University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SUSTAINABILITY OF A NARROWED ACHIEVEMENT GAP:
A CASE STUDY

by

Michael Richard Titus

___________________________________________________________________________

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Michael Richard Titus

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Regrettably, the words on this page will never fully describe the thanks and
gratitude that Nancy, my wife and best friend, truly deserves. Three years prior, I
selfishly spent a block of time that tested not only our relationship, but also her sanity.
Were it not for her unconditional patience, love, and support, this journey could not have
been possible— or successful, for that matter. I only hope that the balance of my years is
long enough to return the thanks. Next, there will never be a kinder or more helpful
mentor and friend than my fellow Trojan Rod Federwisch. Without his generosity of time
and words of encouragement, those seemingly never-ending deadlines would have buried
me for sure. Not to be outdone, Dr. Gothold, the guru of all gurus, guided our thematic
group through a daunting dissertation process with such skill and expertise that it
appeared almost effortless. His unintimidating cohort environment made all the
difference in the world. For my “A” personality friends, Kimberly and Sandy: I cannot
thank you enough for keeping me from falling off the truck. I could not have asked for
better writing partners. For Tracy and Amy, I appreciate both of you putting up with me
during all of our carpooling together. Classes would not have been the same without you.
To Ricardo and his staff, your assistance cannot be understated. Your professionalism
and candidness made all the difference in the world. I thank you all. I also wish to
acknowledge my mother, Dian Kopensky. Her commitment to education reinforced my
unending desire to excel in school. I love you, Mom! Last, but certainly not least, I would

iii
like to thank the friends and family members who put up with my “excused” absences
during these last three years. Nothing is more important in life than having family and
friends standing behind you.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter One: The Problem 1
Background of the Problem 4
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 7
Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 8
Limitations 9
Delimitations 10
Assumptions 11
Definitions of Terms 12
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 16

Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
The Historical Perspective on Student Performance 19
Changes in Assessment Practices 29
The Accountability of No Child Left Behind 32
The Definition of the Achievement Gap 36
Related Factors to the Achievement Gap 43
Practices Narrowing the Gap 45
Curriculum and Instruction 46
Highly Qualified Teachers 47
Leadership 49
High Expectations for all Students 51
Data Utilization and Analysis 52
Summary 54

Chapter Three: Methodology 56
Purpose of the Study 56
Research Development 57
Problem Statement 57
Research Questions 58
Selection Criteria 58

v
Framework of the Study 60
Sample and Population 62
Lion Elementary Neighborhoods 62
Pride Unified School District Overview 63
Lion Elementary School Overview 64
Instrumentation 68
Document Review 69
Observations 64
Surveys 71
Interviews 71
Data Collection 72
Data Analysis 73
Validity 74
Summary 74

Chapter Four: Results 76
Overview of the School 77
School Participants 80
Interviews 81
Characteristics of Lion Elementary 86
Findings by Research Question: Cultural Norms 100
Findings by Research Question: Practices 109
Standards-Based Curriculum 105
Use of Data Analysis 113
Multiple Levels of Leadership 118
Findings by Research Question: Programs 124
Emergent Themes from the Data Collection 131
Discussion of Findings within Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames 132
Discussion Summary 136

Chapter Five: Discussion 138
Findings Summary 140
Comparing Case Study Themes to the Literature 142
Implications for Practice 145
Recommendations for Future Research 146
Conclusions 148

References 150

vi
Appendices:
Appendix A: Document Review Master List – Categorized 158
Appendix B: School Observation Form/Guide 160
Appendix C: Observation Log 163
Appendix D: Staff Input Survey 168
Appendix E: Closing The Achievement Gap Interview Questions 174

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: School Enrollment by Special Program 65

Table 2: School Enrollment by Ethnicity 65

Table 3: Academic Performance Index Scores 2005-2008 67

Table 4: Academic Performance Index Scores by Ethnicity/Economic Status 68

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Clark & Estes’ Gap Analysis Process Model 61

Figure 2: Model of the Conceptual Framework for the Study 62

ix
ABSTRACT
Schools with student populations comprised predominantly of students of color,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English Learners have traditionally been relegated
to subpar educational opportunities. The accountability of the No Child Left Behind Act
prodded schools to reexamine their instructional practices and implement more effective
means of ensuring all students access to rigorous, standards-based curricula. Variation in
performance among schools serving similar students suggests that today’s achievement
gap can be narrowed. This case study examines an elementary school that is successfully
narrowing the achievement gap over a sustained period of time through the utilization of
various cultural norms, practices, and programs. The replicability of the findings from
this case study may contribute to promising results for schools with similar
demographics.

1
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM

As a nation, the United States is well into an era of educational accountability.
States, schools, teachers, instructional programs, and curricular materials are being
evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, which translates into their impact on measures
of academic achievement. For many years, there has been a cry for a public education
system that gives all students an opportunity at a more hopeful and desirable future.
Though vigorous debate has considered the appropriateness of specific measures, and
their intended and unintended consequences, the passage of the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act demonstrates a consensus commitment to the reduction of the achievement
gap.
The political will to narrow these achievement gaps seems even more abundant as
the new century opens. The President and Congress have united to focus national effort
on reducing such gaps. In his first speech to a joint session of Congress in February,
2009, President Obama addressed the urgency for educational change in America:
In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your
knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity – it is a
pre-requisite. Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require
more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that
level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any
industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.
This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that
out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal
of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and
competitive education – from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.
(Obama, 2009)

2
From an economic perspective, the educational achievement gap in the United States has
created the equivalent of a permanent, deep recession between actual and potential output
in the economy.
On average, Black and Hispanic students are roughly two to three years behind
same-aged White students in learning. This gap exists regardless of how it is measured,
including achievement (e.g., test score) and attainment (e.g., graduation rate) measures. A
more pronounced racial achievement gap exists in most large urban school districts.
The achievement gap among students of different income levels is equally severe.
Impoverished students eligible for federally subsidized free lunches are roughly two
years of learning behind the average student of the same age. At the school-wide level,
moreover, schools comprised mostly of low-income students perform much worse than
schools with fewer low-income students.
This achievement gap raises moral questions for a society committed to the ideal
of equal opportunity; it also influences the outcomes of individuals. A demonstrable link
exists between early performance in school and subsequent rates of high school
graduation, college attendance and completion— and, ultimately, earnings. The less
educated a person is, the likelier he or she is to end up behind bars. A high school dropout
is five to eight times more likely to be incarcerated than a college graduate (Moretti,
2007).
There are health-related costs associated with the achievement gap as well. Lower
education is highly correlated with unhealthy lifestyles, including higher incidences of

3
smoking and obesity. Less educated people are more likely to be uninsured and, as a
result, consume more public health resources.
In addition, education levels have been linked to civic engagement. High school
graduates are twice as likely to vote than people with an 8
th
-grade education or less.
College graduates are 50% more likely to vote than high school graduates. However, as
daunting as narrowing the achievement often seems, there are reasons for optimism. The
United States has a history of making progress in improving student achievement and in
closing the achievement gap, even if this progress has been modest and uneven. Over the
past 35 years, for example, national aggregate achievement has generally increased. And
though a large achievement gap remains, it has narrowed by about one-third over the past
30 or 40 years. In the past 15 years, many states, such as New Jersey, have managed to
shrink their achievement gaps to some extent, particularly in earlier grades (MacInnes,
2009).
Clearly, the stakes for remedying America’s educational achievement gap are
high. Faced with a globalizing economy and heightened accountability, all schools face
the challenge of ensuring every student an equal opportunity to live up to his or her
potential. Fortunately, various states, school districts, and schools around the nation have
shown documented success in narrowing this achievement gap. Studying how these
educational entities have sustained this effort is a valuable undertaking.

4
Background of the Problem
The United States pioneered universal free public education through grammar
school in the mid-19
th
Century, creating a vast literate workforce capable of greater
productivity through industrialization and enabling individuals to transform the economy
through innovation. Increased access for the influx of immigrants to higher education
between 1910 and 1940 readied them for more highly skilled technical and managerial
jobs in industries that helped boost economic growth. Education gained momentum after
World War II as high school completion became the norm and the GI Bill spurred a
dramatic increase in college enrollment. For the first time, education became a key for the
working-class American to economic and social mobility.
Education assumed a prominent place in national politics when the Supreme
Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education declared segregated schools unconstitutional
and initiated a long and controversial effort to integrate public education (Harris &
Herrington, 2006). The inequality of educational achievement across ethnic and racial
groups had been exposed. The Brown decision, together with 1965’s Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), initiated a new era of federal activism in education,
which focused on assisting specific groups of disadvantaged students.
In 1966, the Coleman Report, the first comprehensive examination of student
achievement, uncovered a large African American-White achievement gap. The attention
brought to racial inequity in student outcomes from this report prompted the
implementation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the

5
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) – other student achievement assessments in the 1970s,
which came to similar conclusions. Except for gains made from the late 1970s to the late
1980s, academic disparity has increased between Whites and their racial and ethic peers
(Harris & Herrington, 2006). Moreover, as income and class status become increasingly
determined by educational success, the problem has become even more troubling (Day &
Newburger, 2002).
To address these educational issues, the 2001 ESEA amendments, which include
NCLB, focused on closing the achievement gap to improve equity in education. Besides
spotlighting the academic disparity between Whites and their racial and ethnic peers, the
implementation of NCLB has highlighted discrepancies among student subgroups such as
English Language Learners (ELL) and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. By
disaggregating the score reports by race/ethnicity, English proficiency, and
socioeconomic status, NCLB holds states, districts, and schools more accountable for any
gaps in achievement between these various subgroups.

Statement of the Problem
Since the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, and the
attention brought to racial inequity in student outcomes from the Coleman Report in the
1960s, closing the achievement gap has been a focus for politicians and educational
researchers alike. As evidenced by state and/or national test scores, public education still
struggles to improve the measured disparity that permeates academic achievement

6
between Whites and their racial and ethnic peers. Although education strives to produce
equitable schools for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status,
these students, predominately found in urban schools, still perform academically lower
than their suburban counterparts.
Though many urban public schools are still failing to provide an equitable and
rigorous education for all, some California schools have made significant gains in closing
the achievement gap. Based on careful review of the syntheses of research, researchers
have identified factors relevant to narrowing the achievement gap. These factors cluster
into themes that include, but are not limited to, curriculum and instruction, school culture,
and leadership. Researchers have posited that all students need equitable access to
rigorous curriculum based on the state academic content standards, which themselves are
tied to the accountability of benchmarks and consistent classroom assessment (Haycock,
2001; Noguera, 2008; Schwartz, 2001); a safe learning environment that fosters strong,
positive relationships among students, school staff, and the school community; and
evidence-based organizational practices, teaching, and leadership that exude a vision of
excellence embraced by the school community (Cowley & Meehan, 2002; Lynch, 2006;
Schwartz, 2001).
Still unclear are the factors that have contributed to sustained success in closing
the achievement gap in urban schools. Research is yet to determine the extent to which
themes such as curriculum and instruction, school culture, and leadership have
successfully served to narrow the achievement gap. Also unknown is how cultural norms,

7
practices, and programs have contributed to narrowing the achievement gap in urban
schools. In an attempt to understand this phenomenon, this study examined one urban
school that is exceeding expectations; in undertaking this study, the researcher seeks to
redress the dearth of literature defining factors that have contributed to the sustained
success of schools that are narrowing the achievement gap for a period of three or more
years.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify urban schools that have succeeded in
reducing the achievement gap and in sustaining this success over time. The study also
examined the cultural norms of the school community; practices, both inside and outside
of the classroom; and, programs employed by the school that have allowed them to
narrow the achievement gap and sustain success.

Research Questions
These research questions that guided this study are:
1. What cultural norms employed by the school have allowed it to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?
2. What practices (school-wide and classroom) employed by the school have
allowed it to close the achievement gap and sustain success?

8
3. What programs employed by the school have allowed it to close the achievement
gap and sustain success?

Significance of the Study
Public schools must work for all of their students, regardless of background,
conditions, or circumstances,. The fact that major segments of the next generation
continue to fall short of their potential can no longer be ignored. The achievement gap
among student subgroups is a threat to their future and to the future economic health of
this nation. Avoidable shortfalls in academic achievement impose heavy and often tragic
consequences, via lower earnings, poorer health, and higher rates of incarceration. For
many students, lagging achievement evidenced as early as 4
th
grade appears to be a
powerful predictor of rates of high school and college graduation, as well as lifetime
earnings.
The price of keeping the status quo in educational outcomes is high. But wide
variation in performance among schools and school systems serving similar students
suggests that today’s achievement gap can be narrowed. Currently, some urban schools
with large subpopulations of racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, English Learners, and students with disabilities have, in fact,
exceeded expected outcomes and sustained success in closing the achievement gap over a
period of three or more years. By knowing the factors to their success, other schools and
districts may gain valuable insight into closing the gap with similar populations.

9
This case study was one of nine thematic dissertations within a cohort group of
doctoral students studying factors, including cultural norms, practices, and programs that
may contribute to the academic success of high-performing urban schools. With this
cohort group, this study examines factors that sustain success in narrowing the
achievement gap in an urban elementary school setting; other members of the group
examined elementary, middle school, and high school settings. Together, these case
studies contribute to a developing body of research, which includes cultural norms,
programs, and practices linked to increased levels of student achievement in urban
schools. School practitioners, both at the site and district level, may consider these
findings applicable to other campuses or districts.

Limitations
Limitations recognized in the study:
1. The sample size was small, limited to only one urban elementary school.
2. The only significant ethnic minority subgroup for this urban elementary school
was Hispanic/Latino. The subpopulation for African American students was too
small to be significant.
3. The findings were limited to one urban elementary school, and may not be
generalized. The study did not allow comparing or contrasting the urban
elementary school studied with other urban elementary schools of similar
demographics and achievement.

10
4. Observations, surveys, and interviews were conducted over a limited period of
time, equaling four months, not allowing the researcher to observe dynamics that
may have occurred during the second portion of the school year.
5. Economic shortfalls by the state of California led to budgetary concerns that
impacted staffing, leading to Reduction in Force (RIF).
6. Observations were subject to the researcher’s interpretation and inherent bias.

7. The researcher was led to assume that all participants were truthful and
forthcoming in their answers.
8. The validity of the study was only as reliable as the instruments used.

Delimitations
Delimitations recognized in the study:
1. The school site was purposefully selected based upon predetermined criteria,
including (a) immigrant/minority students, English Language Learners, low
socioeconomic status, at least 40% of the school population receiving free and
reduced lunch, and Title I status, (b) the school included significant minority
subgroups of 100 or more students or 15% or more of the population, (c) the
selected school met or exceeded state averages for a period of two or three
consecutive years or had had progress toward an API of 800 for two to three
years.

11
2. The study was confined to one urban elementary school in San Bernardino
County, California.
3. Although this study is one of nine case studies conducted by a doctoral cohort at
the University of Southern California, transferability of the findings for this study
is limited.
4. Though surveys were given to the entire staff, not all were returned, and therefore
the sample may not represent the opinions and views of the staff as a whole.
5. Interviews were conducted with a sample of administrators and teachers and may
not represent the views or opinions of the entire staff.

Assumptions
Assumptions recognized for this study include:
1. Data collected via the California Department of Education were accurate and
valid regarding the school’s API, free-reduced lunch participants, and state and
similar schools ranking.
2. Data collected via the district website and Student Accountability Report Card
(SARC) were accurate and valid regarding the school’s demographics.
3. Data collected from administrators and teachers are valid representations of
participants’ experiences.
4. The researcher expected that a link between teacher efficacy and student
performance existed.

12
5. The researcher assumed that factors such as cultural norms, programs, and
practices contributed to student achievement.

Definition of Terms
• Academic Performance Index (API). A method of summarizing test score results
into one number, ranging from 200 to 1000, with 800 being the state-defined goal.
The “API score” is then used to rank schools among all others in the state of the
same type (elementary, middle, high) and, separately, among the 100 schools
most similar in student demographics, teacher qualifications, and other factors
(EdSource, 2004).
• Accountability. The notion that people or organizations should be held responsible
for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their
success or lack of success in doing so (EdSource, 2004).
• Achievement Gap. A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between identified groups of children. A strong association exists between
poverty and students’ lack of academic success, as measured by achievement
tests. And, though poverty is not unique to any given ethnicity, it exists in
disproportionate rates among African Americans and Hispanics, and among
English Learners. Reasons behind the achievement gap are multifaceted. They do,
to some degree, stem from factors that children bring with them to school;

13
however, other factors that contribute to the gap stem from students’ school
experiences (Edsource.org, 2009).
• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). A set of indicators used to determine whether
schools, districts, and the state are on track for meeting the goal of 100% of
student proficiency on certain state academic content standards by 2013-14. In
California, the indicators are 95% participation rate on state tests; specified
percentages scoring proficient and above on tests of English and math content
standards; API scores: and for high schools, graduation rates (EdSource, 2007).
• California English Language Development Test (CELDT). A test for students
whose primary language—as reported by their parents—is not English. The exam
is taken upon initial enrollment and annually thereafter until mastery of English
has been determined (Edsource.org, 2009).
• California Standards Test (CST). A group of tests that measure progress towards
California’s state-adopted academic content standards, given to students in grades
2-11.
• Civil Rights Act of 1964. Legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race or ethnicity by any program or activity that receives federal financial
assistance (Edsource.org, 2009).
• Content Standards/Standards. Standards that describe what students should know
and be able to do in core academic subjects at each grade level (Edsource.org,
2009).

14
• Culture. A pattern of beliefs, norms, values and traditions formed over time.
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The federal law affecting K-12
education, originally enacted in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty. It was
created to support the education of the country’s poorest children. Congress must
reauthorize it every six years, with NCLB being the latest and most dramatic
revision since its creation (Edsource.org, 2009).
• English Learner/English Language Learner (EL/ELL). A student who has been
identified via the Home Language Survey as speaking a language other than
English; or the primary home language is other than English (EdSource, 2004).
• Free-Reduced Lunch. A federal program that provides food, typically breakfast
and/or lunch, to students of low-income families. The number of students who
participate in the National School Lunch Program is often used to measure the
poverty level of a school or district population (Edsource.org, 2009).
• Individualized Education Plan (IEP). A plan developed for a specific student that
outlines what that student needs to learn in a specified period of time and what
special services need to be provided based on the student’s ability (Edsource.org,
2009).
• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A national test given to
specific grade levels in specific subjects every other year. A small sample of
students, representative of the state, is tested. NAEP scores can be compared to
national averages (Edsource.org, 2009).

15
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The federal legislative act that
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the initial
federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. NCLB
was signed into law in 2002 and developed from four primary principles:
accountability for results, more choices for parents, greater local control and
flexibility, and an emphasis on utilizing scientific research (EdSource, 2007).
• Program Improvement (PI). A mandatory intervention program for schools and
districts that fail to make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for two consecutive
years. Interventions become increasingly punitive if the school/district continues
to fail making AYP, to the point where some restructuring can be required
(EdSource, 2007).
• Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). A test administered by the national College Board
and used throughout the country as a college entrance examination. A national
and state average of scores from the SAT I Reasoning Test (formerly called the
Scholastic Aptitude Test) is published annually (Edsource.org, 2009).
• School Accountability Report Card (SARC). An annual report on specified aspects
of a school’s operation, which is required as part of Proposition 98. Other state
legislation and the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) also require SARCs
(Edsource.org, 2009).
• School Site Council (SSC). Parent, students (high school students only), teachers,
and other staff selected by their peers to prepare a school improvement plan and

16
to assist in seeing that the planned activities are carried out and evaluated. Such a
council is required when a school receives funding for a School Improvement
Program (SIP) or through Title I (Edsource.org, 2009).
• Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Student. Students whose parent do not have a
high school diploma or who participate in the free/reduced price meal program
because of low family income (Edsource.org, 2009).
• Title I. One of 10 sections in NCLB that provides funds for educationally
disadvantaged students, including children of migrant workers. Funding is based
on the number of low-income children in a school and is intended to supplement
state and district funds (Edsource.org, 2009).
• Urban School Setting. Defined by the dissertation team as a school characterized
by (a) an ethnically diverse student population, (b) a large EL student population
or significant subgroup population, (c) a significant number of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students as defined by 40% or more of the students qualifying for
free or reduced lunches or a numerically significant subgroup on the API.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter Two is a review of the literature
pertaining to the achievement gap. The achievement gap is discussed in its historical
context, accountability structures, and relevant theoretical perspectives. Chapter Two
discusses best practices for narrowing the achievement gap, according to the literature.

17
Chapter Three explains the research design, conceptual model, framework, and model; it
also includes the sample population, descriptions of the data collection process, and
analysis of the data. Chapter Four describes the study’s findings, including data analysis
and interpretation. Chapter Five summarizes the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for future research.

18
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Control of public education has been in the hands of state and local governments
for most of our nation’s history (Cross, 2004). However, when the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act was signed into law in early 2002, the role of the federal government
dramatically changed elementary and secondary education policy. NCLB transformed the
federal role of education such that states were now mandated to adopt standards, testing,
and accountability measures. Up until this time, few federal mandates had assigned
public education as a duty left up to the individual state. Yet this new law arose due to a
reform movement that began in the wake of A Nation of Risk report during the Ronald
Reagan era (McGuinn, 2006). In order to hold states accountable for the performance of
their public schools, the federal government intervened and took a more vested interest in
America’s public school children, enforcing a variety of corrective measures for schools.
An active federal role in education has sought to guarantee improvement efforts
nationwide and to provide greater equity in educational opportunity. These measures
were deemed necessary because too many children were underperforming — especially
students of color, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English Learner (EL) students,
when compared to their White peers. Much of this disparity in student performance,
known as the “achievement gap,” occurs in schools in urban communities where high
percentages of these students reside. Several of these schools struggle, yet current
research suggests that many urban schools are narrowing this achievement gap. Research

19
has documented factors that have reduced the achievement gap in urban schools, yet less
information is available about schools that have sustainably been closing this
achievement gap over time.
The purpose of this chapter is to present a historical perspective on student
performance; review how changes in assessment practices transformed into the
accountability of NCLB, thus highlighting the need to narrow the achievement gap; offer
a definition of and factors involving the achievement gap; and consider the successful
practices that narrow the achievement gap and possible links to sustain these practices.
The chapter concludes by bridging the importance of this study to the literature.

The Historical Perspective on Student Performance
Today’s federal involvement in education is sizable and increasing; yet for much
of our nation’s history, the hierarchy of public education consisted of decentralized
school governance controlled by states and localities. During the 18
th
and 19
th
Centuries,
the states jealously guarded their control of education (McGuinn, 2006). The federal
government helped spur the construction of public schools with the Land Ordinance Act
of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinances of 1787, which set aside proceeds from the sale of
unsettled lands to help fund public education (McGuinn, 2006). After the Civil War,
Congress required that all new states admitted to the Union establish free, nonsectarian
public schools. Not until the mid-19
th
century did the majority of states begin to develop
organized public school systems and institute even basic statewide regulations (McGuinn,

20
2006). A United States Office of Education was not created until 1867, but was given
few resources and staff and was only mandated to gather statistical data on schools. Even
as late as the first half of the 20th Century, the nation’s school system remained
extremely decentralized. The day-to-day management of schools, including such matters
as personnel, curriculum, and pedagogy, remained in the hands of local authorities
(McGuinn, 2006).
The New Deal stimulated a tremendous increase in federal government activity,
along with profound changes in public and judicial attitudes toward the responsibilities of
government. Americans began to look to the national government for solutions to their
economic and social problems. Nonetheless, the legislative agenda of the New Deal
contained little on elementary and secondary education—federal activism was generally
confined to a few small unconditional grants to the states and support for higher
education through programs such as the GI Bill (Harris & Herrington, 2006). Education
gained momentum after World War II as high school completion became the norm and
the GI Bill spurred a dramatic increase in college enrollment. For the first time, education
became key to the economic and social mobility of working-class Americans (Harris &
Herrington, 2006).
The Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which ended
segregation in schools, dramatically altered the politics of educational policymaking in
the United States (Zirkel, 2001). The Brown decision would ultimately engage the federal
government directly in the effort to create, for the first time in the nation’s history, a more

21
equitable system of public schooling (Chenoweth, 2004). These developments created
much greater public awareness of the economic and educational inequalities facing the
country’s racial minorities and the poor. Beginning in the 1950s and continuing through
the 1960s and 1970s, Americans became keenly aware of the existence of a number of
social injustices (Zirkel, 2001).
Competition with the Soviet Union during the Cold War further sparked
government involvement in education in the 1950s (Slobodin, 1977). The Soviet launch
of Sputnik — the world’s first orbiting satellite — generated fears that the United States
was falling behind in developing new technologies and underscored the importance of
education to national security. These developments prompted the passage of the National
Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, which provided categorical aid to states to
improve math, science, and foreign language instruction in public schools (Slobodin,
1977). The NDEA was an important breakthrough for advocates of federal aid to
education. The Cold War demand for improved technical education and a growing
awareness of the financial and racial inequities in the public school system created
significant momentum for expanded federal support for schools. However, most
Americans continued to believe that education policy decisions should be made at the
state and local levels. The period witnessed growing and often intense opposition to
federal efforts to integrate public schools (Slobodin, 1977).
Lyndon Johnson capitalized on growing public awareness of school inequalities
and pushed for an education bill following the 1964 election (Cross, 2004). With help

22
from his commissioner of education, Francis Keppel, Johnson devised the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The centerpiece of this effort was the Title I
program, which was designed to assist communities with a high concentration of low-
income families by raising per-pupil expenditures (Thomas & Brady, 2005). The premise
of ESEA was that the federal government should intervene in what was seen increasingly
as an educational crisis among poor and minority children. A great deal of disagreement
remained over the causes of poverty and educational inequality and what the government
should do to address the issues. As a result, ESEA funds were allocated to support a wide
variety of programs in local school systems, including teaching innovations, cultural and
social enrichment programs, library improvements, parental involvement activities,
nutrition programs, and social and medical services (Thomas & Brady, 2005). One of
ESEA’s most significant features was what it did not do —provide general federal aid to
public schools. Instead, ESEA provided “categorical” aid that was targeted to a specific
student population: disadvantaged students (Thomas & Brady, 2005). The creation of
federal categorical programs required that federal educational institutions shift from a
largely information-gathering role to a more supervisory role in the administration of new
federal funds and programs. And although ESEA sought to improve educational
opportunity for the poor, opponents argued that institutionalizing the federal role in
education policy would prove costly (McGuinn, 2006).
The U.S. Office of Education was put in charge of implementing ESEA (Cross,
2004). Initially, it relied on the assurances of state education officials that they were in

23
compliance with federal guidelines. Nevertheless, the distrust of local education
authorities (LEAs) and mounting evidence that states and localities were diverting federal
funds for unintended purposes ultimately led Congress to increase the regulation and
supervision of federal aid. One of the most significant consequences of ESEA was the
centralization of education policymaking from the local level to the state and federal
levels (Cross, 2004).
President Jimmy Carter continued the institutionalization of federal government’s
role in education by creating a cabinet level Department of Education in 1979 (Cross,
2004). By 1980, federal spending and influence on schooling had expanded dramatically.
By this time, the Department of Education administered almost 500 different federal
education programs. However, federal focus remained on access and equity issues rather
than on improving schools or students’ academic performance. Moreover, little effort was
made to measure the educational progress of students who received federal funds or
protection. Opponents felt that federal education policy had become too prescriptive and
intrusive and had not been effective in improving school quality or student performance.
This position fueled discontent among Republicans, setting the stage for a backlash
against ESEA (Cross, 2004).
Hence, the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan marked a significant
reduction in federal education program funding and in the federal government’s role in
public education (Cross, 2004). The Republican platform called for the deregulation by
the federal government of public education. President Reagan argued that federal

24
government obstructed social and economic progress and that the states were better
equipped to safeguard opportunity for all. As part of his “New Federalism” program,
Reagan gained passage in 1981 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act
(ECIA), which dramatically reformed many of the provisions of ESEA. The changes
reduced federal funding for education by almost 20%, simplified eligibility requirements,
and increased flexibility for states in the application of federal education funds
(McGuinn, 2006). The Reagan administration also intended to either eliminate or
redefine the policy of federal education by making privatization, choice, and competition
its guiding principles. The Reagan education agenda proposed the elimination of the
Department of Education and the creation of vouchers or tuition tax credits to support
private schools (Cross, 2004).
Unfortunately, the Republican efforts to roll back federal influence in education in
the 1980s came to an abrupt halt when fresh evidence spotlighted that public schools
were in very poor shape. The 1983 report of the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, A Nation at Risk, marked a milestone in the history of federal education
policy, painting a dire portrait of the country’s public schools and highlighting just how
far American students lagged behind their foreign counterparts on academic achievement
tests (National Commission On Excellence In Education, 1983). The report’s conclusion
emphasized that although education had long been primarily a state issue, the poor
performance of American students had become a national problem. The turmoil created

25
by A Nation at Risk compelled the public— for the first time— to rank education in the
top tier of its concerns (National Commission On Excellence In Education, 1983).
Due to public outcry, the Reagan administration was forced to heed a number of
public school reforms that the publication advocated: increased teacher pay, strengthened
curricula and standards, and greater federal efforts to improve schools. The report
declared that the federal government has the primary responsibility to identify the
national interest in education (National Commission On Excellence In Education, 1983).
In the end, President Reagan’s efforts to convert federal education spending into
vouchers and to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education failed after meeting
resistance from Congress, educational interest groups, and the public. The Reagan era
marked a significant reduction in federal education program funding and reduced the role
of the federal government in public education. Yet, perhaps the most important
consequence of A Nation at Risk and of the growing concern about poor public education
was that state governments began to play a much more active role in education reform.
Bill Clinton’s election to presidency in 1992 introduced a national standards-
based education reform initiative called Goals 2000, which echoed a previously
unsuccessful reform campaign by President George H. W. Bush (Superfine, 2005). The
Clinton administration’s Goals 2000: Educate America Act, passed by Congress in 1994,
was characterized by four primary legislative elements: a primary focus on student
achievement levels, an emphasis on challenging academic standards specifying
knowledge and mastery skill levels, the application of academic standards to all students,

26
including those for whom academic expectations had traditionally been low, and a
reliance on student achievement testing as a means to monitor the effects of reforms
(Superfine, 2005). Yet the passage of Goals 2000 did not come without political
compromise to both Democrats and Republicans. The law circumscribed the federal role
in creating standards or assessments or in holding states accountable for their education
progress. The final legislation stated that national standards must be sufficiently general,
not restrict state and local control over curriculum and instruction methods, and can be
modified to suit individual state circumstances. The law emphasized that the national
standards were voluntary and that states should develop their own standards or modify
and adopt those developed under national consensus. States were not required to have
their standards or assessments certified or to participate in Goals 2000 improvement
programs as a condition of participating in any education program. Goals 2000 was
hailed for its focus on standards and school performance but its voluntary nature limited
its potential impact on state school reform efforts. Despite its lack of new mandates,
Goals 2000 was recognized as the nation’s first statutory framework defining the federal
role as one of supporting and improving all schools for all children (Superfine, 2005).
Goals 2000 marked a fundamental break with the historical federal educational focus on
promoting access and equity for disadvantaged groups and initiated an era in which the
government promoted academic improvement for all students.
ESEA was also reauthorized with the passage of the Improving America’s
Schools Act (IASA). The most significant change to ESEA was the restructuring of

27
federal education programs to align with the new focus on academic improvement for all
students, which had been outlined in Goals 2000 (Superfine, 2005). The purpose of IASA
was to help schools give their students the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and
skills contained in challenging state content and performance standards. Under IASA, all
states were required to develop assessments and set benchmarks for schools to make their
“adequate yearly progress” (AYP) and, if necessary, take formal steps to enhance them
by developing school improvement plans. Schools had to publish disaggregated test
results, and those failing to meet state targets for two consecutive years were identified as
needing improvement. In order to receiving Title I funds, states were mandated to
demonstrate that learning goals, academic expectations, and curricular opportunities were
the same for students eligible for these funds as they were for all students (McDonnell,
2005).
The major educational reform objectives of ESEA, including greater academic
accountability for students, increased local control, and better teaching methods are in
existence today through NCLB, which was signed into law on January 8, 2002. President
George W. Bush reauthorized and renamed ESEA as the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (Harrison-Jones, 2007). This landmark education policy reflected a commitment to
providing quality education to all American students, regardless of racial, ethnic, or
socioeconomic background (McGuinn, 2006). NCLB reflected the original intent of the
ESEA by focusing on helping disadvantaged children reach grade-level proficiency and
strengthening basic and advanced skills. The major objectives of NCLB are increasing

28
accountability for results, focusing on research-based practices, providing better quality
instruction, and empowering parents with choice options (McGuinn, 2006). NCLB takes
the commitment to improving the educational experiences of historically disadvantaged
populations a step further. The bar of academic standards was raised, and state and local
agencies were held accountable for student achievement. More drastically, the new policy
linked federal funding to student performance outcomes and imposed sanctions for low
student performance (Harrison-Jones, 2007). This data can be tracked because NCLB
mandates that every state and school district issue report cards that detail student test
scores. Up until that time, this wealth of information had never been widely available on
a consistent basis. Federal funding has traditionally been connected to learning outcomes,
but never to this extent.
This rise in accountability policies stems from the persistent achievement gap
between the White and Asian students and the subgroup populations of ethnic minorities,
low socioeconomic students, and English Language Learners. Policymakers view the
educational system as America’s attempt to equalize opportunities for all students;
however, the inequality of educational achievement across ethnic and racial groups,
especially in urban schools, has been troubling. An extensive review of research suggests
that past policies that have given students increased access to resources and exposure to
rigorous content have helped reduce the achievement gap (Harris & Herrington, 2006).
Educational reformists are hopeful that the current federal NCLB legislation requiring

29
schools to report scores by racial-ethnic groups, to focus on high-quality teachers, and to
increase federal spending will also make progress toward equity.

Changes in Assessment Practices
Using assessments as instruments for promoting educational change is not a new
concept to our nation. Large-scale standardized testing originated in the United States in
the mid-19
th
Century (Power & Wood, 1984). In the 1840s, an examination designed to
monitor school effectiveness was implemented in Boston, and this test had many of the
features of today’s large-scale tests. In particular, it was intended to provide efficient
measurement for large numbers of students and to facilitate comparisons across
classrooms and schools. Testing took on a new role during World War I— that of
selecting individuals into programs or institutions. The first large-scale group intelligence
test, the Army Alpha, was published in 1917, and the first standardized achievement test
battery, the Stanford Achievement Tests, was published in 1923 (Power & Wood, 1984).
Over the following years, use of testing expanded dramatically, both in terms of the
numbers of students affected and the purposes of the tests themselves. The creation of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the enactment of the original
Title I legislation led to the first formal use of tests as monitoring devices and may be
considered precursors to today’s widespread use of tests as tools for making educators
accountable for student performance (Power & Wood, 1984). The NAEP was designed
with census-like functions. Therefore, the national assessment was not tied to any

30
particular curriculum but rather to general knowledge and skills. It was meant to assess
what populations of students knew, not what they should know, and would have defined
educational standards (Epstein, 2005).
High stakes testing for individuals were rare after World War II, but began to
increase in the 1970s when minimum competency testing became widespread (Hamilton
& Koretz, 2002). The minimum competency testing movement emphasized the need to
ensure that students demonstrated a grasp of basic skills and, in many cases, led states or
districts to prohibit failing students from graduating or from being promoted to the next
grade. Thus, this movement represented the first formal use of tests as tools to hold
students and teachers accountable for performance in recent decades (Hamilton & Koretz,
2002). In addition, minimum competency tests were intended to serve as signals to
students and teachers of what should be taught and learned, and this movement marked a
shift toward measurement-driven instruction, reflecting a belief that instruction should be
shaped by tests (Popham, 1987).
The emphasis on using tests to change instruction continued into the 1980s, a
decade characterized by deep concern about the poor performance of American students.
These concerns were expressed vividly in A Nation at Risk (National Commission On
Excellence In Education, 1983), which led to a nationwide reform effort that included
increased reliance on testing (Resnick, 1980) and an upsurge in attaching stakes to scores,
including school-level incentives like financial rewards or interventions. The presumed
positive effects of testing on both student and teacher motivation have represented a

31
primary rationale for expanding the stakes attached to scores (National Council On
Education Standards and Testing, 1992). Moreover, the focus shifted from minimum
competency to high, rigorous standards for all students, and for tests that would be
aligned with those standards and would encourage teachers to teach to them (Glaser &
Silver, 1994; National Council On Education Standards and Testing, 1992). Clear links
among testing, standards, and curriculum, in addition to formal stakes, were believed to
enhance motivation. Notably, testing has continued to be a means of documenting the
performance of American students, thereby justifying the need for reforms (Linn, 1993).
All of these trends reflect a gradual shift from the use of tests as measurement
instruments designed to produce information to reliance on tests as a tool for correcting a
wide variety of educational problems, including low standards, weak motivation, poor
curriculum and instruction, inadequate learning, and educational equity. This dual use of
assessment practices continues to the present day.
Currently, public school concerns about assessment practices focus on the most
recently enacted federal education legislation: the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
NCLB continued a trend set by earlier federal and state policies, many of which
emphasized standards, assessments, and consequences tied to performance on the
assessments. In 2002, 49 states and the District of Columbia were implementing
statewide testing programs, and 17 of these states were using results as a basis for school
closure or reconstitution (Meyer, Orlosfsky, Skinner, & Spicer, 2002). Most of these
programs were in place before the enactment of NCLB, but NCLB ensures that these

32
state programs will continue and, in some cases, expand. Many reformers see the new
federal focus on student achievement as an essential precondition to school improvement
efforts nationwide and to the campaign for greater equity in educational opportunity
(Cross, 2004).

The Accountability of No Child Left Behind
The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, which reauthorized the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, signaled the beginning of a new era of federal
education policy and a significantly transformed and expanded national role in our
country’s schools. NCLB has been called “the single largest nationalization of education
policy in the history of the United States” (Elmore, 2003, p.6). Its focus on
accountability and extension of federal policy to cover every student and every school in
the country marked a major shift in how elementary and secondary education in the
United States was governed. Policymakers have implemented NCLB as a tool for
correcting a wide variety of educational problems and for challenging the established
operating practices of schools, districts, and states.
NCLB is characterized by the use of tests in what may be called a test-based
accountability system. These systems involve four major elements: goals, expressed in
the form of standards; measures of performance; targets for performance (the adequate
yearly progress of NCLB is an example); and consequences attached to schools’ success
or failure at meeting targets (Hamilton & Koretz, 2002). The mandated testing is

33
considered high-stakes, reflecting as it does the belief that the promise of rewards or the
threat of sanctions is needed to ensure change (National Research Council, 1999). The
accountability structured within NCLB sanctions schools that fail to make adequate
yearly progress (AYP) according to a school’s yearly benchmarks (EdSource, 2004).
Using tests in accountability systems creates a context in which educators and others are
likely to pay attention to scores and seek to maximize test performance. Most advocates
of test-based accountability hope that tests will influence the behaviors of teachers,
principals, and students in positive ways. Tests used in accountability systems are
intended to influence instruction, focus public attention on student achievement, and
motivate both educators and students to work harder (Linn, 2000). Advocates of test-
based accountability assert that the tests can serve a formative purpose, providing
feedback that helps teachers identify students who are having trouble (or, in language
currently popular among policymakers, students who are “left behind”).
Increased use of tests as accountability tools, along with the desire of some
educators and policymakers to avoid relying on ranking students against one another, has
led to growth in the use of criterion-referenced reporting (Hamilton & Koretz, 2002).
This form of reporting provides information about what students have and have not
accomplished. Criterion-referenced reporting, particularly the use of performance levels
or cut scores, has become increasingly common had has been mandated in several rounds
of Title I legislation, including NCLB (Linn, 2000).

34
NCLB stipulates that every child in the state must achieve proficient level in
mathematics and reading tests in grades 3 through 5, 6 through 9, and 10 through 12 by
2014 (NCLB, 2002). The U.S. Department of Education allows each state to set its own
proficiency standards. Therefore, student achievement proficiency levels differ across
states (NCLB, 2002). Once the tests are completed, states are responsible for publishing
the results, and for giving parents and citizens of the state a summary of the proficiency
percentages. This proficiency percent is also used to calculate growth targets or measured
improvements that each state must strive for in order to meet its 2014 goal (NCLB,
2002). These growth targets determine whether states, local education agencies, and
schools are making adequate yearly progress. Therefore, states must ensure that all
students meet or exceed the state’s proficient level for each subgroup in mathematics and
reading. Subgroups categories include ethnicity (African American, Asian, American
Indian/Alaskan Native Hispanic, and White), economically disadvantaged, limited
English proficiency, and special education (NCLB, 2002).
Although states and local education agencies do not incur sanctions for not
making AYP, schools do. Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in
each of their demographic subgroups are labeled failing and have to offer students the
choice to transfer; parents can send their child to other pubic schools if their child attends
a school that needs improvement (NCLB, 2002). Schools failing to make their AYP
three years in a row must provide students with supplemental services or free tutoring
administered by an approved provider after school. If a school fails for a fourth year, it

35
must write a school improvement plan, which has to be approved by the state. Schools
are reconstituted if they fail five years in a row. Reconstitution differs in each state and
may include a state takeover as well as restructuring teachers, students, and/or principals
(NCLB, 2002). NCLB calls for each state to publish the results of student performance
by state, local education agency, and school and to list schools that are failing.
Furthermore, published results have to be accessible to parents and citizens of the state
via the web or printed report cards (NCLB, 2002).
A hallmark of NCLB is the requirement that each state not only publishes the
results of student performance by state, local education agency, and school but also reports
proficiency levels for members of subgroups within those schools. For example, NCLB
requires score reports disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, English
proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged (NCLB, 2002). The purpose of
these results is to hold states, districts, and schools accountable for any disparity in student
achievement (or what is more commonly known as the achievement gap) between these
various subgroups (Causey-Bush, 2005). The tightening accountability measures of
NCLB highlight the academic underperformance of urban schools; its proponents contend
that the provisions of NCLB will improve the proficiency of all students and help to close
the achievement gap between White and non-White students.

36
The Definition of the Achievement Gap
More than 50 years have passed since Brown v. Board of Education, a decision
that marked a broader struggle for equal educational opportunity. Current education
policy, which includes the federal mandates of NCLB, has pushed to disaggregate data to
get a clearer picture of what is occurring in schools. As researchers and policymakers
analyze the results, the achievement gap has become glaring and irrefutable (Bali &
Alvarez, 2004; Haskins & Rouse, 2005; Haycock, 2001; Lee, 2002).
This gap spotlights the disparity in academic achievement between Whites and
their racial and ethnic peers, as evidenced by tests scores from state or national
achievement tests; but the socioeconomically disadvantaged and English Language
Learners (ELL) are other subgroups mired in the achievement gap (Lee, 2002). For
purposes of this study, the achievement gap is defined as the persistent academic
disparity in proficiency, based upon standards assessments between White and Asian
students and subgroup populations—specifically ethnic minorities, and low
socioeconomic and ELL students.
Sadly, the inequality of educational achievement across ethnic and racial groups
has long troubled America’s educational system. Recall that education did not assume a
prominent place in national politics until the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of
Education declared segregated schools unconstitutional and initiated a long and
controversial effort to integrate public education (Harris & Herrington, 2006). The Brown
decision, together with the ESEA from 1965, initiated a new era of federal activism in

37
education and laid the foundation of its involvement for about the next 30 years
(Harrison-Jones, 2007). Then, as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the
ESEA programs were framed as temporary measures designed to address an
extraordinary crisis for specific groups of disadvantaged students. However, not until
1966 did the first truly comprehensive examination of student achievement in the United
States take place. A team of federally sponsored researchers, led by sociologist James
Coleman, found a large Black-White achievement gap—which it attributed primarily to
family backgrounds of the students themselves (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson,
McPartland, Mood, & Weinfeld, 1966). With fresh attention brought to racial inequity in
student outcomes from the Coleman Report, the federal government in 1970 launched the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a random testing of American
students every two to four years and a means, for the first time, to track student
achievement nationwide. These tests showed that Black and Hispanic students were
roughly four years behind White students, on average by age 17. In addition, large
numbers of Blacks and Hispanics seeking college admission were scoring approximately
a standard deviation behind Whites on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) during the
1970s (Epstein, 2005). Over the ensuing years, data from the NAEP, the SAT, and
increasingly common state and district testing programs, continued to show a racial gap
in achievement. Scholars vigorously debated its causes--family, peer groups, culture,
discrimination, heredity, and schooling (Bali & Alvarez, 2004; Chenoweth, 2004;
Coleman et al., 1966; Lee, 2002; Lynch, 2006). Unfortunately, gains that had been made

38
by Blacks and Hispanics on national measures from the late 1970s to the late 1980s
eroded in the 1990s. And these declines occurred during perhaps the most aggressive era
of school reform in the nation’s history (Cross, 2004). Since the early 1990s, academic
disparity has increased between Whites and their racial and ethnic peers (Harris &
Herrington, 2006). Moreover, as income and class status becomes increasingly
determined by educational success, the problem is even more troubling (Day &
Newburger, 2002). A fair conclusion is that far more is known about the nature of the
achievement gap – its causes and its consequences – than about how to eradicate it
(Jencks & Phillips, 1998). For all of these reasons, the achievement gap has raised a
multitude of concerns and resulted in a significant body of research (Chenoweth, 2004;
Coleman et al., 1966; Lee, 2002).
Closing the achievement gap in the state of California has been a daunting task for
Jack O’Connell, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. In February 2007,
O’Connell announced his intent to lead an effort to identify ways the state can better
assist counties, districts, and schools in their efforts to close California’s achievement gap
(Munitz, 2008). This initiative, which involves the partnership of The California
Department of Education, its P-16 Council, and WestEd, develops recommendations for
what the state can do to help local education agencies close the achievement gap (Munitz,
2008). Ensuring that schools work for all students, regardless of their background,
condition, or circumstances, is an imperative for the State of California. Yet huge
disparities exist in achievement scores from student subgroups taking California’s state

39
assessment, the California Star Assessment Test (Betts, Danenberg, Rothman, & Hauser,
2002). For example, about 12 out of every 20 White students in grades 2 through 11
were proficient in English-language arts on the 2006 statewide test compared with fewer
than 6 out of every 20 Black, Hispanic, or economically disadvantaged students.
Although nearly two-thirds of Asian students and more than half of White students were
proficient in mathematics in 2006, only about 5 out of every 20 Black students and 6 out
of every 20 Hispanic students met that performance standard (Munitz, 2008). The
achievement gap between White students and other ethnic groups as well as between
English Learners and native English Speakers, and socioeconomically disadvantaged and
nondisadvantaged students, is a pervasive issue in many, if not all, of California’s
schools.
Like other states, California lawmakers have sought to improve the academic
performance of students by publicly rating and comparing schools based on student test
scores and by creating consequences for schools whose students did not make satisfactory
progress. Thus they passed the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) in the spring
of 1999 (Powers, 2004). Its accountability system, the Academic Performance Index
(API) provides a single number score (between 200 and 1000) to each school based on
the distribution of scores on the state’s tests across five performance levels and four core
subject areas. A school's score on the API is an indicator of a school's performance level.
The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A school's growth is
measured by how well it is moving toward or past that goal (EdSource, 2004). Just as

40
there were achievement disparities in California’s statewide English-language and
mathematics student proficiency test scores for 2006, its API scores for student
subgroups showed similar results at every level: elementary, middle, and high school
(Munitz, 2008). The 2006 API of Black, American Indian, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander
students was significantly lower than the API for White and Asian students. Hispanic
elementary students had an API 147 points lower than their White peers. At the middle
school level, the API for Black students was 180 points lower than for White students.
And at the high school level, American Indian and Pacific Islander students each had API
about 100 points lower than White students (Munitz, 2008).
To complicate matters, federal lawmakers passed NCLB three years later in an
effort to motivate states to strengthen their assessment and accountability (McGuinn,
2006). NCLB and its new accountability was fundamentally a response to the perceived
failure of state and local governments to improve student performance, particularly in the
nation’s urban schools and for its most disadvantaged students. This law introduced
separate consequences for schools and districts if test scores for specific subgroups of
students were below expectations (Odland, 2007).
Unlike California’s system, which is based on a growth model, the Federal
government’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability system is a status model.
Rather than trying to show sufficient growth in schoolwide and subgroup API scores,
every school is expected to have a minimum percentage of students in very a significant
subgroup scoring at or above their state’s proficiency levels (EdSource, 2004). Schools

41
that fail to meet the required benchmarks are labeled in need of improvement. Sanctions
are placed upon the school and its district when proficiency levels are not met. These
sanctions may include restructuring, choice of school, tutoring services, new curriculum
adoptions, charter school options, or possible school closure depending on the severity
(McDonnell, 2005). California, like other states, is under pressure to meet NCLB’s
demands in part because it depends on Title I funding. It represents a small but
meaningful 3% of California’s education budget, or about $2 billion (EdSource, 2004).
At the same time, NCLB places greater emphasis on the progress of student subgroups by
requiring that each student meet the same standards for performance and participation in
both English and math. Additionally, ELL students are added to the other subgroups
(based on income and ethnicity) for which schools and districts will be held accountable
(EdSource, 2004).
Both the State API and Federal AYP systems use California’s rigorous content
standards as the basis for performance measurements. Predicting whether subgroup
reporting will guarantee that adequate attention is paid to all groups is difficult, to say the
least; evidence indicates that when separate targets are established for subgroups, diverse
schools (predominantly urban schools) are penalized unfairly owing to the increased
likelihood that they will fail to meet targets for one or more of these groups (Kane &
Staiger, 2002). Nonetheless, that these accountability structures directly focus on the
need for equitable and rigorous education for all students no matter their ethnic, social, or
economic background is undeniable (King, 2008).

42
The achievement gap has lasting effects for the economy, society, and the culture
as a whole. Socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority populations are most directly
affected, but the achievement gap ripples out to affect the entire social structure of
America as well (Ladson-Billings, 2006). For instance, only a small number of minority
students attends top-rated institutions of higher education. Routinely, African American
and other minorities are underrepresented in higher education institutions across the
United States. The ratio of White students to minorities is staggeringly disproportionate
in terms of real numbers (Noguera, 2008). On average, Black and Hispanic 17-year-olds
read and do math as well as White 13-year-olds when measured by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment (Chenoweth, 2004).
The achievement gap narrowed considerably from roughly 1967 to 1988, but
since that time, the narrowing stopped and the gap has started widening and has not
stopped (Chenoweth, 2004). Lasting effects of the achievement gap lead to limited access
to higher education institutions, high-paying positions, and increased factors that
contribute to poverty. Worse yet, the segments of people most affected by this lack of
educational equity are the most rapidly growing part of the United States population. A
strong education system is necessary for all students to have the opportunity to become
well-educated citizens, which in turn will ensure a better quality of life, economic
growth, and a diverse, democratic society.

43
Related Factors to the Achievement Gap
Reviewing the different studies reveals some of the overlapping factors
contributing to the achievement gap. Among the dominant factors for the achievement
gap are historical inequalities, cultural or ethnic differences between the home and school
environment, low expectations among the stakeholders for minority student achievement,
and a lack of access for minority students to an adequate education (Barton, 2003; Fullan,
2000; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rodgers, Wang, & Gomez-Bellenge, 2004).
Minority student achievement is associated with socioeconomic and family conditions,
youth culture and student behaviors, schooling conditions, and a myriad of subfactors
(Lee, 2002).
Many individual, school, and societal factors contribute to the achievement gap
(Rodgers et al., 2004). Historically, minority students have been subjected to an
inequitable school environment, which leads to disparaging outcomes in achievement and
access. Social, familial, and economic factors contribute to the achievement gap but are
not all-inclusive as many disadvantaged students succeed in spite of these obstacles.
School personnel often have little or no concrete expectations of minority students, which
perpetuates the achievement gap. Notably, attention to the aforementioned factors has
increased academic achievement for minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged
students.
Socioeconomic status contributes to the achievement gap; however, the
achievement gap exists among differing socioeconomic groups. Income, education,

44
family structure, and neighborhood conditions all impact socioeconomic status. Children
who are denied the bare necessities including food, adequate shelter, and neighborhood
safety and who are subject to high mobility rates (moving from school to school) often
struggle in the academic environment. On average, minority children have two to three
times the food insecurity and hunger than do children of White households (Barton,
2003). Children of low socioeconomic status fare considerably less well than their
middle-class White counterparts. Though not the sole factor in explaining the
achievement gap, a significant correlation exists between academic achievement and
socioeconomic status.
Limited family income and fewer resources for children can contribute to the
achievement gap. Single-parent families compose a large majority of minority student
households; often, a female leads the families (Barton, 2003). Children from minority
families are less likely to have access to two parents in the home, which contributes to
fewer resources such as time, access, and tangible necessities. Much of the difference in
achievement between children of two-income and one-parent income families is due to
the lower income of single families. Single parent families are typically absent from the
home for longer, which contributes to lower sense of well-being both physically and
psychologically for minority students (Barton, 2003).
Socialization within a school setting is the process by which students learn to
internalize, identify with, and conform to the norms, values, and ideals of society
(Rodgers et al., 2004). The social challenges that minority and disadvantaged students

45
face on a daily basis makes the socialization process especially difficult, particularly
when the social systems contradict one another (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Contributing to the achievement gap is the socialization that takes place away from the
schooling environment, for example in the home setting, which makes navigating the
school pathways difficult for minority students.
Research attests that another factor in low achievement for minority students is
culture dissonance. A disconnect between the culture of home and the culture found in
school creates this disparity (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). School reform that
acknowledges and bridges the home-to-school cultural connection would address this
problem. The setting or model in which a minority student is socialized highly determines
their ability to perform academically. Cooperation among key stakeholders and
establishing a schooling environment that mirrors the home situation is ideal (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). Fullan has suggested that a cultural shift in this area is key to
improving schooling outcomes (2000). Fostering a collaborative culture ensures that all
students learn within the system (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This effort would
involve participation from all stakeholders (including the school, family, and the student)
so that the chances of a successful collaborative culture are maximized.

Practices Narrowing the Gap
Based upon large-scale studies conducted in the United States, researchers have
established some universal factors that have narrowed the achievement gap (Barton,

46
2003; Coburn, & Cox, 2002; Hassel & McNiff, n.d.; Izumi, Jencks, & Phillips, 1998;
Munitz, 2008; Symonds, 2004). Among them are effective implementation of a
standards-based curriculum, employment of highly qualified teachers, effective
leadership at district, school-site, and team levels, high expectations for all students, and
use of data and assessment to meet the needs of students (Williams, 2006).
Curriculum and Instruction
The effective implementation of a standards-based curriculum has been linked to
higher academic achievement for all student populations, including their subgroups.
Contrary to the research, many low-performing students continue to be taught at a lower-
level curriculum even though a challenging, standards-aligned curriculum has been
proven to increase student achievement (Vang, 2006). 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. Students who take rigorous coursework learn more and
perform better on standardized tests (Haycock, 2001). Implementation of standards-
based instruction is crucial to the equity of student achievement because it allows all
students, regardless of background, to be held to the same high standards and to have the
opportunity to become proficient in the academic skills set by the state. In order to close
the achievement gap, schools must ensure that all students receive the intended
curriculum specified by the state or district for a particular course or grade level (Izumi et
al., 2002). The clear expectation is that all teachers will utilize the adopted core
curriculum with fidelity and rigor (Wirt & Kirst, 2001). Because evidence indicates that

47
rigorous course work has a positive effect on student achievement, adopted curriculum
should be rigorous for all students, including those of color and low socioeconomic status
(Johnson, 2002; Vang 2006). Moreover, the relationship between course content and
achievement is even stronger than that between grade-point average and achievement. In
summary, standards affect academic rigor, which, in turn, drives achievement (Harris &
Herrington, 2006).
Highly Qualified Teachers
Teacher quality is one of the two top influences on student achievement (Darling-
Hammond & Sykes, 1999). According to the literature, quality instruction must be
delivered by highly qualified teachers in order to educate at-risk populations (Jago,
2005). Studies have revealed that low-income and minority students are routinely placed
in classrooms with less experienced and less skillful teachers (Barton, 2003; Peske &
Haycock, 2006), which leads to noticeable discrepancies in academic achievement.
Highly qualified teachers have a wealth of job experience, have mastered the content of
their curriculum, and can expertly instruct their students (Peske & Haycock, 2006).
Closing the achievement gap requires high-quality teaching and underscores the need for
teachers to create meaningful learning experiences for their students (Johnson, 2002).
In order to increase the effectiveness of classroom instruction, teachers must be
better trained to acquire new skills and attitudes. Ongoing teacher professional
development programs should incorporate a variety of activities including, but not limited
to, peer coaching, study groups, and assistance from consultants. Narrowing the

48
achievement gap requires effective professional development devoted to research-based
practices by all instructional leaders. Professional development should discuss practices
that promote rigorous levels of instruction for all students and methodologies that are
culturally relevant (Johnson, 2002). In fact, many school districts have launched
professional development initiatives intended to help teachers learn how to meet the
needs of learners who are diverse in ability and background (Doubek & Cooper, 2007).
Teacher professional development includes opportunities for training linked to standards,
curriculum, effective instructional strategies, higher-order thinking skills, monitoring
student progress through ongoing forms of assessment and noninstructional issues such
as classroom management (Barton, 2003; Donlevy, 2002). Professional development can
also encourage student collaboration of data and curriculum for student learning; for
example, by demystifying successful performances, processes, and products, students can
analyze how certain results were achieved (Burke, 2005).
Research has shown that professional development provides the opportunity to
share successful practices among colleagues, which narrows the achievement gap.
Collaborative efforts by staff members are a key element in professional learning
communities (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). A coaching model of
professional development can ensure that teachers are displaying effective instructional
practices that are research-based and proven to increase student achievement as well
(Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008). An effective professional development program offers
guidance on how to increase student learning by using an array of instructional resources,

49
such as reading specialists, books for a student library, advanced textbooks, consumable
workbooks, and other high-quality print materials (Schwartz, 2001). Building a cohesive
professional development program affords opportunities to share best practices, develop
essential instructional skills, and increase staff relationships and support structures for
teachers to increase student learning (EdSource, 2004). In summary, these programs
focus on the improvement rather than the deficiency of the entire school and should
include collaboration, adult learning models, and developing of a community of learners.
Leadership
In closing the achievement gap, effective leadership practices are commonly found
at various levels, which include but are not limited to site administration, leadership
teams, and district-level administrators. School leadership has been identified as a factor
in effective schools (Marzano, 2003), particularly when it takes a more participative
approach. Effective leadership creates a compelling vision and galvanizes people to
implement it. In narrowing the achievement gap, a shared vision, mission, and goals are
essential for student learning (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008). Some studies have
posited that the most effective leaders are able to create and sustain changes
collaboratively in ways that continually enhance student achievement (Bosker &
Scheerens, 1997; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Sammons, 1999). Professional learning
communities are built upon effective leadership teams and collaborative teams. These
leaders focus on sustaining success for all students, creating a culture in which failure is
not an option. They also work collectively with all staff to assure the resources and

50
support necessary to bring about their mission of achievement for students. Moreover,
such leaders share a long-term view of sustainability so that leadership capacity at all
levels-- including site administration, leadership teams, and teachers continually thrive
and enhance student achievement.
Effective leadership in turn promotes the development of leaders at every level of
the organization. The responsibility for student success shifts from one or two people to
the entire learning community, which does not imply that everyone plays the same role,
but that every role is important and that most entail some level of leadership (Williams,
2006). Common leadership practices that instructional leaders effectively utilize are
listed hereafter. School leaders must clearly communicate with all stakeholders, whether
about following the school’s vision or coordinating curriculum. A positive learning
environment and climate ensures that all students will want to come to school— thus
maximizes student motivation and achievement. Maintaining visibility throughout the
school day is another common leadership practice that promotes a prosperous school
environment. School leaders who enforce rules and procedures for behavior minimize
disruptions to the classroom environment and provide student access to a quality
education (Schwartz, 2001). A leader wants to protect instructional time so teachers can
cover the rigorous, standards-based curriculum. Good, quality staff development helps to
sustain highly qualified teachers. Creating trusting relationships between instructional
leaders and teachers not only provides needed support, but also encourages better
relationships with parents and the community as a whole. An effective leadership team

51
sets high expectations for all students regardless of background so that conditions for
narrowing the achievement gap can be addressed (Marzano, 2003). The key leaders know
how to manage data and use the results to inform decisions and measure student
performance (DuFour, 2002).
High Expectations For All Students
Prioritizing academic achievement by holding high expectations for all students is
another crucial factor in narrowing the achievement gap. No matter what material
resources are available and no matter how children are grouped for instruction, children
spend their days interacting with teachers. Research has indicated that teachers’
expectations directly impact students’ beliefs, behaviors, and work habits (Ferguson,
2003). Therefore, teachers must foster nurturing relationships for academic achievement
and student behavior by promoting goals, skills, energy, and other resources necessary to
instill high expectations in all students, especially disadvantaged ones (Burke, 2005;
Jago, 2005). Teachers take care not to underestimate the potential of students whose
current performance is poor, including the disproportionate number of ethnic minorities,
English Learner, and low socioceconomic subgroup populations. Notably, according to
research, high expectations are more influential to the success of minority students than
of White students (Ferguson, 2003). Findings suggest that in a school climate where
teachers are committed to continual learning and sustained improvement, students are
more apt to achieve academically because they feel more connected to their learning
environment (Goldberger, 2008). A sense of shared responsibility among teachers builds

52
rapport with disadvantaged students, fosters a school climate in which all students can
learn, and helps to narrow the achievement gap that undermines the process of learning
(EdSource, 2004).
Data Utilization and Analysis
Exercising the power of data to identify and rectify educational inequalities is also
instrumental to targeting areas for academic improvement (Johnson, 2002). A study
surveying principals and teachers in 257 California elementary schools serving largely
low socioeconomic student populations was conducted to determine why some schools
outperformed other similar schools based upon the state’s academic performance index
(API). The findings showed that one of the factors more common at high-performing
schools was the use of assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction
(Williams, 2006).
Strongly correlated with a higher API was the extensive use of student assessment
data by the district and the principal in an effort to improve instruction and student
learning. School sites reported that they and the district used assessment data from
multiple sources, such as the curriculum program, district-developed assessments, and the
California Standards Tests. By analyzing the data, teachers had the information necessary
to identify students’ strengths and weakness thus allowing instruction to be tailored to
address learning gaps. From a sustainability perspective, teachers were able to use this
data to develop strategies to follow up on the progress of students and help them reach
their goals (Symonds, 2004). Giving feedback to students is critical to their learning and

53
assessment data is one venue to providing this feedback (Marzano, 2003). Overall, these
schools effectively narrowed gaps of student achievement by utilizing data throughout
the school year.
To evaluate teacher practices and to identify teachers who needed instructional
improvement, prinipals also used the assessment data (Williams, 2006). Working toward
instructional goals is essential and data usage serves this effort, informing as it does the
educational community on appropriate actions (Schmoker, 2006). Moreover, utilizing
data to establish instructional goals for teachers is a current trend in building professional
learning communities. These communities are built upon the foundation that data must be
examined critically in order to establish learning goals (DuFour et al., 2006). A key
activity in professional learning communities is having the staff examine the results of
data so that any educational inequalities can be addressed and corrected, thereby ensuring
that all students learn. Analysis of data becomes the vehicle driving instruction so that
best practices can be identified. For instance, teachers should question what materials the
students have mastered and what needs to be taught again (DuFour et al., 2008).
In brief, students from diverse backgrounds need extra assistance in the school
environment in order to attain their academic goals. This extra assistance can look
different at various schools; however, the core requirement is that students are having
their diverse needs met (Digisi & Fleming, 2005; Munitz, 2008). Collectively, the
aforementioned factors narrowing the achievement gap demonstrate great promise for
disadvantaged students. Research has suggested that whereas some high-performing

54
urban schools have made steady gains in overcoming educational inequality, the
academic achievement gap persists in schools with similar demographics (Lynch, 2006).
The literature is lacking on factors that have contributed to the sustained success of those
urban schools that are, in fact, narrowing the achievement gap— because so few studies
have actually examined the sustainability of reforms over long periods of time, in part
because most reforms do not last (Datnow, 2005). A long-term commitment to narrowing
the achievement gap is required for sustainable school reform (Munitz, 2008). By way of
a case study, the key aim of this paper is to examine sustainable school reform that has
become an institutionalized feature (or established practice) of a school.

Summary
The research has offered numerous factors that improve the achievement of low-
performing students; they include the following: quality instruction by high-qualified
teachers, effective leadership, adopting a standards-based, spiral curriculum, data
utilization, effective professional development, climate or school culture, and building
professional learning communities. Individually and/or collectively, these factors are
showing great promise in closing the achievement gap. Yet, to sustain reform, the factors
must also include longevity or success over time. The gap in the literature is to identify a
school site that has narrowed or closed the achievement gap and has had ongoing success,
as reflected by state testing data. Through an artifact review, observation, survey, and
interviews, this study will provide a perspective about how to narrow the achievement

55
gap and sustain school reform thus ensuring that all students have the opportunity to learn
regardless of ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status. Moreover, this study will
examine what cultural norms, practices, and programs have successfully and steadily
narrowed the achievement gap in one urban elementary school over the last three years.

56
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this chapter is to detail the research methodology for this study.
This chapter describes how the study was developed, research design, conceptual model,
population, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis components. As
stated previously, a persistent academic disparity exists between White and Asian
students and ethnic minorities, ELL, and low socioeconomic students. The purpose of
this study is to identify schools that have succeeded in reducing the achievement gap and
the practices and programs they implemented to sustain that success over time. This
case study is one of nine developed by a thematic dissertation team. This method was
chosen for its qualitative tradition of inquiry, which allows in-depth exploration of the
topic and enables the results to shed light on a phenomenon being studied (Patton, 2002).
Further, this method provides detailed descriptions of a particular phenomenon and
conceptualizes it (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Therefore, the researcher can gather
information about the factors, which succeed in reducing the achievement gap and
sustaining it over time. The methodology for this study was based upon research
questions developed by the cohort.

57
Research Development
A team of nine doctoral cohort members developed the study elements prior to
collecting data at each school. The cohort met for extended sessions from December 2008
to August 2009, at which all research decisions concerning the study were made. After a
thorough review of the literature, the cohort determined that little had been written in the
literature about urban schools that have closed the achievement gap and sustained success
over time and that more research was needed. After delving through the research, our
actions were guided by our problem statement and the research questions we developed.
Afterwards, we developed the data collection instruments each researcher would use
during the case study. Once the parameters of the study were established, each researcher
individually selected one urban school. A total of nine individual case studies were
studied using the similar criteria.

Problem Statement
The cohort developed the following problem statement: “there is a persistent
academic disparity viewed between White and Asian students and ethnic minority,
English Language Learners, and low socioeconomic students. Nonetheless, some urban
schools have been able to close the achievement gap and sustain it over time.” Not
knowing what contributes to closing this gap and sustaining it over time, the cohort
developed three research questions.

58
Research Questions
1. What cultural norms employed by the school have allowed it to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?
2. What practices employed by the school have allowed it to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?
3. What programs employed by the school have allowed them to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?

Selection Criteria
A school that met the criteria specified by the cohort group was chosen for this
study. Per the instruction of Dr. Stuart Gothold, the thematic group’s advisor, selecting
schools that were successfully sustaining a narrowed achievement gap would encourage
those schools to be interested in participating in the study. As stated earlier, urban schools
were specifically chosen because of the lack of literature dedicated to schools that have
narrowed the achievement gap for a sustained period of time. Also, many external
factors cannot be controlled in urban schools because of their location, so their sustained
achievement and resiliency offered hope of a model for other schools to emulate.
Because we were interested in these types of schools, every urban school selected for this
study had to meet the following criteria:

59
1. Demographics – subgroup: significant if there are 100+/15% of population
Urban – a population that causes a school to modify programs to accommodate
the risk factors that would come with the population in your school
(minority/immigrant, ELL, low SES, 40% free and reduced lunch, Title I
2. Sustainability – minimum of 2-3+ consecutive years
a. API subgroups have closed the gap- schoolwide score vs. subgroup
(meeting State target) or subgroup meeting/exceeding averages;
progress toward 800 API
After choosing a school, each member of the group made initial contact with the
school, which in this case, meant meeting the school principal. This researcher met with
the selected school site principal in April 2009; the researcher explained that the school
had met the selection criteria for demographics and sustainability, therefore qualifying as
an urban school that has succeeded in closing the achievement gap and sustaining success
over time. During this informal meeting, visitation dates, times, and frequency of visits
were discussed, as well as a rough timeline for conducting the study. To verify that his
school site had agreed to participate in the study, the researcher sent a follow-up
electronic mail to the school principal; a confidentiality agreement was signed regarding
data collection and reporting as well.

60
Framework of the Study
The nine doctoral candidates in the thematic dissertation group contributed to the
framework of this case study. The group developed the framework over the spring and
summer of 2009. Adaptation of the framework was derived from the Clark and Estes’s
(2002) Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance
Solutions, which assists organizations in making effective decisions about performance
products and services. Figure 1, below, shows the plan for the gap analysis process
model. The authors posit that in order to be effective, organizations must be willing to
analyze themselves critically, set goals, identify individual performance goals and
performance gaps, and evaluate results. The gap analysis model first identifies key
business goals, followed by effective performance goals. The next step determines any
performance gaps and analyzes those gaps in order to determine causes. These
performance gaps are due to causes of knowledge/skill, motivation, or organizational
processes. Once researchers determine and implement solutions for these causes, they
evaluate results, tune the system, and revise the goals (Clark & Estes, 2002).

61

Figure 1
Clark & Estes,Gap Analysis Process Model. (Clark & Estes, 2002).

The framework of the study shown in Figure 2, below, was developed by the
thematic dissertation group to illustrate the gap analysis used to determine factors that
have contributed to growth in student achievement in urban schools that are exceeding
performance expectations compared to similar schools. In reference to the urban school
studied, the researcher analyzed these factors to determine their role in narrowing the
school’s achievement gap.

Identify key business
goals.

Identify individual
performance goals.

performance goals.

Determine
performance gaps.

Analyze gaps to
determine causes.

Identify motivation
solutions and
implement.

Evaluate results, tune
system and revise
goals.

Identify
organizational
process and material
solutions and
implement.

Identify knowledge/skill
solutions and
implement.

62

Figure 2
Model of the Conceptual Framework for the Current Study

Sample and Population
Lion Elementary Neighborhoods
Lion Elementary School (LES) is located in a city in San Bernardino County. The
city's incorporated area is 36 square miles, with a sphere of influence of 56 square miles.
According to the last census report, conducted in 2000, approximately 128,929 people
were living in the city where the elementary school is located: approximately 45% is
White, 4.4% Asian, 57.7% Hispanic, 11.8% Black, and 1.4% Other; 26.9% of the
population is foreign-born and 50.4% of the households speak a language other than
English. As reported in the 2000 census, the poverty rate in this city was 14.7%.
Identify a High
Achieving
School
Identify Student
Subgroup
Performance
Achievement
Goals and
Subgroup
Performance on
API
Identify Factors
Contributing to
Growth through:

- Document Review
- Observations
- Surveys
- Interviews

Practices

Analyze and
Synthesize
Results
Programs/
School
Structures
Programs/
School
Structures

Cultural Norms
Norms

63
Pride Unified School District Overview
Lion Elementary School is located within the Pride Unified School District
(PUSD). The district is rich in cultural, racial, and economic diversity. Over 41,959
students are in PUSD, which encompasses 28 square miles of territory and serves
students from seven different cities in the area. This district consists of 29 elementary
schools, 7 middle schools, and 4 high schools. The students of PUSD by ethnicity are as
follows: 0.4 % American Indian, 1.3 % Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 1.1% Filipino,
82.4% Hispanic, 7.2% African American, and 6.7% White. Approximately 40% of the
students in PUSD is English Language Learners where 38.9% speaks Spanish, 0.2%
Arabic, 0.2% Filipino, 0.1% Punjabi, 0.1% Vietnamese, and 0.5% All Other (EdData
District Reports, 2007-2008). Further, 66.5% of students in the district qualify for free or
reduced lunch. PUSD is a Title I district that cherishes the diverse cultural backgrounds
of its student body and maintains high expectations for its children. The Pride Unified
School District places strong emphasis on high achievement for students and preparation
for productive citizenship. The district’s five goals are listed below:
Goal 1: LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS
Every student will be provided a comprehensive educational program aligned
with the California State Standards that increases student achievement to the
highest level and increases attendance.
Goal 2: SAFE, POSITIVE, WELL-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
Every student will be provided with a clean, orderly and adequately equipped
school that is organized for its educational purpose and where every student is
welcomed, respected and valued.
Goal 3: QUALITY STAFF PROVIDING QUALITY SERVICE
Every student will be provided with a quality education by highly qualified staff
who will be continuously trained in teaching strategies, support programs, and
staff development activities.

64
Goal 4: SCHOOL/HOME/COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS &
COMMUNICATION
Every student will be supported, and relationships enhanced, through open
communication with parents, students, colleagues and the community to develop
partnerships.
Goal 5: ACQUISITION & ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES THAT SUPPORT
GOALS 1-4
Every student will be supported through the strategic allocation of all resources by
continuously reviewing, updating and fully implementing all district plans.

Lion Elementary School Overview
Lion Elementary School is a single-track, year-round school serving 531 students
in kindergarten through fifth grade, with 63.1% qualifying for English Learner support,
and 84.9% qualifying for free and reduced price lunch. In terms of ethnicity, the
percentages are the following: African American 1.1%, White 2.1%, Asian 0.6%,
Filipino 0.4%, and Hispanic 95.7%. Tables 1 and 2, below, illustrate student population
by special programs and ethnicity for Lion Elementary, respectively.

65
Table 1
School Enrollment by Special Program
Special Programs

2007-08

Number of

Students

%

of Enrollment
English Learners 335 63.1
Free/Reduced Price Meals 451 84.9
Note. Source: 2007-08 School Reports, Education Data Partnership.

Table 2
School Enrollment by Ethnicity
Student Ethnicity
2007-08
Number
of Students
%
of Enrollment
Asian 3 0.6
Filipino 2 0.4
Hispanic 508 95.7
African American 6 1.1
White 11 2.1
Note. Source: 2007-08 School Reports, Education Data Partnership.

66
A state preschool program is on campus and is open to eligible 3-5 year olds; the
preschool program offers a child-centered curriculum focusing on physical, cognitive,
and social-emotional growth. Student disposition is changing at LES, as the school staff
instills a sense of resiliency in the learning environment and instructional programs to
foster continuing academic achievement. Multiple measures of student achievement are
an ongoing part of the instructional program at LES. These measures are used to monitor
students’ actual progress and to evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional program as
well.
California uses the results of STAR testing to calculate the Academic
Performance index (API), which is used to measure school performance, set academic
growth targets, and monitor progress over time. Whereas the overall API growth target
for LES the last three years was set at 20 points, the actual growth of API scores Lion
Elementary has been 99 points. This progress moved its overall API score from 649 to
748 during that period of time. Table 3, below, illustrates the school’s API growth
between 2005 and 2008.

67

Table 3
Academic Performance Index Scores 2005-2008
School Year Schoolwide API Score
2005-2006 649
2006-2007 690
2007-2008 748
Note. Source: 2007-08 Accountability Progress Reporting, California Department of
Education, Sacramento.
Lion Elementary has narrowed its achievement gap in terms of the API score for
the subgroup populations and according to the NCLB requirements of Adequate Yearly
Progress. Lion’s Academic Performance Index scores are represented in Table 4, below,
and are defined by subgroup population over the last four years, as compared to
California’s overall API scores for those same subgroup populations. This growth
indicates that the diverse learning needs of students traditionally underserved in public
schools is being addressed at Lion Elementary and, as such, provides an ideal setting for
answering the research questions.

68

Table 4
Academic Performance Index Scores by Ethnicity/Economic Status
School Year Lion Elem
2005-06
Lion Elem
2006-07
Lion Elem
2007-08
State API
2007-08
Hispanic 661 692 748 722
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
660 690 748 717
English Learners 645 684 738 710
Note. Source: 2007-08 Accountability Progress Reporting, California Department of
Education, Sacramento.
As stated previously, Lion Elementary School has approximately 531 students
and one principal. The school staffs 28 teachers and all but one are fully credentialed
(Lion Elementary School Report Card, 2008).

Instrumentation
Case analysis involves collecting and organizing data for in-depth study and
comparison. It consists of all the information one has about each case, including
interview data, observations, and the data resources-- in essence, all of the information
one has accumulated about each particular case goes into a case study. Although
quantitative studies tend to be more popular, choosing a qualitative method for this study
allows for “thick and rich” description of the phenomenon. Doing so helps to recreate the

69
phenomenon within its context, further relating descriptive data to data of other research
findings reported in the literature (Gall et al., 2003; Patton, 2002). Few urban schools
have sustained success in narrowing the achievement gap; as such, a case study
methodology was used in order to produce an in-depth study of this phenomenon in its
natural setting, while seeking emic and etic perspectives of the participants (Gall et al.,
2003). Case study methods allow the researcher to focus deeply on one unique case for
its intrinsic interest. For this particular study, the researcher collaborated with the other
members of the thematic group in order to test the generalizability of themes and patterns
(Gall et al., 2003).
Based upon the qualitative nature of this study, the thematic group developed
multiple types of data collection instruments. Utilizing various forms of data collection
allows details to be examined from multiple perspectives, strengthening the study through
triangulation (Patton, 2002). Triangulation ensures that no single method answers or
solves a problem. A variety of methodological combinations provide crossdata validity
checks, thus testing for consistency (Patton, 2002). These data collection instruments
included the following: document review, observations, surveys, and interviews. A
description of each data collection instruments is below. (Note: all instruments are
located in the appendixes).
Document Review
Arriving at selection criteria for an urban school that has reduced the achievement
gap and sustained it over time involved reviewing a variety of resource documents. The

70
thematic group compiled a list of documents that were available to the researcher through
state websites, district and school websites, as well as the school site itself. Specifically,
the following documents were reviewed for this study: (a) the district website to find
district goals, city, district, and school demographics, and the school’s report card; (b)
school-level artifacts to find specific information about the school’s culture, practices,
and programs; (c) California Department of Education website to find the school’s CST,
CELDT, AYP, and API scores; and (d) California Basic Educational Data System to find
county demographics.
Observations
The observational tool was developed to examine the cultural norms, programs,
and practices in their natural setting. Observations took place over a three-month period
in July, August, and September of 2009. The majority of the observations occurred in the
classrooms although many other observations took place around the school site.
Classroom observations were conducted in various classrooms ranging from five minutes
in length to 50 minutes. The classrooms were mutually selected by the researcher and
school administration to represent a crosssection of curricular areas and student ability
levels. A number of school activities and meetings were also recorded.
During the observations, the researcher recorded notes on the observation log
(Appendix C). The log was designed to be open-ended and to allow scripting of
information during the observation.

71
Surveys
In order to find out what practices and programs the school has successfully been
implementing at the school site, the thematic group created a teacher survey. The survey
asked questions pertaining to collaboration opportunities, school leadership, program
implementation, data analysis, intervention, and classroom instruction . The surey is a 32-
item questionnaire and each question is categorized into the broader themes that emerged
from the literature (see Appendix D). A survey was given to all school administrators
and teachers at the school site. Respondents are based upon a 4-point Likert scale (4-
Strongly Agree, 3- Agree, 2- Somewhat Agree, 1- Strongly Disagree). The survey also
included an open-ended response section for participants to add information if so desired
in reference to the survey themes. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete
by each participant. The survey was discussed with the site administrator prior to
dispensation to ensure a high volume of participation.
Interviews
In order to gain a better understanding of the how the school had narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained it over time, the thematic dissertation group created nine
different categories of open-ended interview questions. The group determined that the
following people held the most useful information with respect to the school’s cultural
norms, schoolwide and classroom practices, and school programs: principal, teachers
who are grade level chairs, other classroom teachers, and school office staff. Anywhere
from six to eight interviews were conducted with the personnel previously mentioned to

72
gain insight into what factors contributed to the school’s success in reducing the
achievement gap and sustaining it over time. The researcher recorded all signed consent
forms from the subjects who were interviewed. Interviews with all subjects were
scheduled in advance with an exact time and location, usually determined by what was
suitable for the interviewee. During the interviewing process, all participants were given
ample time to answer and elaborate on each of the questions. Each category of questions
focused on conditions that have contributed to and sustained the closing of the
achievement gap.

Data Collection
The cohort developed a process for collecting data and the researcher was
responsible for all of the data collection at his school site. Documents were gathered and
examined first because they were the easiest to attain, being readily available on the
Internet and within the domain of public information.
At the first staff meeting of the year, the researcher was introduced to the staff. At
that point in time, the researcher gave a description of the study and discussed the
different sources of data that needed collecting. The researcher distributed the surveys at
the next staff meeting and asked all participants to return the surveys within a week’s
time.

73
Interviews were scheduled between the months of July and September with the
principal and five other staff members from varying grade levels. All interviews were
conducted before or after school and were tape-recorded.

Data Analysis
The researcher used the following steps to analyze data, as defined by Creswell
(2003, p. 191-195):
Step 1: The researcher organized and prepared the data for analysis by
transcribing the interviews, creating folders to code, arrange, and separate the
data.
Step 2: The researcher read through all of the data to obtain a sense of the data
and to determine what theme(s) may exist.
Step 3: The researcher coded the themes and labeled them into categories.
Step 4: The researcher used the codes to describe the setting, people, events,
categories, and themes.
Step 5: The researcher used narrative passages to convey the findings.
Step 6: The findings were interpreted based upon the researcher’s understanding.
By using these steps listed above, the researcher was able to construct meaning of the
data collected. The research findings are discussed in Chapter Four.

74
Validity
Accuracy is critical to ensuring the validity of a study; therefore, researchers must
employ different methods to protect the credibility of the study. Triangulation, member-
checking, peer debriefing, and the use of rich, thick descriptions were strategies
implemented to validate the accuracy of the study’s findings (Creswell, 2003).
The data examined for the study was collected through multiple means: document
review, observations, surveys, and interviews. This triangulation of the different data
sources confirmed that the data collected was accurate. Member-checking was also used
to verify accuracy. The researcher verbally checked with the participants that the
researcher had accurately interpreted their responses during the data collections process.
To gain an objective view of the data collection process and for the review and
clarification of the data collected, the researcher met with the cohort for feedback. This
peer debriefing provided another means for research validity. The researcher used a rich,
thick description to convey his findings. Adding this element enables the reader to picture
what the researcher was experiencing while doing the study.

Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to discuss the research methodology of this case
study. The methods were based upon the decisions of the cohort and suggestions of Gall
et al. (2003), Creswell (2003), and Patton (2002). Data collection via document review,
observations, surveys, and interviews informed the research findings. Triangulation,

75
member-checking, peer debriefing, and the use of rich, thick descriptions were
implemented to validate the accuracy of the study’s findings. Research findings will be
outlined in Chapter Four.

76
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

The purpose of this case study was to identify how one elementary school has
succeeded in narrowing the achievement gap and sustained that success over time. The
design of the case study examined the cultural norms, practices, and programs of the
school community. Once the findings were collected and assessed, these results
summarized how an elementary school has sustained success in narrowing the
achievement gap between ethnic minorities, English Learners, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged students compared to White and Asian students. Particular cultural norms,
practices, and programs instituted at the school provided the foundation that assisted in
narrowing their achievement gap for a sustained period of time. These research questions
guided this study:
1. What cultural norms employed by the school have allowed it to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?
2. What practices (school-wide and classroom) employed by the school have
allowed it to close the achievement gap and sustain success?
3. What programs employed by the school have allowed it to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?

77
This chapter outlines the findings of the case study. A school overview will begin
the chapter. The overview will detail and highlight features of Lion Elementary School
that solidify meaning to the results found in the data collection. Besides a rich description
taken from the interviews of key school participants, recognizable school characteristics
such as the school culture, programs, and practices are discussed at length to ensure a
detailed account of what was observed at the school site. Afterwards, a summary of
findings by research question will reveal emergent themes. Finally, a discussion summary
will review key elements of the findings.

Overview of the School
Lion Elementary School is located in an area of Southern California known as the
Inland Empire, a growing community 50 miles east of Los Angeles in San Bernardino
County. The community was originally founded as an agricultural area in 1913, but later
transitioned to steel production in 1942 once a steel mill was built. As time passed, much
of the steel production went away, but the area is now a mecca for railroad and trucking
operations, a number of medium-to-heavy industrial facilities, and several
warehousing/distribution centers. The city’s present population is estimated at 151,965.
The city’s incorporated area is 36 square miles with a sphere of influence of 56 square
miles. Lion Elementary is one of 29 elementary schools within the Pride Unified School
District. This urban school district also runs seven middle schools, four high schools, one
alternative school, and two continuation schools.

78
According to the Education Data Partnership website, Lion Elementary is a
single-track school serving 573 students in 2008-09 in kindergarten through sixth grade,
including 62.7% qualifying for English Learner support and 81.2% qualifying for free
and reduced price meals. In addition, 13.1% of the students enrolled were labeled as
Fluent English Proficient (FEP) students. The FEP category includes students whose
primary language is not English but who scored high enough on a state test of English
proficiency and those previously identified as English Learners who achieved district-
specified scores on state achievement tests and met other academic criteria. In terms of
ethnicity, the percentages are the following: African American 1.7%, White 2.1%, Asian
0.5%, and Hispanic 95.6%. An average of 19 students were in grades 1-3, whereas grades
4-6 had an average of 27 students (Education Data Partnership, 2009).
At the point of this study, Lion Elementary School employed a certificated staff of
27 teachers, three fewer than the previous year. They account for the general education
teachers in grades one through six, a science enrichment teacher, a music enrichment
teacher, an instructional support teacher, one resource specialist teacher, one teacher for
the mildly handicapped, two deaf and hard of hearing teachers, one speech/language
pathologist, and a school psychologist. Lion’s teaching staff suffered a reduction of full-
time employees due to budget cuts, which were reflected in its 2009-10 school budget.
Beginning in 2009, the Pride Unified School District chose to increase class size to 24.9
in order to stay fiscally prudent. This change resulted in the laying off of a number of
certificated employees.

79
The 2008-09 school year had a certificated staff of 30 teachers, a school nurse, a
speech pathologist, and a school psychologist. Of those 30 teachers, 28 were fully
credentialed. One teacher was employed with a university intern teaching credential and
one taught on an emergency permit. For that school year, the teacher ethnicity
breakdown was: 70% White, 20% Hispanic, 6.7% African American, and 3.3% Filipino.
The teachers are a veteran staff with the least senior teacher having nine years of
experience, not counting Special Education. The classified personnel consist of a
community liaison, librarian, secretary, attendance clerk, cafeteria manager, health-aide,
noon-aides, and two custodians. Lion Elementary has one full-time principal.
Lion Elementary School (LES) relishes the rich cultural backgrounds that
comprise its student population. LES closely follows the five Pride District goals that
were adopted in May of 2005. These goals provide staff members with a focus to work
toward in order to ensure the best educational program for all students. Sharing
developed commonalities such as learning for all, safe and well-maintained schools,
quality staffs, open communication with parents, students, and the community, and
allocating supportive resources, these district goals have provided the necessary
foundation for student achievement across the grade levels. With these goals in mind, the
LES staff has employed cultural norms, practices, and programs that provide a gateway
to learning for all of its students. Placing a strong emphasis on student achievement and a
concerted effort by the staff, Lion Elementary has earned sustained student success. The
school has improved its state overall Academic Performance Index (API) scores over the

80
last four years from 659 to 757—nearly a one 100-point increase. Just as important, all
of its API subgroup scores have dramatically improved as well over the same period of
time. Moreover, all 17 benchmark criteria monitored by the Federal Government, which
comprise the school’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores, were also met. Another
momentous event for Lion Elementary was being recognized by the Board of Education
for successfully exiting Program Improvement Status as defined for Title I schools based
on their AYP.

School Participants
The researcher initially contacted the school principal in April 2009 to obtain
permission to conduct the study; the researcher explained that Lion met the school
selection criteria for demographics and sustainability due to narrowing of the
achievement gap and its sustained success over time. The principal then agreed to sign
the researcher’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) consent form and together the two
discussed the visitation dates, times, frequency of visits, and a rough timeline for
conducting the study. In July 2009 the researcher attended a staff meeting in which
introductions were made and provided a brief overview of the case study process. It was
made known that the researcher would visit periodically throughout the trimester and
would engage in prolonged observations in and around the school site in order to obtain a
thorough profile of the school’s cultural norms, practices, and programs. The staff neither
objected to nor contested the researcher’s proposal. Prior to holding the meeting, the staff

81
was made privy (by their principal) to the fact that their school had been chosen to
participate in a case study. Specifically, they were told that a researcher would be visiting
at various times during the first trimester and that at some designated time, they would be
responsible for filling out a survey for the case study. Staff personnel filled out all but
two of the researcher’s surveys. After a lengthy discussion with the school administrator,
the researcher finalized a list of school personnel deemed responsible for the school’s
success in narrowing the achievement gap and sustaining it over time. During the month
of October, the researcher conducted six interviews with employees from that list: the
principal, three teachers, and two office staff members. Besides drawing from surveys
and interviews, the researcher undertook an exhaustive review of the school documents;
school site observations helped to convey the most pertinent information with respect to
Lion’s cultural norms, schoolwide and classroom practices, and school programs.

Interviews
Pseudonyms were designated to all of the willing interview participants. The first
interviewed employee was one of the few teachers at the school site, with relatively little
teaching experience. Mrs. Barley worked at one other school site before moving over to
Lion Elementary. Like so many other new teachers, she chose to leave her previous
school due to lack of support. “I stayed only a year. They weren’t intimidating, but it
wasn’t helpful. I just didn’t feel supported.” Mrs. Barley considered herself a new
teacher. She appreciated the unconditional support from her current site administrator not

82
only because was she newer to the teaching profession, but also because she was
acquiring the skills necessary for being a Special Education teacher. “I really like this
principal. As a newer teacher, I feel that he’s really approachable. He’s been very
supportive when I’ve had an issue, so I really appreciate that. Otherwise, it can be really
intimidating and not encouraging.” Mrs. Barley was working in a Deaf and Hard of
Hearing classroom with primary-age children. The school principal, Mr. Castro,
expressed how pleased he has been with her progress and effort as a newer teacher. Mrs.
Barley is relatively new to Lion Elementary, which was one reason the researcher
interviewed her. To get the perspective of every type of employee—veteran and new—
Mrs. Barley’s responses were included.
The next interview was with a 6
th
-grade teacher who was considered by many of
his colleagues as a wealth of information and a school leader when it comes classroom
management. Having taught 19 years altogether, with four out of state, Mr. Crew had
proficient instructional knowledge ranging from 2
nd
to 8
th
grade. The researcher observed
that many of the other teachers looked to Mr. Crew and valued his opinions during staff
meetings, collaboration meetings, and staff development. The researcher got a sense that
Mr. Crew really understood what has produced student success for Lion Elementary. In
his words, “I came from New Jersey. We had standards. When I came here, the
curriculum was not standards-based. Years ago, Lion Elementary used to be the bottom
of the barrel. As soon as standards came, I saw the progression.” Mr. Crew truly saw the
importance of tutoring students who were at-risk. He continued to tutor students even

83
though the school no longer had funds to pay him. The site administrator valued Mr.
Crew’s judgment. It was not uncommon for him to ask for the teacher’s opinion on a
given topic before he introduced it to the staff.
The following interview was with a primary grade teacher who was currently
teaching a 1
st
and 2
nd
grade combination class. Mrs. Gillette has 18 years experience
teaching in three different school districts. She was able to provide insightful
comparisons in terms of district and school protocols, having worked in different locales.
Mrs. Gillette’s classroom was very organized and well maintained. Due to a new
elementary school that had opened nearby, Mrs. Gillette was originally displaced from
Lion Elementary and sent to work at another school despite the fact that she had nine
years experience within this district. Fortunately for her, the district posted a new opening
of a 1
st
and 2
nd
grade combination class at her previous school a few weeks into the
school year. Mrs. Gillette abruptly contacted her old principal, Mr. Castro, and applied
for the position – even though it meant picking up all of her teaching belongings, moving
them to another school site, setting up an entirely new classroom, and teaching a more
challenging combination class. She explained:
They had me placed at a newer school. It looked like a middle school. It was
beautiful, but then I got a phone call telling me that a combo class was opening at
Lion and if I would be interested. I said, “I’m there!”

The fourth interview was spent with an office staff member – the school’s
Community Liaison, Mrs. Calderon. She has spent the last eight years working at Lion
Elementary. Knowing that much of her time was spent speaking with and listening to the

84
parents of the community, she had intimate knowledge of how the school was perceived
by its stakeholders. Her duties involved bridging communication between the community
of parents and the school staff, which translated into whatever role deemed necessary in
order to benefit the parents and their children. She was a great bilingual resource to have
on campus. She employment at Lion Elementary began as a reading tutor and she also
assisted in the computer lab. After that stint of time, the school utilized her abilities to
improve school attendance. She instituted incentive programs that rewarded students for
positive behavior. The programs encouraged children to come to school everyday,
behave appropriately, and value recognition and praise for a job well done. Due to
budget cuts during the last few years, her role has been reduced. “I’m not supposed to be
in the office. I do work with children. I’m an outreach liaison, so I work with the parents.
I’m that bridge between home and school.”
The next interview was conducted with Mrs. Baker, the school secretary.
Virtually everyone the researcher spoke with acknowledged Mrs. Baker as the ultimate
resource for information about the school and its policies, supplying such
characterizations: “I have never approached her with a question or concern that she
hasn’t been able to help me with.” “Mrs. Baker is Mr. Castro’s secretary, but she is also
the Answer Girl. If there’s something I need, she knows where it is.” Having worked at
the school site since 1990, Mrs. Baker had witnessed the many stages of Lion
Elementary. She had been there when the school was performing poorly, witnessed its
ups and downs, and ultimately played a major supporting role during its exit from

85
Program Improvement status. When all other variables were changing, the school
secretary position held by Mrs. Baker was one of the few constants people counted on.
The last interview was held with the school principal, Mr. Castro, who had been
involved with education for almost 20 years. He had been employed as a teacher, an
assistant principal, and as a school principal. This was his sixth year as a site principal
and his third year at Lion Elementary. The teachers, office staff— and parents for that
matter— appreciated his unwavering support and standing open-door policy. Mrs. Barley
recalled, “Mr. Castro was supportive in helping me stay because I had some problems
with the program I was in and my credential. He was instrumental in helping keep
consistency for my class.” He was a bilingual administrator who spoke fluent English,
with Spanish being his primary speaking language. Due to the high number of students
from Spanish-speaking families, Mr. Castro released all pertinent school documents,
memorandums, and/or flyers for parents translated in both of these languages. Moreover,
Mr. Castro frequently sent information to parents telephonically in both English and
Spanish through a telephone message system employed by the school. Immediately prior
to his tenure at Lion Elementary, Mr. Castro’s leadership was instrumental in the drastic
rise of student achievement in a school that shared many of the same demographics and
characteristics as his current assignment. His concern for the welfare of children was
beyond reproach.

86
Characteristics of Lion Elementary
The researcher’s heart was surely lumped in his throat as he set off with
anticipation to visit Lion Elementary for the first time. The principal had invited him to
attend their “Back to School” staff meeting. It was a golden opportunity for a couple of
reasons. One was being able to observe how everyone interacted with one another;
having previously been a teacher himself, the researcher knew this would be a relaxed
and enjoyable meeting as the staff had just returned from being off-track.
The school was located in a neighborhood of older single-family track homes
hidden behind blocks of industrial buildings, seemingly extending in all directions. Many
of the concrete walls that stood between the road and the cul-de-sacs of houses were
peppered with graffiti; several homes looked neglected and in dire need of repair. The
campus sat about halfway down the street and was not adjacent to any major
intersections.
The appearance of Lion Elementary School presented a stark contrast to the
neighborhood surrounding it. The permanent buildings had a clean brick exterior
whereas the portable classrooms also looked well maintained. The entire campus was
surrounded by chain-link fence with locked gates at multiple locations. Overall, other
than a few missing letters from the school’s name on the office building, the campus
grounds were well-kept and free from any graffiti. The office stood in the front of the
school along with the cafeteria. Behind those buildings were rows of permanent
classrooms. South of these classrooms were approximately a dozen or so portable

87
classrooms and the other parking lot. Behind the classrooms was a large blacktop area
housing a variety of playground equipment. Beyond the blacktop was a long strip of grass
that the students utilized for a field.
The researcher politely sat in the back of a classroom and waited for the “Back to
School” meeting to commence. As more and more staff members walked in, smiles and
warm embraces were observed everywhere. It appeared that everyone from the staff was
familiar with one another. As the principal spoke to commence the meeting, his audience
casually sat down and gave him their attention. Over the next couple of hours, the
principal and teaching staff collaborated over a number of topics related to the beginning
of the new school year. It was not your typical “top-down,” “listen to what I have to say”
speech. It was more of a conversation where all members participated and their opinions
were validated and considered. Staff personnel spoke with poise and professionalism. At
the requested time, the researcher addressed all who were present and laid out the
essential elements needed for his case study. The staff politely listened to what was
presented and in turn, asked some insightful questions regarding the data collection
process. When all was said and done, the experience left the researcher enthusiastically
looking forward to upcoming visits.
Subsequent visits occurred several times during the first trimester from August
until October 2009 while school was in session. At the start of each school day, an
onslaught of cars dropped off students in the north parking lot in front of the office. A
good number of students walked to the school site with their parents. A few of the older

88
students walked together in small groups. Once the arrival bell rang, students lined up
and were escorted by their teachers into their respective classrooms. Lines were orderly
and students were well mannered. Students did not appear lackadaisical or lethargic.
Before entering classrooms, the researcher completed a walk-around of the entire
campus.
As much as possible, classroom assignments were positioned by grade levels.
Third and 4
th
grades occupied the portable classrooms, whereas other grade levels were
housed in the permanent brick buildings. During instructional time, corridors were quiet
and foot traffic was kept to a minimum. Indoor flooring had a shiny wax finish and no
pieces of trash were seen. Some of the walls contained rows of hooks that the students
used to hang their backpacks. Outdoor breezeways were swept and free of debris.
Bathrooms appeared well-stocked, clean, and sanitary. The field of grass was not
overgrown and only a few loose articles of trash were found along the fence. For safety
purposes, all gate entrances were locked during school hours.
Visitors were permitted on campus once they checked in with the front office. The
office was the only available entrance during school hours. After signing in, visitors
received and wore an apple shaped visitor badge on their clothing at all times while at the
school site. Badges were worn for security purposes. The office was constantly in flux as
people entered and exited the school. It was especially busy during school arrival and
departure hours. Despite the foot traffic, the office staff made a concerted effort to
welcome any and everyone who walked through the front office door.

89
Because so much activity between parents and the school occurred in the office,
the administrative staff utilized much of the wall space with parent resources in mind. For
instance, pamphlets regarding student and family health insurance options printed in
English and Spanish were available right outside the school nurse’s office door. There
were available copies of the Lion’s school activity calendar and Pride Unified School
District’s current school year calendar translated in both languages as well. Along the
adjoining wall and on the office counter, a plethora of parenting, school, and community
information was constantly updated and made accessible to anyone interested.
Furthermore, the bilingual community liaison often worked in the office, so she
thoroughly explained any information or answered any possible questions parents may
have had.
Farther along the same wall were photos of students who had been recognized for
earning monthly awards. The awards included outstanding achievement in language arts,
mathematics, citizenship, and student effort. Adjacent to the photos was the principal’s
office. It was learned later that he moved his room closer to the office entrance so that he
could be more visible to the parents and his students. On the wall opposite the principal’s
office door stood a prominent bulletin board displaying all of the school’s student
achievement growth on California state testing. Charts covering the last three years
depicted significant student achievement overall and for each of Lion’s testing subgroups
in language arts and mathematics. Part of the bulletin board was reserved for Lion’s new
state testing goals for the coming spring. The waiting area inside the office was small,

90
but chairs were provided for students, parents, and visitors when their stay involved an
extended period of time. The office staff genuinely attempted to make all visitors feel
comfortable on a consistent basis regardless of their background or the circumstances
concerning their visit. Those speaking to a school representative would find a tone of
professionalism not to be outdone by a genuine feeling of warmth and caring.
Connected to the front office was the teacher’s lounge and school cafeteria.
Having the teacher’s lounge located in close proximity to the principal’s office allowed
for frequent informal communication between administration and teaching staff. As a
means of reducing school costs and encouraging more frequent use of technology, the
majority of formal communication occurred via email. The cafeteria served a dual role as
lunchroom and multipurpose room for awards and assemblies. That being the case, the
sidewalls along the cafeteria displayed bulletin boards that honored student achievement
and success and encouraged student participation. Students who had read at least one
million words, according to their Accelerated Reader scores, while enrolled at Lion
Elementary had their photos displayed on the west wall. The photos were looked upon as
a hall of fame celebrating perseverance and high student achievement. The east wall
accounted for school attendance numbers to encourage students to attend school each and
everyday. The attendance of each grade level was recorded on the wall as a means of
promoting healthy competition among the different grade levels.
The cafeteria was an extremely busy place throughout the school day. Due to the
fact that over 80% of students qualified for free or reduced lunch, a number of students

91
arrived to school before the start of the school day in order to eat breakfast. Mornings
were busy also because many of the teachers volunteered to tutor before school. The
principal spent the first part of his day in the cafeteria monitoring breakfast. Moreover,
he spent numerous mornings attending Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings
before school. These meeting pertained to students who received Special Education
services at the school site. Due to the nature of these meetings, the principal was unable
to predict when they would adjourn; much as his actual school day was just as
unpredictable.
Although much of the principal’s day was planned on his monthly calendar, his
duties as school administrator appeared overwhelming at times. He was a firm believer
of having an “Open Door” policy with everyone, especially parents. It was critical that he
maintained an open line of communication to parents for whatever the reason so that they
would continue to seek his support. In all eight visits to the school site, the researcher,
upon arrival, never observed Mr. Castro in his office. He was participating in
conversations in person or on the phone with parents, teachers, or students, observing
classrooms, or carrying on some other administrative duty. Being the sole administrator
severely limited his “free” time during the school day. Any of the principal’s research or
planning that involved student achievement such as staff collaboration, data analysis, or
student intervention was typically postponed until late in the afternoon. It was not
uncommon to see Mr. Castro working on campus until six o’clock in the evening.

92
The site administrator consulted with the office staff every morning before the
start of the school day to pass along any necessary information needed for that day’s
activities. Conversely, office personnel adeptly informed Mr. Castro of any subtle
calendar changes or additions that arose due to ongoing communiqué with students,
parents, staff, district personnel, and the like. All parties, the administrator and his
support staff, interacted with precise efficiency. Discussions were usually light-hearted
sprinkled with instances of humor. The staff appeared to be quite familiar with one
another and got along very well. The secretary, attendance clerk, and community liaison
adroitly attended to their business of personal interactions, phone calls, emails, and faxes.
As different situations arose, the office staff skillfully relayed appropriate information,
whether about a sick child, a concerned parent, or a visiting district or community
member. Support staff employees interacted in a way that promoted effective office
management and at the same time approached visiting children and adults with a sense of
warmth and compassion.
The early mornings continued with the site administrator speaking to Lion’s
school population over the intercom. Daily announcements were shared, upcoming
activities were promoted, and Mr. Castro often highlighted recent events that the school
should take pride in. For example, one visit by the researcher was on a day when Lion
Elementary was observing their Fall Festival. According to the principal, the event was
an opportunity to recognize the efforts put forth by the entire student body and to praise
students and teachers for their successes during the first trimester. The event was

93
planned and produced by the school’s Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) and run by Lion
Elementary PTA members, parent volunteers, and several teachers (who were not paid to
participate). It celebrated everyone’s early school accomplishments – the students,
teachers, support staff, and the administrator.
It was also common for the principal to briefly discuss a character trait, such as
honesty or responsibility, which he wanted the students to focus on for that current week.
Besides focusing on academics, the administration and teaching staff of Lion Elementary
made a concentrated effort to enhance students’ character. Mr. Castro had reinforced the
idea of high behavior expectations for the students. He insisted that they be proud of their
school and treat it with respect. Students were constantly encouraged to report any
situation that jeopardized school safety or lowered the school’s curb appeal. The site
administrator told them on a consistent basis that having a clean and safe school makes a
big difference. He confided with the researcher later that if the children are not safe at
school, they are not going to learn.
As the school days progressed, the researcher noticed a fairly calm environment,
yet could not deny the “hum” of activity coming from each classroom. While classes
were in session, students were observed walking quietly from one location to another
without disrupting the instruction of teachers’ classrooms. Children’s attitudes appeared
upbeat and friendly. Many of them politely greeted the researcher as they passed in the
halls. As the news gradually circulated from teacher to classroom that “a visitor” was
spending a week or two at Lion Elementary, a number of children requested the

94
researcher to spend time in their classroom, so he could see all the things they learn in
school. They seemed excited and proud to share their accomplishments with the
researcher whether it was getting a star on a certain homework assignment, explaining all
of the time and effort spent on a classroom project, or finally reaching the reading goal
they had been struggling to attain.
Once inside the classrooms, the researcher noticed that, academically speaking,
the walls were very uniform in appearance. Lion Elementary used the Open Court
curriculum for language arts and it was apparent that nearly every teacher from grade
levels kindergarten through 6
th
grade publicized the same components: Word Walls,
appropriate vocabulary for each respective grade level, comprehension concepts and
strategies endorsed by the curriculum, state language arts standards the class was
currently learning, and areas displaying students’ best work in language arts as well as
other subjects. Mathematics was another prioritized subject in each of the classrooms.
According to the principal, the district had adopted a new math curriculum the previous
year, so the teachers were still in the process of mastering all the components and
resources from the newer math curriculum. Having considered those growing pains, the
researcher still noticed similar math bulletin boards across the grade levels. Overall, walls
were colorful, theme-inspired, and pleasing to the eye.
The researcher observed classrooms of different grade levels everyday he visited
the school site at various times of the day. The dominant approach for teacher
implementation of the state standards within the classroom environment was in the form

95
of direct instruction. Students sat in desks aligned in some organized manner usually in
neat rows or groups of desks. Students were randomly called upon to respond to teacher
questions or requests. During transitions from one subject to another, teachers made
efficient use of their time and children did not dawdle. When a child was found off-task,
the teacher quickly intervened and redirected the student. At no time did the researcher
observe a classroom that lacked appropriate classroom management by the teacher. The
lessons presented were well-organized with objectives usually written on the front white
board. Some lessons were introduced via a more technological approach such as a digital
projector displaying an interactive website from the teacher’s laptop or a PowerPoint
presentation that a teacher developed to incorporate the language art’s concepts for that
week. Most of the classrooms, especially the upper grades four through six, hung posters
that demonstrated proper writing conventions and grammar. A number of teachers had
taught their students to display unique hand signals so that the student could
communicate a request to the teacher without interrupting the class. Once the teacher
instruction ended, guided practice of the lesson was followed by a check of student
understanding. Afterwards, students either worked independently or formed small
groups. Classroom teachers made a sustained effort to continue working with the students
until the school bell rang—advising them their time had ended and to prepare for the next
class subject. Upper elementary grade students were commonly seen switching classes at
designated times of the day. Like a finely rehearsed symphony, the harmonious band of
classrooms continued to play its multiple roles until the school day came to a close.

96
As the dismissal bell sounded, students and teachers left their classrooms and
exited toward various locations around the school campus. The majority of them walked
out to the north parking lot adjacent to the front office. Others proceeded to the
afterschool YMCA program located in the school cafeteria. Still others traveled over to
the bus lanes where they would locate their ride home. Some students journeyed home
with a parental escort whereas a handful walked home in small groups. In the midst of
this mass exodus, ample supervision could be seen. Teachers were scheduled to patrol
and maintain orderly conduct at all school exits as well as critical areas within the school
grounds. Unless there was an emergency to attend to, Mr. Castro was always out in front
of the school wearing his traffic vest, holding his STOP sign, and directing cars in and
out of the parking lot. Although the main parking was small, with only one entrance and
one exit, parents and guardians did an admirable job following school employees’
instructions so that traffic flowed in a safe and satisfactory manner. Any children who
were not immediately picked up were returned to the front office. At that point, the
office staff assisted children by contacting a parent or family member to arrange for
student transportation. The researcher observed the staff’s genuine sense of caring and
concern for the students at this time of the day. At times, small children sat distraught
and upset having felt they were left behind. Alertly, the front office staff stepped in and
consoled and comforted them until their ride arrived.
By the time all of the school children were picked up, a slew of teachers had
already begun afterschool tutoring offered voluntarily because of budget cuts. These

97
interventions were primarily done by grade level. A couple of teachers would take turns
while others worked solo. The average range of help was two to three days a week for
approximately one hour. Classes varied in size but overall were considerably smaller
than the average classroom. The classroom teachers prearranged days and times with the
parents. The subject matter and instructional pacing of tutoring sessions were dependent
upon the needs of the students.
The site administrator spent much of his time immediately after school hours with
parents who needed his assistance. Meetings that required more time to address parent
questions or concerns were often scheduled at this time to better accommodate parent
work schedules. Conferences held in the afternoon hours appeared more convenient for
the visiting parents, as many of them worked during the day. The principal was
sympathetic and consciously aware that a large majority of his parents was not as
involved with its childrens’ education due to language barriers and/or parent educational
levels, so he tried to involve them in other significant ways. Whenever Mr. Castro spoke
with parents, he accentuated the importance of student behaviors that parents could
control in order to improve their child’s achievement. He emphasized basic tasks that the
parents could perform to assist and support their children. He first urged the importance
of parents sending their children to school everyday and on time. Next, parents were
instructed to monitor their child’s schoolwork and homework. The site administrator
pointed out that although many parents may not possess adequate knowledge of the
subject matter, they may have access to other resources such as tutoring offered by the

98
classroom teacher, capable older siblings that could provide support at home, working
collaboratively with neighborhood children that attended the same school, or making use
of the grant funded YMCA program that was available afterschool on campus. Finally, he
underscored to parents his open door policy and beseeched them to increase their level of
communication with the entire school staff—teachers and administration alike.
Mr. Castro was adamant about being available to the school community. He felt
that a key to student success was transparent and timely communication with the parents.
He stressed that parent interaction and parent involvement would not only inform the
parents of their children’s academic successes, but would also indirectly impose further
accountability upon the school staff and administration. He spun this undertaking (that he
originally proposed) with a positive slant. The principal openly invited parents, and any
other visitors for that matter, to come and walk through the school. He instituted monthly
walkthroughs with parents and/or guests, so anyone could experience teacher-student
interactions, utilization of core curriculum, and the supportive school culture that had
contributed to the children’s student achievement at Lion Elementary. Speaking fluently
in English and Spanish was a major asset in this regard because a substantial percentage
of the school community was not proficient in English.
A deliberate daily calendar of events typically ran in a methodical fashion
throughout the school trimester except for Wednesdays, their weekly minimum school
day. This afterschool time slot was reserved for a multitude of activities: staff
development, collaboration time for staff members, and obligatory staff meetings. The

99
researcher observed a staff development meeting administered by members of the
teaching staff. Successful instructional techniques were shared and discussed with all in
attendance. Afterwards, a forum of questions from the audience was addressed. Key
themes that emerged from the fervent discussion were recorded by administration and
passed along to the staff at a later date. The researcher also attended a meeting involving
an agenda for school intersession—a span of time between trimesters in which small
groups of at-risk students received intensive instruction of the core curriculum to fill their
individual gaps of learning. The site administrator conducted the meeting to provide
additional student assessment results and other pertinent materials for data analysis by the
grade level teams. Grade-level chairs also supplied respective teachers with data unique
to their particular groups of students. As data was analyzed, each grade level intently
chatted among themselves and sometimes with other grade levels depending on the topic.
The principal monitored the brainstorming within each group and offered advice and
consult whenever needed. Ultimately, each grade level proposed a strategic approach and
course of action for the interventions deemed necessary for their groups of at-risk
students during the intersession period. When the meeting concluded, the principal
collected the results of what actions were decided upon and kept them for his records.
Not unlike other situations recorded by the researcher, these collaboratively run school
meetings reinforced his previous findings—a consistent and positive set of characteristics
found at Lion Elementary School.

100
Responses and/or actions from the involved parties never appeared convoluted or
contrived. An intensive examination of the school site, its stakeholders, and all relevant
documentation pertaining to Lion Elementary revealed a wealth of information: a viable
core curriculum program was appropriately organized and sequenced to maximize
student success; school norms in and around the classroom promoted high academic
expectations for all students regardless of background; teachers, office staff, and
administration eagerly and skillfully connected parents to an essential gateway of
communication between the school and its community; school surroundings were safe
and orderly, promoting an environment that strengthened good behavior and student
responsibility; and the practices conducted by the staff and administration fostered norms
of professionalism and collegiality enabling all concerned parties to sustain student
achievement and effectively narrow the achievement gap.

Findings by Research Question: Cultural Norms
Lion Elementary confidently stands as a highly effective school having
demonstrated a narrowing of the achievement gap with significant and sustained student
achievement. However, Lion has not always been a school its community could count on
for academic success. In fact, not so many years ago, this school was in dire need of
reform. Student scores were low. Mr. Crew, who is currently a sixth grade teacher at
Lion who witnessed those darker times, described it succinctly: “Years ago, Lion
Elementary used to be the bottom of the barrel!” So much so that Lion was labeled a

101
Program Improvement (PI) School, a formal designation for Title I funded schools that
do not make Adequate Yearly Progress criteria for two consecutive years. So what
changed? Well, what originally appeared as failure transformed into quite a serendipitous
beginning. The current principal, Mr. Castro, explained it this way:
Lion Elementary had been a Program Improvement School. One of the
stipulations of being a PI school required the completion of an Academic Program
Survey (APS), a tool designed to help a school analyze to what extent their
instructional program supported student achievement. One element of the survey
entailed two mandatory periods of collaboration time. Up until the time these new
conditions were enforced, the majority of teachers worked in isolation and did not
collaborate.

According to Clark and Estes (2002), how people work together (at a school) is
dictated by their organizational culture. An organizational (school) culture includes
shared norms, beliefs, values, and standards that are learned over time and expressed
through the behavioral patterns of school members as an organization. The norms are
those “should’s, ought’s, do’s, and don’t(s)” within the school culture that are based upon
the beliefs and values of the school staff and determine their behavior. Researcher
findings supported shared norms, beliefs, and values within the Lion’s school culture.
Mrs. Barley, a relatively new teacher, spoke about it this way:
I feel that this school has a very cohesive staff. They have obviously been here for
a long time, but they seem very genuine and enthusiastic. I’ve been in other
elementary schools where they’ve been really bored and not as interested, but I
feel this entire staff of teachers is very dedicated and interested in progressing
their students.

Desirable cultural norms (e.g., appreciation, recognition, involved decision-
making, and honest, open communication) cannot exist within a school until the negative

102
school culture is changed. Prior to Lion Elementary’s identification as a Program
Improvement School, a lack of staff collaboration was common. Translating the business
model jargon from Clark and Estes, cultural norms could improve once the school culture
was aligned with the important policies, procedures, and communication within the
school. Evidence to support aligning important policies was the Lion Elementary staff
embracing and implementing the “Monthly Collaboration by Grade Level for Teachers
Facilitated by the Principal” policy from the Academic Program Survey. According to
the principal, Mr. Castro, “Lion Elementary used to be in PI status, so the way the
Academic Program Survey was written, we were required to have 45 minutes of
collaboration time at least twice a month.” Teachers longer worked independently but
rather collaborated interdependently. Staff collaboration became a critical element for
improving student achievement.
The researcher found evidence of ongoing, systematic collaboration throughout
his school observations, staff interviews and surveys, and document reviews. Systematic
collaboration engages each member of an organization in an ongoing cycle that includes
gathering evidence of current levels of student learning, developing strategies and ideas
to build on strengths and address weaknesses in that learning, implementing those
strategies and ideas, analyzing the impact of the changes to discover what was effective
and what was not, and applying new knowledge in the next cycle of continuous
improvement (DuFour et al., 2006). Every month, Lion Elementary had a minimum day
every Wednesday; two of those Wednesdays were reserved for teacher preparation time

103
and grade-level meetings. Staff meetings and staff collaboration were planned on the
other two minimum days. Activities, upcoming events, and decision-making that
involved the entire staff were dealt with at the staff meetings. Sometimes these meetings
were shorter; other times they lasted longer, depending on the school calendar. Staff
collaboration was more structured. Mr. Castro received a written report from each grade
level summarizing what it was presently doing to improve student learning for all of its
students, what strategies and ideas it were currently discussing for future improvements,
and how its analysis of student data was impacting decision-making. Grade levels also
presented him with current student placement and provided grade-level plans for the
upcoming month. All of this information provided the principal with an accurate picture
of how his teaching staff supported student learning.
During an observed collaboration meeting held near the end of the first trimester,
the researcher witnessed different grade levels gathering unique data that assessed student
learning. The goal was to identify at-risk students for this year and possible retention
candidates for the upcoming school year. All of the grade levels arrived with the current
curriculum assessments in language arts and mathematics they had administered to their
students in the classroom. The site administrator contributed a Promotion/Retention
Report for the first trimester of every student, disaggregated by grade level. The data
provided a wealth of information: the most recent California Standards Test scores in
language arts and mathematics taken in May, current language arts and mathematics
district benchmark assessment scores taken at the end of the current trimester, current

104
report card grades in each of these subjects, current levels of English proficiency for all
English Learner students, and any applicable Special Education designations. The
teaching staff also had access to individual student reports depicting student proficiency
in every assessment area taught for the current trimester in language arts and
mathematics. For ease of use, the district color-coded this report, so teachers could easily
spot the strengths and weaknesses of each student.
As the meeting continued, teachers accomplished a number of goals. First, they
collectively discussed results drawn from the gathered data and identified and addressed
concerns about students who were experiencing difficulties. They planned changes in
upcoming student rosters for particular class subjects in order to provide better support
for newly identified at-risk and retention candidate students. The collaboration meeting
included time for teachers to examine the strengths and weaknesses in their own
instructional techniques among the grade levels. During an interview, Mr. Crew
commented on how the Lion Elementary staff reviewed instructional techniques, In his
words:
There is a strong rapport. We just work together. Everybody has something strong
that they’ve brought in. We’re not afraid to ask each other things. We mention
things to each other. And we’re not scared to say, “No, that’s not working. At
least for me. That might work for you, but not for me.” Whereas other people
might be scared to speak up, nobody is scared here to speak up or take offense. I
don’t know. That’s just not the case here. We still crack jokes, but everybody here
is a professional, you know. We treat our work as professionals.

The site administrator also expressed how pleased he was that the teachers felt
comfortable enough to recognize their strengths and weaknesses: “Having strengths and

105
weaknesses doesn’t make you a better or worse teacher. It just makes you a teacher with
strengths and weaknesses. Collaboration and staff development is merely time to point
out those areas.”
Formal interviews supplied the researcher with a positive sense of staff
collaboration. Teachers recognized that working together built a shared knowledge of the
best ways to achieve their goals and meet the needs of their students. All interview
participants who spoke about Lion’s collaboration meetings felt that they always “got
something” from the sessions. The principal guided the direction of the meetings with an
initial topic for discussion, but afterwards, grade levels took it upon themselves to
develop measureable improvement goals that were aligned to their school and district
goals.
Collaboration meetings continued at the school site on a regular monthly basis.
Like many of the other teachers, Mrs. Gillette saw collaboration as a time to share
information with others and come up with new ideas to support student learning. She
explained, “At a recent meeting I sat with Mrs. Barley and looked through the first grade
scores and together we came up with some ideas of what it was we needed to focus on.”
Meetings provided time for staff members to explore best practices in teaching and
student learning.
The researcher received survey results from 15 staff participants.
Overwhelmingly, all respondents answered positively to survey questions pertaining to
staff collaboration. Nine staff members strongly agreed whereas six agreed that the

106
school supported collaboration among teachers. All 15 staffers agreed that school
administration created a positive school culture for teachers and students most of the
time. Eight staff members strongly agreed whereas seven agreed that teachers
collaborated to discuss student data to improve student learning. Nine staff members
strongly agreed whereas six agreed that the school addressed the needs of struggling
students. On the open-ended portion of the surveys, 13 staff members responded that
teachers led the collaboration sessions whereas 10 stated that the administrator did.
Respondents were permitted to check off all topics that were discussed in collaboration.
The results, in descending order, were: data analysis with 14, intervention with 13,
instruction and curriculum both had 12, standards with 6, and operations had 2.
Respondents reported all the different ways the school made collaboration possible:
collaboration on minimum school days reported the highest score with 13, 11 staff
members checked collaboration during staff meetings, 5 answered during staff
development, 4 reported possible collaboration after school, 3 during substitute time, and
2 answered that collaboration took place during preparation periods.
Document review provided details about how staff collaboration became a
cultural norm at Lion Elementary School. As stated previously, the school administration
and staff were mandated four years ago to implement all essential components of the
Academic Program Survey due to Lion’s identification as a Program Improvement (PI)
School, a formal designation for Title I funded schools that do not make Adequate Yearly
Progress criteria for two consecutive years.

107
Two essential components from the Academic Program Survey that related to
staff collaboration were the implementation of a student achievement monitoring system
and a time reserved for monthly teacher collaboration by grade level, facilitated by the
principal. At that time, Lion Elementary formally began an assessment and monitoring
system. Curriculum-embedded assessments were administered every six to eight weeks,
along with any other assessments available as part of the adopted language arts and
mathematics program. The assessments informed teachers and the principal of student
progress and the effectiveness of instruction. The purpose of these assessments provided
timely data to improve instruction and student achievement. In addition, Lion was
required to facilitate and support teacher grade-level collaboration from kindergarten
through 6
th
grade in order to plan and discuss lesson delivery based on curriculum-
embedded assessment data for the adopted language arts and mathematics programs.
The staff and administration at that time were searching for a new direction.
Although some staff members may not have appreciated the tone of “possible sanctions”
if these objectives were not carried out judiciously, they wanted the school to become
more effective in helping all students learn, so they implemented and participated in the
Academic Program Survey.
Besides the survey, Lion staff members and administration highlighted
collaboration within their single plan for student achievement. This school plan detailed
collaborative efforts as an improved and more effective means of comparing and
analyzing data, to coordinate all students services ensuring all student populations met

108
district and state standards, and to focus staff development opportunities on topics that
targeted the critical needs of the school’s significant subgroups.
Ideally, collaboration represents a systematic process in which teachers work
interdependently to impact their classroom practice in ways that lead to better results for
their students, their grade levels, and their school (DuFour et al., 2006). Implementing
collaboration as a cultural norm brought the Lion Elementary teaching staff and
administration one step closer to ensuring that every student would succeed. Grade levels
of collaborative teams achieved common goals linked to the purpose of learning for all.
Mrs. Gillette, a 1
st
and 2
nd
grade combination teacher, put it rather eloquently:
I think there’s been a steady growth of student achievement over the last five to
six years because the staff doesn’t wait for things to happen. We tutor. We take
the time to work with our students. We tutor each other’s students. We share the
responsibilities because it’s not a “me” – It’s an “us” kind of a deal.

Inherent in the collaborative teams at Lion Elementary was a persistent and
constant search for better ways to narrow student achievement gaps. In order to achieve
this purpose, stakeholders vigilantly created a collaborative culture suggesting a clear and
compelling vision shared by administration and staff with a focus on learning for all. The
researcher’s findings from school observations, staff interviews, surveys, and document
reviews exposed the school’s ongoing and systematic collaboration as a cultural norm.
Results from these collaborative meetings enhanced the school’s chances of narrowing
the achievement gaps in their children.

109
Findings by Research Question: Practices
During the past several years, Lion Elementary School has made extraordinary
growth in overall student achievement. Whereas a strong collaborative culture has played
a major role, collaboration itself will not lead to improved results unless people are
focused on instituting the right practices. Having said that, many successful schoolwide
practices at Lion Elementary have contributed to narrowing the achievement gap. They
include effective implementation of a standards-based curriculum, the use of data
analysis to the meet the needs of all students, and multiple levels of effective leadership.
These practices mirror the ones studied by Williams (2006).
Standards-Based Curriculum
Effective implementation of a standards-based curriculum has been linked to
higher academic achievement for all student populations including their subgroups
(Vang, 2006). Researchers have ranked curriculum as having one of the strongest
correlations with academic achievement (Marzano, 2003). The researcher found
evidence of a standards-based curriculum, effectively implemented through various
means throughout the elementary school. However, this effective practice did not occur
overnight. To the contrary, the school took several years to master this feat. Several years
ago, Lion Elementary was unable to sustain student achievement because its curriculum
was not standards-based. Mr. Crew explained,
I came from New Jersey. I taught there. They had standards. When I left and came
to Pride Unified, the curriculum was not standards-based. There was nothing.
Teachers wanted their students to be successful but just didn’t have the tools.

110
Without a standards-based curriculum, the school initiatives represented the best of
intentions, but were really random groping in the dark rather than purposeful
improvement.
Curriculum did not officially become standards-based until the school was labeled
a Program Improvement School. Mandates from the Academic Program Survey required
that the school provide instruction using the most recent state board adopted core
curriculum. The new school practice would be the implementation of an instructional
program that was standards-based, including accelerated interventions in language arts
and mathematics. Lion Elementary adopted publications from SRA Open Court Reading
for language arts and Scott Foresman for mathematics.
Moreover, Program Improvement Schools like Lion Elementary are obligated to
protect from interruption the instructional time for the newly adopted language arts and
mathematics programs. It had never been subjected to implementing this kind of
schoolwide practice before. Furthermore, besides having the standard blocks of
instructional time for language arts and math, which were now protected and
uninterrupted, the teaching staff had to provide additional intervention time for both of
these core subjects as well. Although official mandates compelled the school to comply
with this kind of monitoring, indirectly it provided the teaching staff with an opportunity
to thoroughly examine and master the standards-based curricula. The principal stated that
knowledge of the curricula was one of the top reasons why Lion Elementary had
sustained student achievement and narrowed the achievement gap. In his words:

111
Open Court has been in place in Pride Unified, I think, seven years now. So the
teaching staff really knows nothing else now than Open Court for their language
arts curriculum. That is making a significant difference. With math, we just
adopted a new program. We had Scott-Foresman before. We have Houghton-
Mifflin now and I think the curriculum we just adopted is even better than the
previous one.

Implementation of standards-based curriculum with fidelity and rigor afforded
every student at Lion Elementary the opportunity to become proficient in academic skills
set by the state and to be held to the same high standards, regardless of background. The
site administrator indicated that implementation of the core curriculum (standards-based)
was a significant way for teachers to support student learning. He explained, “At my
very first staff meeting, I tell the teachers that I was hired as principal to ensure that the
core curriculum is being implemented.” However being the only site administrator, he
oftentimes was unable to walk into all the classrooms on a daily basis to see instruction.
Mr. Castro depended on the professionalism of his teaching staff to effectively implement
the curriculum. He said:
They’re supposed to turn in their daily schedules and one week’s worth of lesson
plans. That is for accountability purposes. How do you know that the program is
being implemented? I can pull out a daily schedule and say, “This is what my
teachers are supposed to be doing in the classroom.” I trust their professionalism.
You can truly see the results in our test scores.

The standards-based core curriculum is defined in a number of school documents.
The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for Lion Elementary specifically listed
all of the language arts and math program components implemented at the school. In
language arts they included a balanced language arts program with reading, writing,
listening, and speaking modules based on state and district standards; district language

112
arts curriculum guides for pacing and instruction; ongoing staff development provided for
all teachers; all appropriate materials of Open Court 2002 (K-6); daily uninterrupted time
blocks for language arts instruction; state English language development standards for
English Learners; programs provided for English Learner students with structured
English immersion and English language development; and a standards-based report
card. For mathematics they included California mathematics standards; district math
curriculum guides for pacing and instruction; Houghton Mifflin California math program
components; a teacher’s resource package for each grade level; daily time blocks for
mathematics instruction; access to the core curriculum for English Learner students; and
a standards-based report card.
Another document that stressed the usage of standards-based curriculum was the
Lion’s Annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC). This document, required by
state law, provided the community of stakeholders with important information about their
school. The SARC was an effective tool the administration used to report its progress in
achieving goals. The report has a section dedicated to the school curriculum and
instruction. Educators and parents could quickly find information pertaining to the core
curriculum used throughout Pride Unified and how it was aligned to the California
Content Standards and Frameworks. In the staff surveys, all but two respondents
indicated that school administration provided support for implementation of new
instructional practices. All but three indicated that school administration provided ways
to improve instructional strategies to meet the needs of students with diverse

113
backgrounds. Every respondent utilized the California state standards to plan and deliver
instruction and all respondents provided differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all
students. On the open-ended survey questions, the majority of respondents listed its
standards-based curriculum as one of the instructional programs used in the classroom
and that teaching the curriculum to fidelity has helped narrow the achievement gap.
During his observations at Lion Elementary, the researcher noted that all teachers
displayed curriculum materials from language arts and mathematics on their walls for
students to access. Sound and spelling cards were visibly posted and children worked
with Open Court books and materials during language arts direct instructional time.
Students also followed along during mathematics time with their Houghton-Mifflin
textbooks.
Use of Data Analysis
Another influential practice that assisted in narrowing the school’s achievement
gap was the use of data to meet the needs of all students. Lion Elementary has always
had a strong desire to improve student outcomes, so supplementing meaningful data at all
levels (e.g., district, school site, grade level, classroom, and individual) contributed in
achieving this goal. With a collaborative culture already in place, the school staff and
administration enhanced their problem solving and decision-making skills with regard to
student achievement through the use of data analysis.
Fortunately for Lion’s school staff and administration, Pride Unified had done a
masterful job of integrating a district data system that greatly facilitated the process of

114
data collection. Working alongside the site administrator, the researcher observed a
number of positive elements: electronic databases that linked and communicated to one
another enabling data sharing; reliable, credible data that was updated in a timely fashion
and available at key points in the school year; data that was easily accessible to school
sites, administrators, and teachers; new reports to inquiries that were easily produced;
student information that was maintained longitudinally so student histories could be
traced without using individual cumulative files; data that was linked to policies and
standards set by the district so progress towards attaining those standards could be
measured; and disaggregation of all measures of achievement so that participation rates
could be viewed by race, ethnicity, gender, language status, grade level, and school
program.
The researcher attended a staff development meeting lasting several hours that
was reserved solely for data analysis. The site administrator had accumulated a plethora
of information that he provided for every teacher in attendance. A critical part of his data
was extracted from a document given to all site administrators by the district office called
a Data Profile. This 49-page document contained explicit information regarding the
outcomes of students’ state testing, as well as a three-year summary and gap analysis of
the school’s most recent Academic Performance Index scores. Next was a two-year
summary and movement analysis of Lion’s California English Language Development
Test results. Last was a proficiency summary, component subscores, and a performance
band detail by subgroup, grade, and grade cohort of their results on the California

115
Standards Test. At the meeting, Mr. Castro presented data manipulated into various
forms of tables, graphs, and pictographs and projected them on the wall for all of the staff
to see. This made the data easier to see for analysis and interpretation of patterns. He
narrated:
Everyone, our goal for this year is an API of 780. I’m really excited. I believe
we’re going to make that this year based upon the data we’re going to discuss
today. Remember, we need to know where we’re going. So, how are we going to
do that? That’s what we’re going to talk about. If you look at our school overall,
we’re at 756. This chart is just for your information.

Understanding the demographics of his school, the site administrator methodically
went through the data of all the different subgroups of students, asking for input and
feedback from the teaching staff. He continued:
Let me go on to the next page where you can see our social-economically
disadvantaged (SED) subgroup, that’s about 84% of our students. For the state
testing, they actually scored a little higher than our non-SED. That means that we
have not only narrowed the Achievement Gap; we’ve reversed it! So now the goal
is to raise the non-SED too.

After the principal walked the staff through all of the standardized test score
outcomes schoolwide, he reviewed more data longitudinally and by grade levels. In his
words:
Now, if you look at the English Learner students, they are only nine points away
from the school’s overall API score. I am impressed how our grade level scores
are so similar. We have no weak grade levels. . . . On this chart, you can see our
three-year growth and this is wonderful because it shows nothing but positive
results. No categories show a drop. In fact, last year our school showed the
highest growth within the district.

At that point of the meeting, the teachers split into smaller groups by grade level.
To minimize or eliminate finger pointing, the site administrator structured dialogue by

116
grade level rather than by teacher, so that the focus was on grade-level issues, conditions,
and practices rather than individual success or failure. As the data analysis staff day
continued, discussion and interpretation of the data led to outcomes that focused the
instruction of each grade level for the remainder of the school year.
In addition to data analysis of summative assessments, Lion Elementary
performed ongoing analysis of formative assessments. To assist students who were not
achieving at their respective grade level, the school held weekly Student Intervention
Team (SIT) meetings, a process whereby a team of teachers discussed and instituted
student interventions aimed at setting measureable goals to increase student learning.
Before recommendations were carried out, the SIT team retrieved, reviewed, and
analyzed student data to assist in making these goals. The principal explained:
With the SIT process, we have within our school network this drive in our
computer system called the “N” drive. That drive contains a folder for each grade
level and every grade level has access to it. They save stuff that they want to share
with one another. You can go onto that folder right now and look which kids have
been referred for SITs, what was said at the SIT, what interventions they’re doing,
and so forth.

The site administrator related to the researcher that the teachers knew the needs of
the students more intimately than he did. They were the experts in the Open Court
language arts program. They were the experts in interventions. The Student Intervention
Teams, which were specifically made up of teachers, developed individualized student
programs through the use of data and were better equipped to support their at-risk
students. In turn, the results from all of the data analysis were supported by each of the
grade levels.

117
The results of the staff surveys made it manifestly obvious that teachers and
administration viewed data analysis as key to narrowing the achievement gap at Lion
Elementary. Ten respondents indicated that school administration ensured the analysis of
student assessment data most of the time whereas five indicated sometimes. Ten
respondents indicated that CST scores and district assessments were used to plan their
instructional program most of the time whereas five answered sometimes. Twelve
respondents indicated that student data was used to identify the instructional needs of
their students most of the time whereas three indicated sometimes. Ten respondents
indicated that the school utilized a specific program to analyze student data most of the
time, three indicated sometimes, and two answered rarely. The overwhelming topic
discussed at collaboration sessions was data analysis, followed closely by intervention,
curriculum, and instruction. The open-ended survey questions pertaining to data analysis
revealed that teachers gained useful information for intervention strategies from their
grade-level meetings. For instance, they used data to determine specific standards in
which students were struggling. Then they designed interventions to focus on those
standards. They were also able to cluster students more easily and effectively based upon
their data analysis. Many saw data analysis as a better way to cluster and expose
strengths and weaknesses in different areas (e.g., school, grade, class, student).
Ultimately, the mindset of using data analysis to better meet the needs of all students
supported the narrowing of the achievement gap at Lion Elementary.

118
Multiple Levels of Leadership
Multiple levels of school leadership were another schoolwide practice evidenced
at Lion Elementary that supported student achievement. Strong leadership was readily
found with the site administrator, the office personnel, the grade-level teams, and
teaching staff. A key factor in effective schools is school leadership (Marzano, 2003).
Effective leadership brings different parties together to share a common vision, mission,
and set of goals. This climate is essential to sustaining academic success for all students,
thereby narrowing the achievement gap. Effective leaders are able to work
collaboratively, building a culture where teaching staff and administration have an
underlying sense of shared responsibility and are committed to continual learning and
sustained improvements (Goldberger, 2008).
The researcher noticed a strong sense of camaraderie at Lion Elementary right
away. Amity was expressed among all key stakeholders: teachers, support and office
staff, administration, parents, and students. Throughout the interviews, participants
revealed that leadership existed in many areas and on multiple levels. Upon further
investigation, the researcher learned that over 10 years time, the school was run by seven
different principals. The principal stated, “They’ve learned to rely on themselves and
when I say ‘they,’ I don’t mean as a teacher, but as a grade level.” The teachers
confirmed that their school had lacked a consistent principal for a sustained period of
time, but virtually all of them mentioned how much they liked working with each other at
the school site and how supportive their office staff was. Mr. Crew said:

119
I say most of the staff has been here, minimum, 10 years. I’ve taught at four
schools over 19 years and I’ve been at this school the longest. I think teachers
have stayed for a number of things. It starts from the ladies up in the office. You
couldn’t ask for better support. Second, the staff here has become friends. There is
a strong rapport.

The current teachers at Lion Elementary were a veteran staff, where the least
senior member still possessed nine years of teaching experience. At a time when Lion
Elementary was identified as a Program Improvement School and the principal position
seemed like a revolving door, the office and teaching staff worked collaboratively to
improve student achievement. Mrs. Gillette spoke of those troubled times:
There’s been a lot of changes. However, Mrs. Baker, the secretary, has been here
the whole time. My goodness, that woman probably has 10 hands. I know she’s
got a job description and I know that she is the secretary, but she also is the
“Answer Girl.” If there’s something I need, she knows where it is. She also keeps
track of all of the school supplies. She also speaks enough Spanish so that she can
contact and speak with parents. I just think she does everything. There have been
a number of different administrators over the years, but the office staff has stayed
pretty much the same.

One year, Lion Elementary did not have a full-time principal, so sustained
leadership had come from other places—the teaching and office staff. Mr. Crew related
that year concisely:
Our principal now is very supportive. He gets me whatever I need, but we had a
year and this is where I learned this about not needing a principal. Because we
had one year without a principal – the year before Mr. Castro came, we were
without a principal. We had substitute principals coming in for the whole year.
We controlled the school. Our CST scores still went up. Discipline was there even
without a principal. The ladies in the office took care of everything for us. The
school ran without a principal. Our scores still went up. That says a lot!

Evidently, after years of teacher collaboration, a distributed view of leadership
developed among the teaching staff. Ongoing collaborative interaction among the

120
teachers and grade levels had produced an environment in which peers positively
influenced each other. Indeed, the instructional support observed by the researcher came
from teacher advice networked either teacher to teacher or teacher to grade level. Seldom
did the teachers seek advice from the site administrator. Mrs. Gillette shared that the
teaching staff had been known to go out of its way to help and support fellow colleagues.
She added:
I think we’ve been together long enough, that we appreciate each other’s abilities
or talents or whatever you want to call it. I know that I can go to Crew with a
discipline problem. I know that I can go to Sanchez with a technology question. I
know that I can go to one of the fifth grade teachers with a math question. I know
that they are there and they are willing to listen and help. We just all know that.
We’ve all come together very strongly. It’s a nice place!

Another example of pronounced leadership not directly involving the principal
was the development and implementation of the school’s Student Intervention Team
(SIT) process. As the school’s sole administrator, Mr. Castro was unable to develop and
monitor these meetings. The site administrator acknowledged how critical determining
support for at-risk students was, so he requested that the staff get together and come up
with ideas on how to implement this process. The teaching staff did more than just
brainstorm. The grade levels worked collaboratively, effectively using their analysis of
data to create a program those participants would use to determine at-risk students. The
grade levels ran their own meetings. There were five teams of three people each. Every
week, each team reviewed the data of an at-risk child. Possible interventions were
discussed and implemented. To ensure that teachers were following through with the
SIT’s recommendations for student interventions, classroom teachers were held

121
accountable by their own SIT grade-level team. The program was labeled an immediate
success and illustrated the positive effects that multiple levels of leadership had on
student learning.
Reviewed school documents depicted an environment where school-parent
interaction was not only necessary but also sought after. The School Accountability
Report Card document designated a section specifically for parent involvement. It
addressed events such as Open House and seasonal festivals as opportunities for parents
to interact with school staff and to support their child’s academic programs. The
researcher visited on a day when the school’s Fall Festival took place. Recorded
observations included PTA members working alongside teachers setting up food and
game booths for the festivities. Parent volunteers passed out food and prizes as teachers
patrolled the school grounds. All in all, the event emphasized informal and enjoyable
intermingling at the same time it helped to create and maintain meaningful relationships.
Another parent involvement activity was the Parent Education Workshop, offered on
scheduled Saturdays and run by parents. The intent of these classes was to share
strategies that could help parents effectively establish guidelines in the home and to help
their children with homework assignments.
Numerous committees and leadership groups took part in the decision-making
processes at Lion Elementary. The Single Plan for Student Achievement listed the
following sets of individuals: the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) board members, the
School Site Council (SSC) members, the English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC)

122
members, the Student Intervention Team, leadership teams comprised of teacher leaders
from grades one through six, a special education teacher leader, an instructional support
teacher, and the principal. Members of the PTA were teachers and parents, whose duties
revolved around fundraising and other miscellaneous school projects. PTA participation
appeared to have improved in the last couple of years, since the school employed a
bilingual administrator. The School Site Council played an important role in school
decision-making and was made up of teachers, parents, and classified staff that worked
with the principal to develop, review, and evaluate school improvement programs and
school budgets. ELAC members were parents of English Learners at the school site.
ELAC meetings provided parents of English Learners the opportunity to learn more about
the programs being offered to their children; for their part, parents advised the principal
and school staff of more positive and effective strategies for teaching English Learners.
Parents also provided input on better ways to support the full participation of English
Learners. Because the English Learners population at Lion Elementary totaled over 60%
of enrollment, the principal desperately wanted to recruit more English Learner parents
for leadership positions. The community liaison remarked that having more of these
parents participate in school meetings had been a contributing factor to the school’s
success. He said:
We’ve had a new principal the last three years. The parents are more willing now
to come in and discuss things with Mr. Castro, which has caused more of our
parents to become more involved and because they have become more involved
with school and school meetings, they are more informed and aware. For
example, School Site Council and ELAC. This has helped spread the word to

123
other parents, so they are more focused on what their children need to do…to be
successful students.

As previously discussed, there were also members of the Student Intervention
Teams: three teachers from different grade levels who expertly reviewed and analyzed
any and all relevant data and then developed differentiated instruction to address the
needs of at-risk students. The leadership team was responsible for relaying any and all
pertinent information from administration to respective grade levels.
The role of school leadership on multiple levels provided opportunities for the
entire staff to collaborate and communicate about student learning in a more effective
manner. Teachers at Lion Elementary looked for support beyond the school principal to
an array of peers who officially or unofficially took on leadership roles at the school site.
For instance, comments recorded from the open-ended section of the staff input survey
credited the leadership of teachers in facilitating the process of collaboration and
decision-making.
A few essential schoolwide practices have factored into the sustained success of a
narrowed achievement gap at Lion Elementary: effective implementation of a standards-
based curriculum; data analysis to meet the needs of all students; and multiple levels of
effective leadership. Providing standards-based district-adopted materials in language
arts and mathematics allowed a collaborative team of teachers to effectively coordinate
instruction thus maximizing the opportunity for student achievement. Focused data
analysis by all concerned parties, teaching staff and administration alike, promoted
individualized instruction ensuring that the needs of all students, even those considered

124
at-risk. Leaders ranging from parents to teacher staff to administration seized the chance
to speak their minds and share in the decision-making process that ultimately shaped how
the educational needs of all students were met.

Findings by Research Question: Programs
The researcher’s intent was to also to determine what purchased programs
provided opportunities to support and sustain student achievement for all individuals at
the school site. The most traditional program of materials used for student learning was
the curriculum. The literature stated that implementing state-approved, standards-based
curriculum was crucial to the equity of student achievement as it allowed all students,
regardless of background, to be held to the same high standards. Ensuring that all
students were exposed to the intended curriculum specified by the state or district
effectively narrowed the achievement gap (Izumi et al., 2002). To simplify the process of
acquiring appropriate program materials, the State Board of Education adopted a list of
recommended textbooks and other instructional resources from which educators could
choose.
Regrettably, districts and schools such as Pride Unified and Lion Elementary were
constantly inundated with publishing companies, each promising a “silver bullet”
curriculum loaded with an endless array of supplemental components that when faithfully
implemented would solve all of the educational issues they confronted. No Child Left
Behind’s mandated system of state standards, tests, and school sanctions had indirectly

125
transformed the public school system into a for-profit frenzy. With so many vendors
looking to fatten their wallets from selling their wares, educators had to be methodical
and fiscally prudent when purchasing these educational programs; otherwise, the
purchase and implementation of ineffective and poorly designed programs comes at a
dire cost—the underachievement of a school’s student population.
Lion Elementary involuntarily chose a state-adopted, standards-based curriculum
years ago because it was identified as a Program Improvement school. Not wanting to
face sanctions for failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress, the school instituted all of
the essential components set forth in the State Board of Education’s (SBE) Academic
Program Survey. The first component was to provide a SBE-approved standards-based
language arts and mathematics program in every classroom. Open Court was the adopted
core curriculum for language arts whereas Scott-Foresman was approved for
mathematics. Pride Unified has subsequently adopted Houghton Mifflin as its
mathematics program for the elementary schools this past year. The clear expectation was
that all teachers utilize the adopted core curriculum with fidelity and rigor (Wirt & Kirst
2001). The site administrator agreed:
I believe that there are great programs and there are great programs that can be
greater based on who is implementing it and how it is being implemented. I think
most of the stuff that we have is really outstanding stuff. I think that Open Court
is a great program but I also think that Houghton Mifflin is a great program, so I
don’t think one is necessarily better than the other….The implementation of the
program can make more of a difference than the program itself.

According to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), every school’s significant
subgroups must meet minimum proficiency levels in language arts and mathematics to

126
achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) compliance. The school had met all AYP
criteria in terms of student proficiency in mathematics over the last four years. Also,
significant subgroup proficiency levels in mathematics over the same time period were
always higher compared to those in language arts. Because the percentage of students at
or above AYP proficiency levels continued to show growth in all significant subgroups
and stayed above the minimum percentage threshold for mathematics, the mathematics
program had not been a major focus of needed improvement. In all of the staff surveys
completed, only 5 of 15 respondents mentioned that the math program helped narrow the
achievement gap. The site administrator remarked that whereas Lion Elementary had
been making all of its state targets, language arts was more critical for them at this point
in time because the minimum proficiency level required in language arts this coming year
was uncomfortably close to their current levels.
That said, according to the school’s Single Plan for Student Achievement, the
teaching staff still scheduled time for crossgrade collaboration to further indentify
fundamental math skills that would help support all students for future grade-level
instruction. Moreover, all grades planned and standardized the language use of
mathematical terms in order to simplify but strengthen students’ academic vocabulary
and comprehension. The researcher also observed teachers analyzing data pertaining to
student achievement in mathematics using their district Online Assessment and Reporting
System (OARS) and results from the California Standards Test (CST) to target at-risk
students for interventions. Furthermore, the staff spent time reflecting on the strengths

127
and weaknesses of their Houghton-Mifflin mathematics program, as it had been newly
adopted by the district this past year.
Open Court was the school’s core adopted program for language arts. The
curriculum maintained strong instruction in all areas of decoding, comprehension, inquiry
and investigation, writing, and language conventions. The focus of Open Court’s
instructional materials fostered legitimate opportunities for all students, regardless of
background, to master the state content standards. Lion Elementary had a schoolwide
focus to improve written convention and writing strategies. In order to improve their
students’ basic writing skills, teachers at grade-level meetings and staff meetings
collaborated and discussed the current implementation of their writing program. During
these meetings, more effective intervention strategies for instructional activities were
shared among teachers with the purpose of better meeting the needs of their diverse
student population. The principal shared an example of when differentiated instruction
was taking place, “The teachers are required to develop interventions, develop what they
do within the classroom, within the day, during Open Court time when they’re teaching
during that Universal Access time – what we call Workshop time where they differentiate
instruction.” Grade levels designed rigorous writing prompts and rubric scores that
worked in conjunction with the district writing assessments as well. Teachers used
formative writing assessments to monitor and track individual student progress in their
writing. According to Lion’s School Accountability Report Card last year, two of the
three staff development days of curriculum training and development revolved around

128
Open Court modules to improve comprehension and Open Court writing. The other staff
development day focused on English Language Development implementation using the
Avenues program. All but five staffers indicated in the surveys that Open Court, their
core language arts program, was an instructional program used to narrow the
achievement gap, moreso than any other program mentioned. The next popular choice
among staff members was Avenues, their English Language Development (ELD)
program used to support the school’s English Learners. English Learners have been
identified as a subgroup significantly affected by the achievement gap (Lee, 2002).
In addition to language arts and mathematics curricula, Lion Elementary
instructed an ELD program called the Avenues Series from the publisher Hampton
Brown. English Learner students were initially placed in classrooms according to the
results of their California English Language Development Tests taken at the beginning of
the school year. From that point in time, English Learners received differentiated
instruction based upon their levels of English proficiency. After several weeks, student
progress was reevaluated through formative assessments given by the teachers, at which
point, classroom rosters were redistributed to reflect student achievement by the most
recent data. The ELD program used a variety of language arts-related lesson plans for
grades K-5, including writing, vocabulary building, and comprehension. Lesson plans
were designed for English Language Development instruction but could also be used for
mainstream educational settings if those situations presented themselves. Held in the
morning portion of the school day, ELD instruction was observed by the researcher at

129
different times and made clear how English Learner students were understanding,
learning, and remembering new words by building graphic organizers that combined text,
pictures, and spoken words. Teachers also mentioned that English Learners had improved
their reading comprehension through the story-mapping activities they worked on during
class time.
The site administrator also begrudgingly replaced an earlier academic program
implemented for student intervention purposes after school. He described the replaced
program as Supplemental Educational Services (SES), which according to him had
significantly impacted student performance. Mr. Castro recalled:
They were outside companies that came and I promoted it to the point that we had
about 300 out of 560 students receiving some kind of tutor services. Last year
because we met the targets and came out of PI, the program was eliminated.

In order to fill the gap of missing support for student academic interventions, the
principal purchased two more fiscally affordable programs titled Read 180 and System 44
by Scholastic. Mr. Castro was able to purchase these other programs because both were
state-adopted, standards-based curricula that met eligibility for Title I funding--
categorical money the school possessed and was able to spend. Read 180 was a
comprehensive reading intervention program designed to meet the needs of struggling
readers, in grades 3 through 12. The program directly addressed individual student needs
through differentiated instruction, adaptive and instructional software, high-interest
literature and nonfiction passages, and direct instruction in reading, writing, and
vocabulary skills. Components of the program provided preteaching to improve

130
understanding and instructional routines that promoted the active participation of students
and multicultural content–both of which supported the needs of all underperforming
students, including English Learners. The other new intervention program was System
44, a reading and phonics program designed for Lion’s most challenged and struggling
students. System 44, a more intensive foundational program than Read 180, teaches
severely challenged readers necessary phonological decoding skills and knowledge of
sight words. A benefit of using programs in conjunction was that they shared the same
student screening, placement, and progress monitoring guidelines, making student
transitions from Read 180 to System 44, and vice versa, virtually effortless. The school
site employed a full-time intervention teacher called an Instructional Support Teacher to
implement and monitor both programs. Lion Elementary administered Read 180 to its
4th, 5th, and 6
th
-grade students who were not meeting their grade-level reading standards.
Any students whose scores fell below the cutoff point of Read 180 curriculum were
enrolled into the System 44 program. These program additions were unique in the sense
that both curricula were considered Core Replacement Programs to the school’s
traditional language arts program, Open Court.
Researchers have identified school programs as one of the factors that may affect
the achievement gap (Lee, 2002). As a result, documented reports, such as the one
written by Superintendent Jack O’Connell’s California P-16 Council have recommended
that California address a statewide need for rigorous curricula (Munitz, 2008). Providing
programs that include standards-based district-adopted materials in language arts and

131
mathematics have allowed the teaching staff at Lion Elementary to more effectively
coordinate instruction thus maximizing the opportunity for all students to achieve.

Emergent Themes from the Data Collection
After an exhaustive review of the documents, staff surveys, interviews, and
observations pertaining to Lion Elementary School, the researcher determined the
emergent themes:
1. A collaborative environment for teachers to engage in and deepen their work. A
shared emphasis on instructional improvement, supported by a distinct vision of
instructional quality, cultivated a community of instructional practice in the school.
Collaboration among administration and staff allowed all members to focus on
developing a shared instructional vision, setting group goals, holding high expectations,
and providing individual support for each other.
2. Implementation of a standard-based curriculum. Providing the access of a
viable, state-approved standards-based curriculum allowed all students the exposure to
educational resources that complemented the state standards they were responsible for
learning. Evidence continued to build around the necessity that all students engage and
become proficient in rigorous curriculum content and problem-solving skills.
3. Use of data to meet the needs of all students. Measurable goals, standards, and
long-term outcomes important to student achievement were attained through the use of a
monitoring system that assessed the short and long-term progress of all students. The

132
administrator and the teaching staff embraced data as an empowering tool to evaluate
student success by assessing whether interventions are appropriate and if they are raising
the level of student achievement.
4. Multiple levels of effective leadership. A collaborative culture has fostered a
shared distribution of leadership and decision-making among the teaching staff. Active
interaction among faculty during formal and informal meetings had encouraged a number
of teachers to take on leadership roles at the school site either consistently or by situation.
This broader view of leadership has played a key role in defining the staff’s sense of
efficacy.
5. Differentiated instruction with appropriate interventions to fit the needs of all
students, especially those at-risk. Changing from a reactive to a proactive approach
enabled teachers to intervene with struggling students sooner rather than later. State-
approved programs providing standards-based district-adopted materials in language arts
and mathematics have allowed teachers to effectively coordinate instruction to the
diverse population of students. Interventions were differentiated according to student
skill levels during classroom instruction and before and after school tutoring to maximize
the opportunity for academic achievement.

Discussion of Findings within Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
Organizations can be both complicated and ambiguous. A strong collaborative
environment, standard-based curriculum, effective use of data, multiple levels of

133
leadership, and differentiated instruction have greatly contributed to the success of Lion
Elementary. The organizational literature from Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames
has allowed the researcher to view the sustained success of this elementary school
through a series of different lenses: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic.
Together, all four frames provided the researcher with a comprehensive approach to Lion
Elementary as an organization. Several years ago, Lion Elementary was forced to
reorganize in order to improve student achievement. The different perspectives of these
four frames helped to better understand how the school’s reframing occurred.
The structural frame emphasizes organizational roles coordinated in such a way
that established goals are achieved and performance is enhanced. One assumption of the
structural frame is that performance gaps can be remedied through analysis and
restructuring (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Lion Elementary was reorganized in 2002 when it
was identified as a Program Improvement School. From that point, school staff and
administration alike followed an Academic Program Survey (APS) that restructured their
instructional program. Essential Program Components (EPC) were implemented to
support academic student achievement in language arts and mathematics and results were
measured through the grade-span Academic Program Survey. The design of these EPCs
met the needs of all students through state-adopted, standards-based instructional
materials including interventions, appropriate instructional time and pacing schedules,
professional development for teachers and administrators, the assignment of fully
credentialed highly qualified teachers, use of data obtained from a student achievement

134
monitoring system, instructional support, teacher collaboration, and fiscal support. With
this new design, the school staff and administration were better able coordinate their
efforts to improve student achievement.
The human resource frame highlights the relationship between people and
organizations. From this perspective, organizations want their people to get the job done
and feel good about doing it. Evidence of the human resource frame appeared in Lion’s
collaborative environment. The school’s progressive leadership approach empowered
teachers to share in the group decision-making about student learning. Both the principal
and the teachers had a shared voice in staff development, student interventions,
differentiated instruction, and roles of data analysis. The collaborative culture within the
school’s teaching staff encouraged them to share responsibility in the school’s overall
performance, which ultimately led to gains in teacher efficacy as each member personally
took pride in the successes of the school’s sustained student achievement. The
collaborative environment also made the human resources frame visible through the
fostering of self-managing teams (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Teachers took it upon
themselves to develop a meaningful and effective means of differentiating interventions
for severely struggling students. Without any assistance from the administration, each
grade level devised a Student Intervention Team that scheduled, planned, and conducted
its own meetings. Teachers made decisions based on the analysis of student data. This
process confirmed Bolman and Deal’s human resource notion that group responsibility
leads to a meaningful whole.

135
The political frame sees an organization as a competitive environment vying for
scarce resources, power struggles, and competing interests. Goals are determined through
negotiation and cooperation (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Various stakeholder groups within
the Lion community voiced their opinions about their child’s academic programs. For
example, members of the School Site Council deliberated over the School Improvement
Plan and made recommendations on how to spend certain categorical budgets. The
English Learner Advisory Committee advised the principal and school staff of the most
positive and effective strategies for teaching English Learners and provided input on the
most effective ways to support full participation of English Learners. Because school
budgets do not provide ample funds for all concerned parties, the principal needed a
vision that included the interests of parents and teachers and an agenda to meet that
vision. Using data, he provided a roadmap depicting student needs. With this information
in hand, all parties worked together to create a strategy that allocated school budgets to
the programs that promoted academic achievement for all students, and still addressed the
needs of the conflicting parties.
The symbolic frame shapes a culture that builds team spirit, giving meaning and
purpose to work. Interactive expression creates a culture that holds an organization
together and unites people around shared values and beliefs (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The
researcher observed symbols of this school culture throughout the visits to Lion
Elementary. The researcher noted a climate of respect upon first approaching the school
site, seeing that it was one of the few buildings in the neighborhood not littered with

136
graffiti. Interviews revealed a school environment characterized by countless acts of
professionalism from all key stakeholders: in the office, on the playground, in all the
classrooms, during staff meetings, and so on. Coupled with an abiding spirit of genuine
care for the welfare and academic achievement of all students, teachers and
administration reinforced the importance of data for differentiated instruction, academic
rigor taken from standards-based curriculum, parent involvement and communication,
and a collaborative culture that fostered shared decision-making.

Discussion Summary
Prior literature has revealed key factors that have been influential in narrowing the
achievement gap. Those factors include implementation of a standards-based curriculum,
effective leadership at school site and team levels, employment of highly qualified
teachers, high expectations for all students, and continuous inquiry and monitoring
through the use of data. Although experts question whether the achievement gap will ever
close completely, the findings indicate that Lion Elementary utilized cultural norms,
practices, and programs to sustainably narrow the achievement gap for all student
subgroups. Several emergent themes appeared from the findings: a collaborative
environment, standards-based curriculum, data-driven decision-making, multiple levels
of effective leadership, and differentiated instruction with appropriate interventions.
Evidence of these themes was justified through the triangulation of various data

137
collection instruments including document reviews, observations, surveys, and
interviews.
After close examination of the study, the researcher observed that many of the
themes overlapped one another. Staff collaboration was formally required when the
school was first identified as a Program Improvement School. Concurrently,
implementation of a standards-based curriculum took place during uninterrupted blocks
of instructional time. Over that stretch of time, teachers became highly skilled and
knowledgeable of the curriculum. Part of that was success due to staff development of the
curriculum, which was mandated by the Academic Program Survey. As collaboration
progressed, the administrator and the teaching staff jointly embraced the use of data as an
empowering tool to evaluate student success. Data evaluation helped to shape
differentiated instruction presented in the classroom and appropriate interventions for at-
risk students. These emerging themes existing over long periods of time, suggesting that
conditions for increased student achievement have been legitimized and sustainable. The
thematic cohort has identified the sustainability of increased student achievement as a
crucial element for narrowing the achievement gap and for overall student success.

138
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling initiated a long
and controversial effort by our nation to address disparities in its public education system.
Inequalities of educational achievement across ethnic and racial groups have become
even more pronounced with the high expectations, sanctions, and accountability of No
Child Left Behind. Due to increasing minority populations, schools must move faster
and further to improve the academic achievement of every child in order to meet the
moral and economic challenges raised by the achievement gap. Research findings
indicating wide variation in performance among schools serving similar students suggest
that today’s achievement gap can, in fact, be narrowed. Even more promising is that
several schools are successfully narrowing the achievement gap over a sustained period
of time.
This last chapter summarizes the case study and key findings drawn from the data
analysis discussed in Chapter Four. After briefly reviewing the purpose of the study and
research questions, the balance of the chapter will summarize the findings, present
implications for current practice, and discuss recommendations for future research based
upon the findings of the case study.

139
The purpose of this study was to identify schools that have succeeded in reducing
the achievement gap and sustained success over time and the cultural norms, practices,
and programs they implemented to sustain that success.
Three research questions were posed in the case study.
1. What cultural norms employed by the school have allowed it to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?
2. What practices (school-wide and classroom) employed by the school have
allowed it to close the achievement gap and sustain success?
3. What programs employed by the school have allowed it to close the
achievement gap and sustain success?
This project was one of nine case studies developed by a cohort of doctoral
students from December 2008 to August 2009. Besides examining the cultural norms,
practices, and programs employed by an elementary school, the study addressed factors
that may succeed in narrowing the achievement gap and in sustaining it over time.
Collectively, the studies by the cohort add to a growing body of research that relate
cultural norms, practices, programs, and other school factors to increased academic
achievement across all groups of students. Based upon the qualitative nature of each
study, the cohort developed multiple data collection instruments: document reviews,
observations, surveys, and interviews. Utilizing various forms of data collection allowed
details to be examined from multiple perspectives, strengthening the study through
triangulation. Data collection was carried out from July 2009 through October 2009.

140
The achievement gap has raised a multitude of concerns and has resulted in a
significant body of research (Chenoweth, 2004; Coleman et al., 1966; Lee, 2002). Based
upon large-scale studies, universal factors that contribute to the narrowing of the
achievement gap have been established (Barton, 2003: Hassel & McNiff, n.d.; Izumi et
al., 2002; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Munitz, 2008; Symonds, 2004). However, few studies
have examined the sustainability of school reforms over long periods of time (Datnow,
2005). Furthermore, practically none has discussed a school’s cultural norms, practices,
and programs as contributing factors to the narrowing of its achievement gap sustained
over time.

Findings Summary
Lion Elementary has sustained increased student achievement since 2004. Due to
this sustained success, the school was granted “Safe Harbor” status for successfully
exiting Program Improvement. The principal attributed the school’s triumph to the
collaborative teaching staff and hard work by the school’s diverse population of students.
Besides the collaborative environment, other emergent themes contributed to the
achievement growth of all significant subgroups. They are:
1. A collaborative environment for teachers to engage in and deepen their work.
A shared emphasis on instructional improvement, supported by a distinct vision of
instructional quality, cultivated a community of instructional practice in the school.
Collaboration among administration and staff allowed all members to focus on

141
developing a shared instructional vision, setting group goals, holding high expectations,
and providing individual support for each other.
2. Implementation of a standard-based curriculum. Providing a viable, state-
approved standards-based curriculum afforded all students the educational resources that
complemented the state standards they were responsible for learning. Evidence
continued to build around the necessity that all students engage and become proficient in
rigorous curriculum content and problem-solving skills.
3. Use of data to meet the needs of all students. Measurable goals, standards, and
long-term outcomes important to student achievement were attained through the use of a
monitoring system that assessed the short and long-term progress of all students. The
administrator and the teaching staff have embraced the use of data as an empowering tool
to evaluate student success by assessing whether interventions are appropriate and if they
are raising the level of student achievement.
4. Multiple levels of effective leadership. A collaborative culture has fostered a
shared distribution of leadership and decision-making among the teaching staff. Active
interaction among faculty members during formal and informal meetings encouraged a
number of teachers to either consistently or by situation take on leadership roles at the
school site. This broader view of leadership has played a key role in defining the staff’s
sense of efficacy.
5. Differentiated instruction with appropriate interventions to fit the needs of all students,
especially those at-risk. Changing from a reactive to a proactive approach enabled

142
teachers to intervene with struggling students sooner rather than later. State-approved
programs providing standards-based district adopted materials in language arts and
mathematics have allowed teachers to effectively coordinate instruction to the diverse
population of students. Interventions were differentiated according to student skill levels
during classroom instruction and before and after school tutoring to maximize the
opportunity for academic achievement.

Comparing Case Study Themes to the Literature
Similarities were found between the emergent themes demonstrated at Lion
Elementary School and factors established in the literature as having contributed to
narrowing the achievement gap. Although only the principal and grade-level chairs
possessed specific titles, multiple levels of leadership were evident throughout the school
site. This style of leadership provided opportunities for the teaching staff to benefit from
each other’s skills, capitalize on individual strengths, and develop a fuller appreciation of
interdependence and how one’s behavior affects the organization as a whole (Leithwood
& Mascall, 2008). The teaching staff had a take-charge attitude toward solving issues as
they arose. Increased teacher participation in decision-making led to greater commitment
to school goals and strategy development. Part of this self-decision-making perspective
from the veteran staff may have been due to the number of site administrators that had
come and gone during a relatively short amount of time. Before being hired to fill the
position, the current principal was told that Lion Elementary had had seven such

143
administrators in the last 10 years. “They’ve really learned to rely on themselves,”
remarked the school principal of the teachers. Except for Special Education, the least
senior teacher had nine years teaching experience, which translated into a veteran group
collaboratively focused on strategies to increase student learning.
Part of that collaborative environment spawned its designation as a Program
Improvement School in 2005. These mandates contained a “silver lining” of research-
based objectives that the teaching staff was expected to follow: state-adopted, standards-
based curricula in language arts and mathematics (that the school had previously lacked),
protected uninterrupted blocks of instructional/intervention time reserved for language
arts and mathematics, professional development training specifically related to the
adopted curricula, a curriculum-embedded assessment and monitoring system that
provided timely, purposeful data used for improved instruction and student achievement,
a lesson pacing schedule to ensure scope and sequence of what was to be taught, and
monthly teacher collaboration to plan and discuss lesson delivery based on the data from
the adopted language arts and mathematics programs. Many of these objectives were
commensurate with school effectiveness research that associates school-level factors with
enhanced academic achievement (DuFour et al., 2008; Marzano, 2003; Scheerens &
Bosker, 1997).
Collaborative interaction of faculty around issues of student learning and the
development of teacher instructional advice networks is a factor from contemporary
literature that also existed at the school site. Teachers at Lion Elementary positively

144
influenced each other when they engaged in collaborative discussions about their
professional work. Research has demonstrated the importance of teacher-teacher trust as
a factor in improving school communities and student learning outcomes (Bryk &
Schneider, 2002). Due to relational trust the teachers had developed and nurtured over
the several years of working together, they were able to work collegially with one another
to examine instruction and to build shared knowledge of best practices that would
improve student achievement. The effects of No Child Left Behind had inadvertently
increased the motivation of the teaching staff to better anticipate and respond to the
differentiated needs of all of their students by setting goals specific to those needs.
It was not enough that the Lion’s school administration and teaching staff had a
goal that every student, regardless of background, became academically proficient
according to the California Standards Test, thus narrowing the achievement gap. In order
for the teachers to stay motivated year after year, they had to believe that their efforts
sustained the academic success of their school’s student population, which consisted of
racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English Learners. A
2
nd
-grade teacher remarked:
There has been steady growth of student achievement over the last 5 to 6 years
because the staff doesn’t wait for things to happen. We are very willing to help all
of the students regardless of the grade level they’re in and whose students they
are.

Teacher efficacy is a key factor in narrowing the achievement gap (Williams, 2006). If
initial lesson instructions fell short, the teaching staff intensified its efforts without
significant stress because it believed that effort was the key to success. Eventually, this

145
self-assured effort produced increased levels of student learning. Increased perceptions of
efficacy may have resulted from teachers’ perceptions of success formed through
supportive feedback from administrators, peers, support staff, and parents. Teacher
efficacy, a collaborative environment, school effectiveness factors, and multiple levels of
leadership were all emergent themes from the case study that can be verified through the
literature.

Implications for Practice
Schools with student populations comprised predominantly of students of color,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English Learners have traditionally been treated to
subpar educational opportunities. The accountability of No Child Left Behind backed by
the federal government has prodded schools to reexamine their instructional practices and
implement more effective means of ensuring all students have access to the rigorous
standards-based curricula. Variation in performance among schools serving similar
students suggests that today’s achievement gap can be narrowed. Even more promising is
the fact that several schools, including Lion Elementary, are successfully narrowing the
achievement gap over a sustained period of time.
This case study examined cultural norms, practices, and programs being utilized
by the school to help sustain the academic growth of all students, not only those
considered at-risk. Notably, however, a combination of other factors was instrumental in
narrowing the achievement gap and sustaining success over time: a collaborative

146
environment, a standards-based curriculum, data-driven decision-making, multiple levels
of effective leadership, and differentiated instruction with appropriate interventions.
The collaborative culture of staff and administration allowed for a collective
commitment from each member to share in the vision, values, and goals of Lion
Elementary School. The goal of challenging every student to reach his or her highest
level of achievement has promoted an unprecedented surge in student learning. The
notion of shared leadership has fostered a school climate of collegiality and
professionalism, which in turn has produced constructive professional development and
enhanced pedagogical knowledge. Engaging in research-based instructional practices
and embracing a continuous inquiry of quantitative and qualitative measures has allowed
teachers to create ideal conditions for perpetual learning. Reflecting upon the various
factors that have positively impacted the sustained success of Lion’s narrowed
achievement gap, schools with similar demographics may be able to draw valuable
insight from the findings of this case study.

Recommendations for Future Research
From as far back as the Coleman Report in 1966, debate has ensued as to whether
students’ academic fates are shaped more by social, cultural, and economic factors
outside of school or by what occurs in school. Students with similar traits and
backgrounds have achieved varied results. Evidence from the case study suggests that
whereas factors outside of school were indeed sources of unequal outcomes, superior

147
educational practices and programs profoundly affected student achievement. Factors that
affect student achievement overlap and are multifaceted; hence, research to refine more
precisely what drives this achievement gap among similar students should be a priority.
Lion Elementary School has been able to successfully sustain a narrowed
achievement gap up until this point in time. A small, select group of teachers make up the
teaching staff at the elementary level. As students matriculate from this school and move
onto the secondary education of middle school and high school, how will student success
translate from a self-contained classroom with one primary teacher to a school
environment where classes are broken up and distributed among several different
teachers? A longitudinal study should be performed to follow students who have
promoted from successful elementary schools that have narrowed the achievement gap as
they progress through their secondary schooling to see if their achievement is adversely
affected by drastic changes in school instruction.
Lastly, disparities in student achievement still exist among student subgroups:
African American students, Hispanic/Latino students, economically disadvantaged
students, and English Learner students. The significant subgroups at Lion Elementary
School were predominately Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, and English Learners.
Future studies should be conducted to posit whether similar results would be obtained
from a predominantly African American elementary school population if the school
followed the norms, practices, and programs employed by Lion Elementary.

148
Conclusions
The achievement gap has had important consequences for both individuals and
the nation. It damages the economic and social fabric of society and undermines civil
rights and social justice for a large segment of the population. A sense of urgency around
this issue has committed new strategies to narrow the achievement gap. Some of those
successful strategies were found at Lion Elementary School.
Lion did not employ any short-term solutions; rather, it integrated a design of
cultural norms, practices, and programs, all thoughtfully woven together to form a
productive cohesiveness. This cohesive design integrated academic and environmental
factors. The teaching staff faithfully implemented academic rigor directly based upon the
state-adopted, standards-based curriculum. Also, quality of classroom instruction and
tutoring before and after school were based upon ongoing use of data that assessed short
and long-term progress of student achievement. A collaborative school environment
further encouraged a shared vision, set group goals, and helped to define teacher efficacy.
After intensive efforts led by a veteran teaching staff and supported by both the
school administrator and office personnel, Lion Elementary has emerged a rising star.
Through the joint effort of all community stakeholders, their school brightly shines,
casting out a light to anyone wishing to follow its example. With diligence and
determination, Lion has managed to garner the necessary resources to focus on one of

149
education’s most compelling needs: narrowing the achievement gap. The replicability of
the findings from this case study may contribute to promising results for similar at-risk
students being schooled in different areas or regions.

150
REFERENCES

Bali, V. A., & Alvarez, R. M. (2004). The race gap in student achievement scores:
Longitudinal evidence from a racially diverse school district. Policy Studies
Journal, 32(3), 393-415.

Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress.
Retrieved from Educational Testing Service Web site:
http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.c988ba0e5dd572bada20bc47c392150
9/?vgnextoid=4740af5e44df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchann
el=dcb3be3a864f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD

Betts, J. R., Danenberg, A., Rothman, R., & Hauser, R. M. (2002). School accountability
in California: An early evaluation. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, (5),
123-197.

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

Bosker, R., & Scheerens, J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New
York: Pergamon.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
New York: Russell Sage.

Burke, J. (2005). Creating programs that close the achievement gap. Voices from the
Middle, 13(1), 56-57.

California Department of Education (2008). 2007-2008 Accountability Progress
Reporting (APR). Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2008/2008GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=366771
06035810

Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep your eye on Texas and California: A look at testing,
school reform, No Child Left Behind, and implications for students of color. The
Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 332-343.

Chenoweth, K. (2004). 50 years later: Can current education policy finish the work
started with Brown. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(9), 40-42.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.

151
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., &
Weinfeld, F. D. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cowley, K. S., & Meehan, M. L. (2002, December). Student achievement gap in high-
performing schools: Differences as a function of the professional staff as a
learning community. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_n
fpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED476066&ERICExtSearch_Sear
chType_0=no&accno=ED476066

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

Cross, C. T. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in
changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1),
121-153.

Day, J., & Newburger, E. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic
estimates of work-life earnings Report P23-210. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census
Bureau.

Digisi, L. L., & Fleming, D. (2005). Literacy specialists in math class! Closing the
achievement gap on state math assessments. Voices from the Middle, 13(1), 48-
52.

Donlevy, J. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: Plausible solutions, multiple
dimensions. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(2), 143-148.

Doubek, M. B., & Cooper, E. J. (2007). Closing the gap through professional
development: Implications for reading research. Reading Research Quarterly,
42(3), 411-415.

DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12-
15.

152
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning
communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

EdSource. (2004, January). No Child Left Behind in California? The impact of the federal
NCLB Act so far. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_NCLB03_report.html

Education Data Partnership. (2009, December). School Reports. Retrieved from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp

Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10.

Epstein, J. (2005). The National Assessment of Educational Progress: The story of a
national test in the making. American Educational History Journal, 32(1), 10-19.

Ferguson, R. F. (2003). Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test
score gap. Urban Education, 38(4), 460-507.

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581-
584.

Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.

Glaser, R., & Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, testing, and instruction: Retrospect and
prospect. Review of Research in Education, 20, 393-419.

Goldberger, S. (with Bayerl, K.) (2008, January). Beating the odds: The real challenges
behind the math achievement gap—and what high-achieving schools can teach us
about how to close it. Retrieved from:
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/8678/BeatingTheOdds.pdf
?sequence=8

153
Hamilton, L. S., & Koretz, D. M. (2002). Tests and their use in test-based accountability
systems. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of
test-based accountability in education (pp. 13-49). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Harris, D. N., & Herrington, C. D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing
achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of
Education, 112(2), 209-238.

Harrison-Jones, L. (2007). No child left behind and implications for black students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 346-356.

Haskins, R., & Rouse, C. (2005). Policy brief: Closing achievement gaps. School
Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps, 15(1), 1-8.

Hassel, B. C., & McNiff, M. G. (n.d.). Closing the achievement gap through school
development and reform. Retrieved from
http://www.serve.org/_downloads/publications/closinggap.pdf

Haycock, K. (2001). Helping all students achieve: Closing the achievement gap.
Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.

Izumi, L. T., Coburn, K. G., & Cox, M. (2002). They have overcome: High-poverty, high-
performing schools in California. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for
Public Policy.

Jago, C. (2005). Closing the achievement gap one element at a time. Voices from the
middle, 13(1), 60-61.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington
DC: Brookings Institution.

Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity
in our schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-
based accountability systems. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education
policy (pp. 235-283). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

King, J. D. (2008). Stealing our schools. New Politics, 12(1), 69-73.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the educational debt:
Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

154
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.

Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and
analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: The National Center for
Effective Schools Research and Development.

Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1-16.

Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.

Lynch, M. (2006). Closing the racial academic achievement gap. Chicago: African
American Images.

MacInnes, G. (2009). In plain sight: Simple, difficult lessons from New Jersey's expensive
effort to close the achievement gap. New York City: Century Foundation Press.

Magnuson, K. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: Effects on
ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. School Readiness: Closing Racial and
Ethnic Gaps, 15(1), 169-189.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No child left behind and the federal role in education:
Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.

McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No child left behind and the transformation of federal education
policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Meyer, L., Orlosfsky, G. F., Skinner, R. A., & Spicer, S. (2002). The state of the states.
Education Week, 21(17), 68-92.

Moretti, E. (2007). Crime and the costs of criminal justice. In C. R. Belfield & H. M.
Levin (Eds.), The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate
education. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

155
Munitz, B. (2008, January). Closing the achievement gap: Report of Superintendent Jack
O'Connell's California P-16 Council. Retrieved from
http://www.closingtheachievementgap.org/cs/ctag/print/htdocs/home.htm

National Commission On Excellence In Education (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 112-
130.

National Council On Education Standards and Testing (1992). Raising standards for
American education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and
graduation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Public Law Pl 107-110. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Noguera, P. A. (2008). Creating schools where race does not predict achievement: the
role and significance of race in the racial achievement gap. Journal of Negro
Education, 77(2), 90-103.

Obama, B. (2009, February). Remarks of President Barack Obama – As prepared for
delivery address to joint session of Congress Tuesday, February 24th, 2009.
Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-
president-barack-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress/

Odland, J. (2007). NCLB - Year for change. Childhood Education, 84(1), 30B-30E.
Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on teacher
professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(1), 19-24.

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

Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006, June). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority
students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Retrieved from:
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/010DBD9F-CED8-4D2B-9E0D-
91B446746ED3/0/TQReportJune2006.pdf

Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan,
68, 679-682.

156
Porter, A. C. (2005). Prospects for school reform and closing the achievement gap. In C.
A. Dwyer (Ed.), Measurement and research in the accountability era (pp. 59-98).
New York: Routledge.

Porter, K., & Soper, S. (2003). Closing the achievement gap: Urban schools. Washington
DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.

Power, C., & Wood, R. (1984). National assessment: A review of programs in Australia,
the United Kingdom, and the United States. Comparative Education Review,
28(3), 355-377.

Powers, J. M. (2004). High stakes accountability and equity: Using evidence from
California's Public Schools Accountability Act to address the issues in "Williams
v. State of California." American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 763-795.

Resnick, D. P. (1980). Minimum competency testing historically considered. Review of
Research in Education, 8, 3-29.

Rodgers, E. M., Wang, C., & Gomez-Bellenge, F. X. (2004, April). Closing the literacy
achievement gap with early intervention. Paper presented at the meeting of the
2004 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA.

Sammons, P. (1999). School effectiveness: Coming of age in the twenty-first century.
Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New
York: Elsevier.

Schmoker, M. J. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements
in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Schwartz, W. (2001). Closing the achievement gap: Principles for improving the
educational success of all students. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban
Education.

Slobodin, C. S. (1977). Sputnik and its aftermath: A critical look at the form and the
substance of American educational thought and practice since 1957. The
Elementary School Journal, 77(4), 259-264.

Superfine, B. M. (2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of Goals 2000.
American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10-43.

157

Symonds, K. W. (2004). After the test: Closing the achievement gaps with data.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at
40: Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education.
American Educational Research Association, 29, 51-67.

Vang, C. T. (2006). Minority parents should know more about school culture and its
impact on their children’s education. Multicultural Education, 14(1), 20-26.

Williams, T. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better?
A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income
students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2001). The political dynamics of American education (2nd
ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Zirkel, P. A. (2001). Decisions that have shaped U.S. Education. Educational Leadership,
59(4), 6-12.

158
APPENDIX A
DOCUMENT REVIEW MASTER LIST—CATEGORIZED

District
1. Textbook adoption list
2. Board policy
3. Vision statement
4. Mission statement
5. Staff development plan to meet the needs of diverse learners
6. LEA Plan
7. District policy for ELM placement
8. District policy for SEI placement
9. LEA code of conduct policy
10. LEA discipline policy
11. LEA drug/alcohol use prohibition policy
12. LEA firearms/weapons policy
13. LEA Gun-Free Schools Act policy
14. LEA policy regarding tobacco use
15. Full desegregation
16. District-established criteria/procedures for reclassification
17. LEA catch-up plan for monitoring and overcoming any academic deficits
18. District policy on qualifications for instructional aides

School level artifacts
1. Meeting schedules
2. Staff Development plan/School site plan
3. Instructional minutes/Master Schedule
4. Assessment tools
5. Literacy programs
6. Character education
7. SST
8. RTI
9. Tutorial programs
10. Saturday school
11. Interventions during the school day
12. Summer school
13. Student-parent handbook
14. Discipline assembly
15. Vision statement
16. Mission statement
17. Staff development plan to meet the needs of diverse learners

159
18. Equitable groupings of minority students in classrooms
19. Parent Involvement Policy
20. School Accountability Report Card
21. Teacher and paraprofessional assignments
22. Student profile data
23. Counseling availability and function
24. Entitlement funding i.e. Title I funding
25. School-parent compact for NCLB/Title I
26. Public reports of suspension, expulsion, and truancy rates from Uniform
Management Information and Reporting System
27. Safe school plan (including disaster procedures, crisis management, or emergency
plan)
28. Attendance reports

Instructional
1. Department meeting notes
2. Common planning/Common Assessments
3. Classroom Objectives or standards posted in rooms
4. SMART goals or action plan documents
5. Teacher lesson plans

Differentiated or special services
1. Re-classification of LEP
2. Descriptions of English-language mainstream program
3. Descriptions of structured English immersion program design
4. English Learner program evaluation report
5. Physical education instructional minutes report

California Department of Education website
1. School data to analyze student proficiency (CST and CELDT)
2. School demographic data
3. School data on Program Improvement status i.e.: AYP and API information

160
APPENDIX B
SCHOOL OBSERVATION FORM/GUIDE

• In all observation situations keep in mind the 4 frames of Bolman/Deal
o Structural Frame: organization and structure of groups and teams to
achieve goals
o Human Resource Frame: organizational ability to meet human needs,
positive interpersonal and group dynamics
o Political Frame: power and conflict, coalitions, internal and external
politics and their impact on the organization
o Symbolic Frame: positive culture that gives purpose, esprit de corps
through rituals, ceremony, story, shared experiences

• An organization demonstrates what is important to it by what it emphasizes in daily
practice

• First Impressions
o Note time of observations and what expected activity at those times may
look like
o Condition of surrounding neighborhood
o Approach to school
 Exterior condition of structures
 Plants and foliage
 Bus turn-arounds, parking lot: teachers and students
 Supervision around/ in front of school and safety
o The Office
 Entrance/security
 Condition of office compatible with exterior?
 Staff interaction, with guests, parents, community, and peers
o Initial Meeting
 With whom? Principal, Asst. Principal…
 Restrictions on access?
 Are you greeted?
 Staff traffic to administration, open door or appointments
o Staff
 Designated representatives, restricted choice, or free access to staff
 Teacher leaders
• Empowered? Figure heads?
• Emergent leaders or formal structures of leadership
• Experienced or non-experienced?
 Collaboration?

161
• Structured, non-structured
• Common assessments, formative, summative
• Attitudes towards collaboration
o Students
 Student centered culture?
 Connection with staff at all levels? Any levels?
 Student run events?
 Posters? School spirit?
• Curriculum
o Levels of curriculum
 ESL
 SDAIE
 Special Education
• RTI
• Full Inclusion
• Co-teaching Model
• RSP
• SDC
• ED/SED
• SH
 Standard Levels
• Classroom Observations
o Physical condition of room
o Desks or tables
o Student work displayed
o Learning Goal
o Related to Content standard
o Demonstration of Learning
o Asset Development
 Caring
 High Expectations
 Meaningful Participation
o Strategies
 Direct instruction
 Guided practice
 Scaffolding
 Visuals/Graphic Organizers
 Compare and Contrast
 Summarizing or note taking
 TAPPLE (Teach, Ask, Pick, Pause, Listen, Explain, Expand,
Emphasize)
 TPR

162
 Check for Understanding, summative
o Technology
 Extent available
 Extent used
 Teacher use
 Student use

163

APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION LOG
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Focus: Factors Closing the Achievement Gap with Sustained Success in Urban Schools

Date:_______________________ Page ____of_____
Time: ___________

Type of Observation (Circle One): School Class Leadership Meeting

Observation Log
First Impression
Condition of
Surrounding
Neighborhood

Approach to School

§

Exterior
condition
of

structures

§

Plants
and
foliage

§

Bus
turn-‐arounds,

parking

lot:
teachers

and
students

§

Supervision
around

and
in
front
of
the

school

The Office
§

Entrance/security

§

Condition
of
office

compatible
with

exterior?

§

Staff
interaction,
with

guest,
parents,

community,
and
peers

Initial Meeting
§

With
whom?
Principal,

Asst.
Principal…

164
§

Restrictions
on

access?

§

Staff
traffic
to

administration,
open

door
or
appointments

Staff
§

Designated

representatives,

restricted
choice,
or

free
access
to
staff

►Teacher
leaders

►Empowered/Figure

heads?

►Emergent
leaders
of

formal
structures
of

leadership

§

Collaboration?

►Structured, non-
structured?

►Common

assessments,

formative,
summative

Students
§

Student-‐centered

culture?

§

Connection
with
staff

at
all
levels?
Any

levels?

165
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Focus: Factors Closing the Achievement Gap with Sustained Success in Urban Schools

Date: ________________ Page: ______ of _______
Time: _______________

Levels of
Curriculum
Curriculum
§

ELD/SDAIE

§
Differentiate

Instruction

§

Special

Education

►RtI

►SDC

►ED/SED

►SH
Standards or
objectives posted

166
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Focus: Factors Closing the Achievement Gap with Sustained Success in Urban Schools

Date: ________________ Page: ______ of _______
Time: _______________

Classroom Observation
Physical condition
of room

Desks or tables
Student work
displayed

Learning Goal

Related to
Content Standard

Demonstration of
Learning

Asset
Development

§ Caring

§

High

Expectations

§

Meaningful

Participation

Strategies

§

Direct

instruction

§
Guided
practice

§

Scaffolding

§

Visuals/Graphic

Organizers

§

Compare
and

167
Contrast

§

Summarizing
or

note
taking

§

TAPPLE
(Teach,

Ask,
Pick,

Pause,
Listen,

Explain,

Expand,

Emphasize

§

TPR
(Total

Physical

Response)

§

Check
for

Understanding

Technology

§

Extent
available

§

Extent
used

§

Teacher
use

§

Student
use

§

Student/teacher

feedback
on
its

use

168
APPENDIX D
STAFF INPUT SURVEY
Staff Input Survey

Your school was chosen for this study based on the success and sustainability in student
achievement. The purpose of this study is to identify your school’s cultural norms,
practices and programs that contributed to the closing or narrowing of the achievement
gap. The results of this study could be useful to schools with a similar student population.
Your input on this survey is anonymous. This research project is being conducted by a
doctoral student from the University of Southern California. The survey will take about
10-15 minutes to complete. Thank you for your cooperation.

Please circle the appropriate response:
1. The school supports collaboration among teachers.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Strongly Disagree

2. The teachers at this school believe that students can achieve at high levels.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Strongly Disagree

3. School administration creates a positive school culture for teachers and students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

4. Leadership is shared among school personnel.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

5. Teachers collaborate to discuss student data to improve student learning.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

6. The school addresses the needs of struggling students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

7. School administration conducts classroom observations frequently.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Strongly Disagree

169

8. The school has a systematic process for identifying and assisting struggling students.

a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Strongly Disagree

9. School administration communicates vision and goals to the staff.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

10. School administration ensures the analysis of student assessment data.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

11. School administration provides support for implementation of new instructional
practices.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

12. School administration provides ways to improve instructional strategies to meet the
needs of students with diverse backgrounds.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

13. CST scores and District Assessments are used to plan your instructional program?
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

14. Student data is used to identify the instructional needs of my students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

15. You utilize the California State Standards to plan and deliver instruction.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

16. You provide differentiated instructions to meet the needs of all students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

17. School administration initiates programs that promote student achievement.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Strongly Disagree

18. The school utilizes a specific program to analyze student data.

170
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never

Please circle all that apply:

19. Who leads the collaboration sessions?

a) Teachers b) Administrators c) Counselors d) Coaches e)
Other:____________
20. What topics are discussed in the collaboration sessions?
a) Curriculum b) Instruction c) Intervention d) Data Analysis e) Operation f)
Standards
g) Other:
_________________________________________________________________

21. How does the school make collaboration possible?
a) Substitute release time b) Minimum Days c) Partial Day Release
d) After School Time e) Bank Time Activity f) Staff Meetings g) Preparation
Periods
h) Other:
__________________________________________________________________

22. What types of intervention practices are used for struggling students?
a) Peer Tutoring b) After School Tutoring c) In-class intervention
d) Pull-Out Intervention e) Homework Assistance f) Summer School
g) Off-Track Classes h) Other: ______________________________________

23. Who organizes professional development sessions related to intervention programs?
a) Teachers b) Administrators c) Department/Grade Level Chairs d)
Coaches
e) Other:_________________________________________________________

24. Rate the following instructional strategies you used to enhance student learning.
Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not Important

171
___ Direct instruction ___ Guided practice
___ Pre-teaching ___ Re-teaching
___ Visual aids/graphic organizers ___ Note-taking
___ Summarizing ___ SDAIE Strategies
___ Cooperative grouping ___ Peer tutoring
___ Individual instruction ___ Higher Order Thinking Questions
___ Scaffolding ___ Using Prior Knowledge
___ Metacognitive Skills ___ Other (please list) ________________

25. What specific program does the school use to promote collaboration? ___________
_____________________________________________________________________

26. What intervention program(s) at your school have contributed to closing the
achievement gap?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

27. What instructional programs do you use in your classroom that has helped close the
achievement gap?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
28. Comments about the role of intervention in closing the achievement gap at your
school:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

172
____________________________________________________________________
29. Comments about the role of data analysis which helped close achievement gap at
your school:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

30. Comments about the role of school leadership which helped close the achievement
gap at your school:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

31. Comments about the role of collaboration which helped close the achievement gap at
your school:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

173
32. Comments about the role of your classroom instruction which helped close the
achievement gap at your school:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Even though this survey is anonymous, please provide the following information:
Your position at the school:
For Elementary Schools -- Administrative Team Teacher Grade level
Chair
For Secondary Schools -- Administrative Team Teacher Department
Chair
Number of years as an educator: ________________________________
How long have you worked at this school?: ________________________________

Thank you for completing this survey. Your responses are
appreciated!

174

APPENDIX E
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Collaboration:
a. What does collaboration look like at this school?
b. Who leads the collaboration sessions?
c. With whom do you collaborate? How often?
d. What are the outcomes for student learning?
e. What programs, practices, and cultural norms does the school have in
place to ensure that students achieve?

2. School Leadership:
a. What is the school mission and vision?
b. How is the mission/vision/goal communicated?
c. What is the primary goal for this school?
d. Who is the school leader? Why?
e. How does the leadership foster or help student learning?
f. Is the leadership shared among the various school personnel? How?
g. How does the leadership meet the needs of at-risk populations?
h. Are school decisions based upon student needs? Give an example

3. Program Implementation
a. What programs have been employed that have allowed the school to close
the achievement gap?
b. Are there programs that have improved attendance? And how is this
affecting achievement?
c. What programs have improved the school climate?
d. What programs have improved content learning for all students but
specifically for students with diverse needs?
e. What programs have improved student achievement in literacy skills?
f. What programs have improved student achievement in mathematics?

4. Data Analysis
a. How is data used to support student learning?
b. Who is responsible for disaggregation, dissemination, and review of data?
c. How is this information shared among the various school stakeholders?
d. Does your school utilize a specific data analysis program? If so, which
program?
e. How often is data analyzed at your school site?

175
5. Intervention:
a. What are the supports that are in place for students and their families?
b. Who determines which students get support?
c. How are supports implemented and monitored?
d. What is intervention is offered to students who are underperforming
academically?
e. How are these implemented? Who is involved?
f. How do you make sure that every student has his or her academic needs
met?
g. Can you explain the way things are done to support learning in student
groups that are traditional underperforming?

6. Practices that Support Closing the Achievement Gap:
a. What are the school-wide practices that support student learning?
b. Who determined that this practice happens?
c. How is effectiveness measured? Or what data is collected?
d. How do you know that it is successful?
e. Has this practice been modified since the beginning?
• How do you know that all (EL, low SES, Special Ed, African
American, Hispanic) students have access to these practices?
• How do you know students are appropriately placed in
classrooms or courses?
f. What are the departmental or grade level practices that support student
learning?

7. Classroom Instruction
a. What are the classroom practices that support student learning?
b. What are teachers supposed to know and be able to do?
c. How do you know that they have done it?
d. How is classroom instruction differentiated to meet the needs of all
students? List some classroom examples.

8. Professional Development Practices that support closing the achievement
gap:
a. What are the professional development opportunities available to
teachers?
b. What is the role of the teacher in professional development?
c. What is the role of the administrator in professional development?
d. How do you know that teachers are utilizing skills learned?
e. In the classroom? In specific content areas?

9. Sustainability

176
a. Do you believe that your school has sustained success?
b. How do you believe that you have sustained success?
c. What advice would you give to other schools that want to emulate your
cultural norms, programs and practices to close the achievement gap?

Do you have anything you would like to add to this interview in terms of closing the
achievement gap and sustaining success?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Schools with student populations comprised predominantly of students of color, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English Learners have traditionally been relegated to subpar educational opportunities. The accountability of the No Child Left Behind Act prodded schools to reexamine their instructional practices and implement more effective means of ensuring all students access to rigorous, standards-based curricula. Variation in performance among schools serving similar students suggests that today’s achievement gap can be narrowed. This case study examines an elementary school that is successfully narrowing the achievement gap over a sustained period of time through the utilization of various cultural norms, practices, and programs. The replicability of the findings from this case study may contribute to promising results for schools with similar demographics.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of an urban school

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of one outperforming urban school making a difference

PDF

Factors that contribute to narrowing the achievement gap for elementary age students: a case study

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap and sustaining success: a qualitative study of the norms, practices, and programs of a successful high school with urban characteristics

PDF

The impact and sustainability of programs, practices and norms on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study

PDF

A case study of an outperforming elementary school closing the achievement gap

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study

PDF

Urban schools that have narrowed the achievement gap: middle school math achievement in an urban setting

PDF

Bringing the 21st century into California schools: a case study

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Outperforming urban schools that are closing the achievement gap: a case study of Phoenix High School

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: what can be done?

Asset Metadata

Creator Titus, Michael Richard (author)

Core Title Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2010-05

Publication Date 04/15/2010

Defense Date 02/19/2010

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

Tag accountability,achievement gap,case study,elementary school,narrowed,No Child Left Behind,OAI-PMH Harvest,sustained

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email mntitus@gmail.com,mtitus@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2926

Unique identifier UC1491112

Identifier etd-Titus-3537 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-315412 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2926 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Titus-3537.pdf

Dmrecord 315412

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Titus, Michael Richard

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