the only children I saw were African
American males sitting in the office. I was concerned and had a conversa-
tion with the intervention administrator and said, “One would think that this
is an all-boys school that serves African Americans, because that is all I see
here in the office.”
In an effort to change this, teachers were required to keep anecdotal records of
student behavior, along with strategies and interventions. Effective implementation
of the school-wide discipline plan involved distribution of the written handbook to
parents and families and, most important, verbally communicating the plan to all
stakeholders.
Physical environment. The school facility was clean and well kept, includ-
ing student restrooms. The school and playground were enclosed on all four sides
by large wrought-iron gates. Inside the front gate was a small patch of green grass
and colorful flowers were planted around a tree and lined the concrete pathway into
the school. The interior and exterior walls were nicely painted and some exterior
walls displayed large murals of people of color who were noted for their achieve-
ment. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, and Frederick Douglas were
some of the African American and Hispanic notables displayed on the outdoor
murals. Another mural was a painting of students of color sitting at a table reading

94
books: Mexico, English, Art, and D.A.R.E. to Say No. These murals conveyed an
important message for students to read and focus on school; even more was the
powerful image of people who looked like them.
High expectations and a college-bound focus provided students with hope
and belief in what they could achieve. The principal continually reinforced the
message through symbols and visual representations around the school, such as the
UCLA T-shirts and folders bought for the students and the college tours.
An atmosphere of high expectations paired with academic rigor permeated
the school. The positive climate and culture was a powerful influence on the aca-
demic achievement by students of color. The entire school community—principal,
teachers, cafeteria staff, clerical staff, coaches, custodian, and instructional and
playground aides—took the responsibility to uphold established standards, expecta-
tions, and values.
Instruction. Instruction was aligned to grade-level standards. Standards
were posted in classrooms, displayed on bulletin boards with student work, and
written in lesson plans. Learning standards, instruction, and student assessment
were all aligned. The researcher observed five classrooms with teacher instruction
using the ELA program Open Court. Teachers had a firm understanding of what
was to be taught, how it was to be taught, and how to assess students for learning.
This was evident in the direct instruction that the researcher observed and through
viewing the teachers’ lesson plans.
Students were also made aware of the academic instruction. A teacher said,
I always tell my students, “It [learning] is never like a guessing game. I am
always going to tell you the purpose.” I model for the students, go over the
objectives, and explain what they are learning and why.

95
Quality teachers. Teacher quality is the single most accurate indicator of a
student’s performance in school (Marzano, 2003). Ninety-five percent of the
teachers at SFA were fully credentialed and 61% had been at the school for 6 to 10
years. All teachers at SFA were considered “highly qualified” by NCLB standards.
Figure 18 shows the teaching staff stability at SFA. Eighty-five percent of
the teachers had been at the school more than 6 years. One parent stated, “I don’t
see a lot of teachers leaving and, when they retire, they still come back to help.”
However, the principal identified gaps in student achievement and teacher
recruitment and retention. She explained how she worked to overcome them.

Teaching Staff Stability
0%
15%
61%
24%
0-1 yrs.
2-5 yrs.
6-10 yrs.
11 or more

Figure 18. Teaching staff stability at the study school.

Putting someone in there that you know can do the job. Making sure the
coaches and coordinators are getting into the classrooms and providing help
and support to new teachers. And administrators going and monitoring
instruction with immediate feedback. Providing paid time for [teachers]
when off track to plan for coaches. . . . You never overcome. You can never
get someone to play a teacher who leaves in the middle of the year and was
an exemplary teacher. These are realities that happen at every school.

96
Marzano (2003) identified three teacher-level factors that affect student
achievement: instructional strategies, classroom management, and classroom
curriculum design. SFA used an instructional framework with standards, research-
based strategies, and culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy. (The three
teacher-level factors were embedded within the framework and are d discussed in
related to research question 3.)
Classroom setting. Classroom environments were comfortable, with appro-
priate lighting and ventilation. Bulletin boards were colorfully decorated and organ-
ized by core subjects. The researcher observed bulletin boards labeled, Social
Studies, Science, Language Arts, Math, and ELD (for English Language Develop-
ment). Under each subject was individual student work with grading rubrics
attached. Posted on classroom walls were word walls/high frequency words, rules
for the classroom, number lines, Open Court sound/spelling cards, Independent
Work Time (IWT) tasks/activities, group projects, pictures of students, concept and
skill posters, and banners with positive slogans. Standards were either written on
white boards or posted in pocket charts.
Student desks were organized in pods to allow four or five students to work
cooperatively. Students were observed during direct instruction seated on colorful
carpets for primary grades and at individual desks for upper grades. Primary grades
had pencils, crayons, erasers, and colored pencils and markers located in containers
in the middle of student pods. Upper grades had student supplies located in their
individual desks. Classrooms appeared to be furnished with needed supplies and
furniture. Teachers were observed in front of students during direct instruction and
walking around the classroom helping students.

97
Content and curriculum. SFA used district-prescribed curricula in core
subject areas. Each adopted curriculum was research based and aligned with the
California content standards for learning. All schools in the district used the same
curriculum; however, they did not experience the same student outcomes. For this
reason, the researcher chose not to focus on the curriculum but on how SFA imple-
mented the intended curriculum to produce positive student outcomes.
Content emphasized academic rigor through high expectations and
standards for all students, including special education students. Instruction con-
nected students’ prior knowledge and experience to new learning content. This
brought meaning and relevance to student learning. Instruction was aligned with
four principles of learning to support the achievement of high academic standards
for all students. According to the district’s reference and resource manual (Los
Angeles Unified School District, 2007), the four objectives were (a) commitment to
the concept of effort-based intelligence and education, (b) coherence in the instruc-
tional program, (c) district and school functioning as a “learning organization,” and
(d) a focus at every level of the organization on classroom instruction, including
core principles of teaching and leaning.
The principles of learning were deeply rooted in culturally responsive
research for students of color. They emphasized how African American and
Hispanic students learn and what practices and strategies work best for them.
(Further discussion of culturally responsive teaching is included in the report of
findings related to research question 3.)
Data-driven decision making. Data-driven decision making was a school-
wide system used to focus resources on improving student performance. According

98
to Johnson (2002), data can be used to support student learning and aid schools in
decision making to improve achievement by all students. The school gathered
multiple types of data to inform their decision making, such as school budget,
standardized tests, CELDT scores, student portfolios, writing samples, Open Court
and mathematics assessments, learning logs, behavior reports, referrals, and
informal and formal observations of students and teachers. Data were used to make
decisions and monitor teaching and learning. The Literacy Coach said, “Everything
is data driven. Even who the principal is going to meet with! We analyze data and
make decisions based on data.”
Data notebooks were kept by the principal. The notebooks contained
students’ reading and mathematics scores for each classroom. Each quarter, the
principal reviewed these assessment data to monitor student growth in reading and
math growth. The principal said, “I need to see growth. Seventy percent is bench-
mark and if I don’t see growth, I talk with teachers.” Data notebooks were one
source used to analyze and monitor teaching and learning in the classroom.
The leadership team was observed using quarterly student assessments to
plan weekly professional development activities for teachers. Low scores in
comprehension prompted the principal to focus training on instructional strategies
to improve student comprehension. Student assessment data provided direction and
objectives for professional development.
Professional development. Professional development played a significant
role in instruction and was identified in interviews as one of the most effective
things the school engaged in to improve student performance. Professional
development agendas provided evidence of content being connected to teacher

99
instruction and student learning. According to DuFour and Eaker (1998), the
purpose of professional development is to help teachers to become individually and
collectively effective in helping all students to accomplish the intended results of
their education.
Teachers attended weekly professional development sessions. Tuesdays
were shortened days to allow teachers to participate in on-site weekly professional
development activities. Time was used for common planning, discussions about
instructional practices, sharing strategies that work, analyzing data, and reading of
professional literature. Teachers were not only expected to read research-based
literature but were responsible to report their learning during professional develop-
ment sessions. One administrator said, “I think [professional development] sets up
a whole professional community. We are expected to be professional learners.
Anything less is not acceptable.”
Summary of Findings for Research
Question 2
The purpose of research question 2 was to identify the structures and
systems that were perceived to contribute to high student performance. Consistent
with research on effective schools, leadership at SFA established and maintained
the structures and systems necessary to improve instructional practice and increase
student achievement (Blankenstein, 2004; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Carter, 2001;
Deal & Peterson, 1999; Edmonds, 1979; Elmore, 2000; Marzano, 2003). Principal
leadership set high expectations and standards for teaching and learning. This was
reflected on bulletin boards and banners displayed in hallways, goals and objectives
in action plans, and vision and mission statements printed on school documents.

100
Findings for research question 2 identified three structures and four systems
critical to student performance among poor students and students of color. School-
level structures were principal leadership, standards, and assessment. The four
school-wide systems were positive school climate and culture, standards-based
instruction, data-driven decision making, and professional development. Alignment
of the structures and systems worked systematically to promote student learning.
Student learning took place through positive interaction and engagement with
others. A major theme of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework was that social inter-
action plays a critical role in the development of cognition. High expectation and a
focus on student learning permeated the SFA school system.
Research Question 3: School-Wide Practices
Research question 3 asked, How are the organizational structures and
systems implemented to support school-wide effective classroom instruction that
promotes student learning? This question focused on the school-wide implementa-
tion of effective instructional practices that were found to directly impact student
learning in the classroom. Vygotsky’s theoretical framework for sociocultural
learning was used to analyze the findings. Figure 19 displays the three school-wide
systems that were found to directly impact instructional practice within the
classroom.
Use of Data
Effective use of data is a powerful tool to support classroom instruction and
increase student achievement (Johnson, 2002; Marzano, 2003). Multiple sources of
data were used at SFA to monitor and support student learning. Teachers began the
school year looking at student test scores and disaggregated data. They knew how

101

Figure 19. Classroom systems that impact instruction practice in classrooms.

to analyze, interpret, and use data to plan and tailor instruction for the needs of the
students in the classroom. Multiple sources of data were used to monitor and sup-
port student learning. According to interviews and classroom observation, the
sources included student portfolios, grades, scores on standardized tests, observa-
tion, individual educational program (IEP) goals, quarterly assessments, projects,
Open Court Reading and mathematics assessments, ELD portfolios, and perform-
ance tasks.
Teachers used grades as an assessment mechanism and a factor to motivate
and encourage students to do their best. Grading rubrics were provided to all
students and parents for assignments and projects. Rubrics provided clear instruc-
tions in student-friendly language on how to meet expectations. One of the inter-
view questions asked the interviewees to “describe how expectations for meeting
academic achievement goals are made clear for students.” Teacher B responded,

102
I tell [the students]. I even show them the rubric. “If you want to have a 4,
then this is what you need to do.” So they know. Instead of them asking,
“Why didn’t I get an A?” I let them know before what they need to do to get
this 4. Also with fluency, I tell them, “This is our goal.” And when we are
practicing fluency, I will ask them, “Are you at benchmark? Did you reach
your goal?” I tell them, “Maybe you didn’t reach it this time but your goal
is to improve every time you test.”
Rubrics were attached to student work posted in the classrooms. Rubrics
contained the task of the activity or lesson, the standard(s) addressed, criteria, and
rubric score. The researcher observed a bulletin board in a kindergarten class with
student work displayed and a grading rubric attached. The students had colored and
labeled the parts of an insect. Figure 20 shows the rubric attached to student work
in a kindergarten class.
Teachers regularly monitored and assessed student progress. Progress
reports were used to communicate student progress. A parent said,
We have progress reports that are sent home. My daughter is also tested
once a week for fluency. Every unit they take a test and the teacher sends
home the test scores and I have to sign it saying I looked at it. I get to see
where my daughter didn’t do so well and what to focus in on.
These progress reports provided a way to communicate and keep parents informed
of their child’s progress in school. The principal communicated student progress
with parents, also. She met with parents to review individual student work and test
scores to demonstrate where the child was in relation to grade-level standards and
to explain what the student needed to accomplish in order to reach standard.
The researcher observed even kindergarten students using data. The
kindergarten class had a bulletin board labeled High Frequency Words. The
standard read: “Read simple one syllable words and high frequency words. R.1.15.”
Below the standard were pictures of individual thermometers with students’ names.
Each thermometer was colored red to represent the number of high-frequency
words the student had read. The readings on the thermometers varied greatly; some

103

Task: Students are to color and label the parts of the insect (head, antenna, eye,
thorax, leg, and abdomen).

Standards: LS2c Students know how to identify major structures of common plants
and animals.

Criteria:
- I will label the parts of the insect
- I will color the insect

Score Rubric
4

-I labeled all the parts of the insect correctly, with the correct spelling.
-I colored the insect.
3 -I labeled most of the parts of the insect correctly.
-I colored the insect.
2 -I labeled some of the parts of the insect correctly.
-I tried to color the insect.
1 -I could not label the parts of the insect correctly.
-I could not color the insect.

Figure 20. Kindergarten rubric.

students were as low as 10 words and some had reached 100 words. The researcher
observed a student during IWT comparing the data on the thermometers and stating
to another student, “I am almost there [reading 100 words]. I already have 70 and I
just need this much more [pointing to the distance between 70 and 100].”

104
Monitoring of Teachers
Instruction was monitored formally and informally by school administra-
tion and instructional coaches. The principal regularly observed teacher instruction.
She was visible in classrooms daily. A parent commented during the interview,
“Ms. X is on it! She knows what [each teacher] is doing. She knows everything that
is going on.” The principal was aware of everything going on in the school because
she was constantly in and out of the classrooms. She met with teachers individually
to review data. She randomly selected students and requested student work samples
from their teachers. The work samples included inquiry journals, homework,
mathematics, or ELA, or writing samples. Teachers were expected to be prepared
because they never knew when they would be asked, and the principal always
expected to see student growth. The principal stated, “I monitor everything.” This
was a strategy used to monitor teacher instruction and student growth.
Instruction was formally monitored through the Stull evaluation process by
the principal and assistant principals. The process evaluated teacher knowledge and
skills in the classroom. The Stull evaluation was correlated with the six California
Standards for Teaching. The four Stull performance indicators were support for
student learning, planning and designing instruction, classroom performance, and
developing as a professional educator. During interviews, school administrators
used the following words to describe their role: “monitor instruction,” “provide
support,” and “facilitate.” The Assistant Principal said,
As an instructional leader, I go in and watch a lesson and offer feedback
specific to the instruction that was taking place and stated goals. I also try to
facilitate the teachers’ reflective process . . . what their thoughts were about
the lesson. Ninety-five percent of the time teachers say, “I could have done
this” or “This should have happened.” I have them reflect and think about
the lesson before we meet about it. I try to give constructive feedback that is
focused on the instruction that took place.

105
The Special Education Administrator shared how the Stull process supports
commitment and expectations to high student achievement.
When I observe the teachers, the teachers must give their lesson plans 3
days in advance. We meet for a preconference to discuss what I’m going
to be looking at. Then after the observation teachers have to type up a
reflection about their learning. The standards are there . . . the rigor is there.
. . . Then we have a post conference and we talk about the rigor and the
expectations for the students. So, I just think we maintain a climate of rigor
by holding the teachers accountable: going back and talking with the
teachers, visiting the classrooms, monitoring them, and making sure they
are implementing the vision.
Literacy and mathematics coaches were also observed monitoring instruction. They
provided teacher feedback on instruction, classroom management, and student test
scores.
The use of data was credited for the increase in student achievement.
When asked what had been done to improve student performance, the principal
responded,
Talking about the data and determining which children we need to focus on.
And really looking at where we are having difficulty helped to improve
student performance.
The researcher observed the use of data to be strong and prevalent. The
school compiled and analyzed data for information in school documents, to set
benchmarks, and to make decisions focused on instruction and student
achievement.
Professional Development
Professional development was used to support, inform, and guide instruc-
tion. Professional development integrated five elements to support classroom
instruction: training, modeling, coaching, conversations, and student work. The
school leadership team used classroom and student data to plan weekly teacher

106
training activities. The principal remarked, “Everything is related to instruction.
From the data we determine the PD [professional development].” For example,
CST data showed that students were having problems with reading comprehension,
which resulted in professional development focused on teaching strategies to
increase reading comprehension.
Modeling and coaching were provided by the Title I Coordinator and the
literacy and mathematics coaches. The principal expected them to be in classrooms
daily to support instruction. The researcher observed coaches and the Title I
Coordinator providing demonstration lessons for teachers, precoaching lessons, and
feedback to teachers regarding instruction, classroom management techniques,
data, and student portfolios. Teachers viewed the coaches as “supportive” and as a
“teaching resource.” One teacher stated, “We have knowledgeable coaches . . .
experts to help us.”
Professional development time was used for teachers to collaborate and
engage in meaningful discussions around grade-level planning, standards-based
instruction, and reviewing student work. Second-grade teachers were observed
evaluating student writing samples using a grading rubric during grade-level
collaboration.
Professional development resulted in collegiality and professionalism
among the staff. It was strategically planned using data, standards, and research-
based strategies focused on improving instruction and student outcomes.
Effective Instruction
Effective instruction has the greatest impact on student achievement
(Marzano, 2003). Marzano identified instructional strategies as a teacher-level

107
factor affecting student learning. Teachers in the classrooms observed used the
standards-based instruction model along with a variety of instructional strategies.
Standards-based instruction. Standards-based instruction was implemented
using the direct instruction model. Teachers planned tasks and assignments to
demonstrate student achievement, assessments to evaluate student performance,
and instructional activities to support the knowledge and skills learned. The Title I
Coordinator explained,
We look at the direct instruction model regardless of the curriculum . . .
phases of instruction . . . state your objective . . . what standards you are
addressing. It is not textbook-driven but standards driven. I think that is
why we are experiencing success. We look at the textbook and how it is
going to meet the standards instead of the other way around.
Lessons were well planned with clearly defined learning standards and
culminating teaching tasks/assignments. The researcher observed a standards-based
lesson in ELA in a fifth-grade classroom. The students compared and analyzed
alternative perspectives on inventions, using the book Ben and Me. For the culmin-
ating task the students wrote an editorial on who was really responsible for the
inventions that were credited to Benjamin Franklin. During the discussion students
were engaged and actively participating. Students were motivated and excited to
share their thoughts and answers to questions posed by the teacher and their peers.
The teacher was observed using vocabulary from Bloom’s Taxonomy (also posted
on classroom wall) to elicit a deep level of discussion.
Instructional time. Researchers have reported that high-achieving, high-
poverty schools allocated substantial blocks of time for literacy and learning
(Allington & Cunningham, 2007). SFA implemented a school-wide schedule that
had large blocks of time for reading, writing, mathematics, and ELD instruction.

108
These blocks of time were uninterrupted; telephone calls were handled by office
staff during instructional time. Posted classroom schedules reflected these blocks of
time for instruction. A majority of students were engaged in class discussions and
on task with work assignments. A verbal reminder from the teacher helped to direct
a few students back to their work. Major behavioral or classroom management
issues were not observed during the course of the study. Students were active and
willing participants in the learning process.
Differentiation. Tomlinson (1999) stated that there is no contradiction
between standards-based instruction and differentiation; according to Tomlinson,
standards tell what to teach and differentiation tells how to teach it. Differentiation
takes the learning standard and plans for diverse needs of students. One interview
question asked, “In what ways do you differentiate instruction in order to meet the
need of all students?” One teacher responded, “scaffolding lessons to help student
who are not performing, graphic organizers.” Another teacher said, “Through
different learning modalities, teachers incorporate and scaffold their lessons, and
also through culturally relevant and responsive education.”
Teachers practiced differentiated instruction during IWT. This time gave
teachers the opportunity to modify instruction for students who did not understand
the direct instruction in whole group instruction. Teachers worked with small
groups of students to re-teach or pre-teach a skill or concept. Posted on classroom
walls or written on white boards was IWT. Under the titles of “Must Do” and “May
Do,” activities and tasks were listed for students to complete (appendix M). The
“Must Do” list included academic tasks the students were required to complete.
The ‘May Do” list provided students the choice of a task or activity, but only after

109
all the “Must Dos” had been completed. Tasks and activities were driven by student
needs. Differences such as learning style, skill level, language proficiency, inter-
ests, background experiences and knowledge, motivation, and social, emotional,
and physical development were considered.
Culturally responsive teaching. A growing body of literature reports that
instructional approaches suitable for one group of students are not necessarily best
for another group of students (Delpit, 2006). In an effort to improve achievement
by students of color, the school district provided schools a resource manual on
culturally relevant strategies. SFA used the manual as a reference tool to support
culturally responsive teaching in the classroom and to deepen professional develop-
ment for teachers.
Research has identified students of color, specifically African American
students, as field-dependent learners (Kuykendall, 2004). Field-dependent students
learn best in student-centered environments with culturally responsive and relevant
teaching connected with small-group activities. In response to how teachers differ-
entiate instruction to meet the need of diverse learners, the Assistant Principal said,
Teachers incorporate learning modalities and scaffold their lessons also,
through culturally relevant and responsive education . . . being aware that
there are certain ways that African American students learn, certain ways
that Hispanic students learn.
Teachers were observed using Structured Design in Academic English
(SADIE) strategies to enhance students’ potential. Appendix L lists the strategies
observed. African English Mastery Program (AEMP) was used to support needs of
African American students. Not all teachers spoke about this program during inter-
views nor was it observed in all classrooms. (Further discussion of these strategies
can be found in the section reporting findings related to research question 4.)

110
Implementation of culturally relevant and responsive teaching was not
found at the same level in all classrooms. Administrators acknowledged that
current professional development was focused on deepening the knowledge with
teachers regarding culture and teaching.
Summary of Findings for Research
Question 3
Leadership has developed a strong culture focused on instruction at SFA.
The principal, assistant principals, Title I Coordinator, and coaches all serve as
instructional leaders committed to effective instruction and student achievement.
Use of assessment data, focused professional development with teacher collabora-
tion, and a standards-based program that supports student culture demonstrated the
cyclical process that SFA had implemented to produce effective classroom instruc-
tion for students of color. Similar to culturally responsive teaching, Vygotsky’s
process of “internalization” provides a model to support embedding culturally rele-
vant and responsive teaching practices through use of external cultural symbols and
activities to facilitate the movement of new knowledge into personal meaning for
students of color. A major theme of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework was that
social interaction plays a fundamental role in students’ cognitive development.
Student learning is embedded within social experiences and occurs as students
interact with people, objects, and events in the school environment. The elements
implemented in the structures and systems at SFA are exemplified in the theoretical
framework outlined by Vygotsky’s (1979) sociocultural theory of learning,
represented in Figure 21.
Vygotsky’s theory posits that teaching is fundamentally cultural and that
teachers are agents of culture who set high expectations for students in supportive

111

Mediation Influence of sociocultural milieu (tools, signs) on how
thinking works
Zones of Proximal
Development
Distance between independent performance and assisted
performance
Internalization Movement of knowledge and skill from social to personal
plane
Cognitive
Apprenticeship
Interactive relationship between learner and a community of
practice
Assisted Learning Techniques include:

Modeling
Coaching
Scaffolding
Questioning
Directly Instructing
Task Structuring
Management and Feedback
Pushing student to explore, reflect articulate
Scaffolded Learning Various forms of assistance provided the learner by an expert
mentor or peer, including:

Hinting
Elaborating
Guiding
Questioning
Prompting
Probing
Simplifying
Intersubjectivity A temporary shared collective reality among learning
participants
Activity Setting as Unit
of Analysis
Basis for research is in the social activity of learning, and in
specific circumstances of people working toward goals
Distributed Intelligence
in a Learning
Community
Mind is distributed in society; knowledge negotiated within a
community of practice; education should guide individuals
toward membership in a learning community

Figure 21. Sociocultural theory of learning. Source: “Searching for Learner-
Centered, Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educa-
tional Learning Tools,” by C. Bonk & D. Cunningham, 1998, in C. Bonk & K.
King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 25-50.

112
learning environments, guided by the teacher’s cultural knowledge. This theoretical
framework indicates that schools are social organizations that support learning in
an ongoing and spontaneous process that cannot be prescribed for all children.
Teaching requires consideration of the capabilities and potentials of children and
adapting curricular content to meet the needs and interest of students of color.
Research Question 4:Construct of Race
Research question 4 asked, How is the construct of race reflected in the
school’s structure and systems? The question focused on race as a social construct
and how it influences the structures and systems within schools. The theoretical
framework used the theories of social capital, sociocultural learning, and critical
race theory to present the findings.
Historical and Societal Influence
The construct of race is deeply embedded and has contributed to low
achievement by students of color (Ford, 2005; Hilliard, 2003; Kuykendall, 2004;
Tatum, 2007). During the colonial era race was used to justify the exploitation of
people (Ford). It is important to acknowledge the social and historical context of
race in America and education: (a) the Constitution of the United States defined
Africans as three-fifths of a person (Tatum, 2007); (b) Africans were denied the
rights of citizenship; (c) it was illegal to educate Africans; (d) African Americans
were guaranteed the right to vote in the Voting Rights Act of 1965; (e) public
schools were desegregated in 1954 via Brown v. Board of Education; and (f)
affirmative action guidelines were repealed. History has shown that race has influ-
enced who had access to education in America. Tatum stated that “American
schools were never designed to educate everyone” (2007, p. 40).

113
The sociocultural theory posits that schools operate to facilitate learning in
only some children, while at the same time sorting children into categories that
articulate their education and employment opportunities. This type of operation
continues the structure of social privilege by race, social class, and gender. Ford
(2005) commented, “Social categories like race do exist; they have an impact on
people’s lives, and must be dealt with” (p. 1.
This is a reality across America and research shows that unexamined racial
attitudes negatively impact student performance (Tatum, 2007). Negative racial
attitudes come in the form of deficit thinking and low expectations. One parent
stated during an interview, “In this area we are not ‘expected’ to achieve anything.”
Jonathan Kozol (1991), in Savage Inequalities, stated, “No one expects ghetto kids
to go to college,” which further illustrates the influence of society.
Tatum, in, Can We Talk About Race? said,
In order for system-wide change to place, there must be leadership at the
highest levels to support the examination of continuing educational inequi-
ties, especially when there is community resistance in doing so. (2007,
p. 79)
The case study of SFA clearly illustrated the powerful and courageous
leadership in which the principal engaged to lead system-wide change in efforts to
raise student achievement by African American and Hispanic students. The princi-
pal was personally aware of barriers that race perpetuates in systems and practices
within schools. She was committed to eliminating bias, deficit thinking, and inequi-
ties for students at SFA. During an interview a staff member reflected on what she
perceived to improve student performance: “Professional development . . . goes
back to the principal’s commitment and expectation to high student achievement.”
The principal was committed to eliminate discriminatory practices and beliefs at

114
the school. She creatively connected school-wide structures and systems to a belief
system and commitment guided by three themes: high expectations, building posi-
tive relationships, and focus on student achievement. These were the driving forces
behind successful implementation of the systems.
Culturally Responsive Teaching
Teachers were trained to focus on individual student needs, learning styles,
and prior experiences and knowledge by infusing culture into teaching. In
Vygotsky’s view there are two lines of development: the natural line of develop-
ment and the cultural line of development. In order for learning to occur, the two
lines of development must fuse, as illustrated in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Process of cognitive development.

A culturally relevant and responsive education takes curriculum content and
infuses culture to meet the needs and interests of students, thereby driving cognitive
development. The sociocultural learning theory supports a culturally relevant and
responsive education (CRRE), defined as
adjusting how we teach to the needs and experiences of students by using
their cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and

115
performance styles to make learning encounters more relevant and effective
for them. (Gay, 2000, p. 3
Interviews, observations, and document review at SFA provided evidence
of teachers focused on providing all students, regardless of race or ethnicity, access
to rigorous standards-based instruction that was culturally relevant and responsive.
SFA used disaggregated data to maximize student learning by adjusting
instruction to the needs and experiences of African American and Hispanic
students. One teacher expressed,
We use student performance data not to focus on what a student can’t do or
hasn’t achieved. We use the data to improve our instruction and set goals.
We use the information to build on their cognitive and linguistic strengths.
We are not focused on where they come from; however, we are aware of
their cultural backgrounds and we use this cultural knowledge to make
learning more relevant, meaningful, and effective for them.
According to Gay (2000), culturally responsive teaching is a way of bridg-
ing home and school to facilitate learning and teaching. SFA created a culturally
responsive environment made evident by (a) clear, high expectations for every
stakeholder—student, parent, teacher, administrators, staff, and community; (b) a
positive school climate/culture; (c) culturally relevant and responsive instruction as
a part of the professional development plan; (d) student data collected and analyzed
to identify students scoring below and far below proficiency in reading, language
arts, and mathematics; (e) school-wide and grade-level meetings for the purpose of
analyzing data; (f) individual student achievement plans developed by teachers and
administrators; and (g) a principal who engaged staff in collaborative learning and
discussions around race and culture.
Research shows that student achievement occurs when a school’s structures
and systems support the needs of students of color (Johnson, 2002; Kuykendall,
2004). Race and culture were embedded and implemented effectively within the

116
structures and systems at SFA. Culturally relevant teaching was not only a teaching
practice, it was an attitude and belief about children that impacted and influenced
the roles of teachers and students.
Summary of Findings for Research
Question 4
SFA has been successful due to its structures and systems grounded in high
expectations, positive relationships, and academic rigor. Teachers used African
American and Hispanic students’ rich cultural experiences as resources for teaching
and learning. Staff valued and recognized the strengths students brought to school.
Historically, students of color have been denied access to education due to the
negative construct of race; SFA used the construct of race and culture to produce
achievement and success by students of color. The historical context of critical race
theory has been changed to a modern context of culturally responsive teaching,
which is a system operating to empower students of color to achieve (Figure 23).
Evidence demonstrated how SFA worked to eliminate the construct of race
negatively impacting student achievement to a culture of learning with culturally
relevant and responsive strategies designed to promote success among students of
color. SFA built a bridge between culture and school facilitated through CRT, not
critical race theory but culturally responsive teaching. It is not just a teaching or
pedagogical method, but a powerful belief system and expectation about students
who are different whether it is race, language, gender, economic status, or
disability.

117

Figure 23. Influence of culturally response teaching on the academic performance
of students of color at the study school.

Analysis and Discussion
The findings in this case study were analyzed to capture patterns and
themes in the data. The researcher found common themes across the data collected
for each of the research questions. Figures 24 through 27 summarize the four
common themes, the school’s actions, and the evidence of those actions found in
the collected data for the case study.
If you can successfully cultivate a socially supportive, emotionally nurtur-
ing, and intellectually stimulating school climate and culture, you can
engage children in rigorous academic instruction and practical learning
outcomes that will transform a school community into a place of passion
and purpose. (Wynn, 2002, p. vii
Observations, interviews, and school artifacts provided clear evidence of
students, teachers, administrators, support staff, and parents working together to

118
Theme 1: Leadership

Actions
Created school-wide culture of high expectations and academic success
Motivated students and teachers
Organized leadership team to meet weekly to review instruction, monitor data, and
plan for professional development
Maintained data notebooks of each student’s assessment results. Data
demonstrating student’s strengths and weaknesses
Facilitated meaningful conversations and dialogue around academic objectives for
all students including special education students
Focused every single person in the school community on student learning

Evidence
Grade-level meetings and professional development have planned objectives and
outcomes
Leadership team observation: instructional leaders meeting to improve instruction
Single-school plan
Agendas: Professional Development and Parent Advisory Council
Bulletin boards and banners
Mission and vision statements
Symbols, visual representations, and celebrations
Focused and coherent professional development based on data analysis to
determine student needs

Figure 24. Theme 1 emerging from the case study.

increase student achievement. It can be hoped that the lessons learned in the case
study can help similar schools to work for all children as passionately as did the
teachers, staff, and administrators at SFA.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 4 began with background and history of the school community and
then presented the school case study through a narrative description of the effective

119
Theme 2: High Expectations

Actions
School-wide culture of high expectations and standards
“College-Bound” culture
Inclusion of special education in general education program
Created opportunities to recognize student success
Safe, clean, and orderly school environment
Built excitement for student achievement: attitude of celebration and positiveness
School-wide discipline plan

Evidence
Award and recognition assemblies to celebrate student achievement
School-based parent-student handbook
Positive student performance
Academic Performance Index scores
Increase in student achievement
Reduced student discipline referrals
School-wide conduct assemblies
Vision and mission statement

Figure 25. Theme 2 emerging from the case study.

school-wide practices that produced high student performance. The purpose was to
identify the organizational structures and systems that are implemented in high-
performing, high-poverty schools and the impact school leadership and
sociocultural learning on academic performance by students of color. The findings
were presented as they related to the research questions using a theoretical
framework in narrative explanation. An analysis and discussion followed the
findings. Ultimately, the research questions were addressed using analysis of data
from the case study.

120

Theme 3: Focus on Student Achievement

Actions
Standards-based instruction
School-wide focus on academic and life success
Instruction in core subjects scheduled in large blocks of instructional time
Instruction is differentiated and culturally responsive
Disaggregated data was used to adjust instruction
Made instruction personal and relevant by building background and providing
relevancy for student learners
Use of literacy and math coaches to provide support for teaching and learning
Target intervention to meet the needs of struggling students with the goal of
moving students from one performance level to the next
Students provided test preparation and test taking strategies to support student
achievement
Focused on building skills with providing students with leveled intervention
opportunities both within and outside the school day
Common school-wide English Language Development (ELD)

Evidence
Vision and mission statements
Instructional delivery not just lectures, student-led discussions
Standards-based lesson plans
Classroom schedules: instruction in math and literacy were scheduled first part of
the day on all grade levels school-wide

Figure 26. Theme 3 emerging from the case study.

121

Theme 4: Building Positive Relationships

Actions
Warm and welcoming school atmosphere
Collaboration among teachers, parents, staff, students, and community
Collaboration among teachers is instructionally focused
Collaboration between special education and general education programs
Grade-level planning with literacy and mathematics coaches
Paraprofessionals trained to deliver instructional support
Partnerships with parent and community organizations
Open learning environment for adults as well as students, including parents
Parent education classes/workshops offered
Teachers participated in grade-level and lesson studies
Parent/community school activities

Evidence
Meeting agendas
High parent participation rate
Ninety-five percent student daily attendance
Student-teacher positive interactions
Partnership with UCLA and Chaka Khan Foundation
High teacher and staff morale/buy-in
Parent and community participation at Back to School Night, Literacy Night, Open
House, Science Fair, Multi-Cultural Events, and School Assemblies
Vertical and horizontal grade-level collaboration

Figure 27. Theme 4 emerging from the case study.

122
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Public education has produced varying degrees of academic achievement by
students in America. African American and Hispanic students score substantively
below their White and Asian peer groups in academic achievement. In an effort to
improve student achievement, NCLB was enacted to mandate higher levels of
accountability through standards and testing. In spite of these efforts, African
American and Hispanic students continue to perform poorly in public schools.
Therefore, it was important to study a high-poverty school containing African
American and Hispanic students who were performing at high levels.
Chapter 5 contains four major sections that summarize and conclude the
study. The first section reviews the purpose of the study and the questions used to
guide the research. The second section focuses on the key findings, including areas
of notable achievement and areas of ongoing growth. The third section addresses
the implications for practice. The fourth section offers recommendations for future
research.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to identify school-wide systems and
structures and how effective implementation in a high-performing, high-poverty
school promoted high academic achievement by students of color. The study used a
sociocultural framework to examine the influence of culture on the structures and
systems that increased student performance by African American and Hispanic
students. The outcome was to provide high-poverty, low-performing schools with

123
high concentrations of students of color a framework to promote academic achieve-
ment by students who historically and typically underachieve, resulting in closing
the achievement gap between students of color and their White and Asian peers.
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of student performance among students
of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with high
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational structures and systems implemented to sup-
port school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and
systems?
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1: Trends and Patterns
of Student Performance
Research question 1 asked, What are the trends and patterns of student
performance among students of color? This research question focused on student
outcomes in academic achievement.
Research question 1 was developed to identify trends and patterns of
student performance. The data were disaggregated by race, socioeconomically
disadvantage, language, and disabilities. Students at SFA demonstrated positive
patterns and trends in student performance school-wide and among all student
groups. Common with testing and data, the school experienced a slight dip in test

124
scores in 2007. Because the school analyzed data and engaged in deep conversa-
tions, administrators and teachers were aware of the dips and gaps in achievement
and included goals in the single-school plan to improve achievement and close the
academic gap between African American and Hispanic students and their peers.
African American students were not progressing as well as Hispanic students;
African American scores lagged behind Hispanic scores both in Mathematics and
ELA.
Despite the dip and gap in achievement, SFA students made impressive
gains. The following are the key findings for research question 1:
1. 379-point growth in API from 1999 (359) to 2007 (738).
2. For past 2 years, SFA’s API score was higher than the district and state
score. In 2006 SFA surpassed the district (618) and the state (720) with an API
score of 733; in 2007 the performance continued with API score of 738 in
comparison to district (664) and state (727).
3. SFA outscored the district and state average scores 3 consecutive years
(2005, 2006, 2007) in Mathematics on the CST.
4. In 2007 students with disabilities were the only subgroup to experience
growth in ELA on the CST.
5. In 2007 13.27% of English Language Learners were reclassified, a 50%
increase from 2006.
6. SFA maintained a 95% actual daily attendance rate for 4 years. In spite of
the challenges and obstacles faced daily, students and families made attending
school a priority.
These statistical data provide a glimpse of the achievement accomplished
by students at SFA. The major accomplishment was displayed on the faces of every

125
student observed: self-confident students who were provided direction, hope, and
belief in what they could achieve. Numbers do not quantify all of the achievements
made by these students.
These key findings were significant because they demonstrate how a high-
poverty urban school can succeed in producing high student performance by
students of color despite race, culture, language, disability, or economic status.
Schools can overcome student backgrounds (Marzano, 2003). Most important,
student performance data provided evidence that African American and Hispanic
students and poor students could learn and achieve at high levels. The findings
clearly support the position that “all children are born achievers and all they need is
someone to help them become all they have the potential to become” (Collins &
Tamarkin, 1990, p. 32). Society’s low expectations for students of color and poor
students were not used to determine student achievement at SFA.
Research Question 2: Organizational
Structures and Systems
Research question two asked, What are the organizational structures and
systems that are perceived to contribute to student performance in high poverty
urban schools with high concentrations of students of color? This question con-
nected the theoretical framework of sociocultural learning to identify school-wide
structures and systems that were perceived to support high student performance by
students of color.
The organizational structures perceived to contribute to student performance
were standards, principal leadership, and assessment. The four school-wide systems
were school climate and culture, standards-based instruction, data-driven decision
making, and professional development. These school-level structures and systems

126
were implemented systemically and worked together to promote learning by
students of color.
Instructional leadership was practiced by the principal. The principal was
visible throughout the school and played a key role in teaching and learning. The
principal promoted a shared vision for learning in the school community, observed
and monitored instruction daily and provided feedback to teachers, collaborated
with parents and outside community, nurtured and sustained a positive school
culture, and used data as a tool to improve and support student learning. Everything
was focused on instruction and improving student performance.
A focus on instruction provided an opportunity for learning for students and
adults to build knowledge and skills. School-wide structures and systems supported
teaching and learning and, most important, provided a cycle of improvement and
accountability toward the measurable goal of how well students were learning and
teachers were teaching. Professional development provided teachers the oppor-
tunity to learn strategies and improve instructional practice. Ultimately, this reflect-
ive process improved student learning and performance outcomes.
Parent and community involvement were not identified by the researcher as
a system in the literature review; however, the researcher observed the positive
impact of parent and community involvement on student performance. Parents and
the community were actively involved in education at SFA (appendix N). The
school created opportunities for parents and families to volunteer in the school and
to be involved in decision making. Monthly parent advisory council meetings were
led by parents. The school designated a room for parents called the “Parent
Resource Room.” Parent classes and workshops were held in this room and parents
utilized the space to work on projects and activities for the school.

127
Community involvement facilitated student learning. Partnerships with
UCLA and the Chaka Khan Foundation provided resources toward the school’s
vision of postsecondary education for all students. Both partnerships were focused
on preparing students for college. This ongoing exposure reinforced the “college
bound” atmosphere at the school.
These findings are significant because they provide similar schools a frame-
work that clearly identifies specific structures and systems that can be implemented
to improve performance by students of color. Effective implementation requires
systems and structures to be aligned and operate together. Ultimately, effective
implementation of the framework gives all students access to a rigorous curriculum
and holds all stakeholders accountable. Successful schools have instructional
leaders, a school-wide focus on instruction with high expectations, and parent and
community involvement (Blankenstein, 2004).
Research Question 3: School-Wide Practices
Research question 3 asked, How are the organizational structures and
systems implemented to support school-wide effective classroom instruction that
promotes student learning? This question focused on implementation of instruc-
tional practices to support classroom instruction.
SFA implemented many instructional strategies to improve student
achievement. However, the following were most significant and provided all
students the opportunity to learn and achieve academically.
Instruction was standards-based and data-driven. Standards were aligned
with curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Teachers analyzed multiple sources
of data to plan objectives to meet the needs of students. Data were used in an

128
informative, not punitive, way to determine instruction. Standards-based instruction
was a systematic process model that produced clear expectations and academic
rigor for all students. Expectations were clearly communicated to teachers,
students, and parents. Rubrics and grading charts were used to evaluate student
work (appendix O). Student work was displayed with grading rubrics attached.
Culturally relevant teaching is supported by research as important for
students of color to receive instruction aligned not only to standards but to students’
cultural background. Culturally relevant teaching was a practice used by teachers at
SFA to build new knowledge by connecting a student’s prior knowledge and
experiences in order to create meaning and relevancy to the instruction. Instruction
and teaching were congruent to the learning styles of African American and
Hispanic students. The classroom environment was student centered and facilitated
student interest through cooperative group activities. Classroom instruction related
to their experiences, group projects, and positive interaction with the teacher helped
to engage and motivate students to want to learn.
Collaboration was a key feature at SFA. Working in isolation was not a
practice at SFA; rather, working as a team and talking with colleagues were valued
and practiced throughout the school. Teacher collaboration occurred vertically and
horizontally. Collaboration was observed during professional development activi-
ties and within classrooms. Grade-level meetings were organized to assess student
work and plan instruction. Literacy and mathematics coaches supported teachers
and student learning with modeling and performing demonstration lessons to
reinforce best practice. Collaboration built the capacity of teachers to provide
effective instruction and support student learning school-wide.

129
Effective classroom instruction was critical to student achievement. The
findings identified instructional practices that contributed to positive student per-
formance by students of color and students living in poverty. Collaboration enabled
teachers to analyze student data and plan instruction to meet the needs of students.
Standards-based instruction connected to culturally responsive teaching was signi-
ficant because it allowed all students to be held to high standards while at the same
time valuing and creating cultural meaning to instruction for students.
Research Question 4: Construct of Race
Research question 4 asked, How is the construct of race reflected in the
school’s structures and systems? This question focused on the construct of race and
its influence on school structures and systems.
Race can be found deeply embedded in school structures and systems while
perpetuating a system of advantage for certain racial groups. “Culture blindness”
has prevented schools from focusing on issues that matter with students of color.
SFA has not allowed “culture blindness” to permeate their structures and systems;
teachers incorporate culturally responsive pedagogy into classroom instruction.
Instruction is adjusted to meet the needs and experiences of students by using their
cultural knowledge, experiences, and learning styles to make learning more
relevant and meaningful.
The results of this study support Vygotsky’s (1979) theory that a students’
development cannot be understood by just studying the individual student but must
include an examination of the external social world in which the student developed.
Other scholars, such as Gay (2000), have affirmed that culture, teaching, and learn-
ing are interconnected and impact student achievement.

130
High expectations permeated the school environment at SFA. Students were
held accountable to high learning standards and behavior expectations. Students
were expected to come to school to learn and teachers were expected to come to
teach. Staff acted on the core belief that all students can achieve.
High expectations and culturally responsive pedagogy were key findings
that were critical for students of color. The findings are significant because both are
elements that must permeate school-wide structures and systems to promote high
student performance by African American and Hispanic students. High expecta-
tions and culturally responsive pedagogy make the difference between low-
performing and high-performing schools containing high concentrations of students
of color. Understanding the cultural context of education with African American
and Hispanic students can help to eliminate the gap in student achievement.
Areas of Notable Success
The study of SFA and its implementation of school-wide structures and
systems to promote high academic achievement among African American and
Hispanic students uncovered many areas of notable success. The most significant
are identified in this section.
1. Positive school climate and culture. The school created a safe, orderly,
and positive learning environment for students. Staff did not use demographics or
family background as an excuse for low student achievement. Staff used symbols,
cultural beliefs, celebrations, and high expectations and standards to personalize
and create meaning and hope for students to learn and achieve academically.
2. Professional learning community. Research states that a good school is a
place where everyone is teaching and everyone is learning simultaneously under

131
the same roof. SFA provided learning opportunities not only for the students but for
staff, teachers, parents, and the school community. The school truly was a learning
community for students and adults.
3. Inclusion of special education students. Special education students were
fully integrated into general education classrooms. They were held to the same
standards as the general education students. The researcher observed special educa-
tion students being recognized and praised for their academic achievement. One
special education classroom was available for students classified as severely dis-
abled; however, they were still involved and participated in school activities.
4. Accountability. Teachers and parents, as well as students, were held
accountable for student achievement. Teachers were monitored and evaluated
through informal and formal observations, student work, and assessment scores.
Back-to-School Night, conferences, progress reports, and special events such as
“Literacy Night” were activities used to explain learning expectations and report
student progress to parents. Parents were given information and provided classes
and workshops on how to support student learning at home. Students were
responsible for setting and monitoring individual learning goals with their teachers.
Areas of Ongoing Growth
As with any school study, there are always areas of growth. The researcher
supported the school’s goal of improving African American student achievement
and continued professional development focused on culturally responsive teaching.
The single-school plan and professional development plan strategically addressed
these two areas of growth. The school was aware and in a continuous process of
planning strategies to improve student achievement and instruction.

132
Implications for Practice
Effective implementation of school-wide structures and systems is essential
to improving student performance in high-poverty schools with high concentrations
of students of color. The structures and systems at SFA operated in a sociocultural
context and worked together simultaneously. In order to maximize achievement,
organizational structures and systems cannot be implemented in isolation. All
systems work together in a well-orchestrated, integrated way to raise student
achievement. In addition to the identified structures and systems, the following
should be put into practice to ensure successful outcomes by all students, but
especially students of color.
1. Cognitive development occurs when a students’ natural line of develop-
ment and their cultural line of development are connected as one. Academic con-
tent must be infused with cultural knowledge for learning to occur in culturally
diverse students. Educators must understand the context of culture in teaching and
learning. Focus should be placed on the training and education of teachers,
administrators, and all support staff who work directly or indirectly with students of
color. Curricula and learning environment must be designed to value and meet the
needs of culturally diverse students.
2. High expectations and the belief that all students can learn are critical for
academic achievement by students of color and poor students. It is important that
teachers respect, value, and use positive strengths of culture to teach culturally
diverse students. Schools should attract and train prospective teachers who are
committed to teaching students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds,
regardless of ethnic background.

133
3. Culturally responsive and relevant teaching is critical to positive student
performance by students of color. Teacher development, both preservice and
inservice, must incorporate culturally responsive literature to support the cultural
backgrounds of African American and Hispanic students.
4. Critical to the success of the school, academic tracking, ability grouping,
incongruent teaching and learning styles, and negative labeling were not practiced
at SFA. The school had begun to connect culture to instructional strategies and
practices school-wide which, resulted in raised student achievement. District and
schools must analyze educational policies and practices and eliminate those that
have a negative impact on students of color.
Recommendations for Further Research
A significant number of public schools are low performing and not produc-
ing high academic achievement by poor students and African American and
Hispanic students. In an effort to have high-performing public schools and raise
student achievement for all students, future research avenues are recommended.
1. Principals have the power to transform low-performing schools and make
significant improvement in student achievement. Future research should be con-
ducted to understand the role of the principal and how the principal’s actions
improve school performance. Specifically, how do principals effectively implement
the school structures and align them with systems at the school level?
2. SFA had a preschool program for 3- and 4-year-old children on the
school campus. Research reports that poor children and children of color who
received high-quality preschool programs were better prepared than their peers
who did not attend a preschool program. Research should be conducted on the

134
relationship and impact of early education programs on student achievement among
poor students and students of color.
3. Public schools have an achievement gap between students of color and
their White and Asian peers. Often, students of color and poor students fail to
achieve at basic levels in mathematics and reading. Future research should study
the alignment between culturally relevant pedagogy and culture to increase student
achievement. This research could eliminate the academic achievement gap between
students of color, specifically African American students, and their peers.
Conclusion
Many variables impact student learning, yet the sociocultural influences that
confronted students at SFA were complex and often life threatening. Just getting to
school safely was a challenge. In the small urban community there were sounds of
gunfire, police sirens, and helicopters. Men and women of color were observed
drinking, smoking drugs, and “hanging out” in front of liquor stores in the school
neighborhood. This inner-city community had high rates of poverty, crime, home-
lessness, and unemployment. During this study, 16 people were killed in a 4-day
period in drive-by shootings within blocks of the school. Just to survive was a
major accomplishment for students and their families.
In the face of uncertainty, SFA stood as a beacon of hope; students were
motivated and empowered to persevere despite many serious issues. Effective
implementation of school structures and systems, along with resiliency, determina-
tion, and hard work, supported students in their learning. The researcher hopes that
the lessons learned will provide direction for similar schools and anchor hope for
other students to beat the odds.

135
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. (2007). Schools that work: Where all children
read and write. Boston: Pearson Education.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 71, 171-217.
Bireda, M. (2002). Cultures in conflict: Eliminating racial profiling in school dis-
cipline. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Blankenstein, A. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful
principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonk, C., & Cunningham, D. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist,
and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In
C. Bonk & K. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp. 25-50). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Boudett, K., City, E., & Murname, R. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to
using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Boston: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.
Bourdieu, D. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London, UK:
Sage.
Bray, B. (2003). Data can drive development. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from
http://techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=13100789
Brown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
California Department of Education. (1992). Public Schools Accountability Act of
1999. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education (2006). California Standards Test (CST). Re-
trieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov
Carter, S. C. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
schools. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

136
Children’s Defense Fund. (2004). The state of America’s children. Washington,
DC: Author.
Children’s Defense Fund. (2007). CDF’s mission. Retrieved December 29, 2007,
from http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=
About_CDF
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Social capital and the development of youth. Momentum,
18(4), 1.
Collins, M., & Tamarkin, C. (1990). Marva Collins way: Returning to excellence in
education. New York: Penguin Putnam.
Conchas, G. (2006). The color success: Race and achieving urban youth. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Creasy, J., & Paterson, F. (2005). Leading coaching in schools. Nottingham, UK:
National College for School Leadership.
Creswell, J. (1998). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school
improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlsetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California, Center on Educational Governance.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York: New Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37(1), 15-23.
EdSource. (2003). Schools that are beating the odds. Retrieved December 16,
2006, from http://www.edsource.org/sch_acc_bto.cfm
EdSource. (2007). EdSource online glossary. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from
http://www.edsource.org/glo.cfm

137
Education Trust. (2003a). African-American achievement in America. Retrieved
November 14, 2005, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/
9AB4AC88-7301-43FF-81A3-EB94807B917F/0/AfAmer_Achivement.pdf
Education Trust. (2003b). Latino achievement in California. Retrieved November
14, 2005, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/7DC36C7E-EBBE-
43BB-8392-CDC618E1F762/0/LatAchievEnglish.pdf
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Ford, R. (2005). Racial culture: A critique. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Futernick, K. (2002). Why teacher quality and a teaching credential matter. Re-
trieved September 23, 2007, from http://www.edfordemocracy.org/tqi/
TQI_Quality_Matters.htm
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction.
Boston: Pearson Education.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New
York: Columbus University Teachers College Press.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2001). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach (3
rd
ed.) Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Hale, J. (2001). Learning while Black: Creating educational excellence for African
American children. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hale-Benson, J. (1982). Black children: Their roots, culture and learning styles.
Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional devel-
opment: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.)
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.
151-180). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters a lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 4-13.
Hernstein, R., & Murray, C. (1996). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure
in American life. New York: The Education Trust.
Hilliard, A. (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap between Africans
and excellence. Boston: Beacon Press.
Johnson, R. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

138
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1997). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York:
Crown.
Kunjufu, J. (1989). Critical issues in educating African American youth. Chicago:
African American Images.
Kuykendall, C. (2004). From rage to hope: Strategies for reclaiming Black and
Hispanic students. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African
American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2007). Instructional support services: A
strategies, reference and resource manual for eliminating the achievement
gap—Implementing culturally relevant and responsive instruction. Los
Angeles: Author.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2008). LAUSD school profile page. Re-
trieved March 12, 2008, from http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/
fccgi.exe?w3exec=school.profile.content&which=5548
Lyman, L. L., & Villani, C. J. (2004). Best leadership practices for high-poverty
schools. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Al-
exandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McBrien, J. L., & Brandt, R. (1997). The language of learning: A guide to educa-
tion terms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum.
McTighe, J., & Ferrara, S. (1998). Assessing learning in the classroom. Washing-
ton, DC: National Education Association.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Monroe, L. (1997). Nothing’s impossible: Leadership lessons from inside and out-
side the classroom. New York: Public Affairs.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2007). Educational
achievement and Black-White inequality. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Retrieved Janu-
ary 23, 2008, from http://www.ncesed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section4/
tableXLS.asp?tableID=723-32
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001a). The condition of education 2001.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

139
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001b). Educational achievement and
Black-White inequality. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1993). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Public Law PL 107-110. Retrieved
June 15, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea2002/
index.html
Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise
of public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A. (2003). Young gifted and Black: Promoting
high achievement among African American students. Boston: Beacon Press.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from Amer-
ica’s best-run companies. New York: HarperCollins.
Picus, L. (2004). School finance adequacy: Implications for school principals.
NASSP Bulletin, 88(640), 2-3.
Plessy v. Ferguson. 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Reeves, D. (2000). The 90/90/90 schools: A case study of accountability in action,
a blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning
Centers.
Robbins, S. P., & Langton, N. (2001). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher ex-
pectations and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Salamon, L. M. (1991). Overview: Why human capital? Why now? In D. W. Horn-
beck &L. M. Salamon (Eds.), Human capital and America’s Future (pp. 1-
28). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Scheurich, J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence: Creating
high achievement classrooms, schools, and districts. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

140
Sivanandan, A. (1999, February 24). What is institutional racism? Guardian News-
papers Limited, p.1.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Education
Review, 67, 1-40.
Steele, C. ((2003). Stereotype threat and African-American student achievement.
Boston: Beacon Press
Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. Boston: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?
And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.
Tatum, B. D. (2007). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in an era of
school resegregation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in
learning. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1998). A nation still at risk: An education mani-
festo. Washington, DC: Author.
Thompson, G. (2004). Through ebony eyes: What teachers need to know but are
afraid to ask about African American students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tomlins, C. A. (1999). The differential classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004).
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Retrieved December
30, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
U.S. Department of Justice. (1990). Summary of findings of prison statistics. Re-
trieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons
.html
Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Mind and society: The development of higher mental
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wikipedia. (2008). Watts, Los Angeles, California. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Los_Angeles, California
Wynn, M. (2002). Increasing student achievement. Marietta, GA: Rising Sun.
Wynn, M. (2005). Empowering African-American males: Teaching, parenting, and
mentoring successful Black males. Marietta, GA: Rising Sun.

141
APPENDIX A

ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________________

Name of Person Interviewed: ___________________________________________

Position: ___________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: _________ Time Ended: _______________ Total Time: _________

Introduction:

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the Univer-
sity of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying systems
and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of color.
Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge
and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire
educators to improve student performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

142
Interview Questions

1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe con-
tribute to your students’ high student performance.
a. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these prac-
tices and policies? If so, how did the school overcome them or maintain
them?
b. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last 3-
5 years to improve student performance?

2. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all stu-
dents and respects cultural diversity?

3. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers/students/parents?
a. How do you monitor student progress?
b. What assessment tools do you use?

4. How are the needs of students of color addressed in the School-wide Plan?

5. How would you describe effective teaching at your site?
a. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet
the needs of all students?
b. What is your role in helping teachers provide effective instruction?

6. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores that
demonstrate high student performance?
b. What is your role as a school leader in guiding the use of data to
improve the school climate and classroom instruction?

7. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how it impacts students of
color?
a. Does your discipline policy help students adopt behavior that
contributes to their learning?
b. Please give an example.

143
APPENDIX B

TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ______________________________ Date: __________________

Name of Person Interviewed: ___________________________________________

Position: ___________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: _____________ Total Time: _________

Introduction:

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the Univer-
sity of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying systems
and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of color.
Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge
and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire
educators to improve student performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

144
Interview Questions
1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe con-
tribute to your high student performance.
a. (Probe) Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining
these (practices and policies)? If so, how did the school overcome
them or maintain them?
b. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the
last 3-5 years to improve student performance
2. What role do teacher play in maintaining a climate in the school that en-
gages all students and respects cultural diversity?

3. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers.
a. For students?
b. Parents
i. How do you monitor student progress?
ii. What assessment tools do you use?

4. How familiar are you with the School Plan?
a. How are the needs of students of color addressed in the School-
Wide Plan?
b. How have you modified your instructional practices to reflect the
school-wide plan for students of color?

5. How would you describe effective teaching at your site?
a. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet
the needs of all students including students of color?

6. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores that
demonstrate high student performance?

7. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how it impacts students?

145
APPENDIX C

CLASSIFIED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ____________________________ Date: ____________________

Name of Person Interviewed: ___________________________________________

Position: ___________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: _____________ Total Time: _________

Introduction:

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the Univer-
sity of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying systems
and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of color.
Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge
and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire
educators to improve student performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

146
Interview Questions
1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe con-
tribute to the high student performance.
a. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these and
practices and policies? If so, how did the school overcome them or
maintain them?
b. Which are the three most effective things the school as one done
over the last 3-5 years to improve student performance?

2. How would you describe the school climate here?
a. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students and re-
spect cultural diversity.
b. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school climate?

3. What are the expectations for meeting academic achievement goals here?
a. Do you know how the students here are doing academically?
b. What indicators let you know how they are doing?

4. How are the needs of students of color being met at your school?
a. What is in place to support these students?
b. What is in place to support the staff?

5. How would you describe an effective teacher at your site?

6. How do you know when a teacher is doing a good job?

7. How do you see teachers and administrators using data?
a. Do you know when testing will occur?
b. How do the students react to testing?
c. How do teachers react?
d. Is it known throughout the school what is done with the data?
e. How is it made known?

8. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how it impact students?
a. What happens when a student breaks a rule or makes a bad choice?
b. Does the discipline policy help students engage in behavior that con-
tributes to their academic success?

147
APPENDIX D

PARENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ____________________________ Date: ____________________

Name of Person Interviewed: ___________________________________________

Position: ___________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: _____________ Total Time: _________

Introduction:

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the Univer-
sity of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying systems
and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of color.
Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge
and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire
educators to improve student performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

148
Interview Questions

1. What is the school doing to help all students succeed?

2. How would you describe the atmosphere at the school?

3. How do you know what you child needs to learn?
a. How does the school communicate that?

4. How does the school address the needs of African American and Hispanic
students?

5. How do you describe a good or effective teacher?

6. What are some of the ways the school lets you know how your child is
doing?

7. Describe the school’s discipline policy.
a. How does it support the learning of all students?
b. Do you consider the discipline policies fair for all children?
c. Can you give an example of it fairness?

149
APPENDIX E

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Date: ________________ Grade Level: _______ Teacher Code Letter: _________
Number of Students: ____________
African American: ________ Hispanic: __________
White American: _________ Other: ____________

Classroom Observation Guide
Research Question # 1, 2, 3, and 4: Are there a range or variety of instructional
practices /strategies used? Are they appropriate for the content and students?
Examples of instructional practices/strategies?
• Cooperative grouping
• Use of time
• Differentiated instruction
• Feedback to students
• Culturally relevant and responsive

Research Question #2: What visuals, symbols and other items are posted in the
classroom?
Examples of items:
• School wide discipline policy
• Images of people of color
• Classroom library
• School vision

Research Question # 2: Physical Class Environment
Example of things to observe:
• Seating arrangement
• Teacher student interaction student
o Discipline
• Student work posted
o Feedback/rubric
o Standard based
• Student Engagement

150
APPENDIX F

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Physical Setting: To allow readers to visualize the setting, the researcher will
record the following observations during each visit:
School grounds
• Wall postings
• Samples of students’ work
• School calendar for academic year
• Visual of school goals / mission / vision
• Symbolic representations (drug free zone, anti-violence, college
paraphernalia, culturally relevant items)
• Cleanliness (trashy, odor, graffiti, insects)
Classroom specific
• Wall postings
• Samples of students’ work
• Classroom calendar
• Classroom schedule
• Classroom rules or expectations
• Culturally relevant items
• Location of classroom (bungalow, main building, isolated, included)
• Cleanliness (trashy, odor, graffiti, insects)
• Classroom spacing (proximity of students’ desks to one another and
teacher)

151
Social Climate/Environment: During each visit, the researcher will record elements
of human interactions.
School-wide environment
• Adult-Adult and Adult-student interactions (use of greetings, use of names,
friendliness, smiles, affect)
• Group dynamics (how students organize themselves; by gender, ethnicity,
age)
Classroom climate
• Structure, order, rigidity of classroom environment; is teacher in control of
class, students out of their seats, loud talking, on task
• Group dynamics (how students organize themselves; by gender, ethnicity,
age, or teacher assignment)

152
APPENDIX G

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATION GUIDING QUESTIONS
Research Question # 1, 2, 3, and 4:

• Does collaboration occur during and after professional development?
• Is there engagement among the staff?
• What types of data are being used? How is data used?
• Is professional development is aligned to the vision?
• How are students discussed among teachers and other staff?
• Is the professional development geared toward teaching to standards
mastery or performance?
• Is the professional development practical and adaptable?
• Are the expectations clear for implementation of the professional
development?
• How teachers are held accountable for the professional development
provided?
• Is an evaluation tool used for the professional development?

153
APPENDIX H

LEADERSHIP TEAM QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTIONS
• To what extent was the meeting focused on the implementation of the
school plan?
• Does the leadership team analyze student achievement data in order to take
informed actions?
• Did (or does) the leadership team discuss and plan for diversity-sensitive
(culturally relevant and responsive) learning environments?
• How are the roles/work distributed among members of the leadership team?
• Structure: Is the meeting for information or systems planning?
• Is the meeting operational or instructional focused?

154
APPENDIX I
PICTURE OF STANDARDS POSTED IN CLASSROOM

155
APPENDIX J
CLASSROOM BULLETIN BOARDS

156

157
APPENDIX K
GUIDELINES FOR STUDENT DISCIPLINE
Guidelines for Student Discipline

Level 1-
Behaviors to be handled in class
• Not following classroom rules
• Off-task behavior
• Not following directions(due to
not paying attention)
• Refusal to do work
• Running in the hallways or
breezeways
• Play fighting, pushing in line,
chasing
• Inappropriate cafeteria
behaviors(talking loudly, throwing
food)
Consequences

• Time-out
• Benching during recess
• Send student to another class
• Call home or letter sent home
• Demerits – for Grade 5 only
Level II – Behaviors that may warrant an
office referral
• Defiance or disrespect –
verbalizing “No”
• Inappropriate sexual words and
gestures
• Walking out of class
• Stealing
• Profanity towards adults
• Destruction of school property e.g.
books, desks, etc.
Consequences – may include
consequences from Level I

• Parent Conference
• Demerits – for Grade 5 only
• In-School Suspension
• Out-of-School Suspension
Level III
Zero Tolerance Behaviors-
Must have an office referral
• Fighting or causing physical injury
to another person*
• Bringing a knife, weapon or other
dangerous objects to school and/or
use of that object*
• Inappropriate touching*
• Vandalism*
• Bullying, harassing, threatening,
and/or intimidation*
Consequences

• Parent Conference/Demerits – for
Grade 5 only
• Out-of-School Suspension*
• Notification of appropriate
authorities*
• Expulsion*

* District Policy/ CA Ed. Code

158
APPENDIX L
SDAIE STRATEGIES

Graphic Organizers Charts, graphs, or diagrams which en-
courage students to see information as
a component of systems rather than
isolated facts. Venn Diagrams, thinking
maps
Think-Pair-Share When asked to consider an idea or
answer a question. Student (think).
Each student turns to another student
and tells their response (pair, share).
Oral exchange
Visualization In response to a teacher prompt, stu-
dents visualize in their mind a particu-
lar time or place and concentrate on
sensory images.
KWLChart Before reading or hearing a selection,
students are asked to complete the first
two sections of the chart “What I al-
ready know about…” and “What I
would like to find out about…” After
the information is presented students
complete the “What I learned…” Re-
sponses are shared with a partner.
Brainstorming Student work as a whole with the
teacher or in small group. Begins with
a stimulus such as, a word, phrase,
picture, or object and record all re-
sponses to that stimulus without judg-
ment. Pre-writing strategy. The
students give ideas on a topic while
recorder writes them down. The stu-
dents should be working under time
pressure to create as many ideas as
possible. All ideas count, everything is
recorded. More ideas can be built on
the ideas of others.

159

Choral Reading Groups of student chorally present a
poem or other reading selection. One
person reads the title, author, and ori-
gin. Each person says at least one line
individually. Pairs of students read one
or more lines. Three students read one
or more lines. All students read an im-
portant line.
Clustering/Webbing/Mapping Students in large groups, small groups,
or individually begin with a word cir-
cled in the center, then connect the
word to related ideas, images, and
feelings which are also circled. Pre-
writing strategy.
Reflections Students reflect in writing on what is
learned, what was confusing, and con-
nections of this lesson to other lesson/
other content areas/real world. Students
may also reflect on their progress as a
student, what to do differently next
time, or what was liked about the topic.
Journals Students keep questions and ideas in a
journal. These may be used later to
develop a formal piece of writing.
Learning Logs Double-entry journals with quotes,
summaries, notes on the left and
responses reactions, predictions,
questions or memories on the right.
Quick write Pre-reading or pre-writing focus
activity. Students are asked to respond
to a question in writing for 5 minutes.
Emphasis is on getting thoughts and
ideas on paper. Grammar, spelling,
style not important.

160
APPENDIX M
IWT

161
APPENDIX N

PARENT INVOLVEMENT PLAN

Parent Involvement Plan
2006 – 2007

Parent Participation and Contribution to the School’s Instructional
Program
Parents have input into the instructional program via the Compensatory
Education and the English Learners Advisory Councils, the Local School
Leadership Council and the School Site Council.
Parents attend district meetings and report to parent groups.
Parents support the instructional program volunteering: to assist in field trip
supervision, assisting students and teachers in the classroom and in the
school library.

Home-School Communication
Monthly calendars and bulletins are sent home to inform parents of
continuing and upcoming events.
Flyers are sent home to remind parents of special programs, conferences,
assemblies, changes in the regular school day and parent committee
meetings.
Parent community representatives make telephone calls to remind parents of
Advisory Council meetings.
Parents are invited and encouraged to confer with teachers on a regular
basis regarding student activities.
Parents are involved in the implementation of the school’s plan for
monitoring and evaluation as an on-going process.

Parent Classes and Workshops
Parent Education classes are scheduled yearly for all parents.
The “Read with Me” is a program designed to teach parents how to work
with the school system as well as providing parenting skills and advice.
Two Parent Community Representatives are funded to support parent
participation in the instructional program, school activities and projects.
Consideration and care has been taken to coordinate parent involvement
activities with parent schedules. Childcare for younger children is provided.
Translation is provided to accommodate the needs of parents who speak
Spanish.

162
APPENDIX O
SAMPLE OF GRADING RUBRIC

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to identify structures and systems implemented in a high-performing high-poverty urban school to promote high academic achievement among students of color. The researcher used a sociocultural theoretical framework to examine the influence of culture on the structures and systems that increased performance by African American and Hispanic students. Four research questions guided the study: 1. What are the trends and patterns of student performance among students of color? 2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with high concentrations of students of color?3. How are the organizational structures and systems implemented to support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning? 4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Organizational systems school leaders implement to facilitate effective classroom instruction in urban schools: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The effective implementation of reform strategies, instructional conditions, and best practices to improve student achievement in math: a case study of practices at Land High School

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Dyson, Hilarie (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/17/2008

Defense Date 04/21/2008

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

Tag best practice,high poverty,OAI-PMH Harvest,students of color,urban school

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee member)

Creator Email hdyson@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1353

Unique identifier UC1427259

Identifier etd-Dyson-20080717 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-87689 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1353 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Dyson-20080717.pdf

Dmrecord 87689

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dyson, Hilarie

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