University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN A HIGH-PERFORMING URBAN HIGH SCHOOL:
A CASE STUDY

by

Norma Lopez-Reid

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

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Norma Lopez-Reid

ii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my son, Kris, who is a highly caring, intelligent,
motivated, and creative person. I hope this project reinforces that we can achieve
anything we set our mind, body, and spirit to do. Thank you, Kris, for giving me the
encouragement to continue, especially during difficult times.
I also dedicate this to my parents, Frank and Josefina Lopez, who always knew
that I could achieve whatever I set my mind to (sometimes even when I wasn’t sure).
Who would have known that the little girl who started kindergarten in South Central
L.A., knowing but a few words of English, who graduated from Garfield High School in
East Los Angeles, would be the first in her family to attend college, to receive post
baccalaureate degrees, and even become the Mayor of a city? I owe so much of my
inspiration and motivation to my parents, who instilled in me the value of education. I
also dedicate this to my sister, Hilda, who was always there to support all of my
endeavors. Although Dad, Mom, and Hilda have been gone for some time, I know they
are smiling right now, since they would have been very proud.

iii

Acknowledgments

The reason for embarking on this “yellow brick” road was to fulfill a personal
goal. As a single parent and part of the so-called “sandwich generation” (my parents
were older at the time they welcomed me into the world), I wasn’t sure I would be able to
fulfill this desire. When I started the program I did not plan on “pausing” several times
(“the weekend at the college didn’t turn out like you planned”-- Steely Dan, 1972).
Heartfelt gratitude to my professor and dissertation chair, Dr. Stuart Gothold, who
never gave up on me, who guided and supported me along “the long and winding road”
(The Beatles, 1970), and who will always be an inspiration to me, as he is to so many of
his former students.
I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Dennis
Hocevar who, as members of my committee, provided valuable input, time, and
enthusiasm. Thanks also go to Dr. Linda Fischer for her encouragement and email
support and to Jessica Gibson for providing great support with department guidelines and
timelines.
I would like to express thanks to Dr. Kemper, who sparked my interest about
pursuing the Ed.D. at USC and to Jean, who was a great role model and cheerleader.
I thank my thematic team members, with warm appreciation to Janie who came
over every Saturday to work, work, work (and with whom I had some great lunches and

iv

conversations). It was amazing that, after all this time, we were able to come together,
via Kris the kids fitness program, to complete our goals!
Thanks also go out to the school staff at “USAA,” all of whom were so
accommodating, doing “whatever it takes” to make great things happen for their students.
I am also very grateful to my wonderful friends: Joe, Elsie, Elaine, Toni, Norma,
and Tere for giving me gentle nudges and consistent support and encouragement along
the way.

v

Table of Contents

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables viii
Abstract ix
Chapter One 1
Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 4
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Research Questions 11
Significance of the Study 12
Summary of Methodology 13
Assumptions 13
Limitations 14
Delimitations 14
Definition of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 18

Chapter Two 20
Literature Review: Introduction 20
The Perception of High Schools Today 21
The Purpose of Schooling: History of Education 25
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 26
Efforts to Improve Accountability 27
Teacher Quality and Staff Development 29
The Money Factor 31
Contributing Factors in High Achieving Schools: What 31
Are They Doing Right?
Leadership 32
Instructional Programs and Practices 33
Culture 36
Organizational Factors 37
Motivation and Student Engagement 39

vi

Students of Diverse Cultural Backgrounds and 42
Low Socioeconomic Status
Closing the Gap: What We Need to Know 43

Chapter Three 45
Methodology 45
Sample and Population 48
The District 49
School Overview 52
Conceptual Framework and Model 54
Figure 1: Conceptual Model Diagram 55
Data Collection Process 56
Data Collection Instruments 58
Validity and Reliability 60
Data Analysis and Interpretation 61
Summary 61

Chapter Four 62
Presentation of Data and Interpretation of the Findings: 62
Introduction
Student Engagement Comparisons 75
Discussion of the First Research Question 79
Engaging Special Interests 87
Extracurricular Programs 95
Discussion of the Second Research Question 96
Leadership 101
Teacher Quality and Staff Development 105
Programs and Instructional Practices 107
Teamwork/Collaboration 116
Parent Involvement 117
Culture 118
Discussion of Third Research Question 119

Chapter Five 124
Analysis and Discussion 124
Summary of Study Findings 126
Summary of Findings by Research Question 127
Implications for Practice 134
Recommendations for Future Research 135

vii

References 138

Appendices
Appendix A: Document Review Instrument 145
Appendix B: Teacher Survey Instrument 146
Appendix C: Interview Instrument 147
Appendix D: Observation Instrument 148
Appendix E: Staff Interviews 149

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement 77
Mean Score Comparisons

Table 2: Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement Mean 78
Comparisons

Table 3: Emotional Engagement Mean Comparisons 79

Table 4: Selected HSSSE Questions-Response by Categories 83

Table 5: Marketing Academy 91

Table 6: Sports Medicine Academy 92

Table 7: Teacher Credentialing 106

Table 8: Intervention Bell Schedule 110

Table 9: Friday Late Schedule 116

ix

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate evidence of a link between high
academic achievement and high engagement in high-performing urban schools and, if
found, to determine what factors were significant in producing these outcomes. Among
the factors examined in the study are culture, instructional programs and practices, and
leadership.
A high-performing school was selected for this study, based on the State’s
designation as a high-performing urban district in Los Angeles County. This designation
reflects the results of testing and comparisons from the Academic Performance Index
(API).
The research in this case study was undertaken using a mixed methods design also
known as qualitative research methodology. Results of the study were based on the
triangulation of data from the various sources. Data was collected and analyzed utilizing
school and district documents and artifacts, observations, interviews, and surveys. The
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) was used, as secondary date in the
study. The observation templates and interview questionnaire was based on valid and
reliable instruments adapted to this study.
Although the findings from the HSSSE student interviews did not support the
anticipated conclusions, analysis of findings based on multiple data confirmed that the
studied factors— culture, leadership, programs and practices— have made a difference in
promoting high academic achievement and student engagement.

1

Chapter One

Overview of the Study

Introduction

What is student engagement? According to Fred Newmann in an article titled
“Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools” (1992):
engaged students make a psychological investment in learning. They try hard to
learn what school offers. They take pride not simply in earning the formal
indicators of success (grades), but in understanding the material and incorporating
or internalizing it in their lives. (p. )

By this definition, student engagement consists of those who are intrinsically motivated
to learn for the sake of knowing and understanding topics, for the love of learning that
transcends interest in grades. The article also states that these students continue to learn
even when extrinsic rewards are not the goal.
High School students today seem not only less prepared for life but also
unmotivated by intrinsic rewards. Many of the latest generations, such as Generation X,
are more inclined to work for the gratification of extrinsic rewards. Recent data reveals
that almost one out of every four high school students drops out of school and that this
number is even higher in African American and Latino students (Greene, 2002).
Students who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups drop out at higher rates
than White students. Those from low-income families, single-parent households, and
families where one or both parents did not complete high school are also at a greater risk
of dropping out (Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990). In the past, youth without basic

2

skills could enter the workforce as unskilled, low-paid laborers but the U.S. economy no
longer has large numbers of jobs for workers that lack basic skills. Dropping out of
school or leaving with minimal skills puts individuals on the road to poverty and
dependence on society; the consequences are devastating to the well being of our nation
(Cotton, 1989).
For the past 30 years education in the United States has seen a tremendous change
in the type of students as well as in societal expectations of the skills and knowledge that
individuals must posses to be contributing citizens. In California, in particular, this
change has meant an increase in those of minority backgrounds, with many students who
are limited in their command of the English language. Furthermore, the challenges of
many urban schools are compounded by low socioeconomic status or outright poverty.
Urban minority children tend to be among the poorest citizens in America.
Young and Melnick (1988) argue that poverty is more severe in the inner cities than any
other geographical area. Inner-city school are where the average performance of Black
and Hispanic students is more than 50 points lower than the average performance of
White students (Bates, 1990).
Young children may be at risk of eventually dropping out of school if they show
early signs such as low educational expectations, early grade retention, discipline
problems, and special education placement (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997).
Based on academic performance and attendance patterns, students at risk of dropping out
of school can be identified as early as third grade (Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, & Christenson,
2003). School reform efforts have largely bypassed urban schools (Lomotey, 1989),

3

particularly at the high school level. At middle schools with lower socioeconomic status
compositions, dropout rates often relate to school demographics--higher minority and
poverty concentrations. School with a structure of higher teacher-student ratios also
contribute to the problem of early drop out. Inner-city school problems are education’s
most serious issue (Cuban, 1989). Large comprehensive high schools, particularly those
located in urban areas, have the highest dropout rates, even exceeding half of 9
th
grade
cohorts. At the secondary level, the school performance of inner-city minority students is
additionally hampered by feelings of alienation, often the dynamic at large schools where
students have few relationships with staff members. The process of disengaging from
school begins well before actually leaving school, as this decision is part of a cumulative
process (Entwistle et al., 1997). The most severe symptom of disengagement culminates
with students dropping out of school. Although the major focus of research about
students dropping out of school focuses on the individual student’s social and academic
risk factors, there is growing interest in how schools might influence these behaviors and
decisions. Schools themselves engage in practices or possibly create conditions that can
push students out, particularly those students who already exhibit social and academic
risk factors. Reversing patterns of inner-city minority youth’s lack of achievement is
critical for the students themselves and for the economic health of the nation, thus this
researcher’s quest to identify factors that make a difference in these schools.

4

Background of the Problem

Society’s Educational Concerns

As achievement test scores at the high school level have been sliding further and
further down (despite students taking more challenging courses), the American public has
cause to doubt the efficiency of the American school system. Consequently, in today’s
society, more individuals are critical of and disillusioned with the American educational
system. Legislators feel it is their right and duty to impose mandates, on both federal and
state levels, in order to try to help education meet the challenges of the twenty-first
century. Are schools really just not doing their jobs? Are teachers and administrators
less able to teach and support student learning? Are the higher standards and additional
resources producing lower results? The message of our school’s failure to prepare
students for the current and upcoming demands of our society compounds existing
complaints about education and its effectiveness.
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results (Atkins,
1997), comparing student achievement of American students to those of other
industrialized countries showed that American students perform less than adequately than
their counterparts (Allen, 1994). The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) is a tool that surveys American students in targeted grades to determine their
level of proficiency in selected subject areas. One NAEP assessment, measuring long-
term trends of student achievement, which gave results by a variety of subgroups such as
gender, race, and ethnicity, showed major gaps between White students and students of

5

color, specifically those of African American and Hispanic background (Phillips, 2000).
Clearly, our schools have not been preparing students for their future or the future of our
nation.

Measuring School Accountability

Past reform efforts have largely failed in their attempts to improve schools. The
changes in curriculum and instructional practices of the 1960s and 1970s did not improve
the situation. Continued legislation in the form of national goals and state standards
requiring change in local schools and districts is an attempt to meet the needs of all
students and raise their academic achievement. At the federal level, Goals 2000, the
Education America Act, was signed into legislation in March of 1994. The purpose of
this legislation was to reach national goals by improving student learning through
incentive funding and assistance to states and thus to provide and promote standards-
based school improvements. This strategy included setting academic and performance
standards in core subject areas, integrating widespread technology in schools, promoting
parent involvement in their children’s education, and developing assessments to measure
achievement. These efforts in evaluating achievement assisted in refocusing reform
efforts and promoting district and school accountability, the latter of which became the
focus of the Clinton administration national agenda. Initiatives such as the Elementary
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) became the Improving America’s School Act (IASA),
placing a higher measure of accountability on states to improve student achievement. In
2002, under the Bush administration, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation expanded

6

the focus on accountability, scientific research, expanded parental options, and local
control. Although many criticized the funding that accompanied these demands, states
receiving funding, were required to show progress toward meeting the needs of all
students in reading and math, in grades 4 through 8 and 10 and 12.
In California, two bills were passed, one in the Assembly (AB265) and one in the
Senate (SB376), establishing the Standardized Testing and Reporting System (STAR) as
a mandated student achievement test. These bills required all school districts to utilize
one standardized test to test all students in grades 2-11, providing parents with individual
pupil scores. Most states use this type of standardized testing to develop measures of
accountability and to gauge school improvement. Schools are judged on their ability to
meet or exceed set growth targets and to distinguish between low performing and high-
performing schools. California created the Academic Performance Index (API) to
measure school progress on a numeric index of 200 to 1000 and to apply rewards or
sanctions (CDE, 2002). The performance target for all California schools is a score of
800 or better. Schools are also compared to one another and ranked from 1 to 10 based
on similar school characteristics. In 2003, Ed Source used the California API results to
identify schools that had successfully achieved their target, demonstrating great progress,
particularly based on their challenging student populations, or more specifically
socioeconomic status, and a ranking score of 6 or better.
Through all of the reform efforts, research studies have identified a number of
factors responsible for the effectiveness of inner-city schools: leadership, emphasis on
instruction, climate, expectations, and emphasis on assessment of student progress (Bliss,

7

Firestone & Richards, 1991). In this study, the researcher will continue to explore these
factors, adding to them that of student engagement in relation to student achievement.

Effective Leadership

Society’s expectations and pronounced school accountability measures have
placed significant pressures on leaders in the field of education. As a result, many
educators are discouraged from entering the profession, which has now become an added
problem in attracting school leadership, in particular recruiting school principals (Bennett
& Figuli, 2002). Years ago, school principals were primarily expected to perform duties
that were managerial in style. Now, principals must be instructional leaders as well
(Fullan, 2002). Managers and leaders are two distinctly different roles, although the
qualities of both are needed for effective outcomes (Sergiovanni, 1991). The pressure of
increased academic achievement and other school accountability factors demands more
distinct qualities in school leadership. In this environment of heightened accountability,
school leaders have to respond to social pressure, legislative impact, and media criticism.
Much of the research denotes that although there is no single definition of
effective school leadership, a number of leadership characteristics has been agreed upon
(Marzano, 2003). According to Edmonds, a fundamental leader of the effective schools
movement, five factors are important for inner-city schools: leadership, an emphasis on
instruction and assessment of student progress, climate, and expectations (Bliss, Firestone
& Richards, 1991). Levine and Lezotte’s (1990) list of leadership factors include
practice-oriented staff development and parent involvement.

8

Organizational Culture

Deal and Peterson (1990) define “culture” as the, “deep patterns of values, beliefs,
and traditions that form over the course of history”(p. ) In these days of high stakes
accountability, a school’s culture has been identified as one of the critical components in
student achievement.
Developing a culture that supports academic achievement is a challenge facing
school leadership. Bolman and Deal (1997) argue that school leaders must be responsible
for establishing the culture at a school and for promoting commitment to increased
student achievement. The impact of a school’s culture on student achievement must be
of major concern to school leaders (Maehr & Parker, 1993).

Factor of Student Engagement

We know a great deal about who is at risk of dropping out but have few
empirically validated studies with definitive answers about how to keep students engaged
in school (Lehr et al., 2003).
The School of Education at Indiana University conducted surveys of high school
students in the middle and eastern parts of the United States revealing that students with a
high level of engagement in school feel less alienated and demonstrate higher levels of
academic achievement (Norris, Pignal, & Lipps, 2003). The type of engagement that
seems to produce these results involves a reciprocal relationship between what students
do and what schools do to foster this engagement. The survey of student engagement
asks questions regarding issues such as safety, study, work-for-pay habits, extracurricular

9

participation, among other things. In an article describing responses from student surveys
conducted in 2005, Martha McCarthy from the School of Education at Indiana
University, Bloomington says that student engagement is important and, further, that
“students who are more involved in various aspects of high school get better grades, are
more satisfied and are more likely to graduate”(p.).
In the opinion of McPartland (1994), effective programs that promote student
engagement need to include four intervention components, which include promoting
success in schoolwork, indicating the relevance of education for their future, providing a
caring and supportive environment, and helping students with personal problems. A
study by Lee and Burkam (2000) involved exploring three features of secondary schools
that seemed to keep students from dropping out: curriculum, school size, and social
relations. The research indicated that schools offering students more academic, instead of
nonacademic courses, were more likely to retain students. Students in schools with
enrollment of fewer than 1500 also seemed to stay in school. Most importantly, students
are less likely to drop out of high schools where they are involved in social organizations
(the focus of these were relationships between teachers and students). This researcher is
looking to confirm the latter with a broader focus on the various types of student
engagement and the link, if any, to high academic achievement.

10

Statement of the Problem

From the research, much is known about student achievement, best practices in
curriculum, high-stakes testing and accountability, programs that yield effective results,
good school leadership, and culture. However, great concern persists about the
achievement gap that separates low-income and minority students from other youth
There was an emphasis on improving the education of poor and minority students
and some gains were made in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, the academic
achievement gap between African American and White students was cut in half, whereas
the gap between Latinos and White students was cut by one third. Unfortunately, in the
late 1980s, the gap started to widen again. Schools need to focus on what really matters
in improving education and what will serve to close the gap for minority and low-income
students. When researchers speak with teachers throughout the United States the
comments they hear regarding this gap is that the students are too poor or that their
parents don’t care and there are too few books in the home.
Young people have different responses. They mention counselors who
underestimate their potential and place them in low-level courses, school administrators
who don’t seem to care, teachers who are ill-prepared to teach the subject matter, and a
curriculum and expectations that are so low that students become bored and disheartened
and drop out of school (Ed. Leadership, 2001).
Researchers have identified and produced vast amounts of literature on various
factors that contribute to and are associated with student success. What has yet to be

11

examined is what factors contribute to student engagement in high-performing high
schools in urban areas with students of high diversity and low socioeconomic status.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine what factors are most influential in
promoting student engagement in school, what factors contribute to high performance by
students in urban high schools and to what degree these are related. This study is part of
a group of five case studies by doctoral students researching current practices, programs,
culture, and leadership in several high schools in Southern California. The researcher
used a mixed-methods case study approach, including the instrument developed by the
University of Indiana in similar studies in the middle and eastern part of the United
States. This study was guided by the following research questions.

Research Questions

The following research questions serve as the basis for the case study’s data
collection, analysis, and discussion of the data presented in the succeeding chapter of the
dissertation. The purpose of these research questions is to guide the study.
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high-performing urban
high school (HPUHS), as measured by the High School Survey of
Student Engagement (HSSSE)? How does this level compare to the
national profile?

12

2. What perceived school factors contribute to student engagement in
HPUHS?
3. What perceived school factors contribute to high performance in
HPUHS?

Significance of the Study

Given a heightened public awareness of student achievement, the data that
supports high-stakes accountability and the increased pressure on school leadership to
produce environments in which all students succeed, this study is valuable for many in
the field of education and in society.
Site, district, and other urban school administrators will value the identification of
factors that will increase students’ academic potential. Leaders in urban schools will
achieve increased knowledge and preparation to provide opportunities for students to be
more engaged by in-school and out-of-school activities, teacher and staff motivation, and
a supportive school culture. This study will draw attention to how these factors can more
specifically affect the achievement of poor and minority students whose lack of parallel
achievement to students of nonminority backgrounds and high socioeconomic status,
continuously poses a challenge to all school systems.
Through the findings of this and similar studies, schools and district offices will
be able to provide the necessary support, including but not limited to professional
development, resources, and activities that makes a difference in raising the level of
student achievement for all students in urban schools.

13

Summary of Methodology

A multiple methods research design was used to provide the most comprehensive
data in determining what factors contribute to higher student engagement and whether the
level of student engagement relates to high performance in urban high schools. This case
study tells the story of a high school in the Southern California area that has already been
identified as a high-performing urban school and what factors contribute to this school’s
high rating. It also measured, through the use of the HSSSE survey, what the level of
student engagement is in this school. The case study compiled data based on surveys,
interviews, observations, and document review. The interview was open-ended and all
interviewees were asked the same questions in the same order (Patton, 2002). The
analysis of triangulated data provided for a rich description of practices, programs,
culture, and leadership in the school that promotes high performance and high student
engagement.

Assumptions

The following assumptions are made in the use of this mixed-methods study: (a)
All surveyed and interviewed respondents provide true and honest responses to the
questions asked; (b) The data examined and available from the California Department of
Education (CDE) such as API, ranking, targets, similar school information, during the
review of documents, are accurate and valid measures of student achievement and (c) All
sources of data provided to the investigator were accurate.

14

Limitations

The data collection for this study was conducted during a two-month period at a
public urban high school located in a lower socioeconomic region of Southern California.
Therefore, results of this study may or may not be applicable to other schools such as
private or charter schools. The investigation was subject to the qualitative case study
approach employed by the researcher and to the use of specific instruments, such as
Bolman and Deal’s (1997) Four Frames, and other instruments developed by the group of
researchers, such as questionnaires and interview questions. The validity of the
instruments used to collect data is identified in the research. Another limitation may
concern the researcher’s subjectivity in terms of observations, interviews, and
documentation analysis.

Delimitations

The design of the study was qualitative in nature and was limited to one urban
high school in southern California that demonstrated student academic achievement
growth over time, as measured by California’s Academic Performance Index (API). This
study focused largely on the stories and examples of leadership, practices, programs, and
culture recognized as having an impact on student engagement and student achievement.

15

Definition of Terms
The following terms are important to the understanding of this case study:
Accountability: The notion that individuals or organizations (such as schools or
school districts) should be held responsible for improving student achievement and
should be rewarded or sanctioned for their success or failure.
A-G Completion Rates: the ‘a-g’ courses are a set of 15 classes that high school
students must take and pass with a “C” or better to be eligible to enter a California State
University or the University of California systems.
Annual Performance Index (API): A single number index for a school of district
using specified measures of student performance. In California, the API score is used as a
basis for ranking schools. The ranking goes from 1, being the lowest, to 10, being the
highest.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): An individual state’s measurement of the
annual progress that schools or districts make toward achieving the state’s academic
standards. AYP is the minimum level of improvement that must be achieved each year
according to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal guidelines.
Advanced Placement (AP): The College Board offers 33 courses and exams in 19
subject areas that high school students may take to earn college credit for a satisfactory
score on the exam. This credit may also influence college acceptance.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): A State exam that California
public high school students must pass in order to graduate. The purpose of this exam is

16

to ascertain whether students have mastered the academic skills necessary to succeed in
Language Arts (Reading and Writing) and Mathematics.
California Achievement Test (CAT): This is a norm-referenced test of basic skills.
Student scores are based on national percentile rankings. This test compares the
performance of each student to the national average.
California Department of Education (CDE): The department of education in the
State of California that provides school districts policies, procedures and standards for
assessment in curriculum and other instructional areas.
Content Standards: Standards that describe what students must know and be able
to do in core academic subjects per grade level.
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP): Professional standards
adopted by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing in 1997 to guide teacher
preparation programs and new teacher assessments. The standards are organized around
six interrelated categories of teaching practices.
California Standardized Test (CST): The state’s exam, which measures a
student’s performance according to state-adopted academic standards.
Culture: The traditions, norms, and values that are held by an organization and
influence the behavior and beliefs of its members.
Engagement: What students do in relation to time and energy devoted to
educationally purposeful activities.

17

Four Frames: Four distinct frames that can be attributed to leadership traits as
offered by Lee Bolman and Terrance Deal. These frames consist of the following areas:
Political, Structural, Symbolic, and Human Resources.
Highly Qualified Teacher: According to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a
highly qualified teacher is one who has obtained full state certification or has passed the
state teacher licensing examination and holds a license to teach in the state.
Immediate Intervention Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP): A
component of the California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) designed to
provide assistance and intervention for schools identified as underperforming. Schools
that meet improvement goals are eligible for financial and nonmonetary rewards.
Schools that fail to meet growth targets over time may be subject to district or state
intervention.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A nationwide assessment
of what America’s students should know and can do in reading, mathematics, science,
writing, history, geography, the arts, and other fields of study.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): This act is the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs
provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools. NCLB’s provisions represent a
significant change in the federal government’s influence in public schools throughout the
United States, particularly in terms of assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. It
also increased the federal focus on the achievement of disadvantaged pupils, including
English Learners and students who live in poverty. In addition, it provides funding for

18

innovative programs and supports the right of parents to transfer their children to a
different school, if their schools is low performing or unsafe.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): a format for schools in California to
report on school site data relating to performance, environment, resources, and
demographics.
Triangulation: A research strategy that utilizes multiple data collection methods,
data sources, analysis, and theories to confirm the validity of a study’s findings.

Organization of the Study

The study is organized into five chapters, a reference guide, and an appendix.
Chapter One summarizes the current investigation’s relevance to the impact of student
engagement and student achievement in urban high schools that exceeded their
expectations. It introduces the case study and the reason for conducting the study.
Chapter Two contains a review of the current literature pertinent to this study. The
review of the literature covers the topics of school accountability, effective school
leadership traits and culture, and organizational theory, which are some of the factors also
being studied for their possible impact on student achievement.
Chapter Three outlines the study design, including the instrumentation used for
the data collection effort. It describes the multiple methods, instruments, a description of
the population, and the process for data collection and data analysis. Chapter Four
presents the findings and analysis of the data for each of the established research

19

questions. Chapter Five summarizes the study, presenting conclusions based on the
findings and identifying future implications for educational leaders and educational
researchers.

20

Chapter Two

Literature Review: Introduction

High Schools need to expect more from students at every grade level if college
aspirations of many students are to be realized. (McCarthy, 2005)

The purpose of this literature review is to synthesize research that supports the
perceived factors that have been found to increase student achievement and that may
stem from the students’ involvement in meaningful activities. In a speech to the
Economic Club of Washington, in May, 2005, Melinda Gates, wife of Microsoft founder
Bill Gates, said that “leaders need to work with the school systems to transform high
schools and demand that students graduate from high school being prepared for college,
work and the community” (L.A. Times, 2005). A recent study of high school
sophomores asked what was of value to them for the future. The top three areas, rated
“very important” were: (a) a good education, (b) marriage, (c) becoming experts in their
field. The first and third items of importance could be relevant to engagement in school,
should teachers be successful in relating topics of study to future education goals and the
job market.
The School of Education at Indiana University conducted surveys of high school
students in the middle and eastern parts of the United States. These studies, based on the
High School Survey of Student Engagement (from here on known as HSSSE), built on

21

the National Survey of Student Engagement, which has been given to over 900,000 four-
year college students since the year 2000. The surveys showed that students with high
engagement in school feel less alienated from school and demonstrate a higher level of
academic achievement (Norris et al., 2003). The type of engagement that seems to
produce these results includes what students do and what schools do to foster this
engagement. Research has shown that the time and energy that students devote to
purposeful activities, along with the use of effective practices by schools, promotes
academic achievement.

The Perception of High Schools Today
Students today seem not only less prepared for life but also unmotivated by
intrinsic rewards. Many people of the latest generations, such as Generation X, are more
inclined to care about extrinsic rewards.
In a time when postsecondary education is the basic requirement for getting a
decent job and having a good life, a great number of youth is not finishing high school.
Why would students drop out when they are faced with the task of finding a job in this
increasingly complex and challenging society? Dropouts report a variety of reasons for
leaving school. Quitting seems to be a gradual process that begins in elementary and/or
middle school, with multiple factors that can influence students’ attitudes, behaviors, and
performance in high school prior to dropping out. The California Dropout Research
Project, conducted by the University of California, Santa Barbara (October 2008),
reviewed the past 25 years of research on dropouts. The research was based on 203

22

published studies that analyzed national, state, and local data identifying predictors of
high school dropout and graduation. Factors ranging from individual to institutional in
families, schools, and communities were statistically significant and were similar in a
large number of studies were highlighted.
The synopsis of these resulted is the following: Although there is no single factor
that accounts for the decision to drop out, and these are not solely results of what takes
place within the school system, “dropping out is more of a process than an event,” for
most of the dropouts this process began in early elementary school with the “two most
consistent indicators being early academic performance and academic and social
behaviors”(p.). Published in the Journal of Education Research (February 2008), another
longitudinal study tracking students from Kindergarten through high school and
examining behavioral characteristics of dropouts indicated that differences existed
between graduates and dropouts as early as kindergarten. Dropouts had missed an
average of 124 days by the eighth grade. Based on these identified predictors,
interventions such as quality preschool and small classes in early elementary school
would improve high school graduation rates and prove cost-effective in generating two to
four dollars in economic benefits for each dollar spent.
Focusing on personal characteristics of individual students, the list of potential
risk factors that leads to dropping out of school seems to be fairly consistent. Researchers
who study this concern compare students who do versus those who don’t drop out of
school. This research highlights risk factors that encompass at least these three
categories: social background, academic background, and academic-related behavior.

23

When assessing social concerns, researchers look at factors such as socioeconomic status,
inner-city living, race or ethnicity, family structure, and gender. In examining the
academic background, these studies take into account test scores, individual student
ability, and how often students have been retained. Looking at academic-related behavior
includes attendance or truancy factors, disciplinary encounters, grades--particularly the
number of failures they count on their transcripts--and engagement within the school, as
this study will measure. Basically, all of these factors play a role in drop out and
graduation rates.
California’s graduation rate is below 70%, with variations depending on the
school and the district. As there are a number of ways to compute drop out rates,
calculations are not always accurate, therefore, this percentage may present a much
higher number than reality. In May 2004 West Ed published research describing four
graduation calculation methods. The first, the NCES Formula that California uses, is
based on dropout data for 9
th
through 12
th
grades. It divides the number of graduates by
the number of graduates plus the total number of dropouts in these grades. The second
method, used by the California Department of Education (CDE), compares the number of
students who start out in 9
th
grade to those who graduate in the 12
th
grade and is the Basic
Completion Ratio. The Green Method, like the second method, is enrollment-based and
averages 8
th
through 10
th
grade enrollment to estimate the 9
th
grade size and adjusts for
changes in population. The fourth method, the Cumulative Promotion Index, uses
projected promotion rates to calculate the probability that a 9th grader will graduate from
the 12
th
grade. As an example, in 2000-2001 the graduation rate calculated by one means

24

for California was 86.7%, but, using a different formula, it could have realistically been
closer to 67%.
Recent data revealed that the numbers are even worse when broken down by
racial and ethnic groups. Almost one out of every four high school students drops out of
school, with a large gap existing between White and Asian students; this number is even
higher in African American and Latino students (Greene, 2002).
It is the perception of many individuals, businesses and legislators that high
school students today are less prepared to be productive citizens than ever in the history
of the United States of America. In the 1980s, criticism began with media headlines such
as “Why Johnny Can’t Read,” and continued with other subjects including writing,
mathematics, and science. Students in the United States were scoring lower than several
of their counterparts in other nations, including some third world countries. This news
became the focus of a national report entitled, “A Nation At Risk.”
On April 26, 1983, the Blue Ribbon National Committee on Excellence in
Education issued an “open letter to the American people” on the state of the nation’s
schools. “A Nation at Risk” was one of many reports that year warning of a “rising tide
of mediocrity” in our schools that could impair our nation’s future. Of all educational
institutions, high schools seem to be the most resistant to change (Reville, 2005)

25

The Purpose of Schooling: History of Education
The group that inherits pencils and typewriters in the age of the microchip will
discover itself, unfortunately, without the aptitude for the best jobs in the coming century
(Gross & Gross, 1985).
The national system of formal education in the United States was developed in the
19
th
century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school
system. After the Declaration of Independence, 14 states had their own constitutions and
7 out of 14 states had specific provisions for education. The first publicly supported
secondary school in the United States was the Boston Latin School, founded in 1635.
Harvard was the first University in existence at that time.
By the mid 1900s, American society embraced the economic culture of industry.
Schools began to promote the characteristics and skills needed in American factories
through a structured curriculum, departmentalizing, and the “one size fits all” concept.
The rise in American high school attendance was one of the most striking developments
in the United States during the 20
th
century. From 1900 to 1996 the percentage of
teenagers who graduated from high school increased from about 6% to about 85%. As
the 20
th
century progressed, most states enacted legislation extending compulsory
education laws to the age of 16.
Today, education must prepare students for an entirely different kind of life.
Ramirez-Smith (1995) states that the purpose of schooling is to advance students’
academic, social, and emotional development toward becoming successful citizens. The
condition of high school education today has left many wondering how to improve the

26

system, so much so that in his first week as president, George W. Bush introduced his
“No Child Left Behind” plan, in an effort to improve accountability.
Anne Lewis (2005) argues that the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation,
with its strict standards of accountability and focus on test scores overlooks some of the
important factors that make a difference in school success, particularly for poor, minority
students in urban schools. As much as we would like to have all students become college
educated, some individuals may be more inclined to pursue vocational careers; as such,
our schools need to prepare students for areas that appeal to them and will help them be
successful. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that between 2002 and 2012, the
United States will need approximately one million skilled workers to fill construction
jobs. These jobs pay well, are in demand, require a high skill level and offer workers a
stable future. Former president George W. Bush believed that skilled trades will play a
significant role in building America’s future and that the United States has the skills and
talent to fill the growing number of jobs available in the construction industry.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
With the publication of “A Nation at Risk” in 1983, the modern education
standards movement was underway in the United States, and continues today. The
report, prompted by the Secretary of Education, compared the urgency of addressing the
condition of K-12 elementary education in the United States to that of a virtual state of
war. In the intervening 20 years, K-12 public education has been caught up in efforts to
address the concerns raised in “A Nation at Risk,” culminating in 2000 with the revision

27

of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), rechristened the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
President George W. Bush proposed extending No Child Left Behind to every
high school, in an effort to require better results at the secondary level. Even with
backing from the White House, experts agree that high school reform has been and will
continue to be much more difficult to bring about than it was for the elementary schools.
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which became effective in 2002, requires
high schools to report graduation rates as well as achievement scores.
In some states students must pass specific standardized tests proving they have
mastered the required material before they pass to the next grade or are allowed to
graduate. The passing or failing of such tests supercedes all other schoolwork. Educators
and politicians defend such high-stakes testing, explaining that students have multiple
opportunities to take such tests. However, evidence indicates that students who fail once
or twice become discouraged and leave school; others consider this result a high price to
pay for a system that is trying to “leave no child behind.”

Efforts to Improve Accountability
Who should be held responsible when a student drops out of school? The most
common focus on accountability in this area emphasizes individual students, however,
the schools these students attend should also share in the accountability. Much research
focuses on general at-risk high school factors such as minority enrollment,
socioeconomic status, and over all achievement. However, on the school side of the

28

equation, factors that go beyond demographics, such as how high schools are organized,
should play a part in assessing accountability.
As part of the Public School Accountability Act of 1999, California introduced
the Academic Performance Index (API), an index that ranges from a low score of 200 to
a high score of 1000. The State sets a target for each school to achieve annually. The
program also has an intervention program that includes sanctions for schools that don’t
meet their growth target. Schools obtain their ranking based on standardized tests
required by each state.
California’s central mechanism for holding schools accountable has been a
combination of Academic Performance Index (API), California Standards Tests (CST),
and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE), which tests
English/Language Arts and Mathematics. It carries consequences, not only for schools,
but also for each high school student.
As we look at high schools today, even with, or perhaps because of, built-in
accountability systems focusing tremendous attention on test scores and graduation rates,
we still see that students are dropping out in great numbers starting in the 9
th
grade.
According to research by the National Center for Education Statistics (1989),
approximately 12% of White students drop out of school, almost 14% of Black students
drop out, and 33% of Hispanic students do so. In urban areas the number of dropouts are
much higher. Ascher (1985) notes that the Hispanic dropout rate in urban areas ranges
from 23% to a high of 80%. In order to improve student achievement, No Child Left
Behind Act decreed that standards for students should be complemented by standards for

29

teachers and included an initiative designed to improve the training of prospective
teachers, while helping to provide current teachers with access to research-based
professional development.

Teacher Quality and Staff Development
Despite a decade and a half of reform talk, some teachers continue to teach as
they have in the past. In the absence of substantial professional development and
training, many teachers naturally gravitate to the familiar methods they remember from
their own years as students. A videotape of eighth grade mathematics teachers conducted
as part of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) found that
most teachers, even those who say they use reform methods, still teach with traditional
practices (NCES, 1999).
The Tripod Project, directed by Ron Ferguson at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University included more than 40,000 secondary school students,
concluded that student success depends on three qualities of teaching: content
knowledge, pedagogy, and strong relationships with students (Lewis, 2004).
In the area of student self-efficacy and teaching, research has shown that efficacy
plays an important role in students’ engagement in the classroom and in the material
being taught, all of which is linked with school achievement. Teacher practices can
influence both efficacy beliefs and engagement, utilizing the following ideas: To help
students develop reasonable efficacy beliefs, teachers need to provide accurate feedback
that is specific to tasks,. They should also offer challenging academic tasks that students

30

can accomplish by exerting some effort. Teachers must communicate positive, high
expectations for all students—doing so helps students see that competence is achievable.
A Texas study of 900 districts conducted by Ronald Ferguson of Harvard
University (1991) found that teacher expertise, as measured by teacher education,
licensing examination scores, and experience, accounts for 40% of the difference in
student achievement in reading and mathematics. Teacher quality explains most of the
gap in achievement between African American and White students, after controlling for
socioeconomic status. A study of schools in New York City found that differences in
teacher qualifications accounted for 90% of the variation in student achievement in
reading and mathematics (Armour-Thomas, Clay, Domanico, Bruno, & Allen, 1989).
Ferguson’s study also revealed how teacher quality can be improved; every dollar
spent on more highly qualified teachers produced greater increases in student
achievement than a dollar spent on any other single program (NCES, 1997 citing
Ferguson, 1991). Furthermore, a study by Greenwald, Hedges, and Lane (1996) found
that for every $500 spent on increasing teacher professional training student achievement
goes up more than for spending the same amount on raising teacher salaries or reducing
class size. Some states and districts are working to increase the monies allocated for
teacher preparation and professional development; for example, Illinois appropriates $4
million of state funds for teacher professional development and Massachusetts allocated
$10 million for local districts.

31

The Money Factor
Of all the money spent on K-12 public education only 7% comes from the federal
government and the bulk of it goes to school lunch subsidies and long-established
remedial programs (Kahn, 1988). Programs that involve class size reductions and
rewards for innovative schools typically absorb less than 1% of American spending on
public schools.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, accountability measures in education were put
in place to evaluate the consequences of putting state dollars toward state reform efforts
(Guthrie, 1984). Studies assessing whether more money makes a difference in promoting
academic achievement in schools have concluded that although money helps, a number
of factors makes a greater difference in boosting academic achievement. (Cavazos, 2002).

Contributing Factors in High Achieving Schools: What Are They Doing Right?
What makes a successful school? There is no silver bullet, no single thing that a
school can do to ensure high student performance. Research has shown, however, that
high-performing schools share some characteristics. Based on a number of studies, these
characteristics include: a clear and shared focus, high standards and expectations, high
levels of collaboration and communication, curriculum and instruction (along with
assessment) aligned with standards, frequent monitoring of teaching and learning,
focused professional development, a supportive learning environment, high levels of
community and parent involvement, and effective school leadership.

32

Focusing on what factors play a role in the decision of adolescents to stay in
school can also be measured by organizational elements that include structure, academic
organization, and social organization. The first of these, structure, encompasses, among
other things, the size of the school. Academic organization takes into account the
curriculum and pedagogy, whereas social organization focuses on relationships between
students and their teachers. A study by Lee and Burkham (2000) found that these school
organization factors may either force out or retain students whose individual
characteristics may place them at risk of dropping out of school. In several studies
regarding drop out rates, researchers discovered that drop out rates were lower in schools
with more excellent teachers and with lower student/teacher ratios (Lee & Burkham).

Leadership
In responding to the demand for accountability, as in dealing with most complex
educational issues, leadership is a crucial factor. The review of literature on leadership
has lead to an initial identification of six characteristics of leaders of educational change.
These characteristics include having a vision, believing that schools are for learning,
valuing human resources, being a skilled communicator and listener, being proactive, and
taking risks.
Communicating and listening provide the basis for articulating the school’s
vision, mission, and goals and promoting these qualities throughout the school
community. In being proactive, leaders initiate action, anticipating and recognizing
changes in their environment that will affect their schools. Leaders must have the ability

33

to challenge the status quo, which may or may not support the vision of the organization.
Being proactive many times means being a risk taker. Leaders who expect to guide
others in school change must be willing to take calculated risks and to encourage others
to be risk takers by providing them with an environment that makes such action a safe
practice. The human resources aspect of leadership encompasses valuing the
contributions of others, relating effectively with them, and fostering collaboration.
The Association of Washington School Principals (1998) lists seven key
responsibilities for school leaders: promoting a safe and orderly school environment;
sustaining a school culture of continuous improvement; implementing data-driven plans
for improving student achievement; implementing standards-based assessment;
monitoring school-improvement plans; managing human and fiscal resources to
accomplish achievement goals; and communicating with colleagues, parents, and
community members to promote student learning.

Instructional Programs and Practices
In an era in which teachers and school leaders are in search of “the magic bullet of
educational success,” there is no one practice that is the answer to success. Whatever
practice or program educators select, they must apply it consistently.
Schools that show the greatest student achievement levels are aware of data-
driven instruction, academic content standards linked to their instruction, and utilizing
best practices (Milwaukee Public Schools Accountability Report Card, 1999). Some of
the distinguishing characteristics of schools with higher student achievement, however,

34

focused more specifically on their implementation, monitoring, and assessment of
students and on their delivery of instruction. Importantly, the techniques utilized by these
schools are replicable because in most cases records have been kept on instructional
practices and strategies, without the need to subscribe to specific programs and/or
curricular resources in order to achieve a high level of success.
A number of the schools mentioned in the 90/90/90 studies (Milwaukee Public
Schools Accountability, 1999) had student populations considered to be at-risk. These
schools were mostly those with demographics of urban schools, such as those of low
economic status and high minority ethnicity. Educational practices in high poverty
schools are noteworthy because an assumption exists among researchers that there is a
relationship between poverty, ethnicity, and academic achievement.
These studies showed identified five behaviors of leaders and teachers in these
high achievement, high monitoring, and high poverty schools: a focus on academic
achievement, clear curriculum choices, frequent assessment of student progress and
multiple opportunities for improvement, an emphasis on writing, and external scoring.
The focus on achievement at these schools was on time spent on the core subjects of
reading, writing, and mathematics and less on other subjects. Interestingly, the results
showed that many of these schools had the ability to out perform other schools in science
tests, signifying that tests in most other subjects are, in fact, tests of reading and writing.
Another important practice was the frequent assessment of student progress with
multiple measures and opportunities for improvement. Benchmark assessments, whether
quarterly or weekly, were conducted to measure improvement. Teachers were trained on

35

a specific rubric that required uniformity by which to evaluate student work and
performance. Such a structure meant all students were measured with the same criteria
knowing that “proficient” meant that they had reached aptitude in the assessed area.
Teachers were able to give quick feedback to students regarding their success or
their need to refocus their efforts. Many times this feedback was more along the line of
coaching and less of a one-shot final evaluation. In the most recent student surveys
conducted by the Indiana University, half of the student respondents in a high school
survey said they never or only sometimes received prompt feedback from teachers
(HSSSE, 2005). With today’s mandates of NCLB, students who are years behind in their
performance and only receive feedback from norm-referenced tests get discouraged even
when they are improving.
One of the underlying traits of many of these schools had to do with an emphasis
on writing. The High School survey of Student Engagement, administered by Indiana
University, noted that more than one-third of all students had not written any papers more
than five pages long during the school year (HSSSE, 2005). Writing assignments were a
focus of most programs, with written responses required even on performance tests.
Teachers used writing as a window into students’ thinking process, a way of gaining
more specific diagnostic information and of allowing them to modify strategies needed to
assist the students. Most of the schools using writing in their assessments were able to
note a link between writing and achievement in other subject areas.
Finally, the focus in these schools was specific to indicators of improvement
rather than looking at a large number of issues and being unfocused in their efforts. The

36

comprehensive system of accountability in place at these schools required every school to
identify five areas of measurable improvement, such as curriculum choices and frequent
student progress assessment. At most of the schools, classroom teachers constructed and
administered weekly assessments, giving students multiple opportunities to show
improvement. These tests were not constructed or mandated by the district or the state
(Milwaukee Public Schools Accountability, 1999).

Culture
Efforts to improve high schools cannot succeed unless all students feel secure in
the learning environment and are involved in activities that matter to their learning,—
Martha McCarthy, Chancellor’s Professor of Education and Director of HSSSE.
(HSSSE, 2005).
The impact of school culture is paramount in enabling all students to achieve.
R.S. Barth (2002) argues that, “a school’s culture has far more influence on learning in
the schoolhouse than the president of the country, the state department of education, the
superintendent, the school board, the staff, or even the parents” (p.). fix this
Culture is defined as a complex set of norms, values, beliefs, assumptions,
traditions, and rituals that have built up over time and have been taught to new members
as “the way we do things around here” (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). In view of these
traditional approaches in which culture develops and is passed on to others, attempting to
instill reform can take a long time. But a positive school culture has an unparalleled
effect on student achievement. A good school is identified as one in which all

37

stakeholders make a conscious effort to enrich the culture in the school (Hansen &
Childs, 1998); a positive culture in successful schools is collaborative in nature, among
other things, promoting a shared sense of purpose and engaging professionals in
meaningful dialogue for the purpose of long-term improvement (Peterson, 2003).
Peterson and Deal (1998) argue that schools are susceptible to “toxic cultures”
that can work against change efforts and can lend themselves to, among other things, an
environment of fragmentation, opposition, and unproductive negativity (Sergiovanni,
1984). For this reason, schools and their leaders must underscore activities that help to
measure and improve school culture. A school can assess this factor by providing
periodic student surveys, soliciting parental input, and conducting exit interviews, where
possible. Schools that regularly assess their culture can better cope with change and
restructuring.

Organizational Factors
Bolman and Deal (1997) offer four leadership areas that effective leaders utilize
as lenses to promote and maintain the success of their organization. These are the human
resource frame, the structural frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame.
The Human Resource Frame was built on the assumption that the organization
exists to serve the people of the organizations. Because this relationship is reciprocal,
when the fit is poor between individuals and the organization they may both suffer;
likewise, a good fit will benefit both (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The Human Resource
Frame is based on the premise that the quality of interpersonal dealings and interactions,

38

including the establishment of roles and relationships that accomplish collective goals,
increases the organization’s creativity and productivity (Wheatley, 2000).
The Structural Frame encompasses the achievement of established goals and
rationality over personal preferences, increasing performance through specialization and
division of labor. It focuses on the structure fitting the circumstances (goals, technology,
and environment), coordination and control for team work, along with restructuring to
remedy problems or performance gaps (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
The Political Frame views organizations as political arenas with individual and
group interests and the power plays that accompany them. The political lens is
summarized in the following manner: organizations are coalitions of interest groups and
individuals with different agendas, values, and beliefs. Goal achievement and
productivity depend on effective negotiation among different stakeholders (Bolman &
Deal, 1997).
Bolman and Deal (1997) illustrate the Symbolic Frame as it relates to the history
or background of the organization and how it affects and adapts to the existing or
changing structure. This frame is based on people providing their own interpretations to
events and creating their own symbols to function within the organization, including the
cultural tapestry of myths, rituals, traditions, and stories developed over time and taught
to new members of the organization. These symbols assist people in finding meaning,
purpose, and passion in what they do (Bolman & Deal) or, as Deal and Kennedy (1982)
put it, “the way we do things around here”(p.).

39

A positive school culture has an unparalleled effect on student achievement. A
good school is identified as all stakeholders making conscious efforts to enrich the
culture of the school (Hansen & Childs, 1998). A positive culture promotes a shared
sense of purpose and engages professionals in meaningful dialogue for the purpose of
long-term improvement (Peterson, 2003). As such, educators must keep a constant pulse
on the culture of the organization underscoring activities that help to measure and
improve it.

Motivation and Student Engagement
Almost all motivation research indicates that student motivation is related to a
belief in one’s capability to do a task. Students will work hard if they think they have the
power to change things and if they feel a connection between their effort and the outcome
(cause and effect). In a 1993 article, Richard Sagor asks what motivates young people to
master the challenges of sports and how we can, as educators, inspire the same level of
motivation in the classroom? Teenagers can spend hours playing videogames trying to
improve their scores. When they are learning new tricks on their skateboards they can
fail more times than they succeed (the ratio of failure-to-success is at least 100 to
according to Sagor [1993]).
Self-efficacy is a motivational construct that definitely relates to other
motivational constructs, including personal interests and values--how useful and how
important these areas are (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Research has offered a number of
ideas and “pathways” to motivation based on self-efficacy. One example comes from the

40

research of Renninger, Hidi, and Krapp (1992), which concludes that students first like a
task or area and, as they are more drawn to it and repeatedly practice it, they become
good, or better, in turn, developing faith in self-efficacy. An alternative pattern has
shown that students’ interests develop out feelings of competence (Eccles, Wigfield, &
Schiefele, 1998). These researchers also found that the correlation between efficacy
beliefs and interest became stronger with age and over time (Wright & Mischel, 1992).
Other research has suggested that emotions can influence efficacy and vice versa.
Students who have high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to experience happiness
and pride in what they do (Harter, 1992). Over all, self-efficacy positively relates to
motivational beliefs such as interest and usefulness of the material or subject matter and
relates to student emotions, positive or negative ones. Relating this conclusion to
teaching and learning in the classroom, teachers can focus on increasing personal interest
or on how lessons relate to the students’ lives in order to foster student engagement.
Although personal interests may be difficult to change, self-efficacy in itself is more
likely to evolve depending upon on how students perceive themselves. As studies have
demonstrated, self-efficacy plays an important part in student engagement in the
classroom: Students who have high self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to be engaged as
evidenced by their behavior, motivation, and academic success. Thus teachers can
organize instruction in a way that has a positive impact and produces a win-win situation
for them and for their students.
Most definitions of student engagement include student motivation to learn and
do well in school as well as school connectedness (Libbey, 2004) and involvement in and

41

out of school. In the results of a longitudinal study of tenth graders, students who were
involved in high intensity extracurricular activities were more likely to perform in the
highest test quartile, go directly to college, and earn a four-year degree or higher (Ingels,
et al, 2002). Some examples of in-school activities are academic clubs, music, such as
band, orchestra, chorus, sports, including cheerleading, hobby clubs, and vocational
education clubs.
Examples of out-of-school activities are reading for pleasure, working for pay,
doing homework, doing volunteer work, using the computer, and socializing.
According to a recent student survey conducted by Indiana University, students spend
more time every week socializing with friends and watching television than studying
(HSSSE, 2005). The most recent HSSSE survey indicated that about one-fourth of high
school seniors worked 20 or more hours per week (HSSSE). “Student engagement is
important,” McCarthy said, “because students who are more involved in various aspects
of high school get better grades, are more satisfied and are more likely to graduate”
(HSSSE).
Although researchers have conducted studies discussing the areas mentioned
above Despite significant research, there are persistent gaps in information about students
in urban high schools. As this study got underway, information was still insufficient
regarding minority students and those of low socio-economic status to understand what
factors, in and out of school, are significantly impactful. This study addresses this aspect
of data to the bank of information that exists for mainstream students.

42

Students of Diverse Cultural Backgrounds and Low Socioeconomic Status
National statistics of low student achievement for minority students indicate that
schools are not meeting the individual or subgroup needs of this population. The
research on changing demographics of schools focuses on increased diversity and a
population that is “more disadvantaged with more social needs” (McCurdy, 1993, p.).
Their lost faith in school as a means to a more prosperous life will be passed on to their
children, thus creating a cycle of despondency and perpetuating feelings of inequality and
prejudice. By providing inner-city students with an inferior education, we are merely
increasing their chances of becoming future products of welfare, unemployment, or
poverty.
In a Harvard Graduate School of Education article, Gary Orfield states that, “Only
half of our nation’s minority students graduate from high school along with their peers.
For many groups: Latino, African-American, or Native American made graduation rates
are even lower.” In this day and age, with public school reform at the top of every
political agenda, states continue to institute higher stakes tests year after year in an effort
to raise student achievement in America’s public schools. However, this situation is
likely to worsen for minority students as expectations continue to rise. Because there is
data that suggests that poverty is directly related to low student achievement, we need to
better determine and address the factors that strengthen the educational function in
schools and apply them (Cavazos, 2002).

43

Closing the Gap: What We Need To Know
McCarthy and Kuh define engagement as “the students’ psychological investment
in learning, comprehending, and mastering knowledge or skills” (2006, p. 665).
Similarly, Marks defines engagement as “a psychological process, specifically, the
attention, interest, investment, and effort student expend in the work of learning” (2000,
p. 154). Yet another definition of an engaged student is
one who is intrinsically motivated to learn—that is, motivated from a desire for
competence and understanding, or simply from a love of learning rather than a
desire for a good grade, a teachers’ approval, or getting accepted into a good
college. (Voke, 2002, p. 1)

The Board on Children, Youth, and Families of the National Research Council
surveyed research regarding student engagement in learning and found three factors to be
equally important contributors to student engagement: high academic standards, skillful
instruction, and the support students need (Lewis, 2004).
The studies conducted by the High School Surveys of Student Engagement
(HSSSE) at various schools throughout the country have shown a significant relationship
between academic achievement and student engagement,but additional research into
student engagement in the context of urban high schools with minority students is
needed. A recent study by the Harvard University Civil Rights Project determined that
only 53% of Latinos and only 50% of African Americans graduate as opposed to 75% of
white students, (L.A. Times, August 2005). According to a recent study by Indiana
University, Latino, African American and American Indian students generally studied
less, were less likely to be in college preparatory or honors classes, and participated less

44

in extracurricular activities than their White and Asian classmates (HSSSE, 2005). A
longitudinal study conducted of 10
th
graders in 752 public, Catholic, and private schools,
showed notable differences between subgroups that included racial/ethnic groups and
males versus females. It concluded that Black and Hispanic students were less likely to
feel safe at school and reported less positive impressions about their school and teachers
than their White counterparts. A press release titled “Gender Differences” revealed that
male students and many minority students need a more nurturing learning environment
than their counterparts.
A number of studies, based on the HSSSE, have concluded that a correlation
exists between student engagement and scholastic achievement. American high school
students in urban schools the middle and eastern parts of the country do better if they are
engaged in school in various ways, such as sports and other extracurricular activities.
We need to know what factors contribute to student engagement, particularly in
urban high schools on the west coast of the United States, where there is greater diversity
in the school populations. Therefore, this study addresses the following research
questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high-performing urban high school,
as measured by HSSSE? How does it compare to the national average?
2. What perceived school factors contribute to student engagement in high-
performing urban high schools?
3. What perceived school factors contribute to high performance?

45

Chapter Three

Methodology

Introduction

Chapter Three describes the multiple methods design, sample, instrumentation,
data recording procedures, and data analysis process of the investigation. The purpose of
the study was to examine factors that promote student engagement in high-performing
urban high schools. The focus was to examine how the following factors helped facilitate
the school’s success in engaging students and to identify to what degree the engagement
contributed to academic student achievement. The factors examined were school
programs, instructional practices, leadership, and school culture.
Prior to formulating the study instruments, a conceptual framework was
developed within the literature that was examined. Where is the framework? Note that it
is found on p. --- A number of relevant studies, based on the literature review, supported
the concept that certain factors promote student engagement. The studies also showed
evidence that student achievement is linked to student engagement in school. One high-
performing Southern California high school was selected in order to answer the three
established research questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high-performing urban high school,
as measured by HSSSE? How does it compare to the national average?

46

2. What perceived school factors contribute to student engagement in high-
performing urban high schools?
3. What perceived school factors contribute to high performance?
The qualitative case study approach was utilized to identify factors that enable the
selected school to exceed its student achievement expectations and promote student
engagement. This form of case study, employing a variety of data collection techniques,
allows the researcher to explore a single entity and collect detailed information, through a
variety of data collection techniques, on this topic (Creswell, 1994). Although qualitative
studies can be criticized for their lack of quantitative or hard data, qualitative research is
also recognized for its openness and interpretive nature, both of which can be considered
useful and positive (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 1987). This study is also one of five
thematic dissertations of its kind. It is believed that having a number of schools being
studied by this thematic dissertation group will help lend credibility to the results. The
HSSSE builds on the National Survey of Student Engagement administered to over
900,000 students in four-year college that began in 2000. Research on high school
student engagement has shown that students with increased engagement in school
learning are less alienated from their schools and have higher levels of academic
achievement. Although the findings of those studies established certain conclusions
regarding high school student engagement, this study researched an area not yet
extensively studied: urban high schools in California. Findings about the school in this
study could add breadth to previous work and be applicable to schools with a high

47

number of minority students, students of limited English ability, and students of low
socioeconomic status.
The researcher used a multiple methods approach by which to collect data during
the study. There were several combined data collection approaches and instruments that
assisted the researcher in alleviating some of the deficiencies or biases of any one source
of data. One of the instruments used was the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE), developed by the University of Indiana and used in previous studies of this
nature. The group of thematic dissertation students, with the assistance of two professors,
developed and adapted additional instruments used for this study. The data collection
approach included document review, interviews, surveys, and observations, which are
included in the Appendixes.
The documents reviewed included student achievement data from API for
assessment data, the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for information
regarding demographics, Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) reports for truancy
in formation, and a-g completion rates to note access to rigorous curriculum and college
preparation courses offered. Other documents reviewed were the passage rates of the
California High Schools Exit Exam (CAHSEE), graduation rates, district publications,
the master schedule (which showed course offerings and enrollment by class), CBEDS
that provided student enrollment, ethnicity, and teacher and staff information, the
school’s accreditation self-study (WASC), and internal memorandums with important
areas of work in progress or areas or concern by school staff. The purpose of the staff
interviews was to delve further into the questions asked through the student survey and to

48

seek explanation that strengthen or validate the student survey responses and support the
research questions.
Teachers were given a survey with questions that were developed to parallel the
student questions. The appropriate modifications were made to the HSSSE questions to
depict teachers’ point of view regarding those areas. In addition to these questions,
questions from another instrument, the Hoy/Moran Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Scale,
were included. These items were similar to items the groups included that matched the
HSSSE student survey portion of the study.
The observations were conducted using quadrants based on Bolman and Deal’s
(1997) four frames model. This instrument was applied in order to analyze cultural
constructs within the organization and to identify to what degree structure, politics, and
human resources are present at the school and to reflect upon the factors stated in the
research questions.

Sample and Population

This case study sought to examine a single high school located in Southern
California. This school was selected on the basis of its having made significant progress
toward meeting its Academic Performance Index (API) growth target and, thus,
exceeding State achievement expectations based on published State rankings and similar
school rankings. The API system is based on year-over-year test score performance
through a two-year cycle. The Base score is for the first year and the Growth score is for
the second year. Comparing the API Growth to the Base shows whether or not this

49

school’s test score performance improved between spring of one year and spring of the
following year. The API ranges between 200 and 1000, with 800 as the statewide goal
for all schools. Each school is assigned an API Growth target by the state, determined by
calculating 5% of the difference between Base API and 800, or a minimum of 1-point
growth. Schools with APIs at or above 800 must maintain a minimum of 800. To
encourage schools to improve achievement for all students, the state computes APIs and
sets improvement targeting the different student subgroups at the school. The state
reports APIs for schools that test a minimum of 85% of eligible students in any subject.
To create the Similar Schools Rank, the California Department of Education compares a
school’s test scores to schools across the state with similar demographic profiles.
California uses parent education level, poverty level, student mobility, student ethnicity,
and data to identify socioeconomic status. The API Statewide Rank ranges from 1 to 10.
A rank of 10, for example, means that the school’s API fell into the top 10% of all
schools in the state with a comparable grade range. This factor was combined with the
demographics that compose an urban school site in the western United States, which by
nature, tend to pose greater barriers to success.

The District

The selected school district is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the
heart of Los Angeles. It comprises a little over 41 square miles. It was formed in 1900
and is made up of five comprehensive high schools, one continuation school, one
independent study program, and one adult school. Since 2002, scores for the District

50

have risen 98 points. In the past five years, the District has seen an increase of 122 points
on the API.
The Mission Statement of the school district is “to achieve and maintain
excellence in providing a comprehensive education for all students.” The Vision
Statement claims that The District will provide all students with an engaging, quality
standards-based instructional program delivered by a well-trained staff resulting in
improved student achievement. The Statement of Beliefs is as follows:
• Our students must be effective communicators, quality producers, self-directed
lifelong learners, community contributors, collaborative workers, and complex
thinkers.
• Every individual has worth and dignity.
• Every student can learn.
• In the strength inherent in the ethnic and cultural diversity of the students, parents
and community we serve.
• Every student must be prepared to meet the challenges and changing needs of
society.
• In maintaining a safe and secure learning environment.
• Parents are essential partners in the education of their children.
• In providing a well-trained, competent staff.
• In being accountable to students, parents and community for student academic
and personal growth.
• In providing adequate facilities, a physical environment conducive to learning,
and up-to-date technology.
• The collaboration of the k-16 education community is essential to ensuring a
quality education.
• In being an integral partner in the business and the cultural life of the community.
• Our schools are places where students establish and develop positive relationships
with other students and adult role models.

Students in the district have achieved a 17-point improvement on the Academic
Performance Index (API), which demonstrates continued growth for the past six years, as
per the California State Department of Education. This 17 API point growth is above the

51

State average of 12.2 points in high schools. The district achieved an overall API score
of 694, and the District, as well as each student subgroup, met its Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) goals over the past two years. For 2005-2006, White students achieved
an API score of 760, a 25-point increase, and scores for Asian Students rose by 15 points,
to 839. The District showed marked improvement among Hispanic students, whose
scores rose 18 points to 678. Economically disadvantaged students achieved an increase
of 17 points to 656, while English learners increased their API scores by 12 points to 639,
and Special Education students scored 444, 16 points higher than last year. This growth
placed the District at the 89
th
percentile in growth countywide. USSA’s API was 777 out
of 1000, with 98% of students having taken the test. They has an increase of 35 points
from the previous year with student subgroups scoring as follows: White: 829, Hispanic:
744, Low-Income: 690, English Learners: 678. USAA’s ranking, compared to all
schools in California was 7 out of 10 and its similar school ranking was 7 out of 10.
The District Office is comprised of the following departments that support the
school in its scholastic endeavors: The Superintendent’s Division, Business Services
Division, Educational Services Division, Personnel Services, and State and Federal
Categorical Programs. Within the Educational Services area support is available for
Curriculum and Instruction, Assessment, Special Education, and Student Support
Transportation. The last is particularly important for the school in this study, as all of the
students of limited English skills from throughout the district are bussed onto campus.
The district has implemented a comprehensive program called “Whatever it
Takes” to ensure that each student achieves and succeeds, maintaining high expectations

52

of staff and students. The initiative is centered on the use of common instructional
materials, site-based interim assessment of student progress, District-wide quarterly
assessments, and the implementation of a pyramid of interventions for students who are
not achieving appropriately. The District provides all students with an engaging quality
standards-based instructional program delivered by a well-trained staff.

School Overview

The high school selected is located in Southern California, in an urban area east of
downtown Los Angeles. It is one of five high schools in the District. The 2,300 person
student body comprises a diverse population. The 2005-2006 California Basic
Educational Data System (CBEDS) identifies the student population with percentages as
follows: 58% Hispanic or Latino, 36% White, 3% Asian, 1% African-American, 1%
Filipino, less than 1% Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1%
identified as multiple ethnicity or giving no response. Approximately 13% of these
students is considered to be English Language Learners.
Although most of the schools that were studied by this thematic dissertation group
had a large participation in the National School Lunch Program, commonly referred to as
free or reduced lunch program, this school only had 18% of its population in this
program, compared to the state average of 51%. The free or reduced lunch program is a
federally assisted meal program that provides free meals to students whose family income
is at or below 130% of the poverty level and provides reduced meals to those who qualify
between 130% and 185% poverty level (USDA, 2004). The question may arise as to

53

whether this school should be considered a high poverty school. The population of this
school is unique as many of the limited English students are bussed in from a variety of
other areas within the district and those students may be considered high poverty despite
the statistics reported for this area.
In 2006, the Academic Performance Index (API) for the school was 747, showing
a growth of 8 points from the 2005 score of 739. The only subgroup that did not meet its
growth target was that of English Learners. This subgroup descended 15 points from its
2005 score of 669 to 654 in 2006.
The school’s website includes a section with an instrument referred to as the
Great Schools Rating. Based on how students in this school performed on standardized
tests as compared to others statewide, the school is rated in the top quartile. As an
example, a rating of 10 indicates being in the top 10% in a statewide comparison. The
following were the ratings for this school in the categories listed. Test Scores for all
Students were rated as 8; for grades 9 and 10 they were rated as an 8; and for grade 11 the
rating was a 7. By Gender, the female rating was a 7, as was that of males. The ratings
given by ethnicity were as follows, an 8 for Asian students, 8 for Latino students, and 7
for White students. Additional categories included students with disabilities rating 5;
those who spoke English only a 7; those considered English Language Learners or
students of limited English rated an 8; students of low socioeconomic status received a
rating of 8; and for those identified as part of the Gifted and Talented Education program
(G.A.T.E.) the rating was an 8.

54

As compared to statewide ratings, the parents at this school represent various
levels of educational achievement from college graduates to those without a high school
diploma.
The administration at the school consists of the principal, three assistant principals
in the areas of Curriculum Guidance, Business and Accounting, and a director of a
program called Expanded Horizons. The teaching staff is made up of 90% fully
credentialed individuals, with 2% identified as Emergency credentialed teachers. These
figures compare to the state average of 94% teachers being fully credentialed, with 3% on
Emergency Credentials. First year teachers at this school comprise 7% of the staff, which
is comparable to state figures; the average years teaching at the school is 10.

Conceptual Framework and Model
The conceptual framework for the study included the secondary data provided by
the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) used by the University of
Indiana in previous studies of this nature. These surveys were administered to all of the
high schools within this district and were paid for by the district itself. For the purpose of
this study, the researcher also had access to prior national results. Additional
instruments, such as surveys and interview questions, designed by six Ed.D. candidates
from the University of Southern California Thematic Dissertation Team for the purpose
of this study were also used. A qualitative case study approach was selected due to its
ability to explore a phenomenon in detail and its illustrative nature and open-ended
narrative (Patton, 1987). The case study approach, guided by the three selected research

55

questions, allowed each person in the group to document outcomes for a different school
site. Approval to conduct the study was requested by the thematic dissertation team and
granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a part of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services and is an administrative body established to
protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in
research activities (Penslar, 2004).
The model below (Figure 1) represents the contribution that student engagement
and student achievement have on the high performance of urban high schools. It also
illustrates how the selected factors to be studied, a school’s leadership, programs,
practices, and culture, all influenced by a variety of input factors, contribute to both
student engagement and student achievement. It is predicted that there are identifiable
factors that contribute to both high performance and high student engagement.

56

Figure 1: Conceptual Model Diagram

Data Collection Process
The presented data was collected from five primary sources. One was the student
survey (HSSSE), another involved the teacher survey, a third source was interviews of
selected staff, a fourth was observations of various activities at the school, and lastly, a
thorough review of documents available through the school site, district office, CDE
website and other sources of information. Observations, interviews, and surveys were
conducted over a period of two months, March and April, 2009. The instruments used
are included in the Appendix. The three research questions provided the foundation and

57

purpose for each data collection instrument. Huberman and Miles (1984) state that a data
collection process needs to consider the following essential elements of research, prior to
data collecting: the setting, persons to be observed and interviewed, events to be
documented, and the processes by which the collection will occur.
During the fall semester of 2008, this author approached the Superintendent of the
district to see if she would be interested in having her high schools be a part of this
research. After her acceptance, the district decided to purchase the HSSSE instrument
that would be administered to all students in each of the high schools studied in the
winter of the following year. In October the students and professor, with the input of
other related individuals, formulated the additional instruments to be utilized in the study.
In January, the dissertation team met with IRB officials to complete the IRB forms and
requirements.
Meetings were set up with the Superintendent, other district office personnel, and
the school site leadership to provide them with pertinent information and timelines of
significant events related to the study. The data collection was conducted in the spring.
The team then presented the study premise along with the timeline and related events at a
staff meeting.
Most of the teacher surveys, interviews, and observations were conducted during
a number of visits in March. Once the surveys were submitted to staff and other subjects,
immediate analysis and documentation took place. Additional documentation was
solicited, as observations and interviews were conducted.

58

Data Collection Instruments
The natural design and make up of qualitative formats demonstrate that there are
many ways to interpret the information received and data collected; in short, there is no
“right way” to analyze qualitative data (Tesch, 1990).
Documents and Artifacts. These tools were used to provide information during
the course of all interviews (formal and informal) that were conducted by the researcher.
As stated earlier in this chapter, the documents reviewed included, but were not limited
to, the school’s accountability report card and CBEDS reports, which provided
demographic information, test scores, and staff information. Also reviewed were school
and district publications and newsletters for validation of values, priorities, and concerns
of staff and community. Student achievement data found on the CDE and other websites
was also included in this list of documents. [See Appendix A]
Surveys and Questionnaires. Student surveys, administered to the students
throughout the district, were based on instruments that had already been formulated and
tested and were administered during the month of January to all students present on the
day the surveys were distributed. The school submitted the student surveys to the
University of Wisconsin for scoring and the researcher was given access by the school
district. The HSSSE intends to collect data regarding students and their attitudes toward
school and their activities (in and out of school). Examples of some of the questions are
the following: the number of hours spent in a typical seven-day week on activities such
as written homework, reading and studying for class, reading for self, participating in
school-sponsored activities, practicing a sport or musical instrument, working for pay,

59

volunteering, exercising, socializing with friends outside of school, and watching
television or playing video games (HSSSE, 2006). The researcher attained the results as
secondary data.
The teacher questionnaires were administered during a staff meeting to all
teachers present the day of the administration and collected immediately. The staff
surveys consisted of 15 questions taken from the original student instrument and
reformulated to reflect teacher opinions on those same topics. The type of data this
questionnaire was intended to collect regarded how teachers felt about their students in
the following areas: how much time their students spent on homework and study outside
of class, how prepared their students were when they attended class, and the type of
activities in which their students engaged (in and out of school). The instrument required
teachers to select from one of four columns, whichever most accurately reflected their
sentiments regarding each of the 15 questions. The categories represented were: (a) All
or Almost All of my Students, (b) Most of my Students, (c) Some of my Students, (d)
None or A few of my Students. [See Appendix B] The questionnaires also gave
information about the content area taught and whether they were considered compliant
per the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Interviews. All interviews were tape recorded, for exactness of responses,
transcribed, and analyzed by the researcher in order to identify similarities or differences
that aided the guiding questions. [See Appendix C] The questions prepared for the
interviews were open-ended in an effort to encourage fluidity of response, in order to

60

gather additional information in support of observations and document review, and to
include in the analysis of information (Creswell, 1994).
Observations. Formal and informal observations of various activities at the school
site were documented on paper along with written reflections regarding each observation.
Formal classroom observations were also documented and incorporated into the
observation notes. [See Appendix D]
The presentation of all findings was centralized around a common theme, Bolman
and Deal’s Four Frames (1997), which were used to explain and explore the conceptual
framework and ideas to better understand the success of this organization. The structural
frame examined the roles of individuals and overall school daily operations within the
organization. The Human Resource frame identified the relationships among the people
and the organization. The Political frame illustrated the distribution of power among
members of the organizations and the Symbolic frame was used to share folklore and
document organizational rituals and stories.

Validity and Reliability
The thematic dissertation cohort, along with the cohort professor, designed the
dissertation methods to ensure validity and reliability. The study was designed to ensure
validity and reliability through use of triangulated data. Creswell’s “six step model”
(1997) was used for data analysis. The survey conducted through the University of
Indiana at Bloomington is validated as a national study.

61

Data Analysis and Interpretation
The process of data analysis involved a blend of generic processes (Creswell,
1994), including the preparation of the data and its analysis and interpretation.
Creswell’s steps of data analysis and interpretation were followed in data organization
and analysis. Organizing the data included transcribing interviews and typing field notes.
A general sense of the information is acquired by reading through all of the notes on
documents, interviews and surveys. Then the data was placed into categories and coded
according to the research questions. A narrative approach was used to convey the
findings of the analysis and the lessons learned.

Summary
This chapter presented the design and procedure for the qualitative case study.
The chapter discussed the purpose of the selected approach; the type of instruments
utilized in the collection of data, including surveys, interviews, observations and
document review; the procedure for collecting and recording the information; and the
process of forming conclusions, based on the data. Chapter Four will highlight the
research findings and themes.

62

Chapter Four

Presentation of the Data and Interpretation of the Findings: Introduction

Chapter Four summarizes the findings for the current study and presents an
analysis of the data collected. The purpose of the study was to determine whether high-
performing urban high schools have higher levels of student engagement and, if this
should be the case, to examine the perceived factors that may have an effect on student
engagement and academic achievement, as they related to leadership, culture, programs,
and practices.
The school in this study, which will be referred to as the Urban Scholastic
Achievement Academy (USAA), is located a few miles east of downtown Los Angeles,
embedded in a residential area that has been considered well-to-do with regards to the
immediate community. However, due to the overall demographics of the district and the
population that is bussed in, which tends to have a low socioeconomic status, USAA is
being labeled and considered an urban school. The school serves students from five
neighboring cities and part of the unincorporated part of Los Angeles County.
Approximately 59% of the students enrolled at USSA are of Latino or Hispanic origin,
followed closely by Whites with a percentage of 39. Asians make up 3% of the student
population, and every other ethnicity only makes up 1% or less. The average class size at
USSA varies per grade level. For 9th graders, the average class size is 26, 31 for both
10th and 11th graders, and 28 for 12th graders.

63

This study began with a preliminary appointment several weeks prior to an
official visit to observe classes and interview staff, in accordance with instruments and
formats prepared by a thematic dissertation team of six students. During the preliminary
visit to this high school, researchers found ample and accessible parking for all and a
visitor’s parking space was available for the appointment. At the bottom of the stairs next
to the main entryway is a campus security kiosk where everyone must sign in; visitors are
then announced, via walkie-talkie, to the main office. Visitors are provided with a pass in
the form of a badge. A student provided an escort to the Principal’s Office. Despite the
large, nice homes surrounding the school and the area’s reputation for being affluent, this
high school, like urban most schools, is a closed campus and enforces security measures
for students and staff alike. Upstairs in the main area, where the quad and administrative
office are located, the school has a welcoming feeling. This atmosphere began with the
greeting and “escorting” and carried though with the symbols of school spirit and
academic expectations. The quad has been decorated by various senior graduating
classes and presented an image of school pride. The banners and advertisement of the
various clubs, which also support student participation in school activities, make for a
colorful and encouraging environment. The campus is clean and expansive with trees
and greenery throughout. The district and school slogan, “Whatever It Takes,” is
manifest in a symbolic manner, in the hallways, administration offices, and most of all, in
the attitude displayed by staff. This slogan, which was adopted from the National
Education Services book, Whatever It Takes: How Professional Learning Communities

64

Respond When Kids don’t Learn (DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004), permeates the
environment.
At the main office, introductions were made by and to the principal’s
secretary, who had made the initial appointment. While waiting in front of the office, the
rsearcher overheard a conversation in the principal’s office about up-coming testing and
information regarding staff development. While waiting to speak with the principal and,
between the two phone calls made by the principal, the researcher noticed that the
principal’s door was always open and a number of staff members seemed to “drop in/by”
without an appointment. The principal not only made himself available to them without
hesitation, but also seemed to have a very pleasant attitude and genuine interest regarding
each of their visits.
The secretary escorted the researcher in and made the appropriate introductions to
the principal, who quickly began expressing his excitement regarding the study. He had
received some information from the district office regarding the purpose of the study and
pulled out a notebook with information about HSSSE. He had read some of the previous
studies related to student engagement and was eager to have his school participate in the
case study. He provided general information about the school, including demographics,
test scores, and community involvement.
As part of his introduction to the campus, he stated that the strength of the USAA
is that all programs and actions are built on the foundation of relationships cultivated
among staff, students and parents. With this as a backdrop a new vision was created for

65

the school in the summer of 2005 that summarizes the relationships that exist on the
campus.
In addition to the outstanding support provided by the district office and the
unwavering commitment of the site staff, the school is supported by outstanding parent
involvement. The two most significant parent organizations include the PTSA, which
serves as a student advocacy group on campus and assists with providing educational
opportunities for parents and students, and another group, a foundation of sorts, which is
a phenomenal fundraising organization. This group provides additional funding to assist
in covering the cost of curricular, cocurricular, extracurricular, and athletic activities.
The principal shared information regarding an upcoming banquet and a parent-sponsored
activity that would involve honoring students and staff for various projects. It was
apparent that his engagement in school activities was important, as was the engagement
of his students and staff.
One of the comments he made during the meeting turned out to be the centerpiece
of the study and doubtless contributes to why this school is high achieving He said, “We
do whatever it takes to help students be successful, failure is not an option.” He said that
they had worked hard and that consequently, “the attendance rate is up, our drop-out rate
is less than 1%, our graduation rate is higher than it has ever been, we've had more
students succeed on their AP exams than ever in the school history.” He enthusiastically
added that in athletics, the school had won 2 CIF championships in Girl's Soccer and
Softball as well as having the best girl's golfer in the state and one of the top 10 amateurs
in the country. He proudly added to that having received a six year Clear evaluation from

66

WASC and being chosen to be one of the 75 schools in the country supported by the Bill
and Melinda Gates foundation as a school that is moving from promising to proven.
Then he added that, on the topic of student engagement, “the school spirit is sky high
with everyone eager to see what is in store for us for the next school year.”
This researcher’s examination of documents uncovered a website,
www.greatschools.net, on which parents can rate this school and make comments
regarding their schools. Based on a number of areas, where that school can be rated on a
five star range (five being a high rating), parents rated USAA as follows:
Overall quality: 4 stars
Principal Leadership: 4 stars
Teacher Quality: 4 starts
Extracurricular Activities: 4 stars
Parent Involvement: 4 stars
Safety and discipline: 4 stars
There were also a number of comments from parents that supported the principal’s
statements and the overall satisfaction with the school. The following is as an example of
one of the comments. “Prime High School in the area! Everything from it’s location to
it’s academic courses. USAA can’t be beat. Students have high school spirit and parents
are involved as well!”
After the initial conversation and review of some of the information, documents,
and artifacts in support of the study, the principal arranged for the school secretary to
help in coordinating all of the interviews and putting together a schedule based on the

67

needs of the study. In the next few weeks the additional visits, interviews, and
observations were coordinated and prepared for the study.
As mentioned in Chapter Three, a qualitative case study methodology was used to
collect data from this Southern California urban high school whose student achievement
data, based on the statewide assessment reports, demonstrated remarkable growth over a
three-year period and thus leads to its designation as a high-performing school. A
conceptual framework for the study was designed by a University of Southern California
(USC) Thematic Dissertation Team made up of five doctoral (Ed.D.) candidates and one
professor. The framework was based on the following three established research
questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high-performing urban high school,
as measured by HSSSE? How does it compare to the national average?
2. What perceived school factors contribute to student engagement in a high-
performing urban high school?
3. What are the perceived factors that contribute to high achievement?
The following instruments were used to collect the data and respond to the three research
questions developed for the study:
• High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)-secondary data
• Teacher Survey (parallel to the student questions, adapted from the Hoy/Moran
Sense of Efficacy Scale);
• Interviews with site faculty and staff (formal questions included below);
• On-site formal and informal observation template;

68

• Format for the analysis of school, district and program documentation
• Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Model

The High School Survey of Student Engagement, heretofore referred to as
HSSSE, was administered to all of the high school students in the school district, thus to
the respective schools being studied, that were present on the date selected for
administration. The HSSSE data used in this study is considered a secondary data source.
At this researcher’s school 2,225 out of 2,416 total enrollment— 92% of students—
responded to the survey on the date it was administered. The average student enrollment
in the national survey was 1,010.
The distribution, by grade level, responding at USAA was fairly even with 27%
being 9
th
graders, 29% 10
th
graders, 25% 11
th
graders, and 19% in the 12
th
grade. This
distribution was similar to that of the national study. The gender of the students was also
fairly equal, with 52% being female and 48% male. The ethnic composition among those
responding, a statistic of significance in the contribution that this study will make to the
overall research, was 38% Latino and 21% White at USAA--a contrast to the national
study, which shows 7% Latino and 54% White.
Another area anticipated to be in contrast, based on the urban designation of
USAA, was the difference between USAA and the national profile in free and reduced
lunch counts. However, these rates did not exhibit the dissimilarity expected. USAA
reported approximately 19% of the students being on Free/Reduced lunch whereas the
national survey reported 21%. In attempting to understand the unexpected discrepancy,

69

two ideas came to mind. One is that, in the experience of this researcher, sometimes, at
the high school level, even if the family meets the criteria based on income for free or
reduced lunch, students do not fill out and turn in the requisite form to receive the benefit.
Another possibility is that, although this school is considered urban, its demographic area
and the immediate, surrounding community has a higher economic income level, as
compared to other schools in the district. Schools in the national study consisted of
approximately one third of the urban classification, whereas the remainder of the schools
that were part of the national study was considered either suburban or rural.
Yet another area that is important to compare with the National survey population
is the percentage of students reporting that English is spoken in the home. In the National
survey 79% of students reported that English was spoken in the home, whereas 68% of
USAA student reported English being spoken in the home.
After the administration of the student survey, appointments were made to visit
the school site to review and analyze school and district documents regarding student
engagement and achievement. In addition, during these visitations, on-site formal and
informal observations were conducted and recorded on the observation templates. School
staff was interviewed using the questions that had been developed by the dissertation
team.
The first official visit to the school began as the researcher drove into the staff
parking lot on the side of the school. Proceeding to the front of the school and prior to
signing in and receiving a visitor’s pass at the security kiosk, the researcher observed a
city police vehicle parked in front of the school. It was later learned that a police officer

70

visits the campus daily, which has greatly reduced the incidence of violence and drug
possession at the school. The campus is considered a closed campus except on Fridays,
when students in good academic and behavioral standing may have lunch off campus.
This rule and other safety plan procedures add to the climate of comfort and overall
culture of the school.
The school secretary greeted the researcher upon arrival, saying she had received
a call from security announcing the visit and would prepare to send substitute teachers to
cover the classes of those being interviewed. While waiting to begin the observations
and, between period 1 and period 2, the researcher noted the cleanliness of the campus. It
was also noted that not many students were out of class. The assistant principal and dean
of students, in addition to campus supervisors, monitored the grounds, as they do for 30
minutes before classes and 30 minutes after dismissal. During nutrition break, a number
of students were talking on cell phones and playing with their computer games. The
student attire varied from dresses (for the girls) to casual.
The school secretary escorted the researcher to a small conference room and
shared a schedule for interviews that included teachers representing all subjects,
department chairpersons, counselors, assistant principals, a custodian, security, and
herself. The interviews began by asking each person for permission to record them.
Notes were taken and interviews were recorded in order to later transcribe the responses
and analyze their relationship to the research questions.

71

During the formal interviews the following questions were presented to each staff
member:
1. Your school has been identified as a high-performing urban high school. What
school factors do you think contribute to this identification?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement at this school?
(a) Are there specific programs that this school has in place that contribute
to higher student engagement?
(b) Are there specific teacher practices that contribute to higher student
engagement?
(c) Are there any aspects to the school culture or school atmosphere that
contribute to higher student engagement?
(d) Who are the formal and informal leaders at your school?
(e) What do both the formal and informal leaders at the school do to
contribute to higher student engagement?
3. Does the central/district office play a role in USAA’s becoming a high-
performing urban high school? If so, please describe what contributes to this.

As noted already, among those interviewed were the school secretary, one of the
custodians, a security officer, a counselor, the attendance coordinator, and some of the
administrators. The department chairpersons and teachers were representative of core
subjects such as science, English, math, and social science. These stemmed from regular
English-only classes, bilingual classes, and A.P. classes. During another visitation,

72

interviews with coordinators of programs such as English Language Learners, the Senior
Project Coordinator, College Advisor, and Librarian were conducted. Many of their
responses to the prepared questions will be included under the section corresponding to
each of the research questions.
Prior the examination of each research question and to interjecting various
interview responses that support the documentation and data for that particular question,
two individual’s responses to each of the interview questions will be highlighted as a
preview to what this researcher believes to be a major theme for the final discussion.
The school secretary started her interview by mentioning that she had been a
student at USAA. After graduating she had applied for a clerical job in the district and
had worked at several schools, including the district office. Eventually, she returned to
her USAA in her present assignment and had been there for over 10 years. During our
interview, she appeared excited about being at the school and happy to play her part on a
team that supports student achievement. (Incidentally, this sentiment permeated
interviews with most staff members). In response to the first interview question, about
what school factors she thought contributed to the school’s identification as a high
achieving school, she began by stating that the staff was united and worked in true
collaboration, “This makes it always about the students.” She mentioned that although
students do not always get their way, they feel valued, “everybody goes out of their way
to listen and treat them with respect.”
Responding to question number 2, regarding factors that contribute to student
engagement at this school, she said “The school offers a lot of

73

cocurricular/extracurricular activities, from athletics to drama and various clubs and
organizations.” She also said that teachers are so caring that students connect with them
in many difference ways. “There is also no division between Classified and Certificated
staff,” adding that this was not always true at other campuses. She said that in all of the
years she had been at USAA, she had seen very few teachers that “do not fit in.” She
emphasized that during the interview process, aside from curricular expertise, caring
about students, and commitment to student success, “fitting in was of great importance.”
She also said that in all of the years she has worked in the district, the present time was
one of greatest challenge to teachers but she also said that teachers “have many programs
to become stronger and they get a lot of support from the site and from the district
office.” She pointed out that the entire community works together to make sure students
have every opportunity to succeed. As an example she talked about every school in the
district having a School Resource Officer (SRO) through the City Police Department, an
effort that showed collaboration beyond the school district and that contributed to the
feeling of safety among students and staff. She expressed the importance of everyone
working together (city, community, district, site) to make good things happen for
students. She also mentioned the importance of longevity and consistency in their staff,
which also allows students to feel more connected.
In response to the third question, regarding the role of the central/district office in
USAA’s becoming a high-performing urban high school, she said that Educational
Services (the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents) were always looking to
support the school sites; as an example, she talked about the consultants and workshops

74

they conduct. She also mentioned that staff development was now conducted on a
pullout basis, during the school year, rather than during the summer or after school. She
said this format led to “less burn-out and staff feeling more refreshed and more valued as
professionals. They also bring in retired teachers to help students prepare for special tests
like CAHSEE, for example.
Another interview was with one of the Activities Directors. In response to
question number one, regarding factors that contribute to the identification of USAA as a
high-performing urban high school, he credited “continuity and stability in staffing,” also
mentioning that the staff was “very cohesive and open to innovations in programs.”
Among some of the programs that contribute to student engagement was Link Crew, in
which upper classmen are assigned to smaller groups of freshmen to help them adjust and
“teach them the culture.”
In response to the second question, regarding factors that contribute to student
engagement at this school, the director said that the school culture is “intangible but very
much an influence to this question.” He said it had been developed over years and was
“continuously and conscientiously maintained,” a reason, he claimed, that students are
more connected and thus more engaged. He also characterized USAA as a
“comprehensive high school,” in which clubs and other activities are very much a part of
the curriculum and are combined with academics.
For question number three, regarding the role of the central/district office in
USAA’s becoming a high-performing urban high school, he had tremendous praise for
the support that the district office gives to the school. He mentioned that the

75

Superintendent’s vision of every student succeeding by doing “whatever it takes”
stimulates everyon at the site. He added, “She leads by example.”
The purpose of highlighting these interviews separately was to illustrate the
positive, enthusiastic thoughts and sentiments that seem to permeate the entire school
culture and, which I believe, is the basis of this school’s level of overall success.
Research Question One: “What is the level of student engagement in a high-performing
urban high school, as measured by HSSSE? How does it compare to the national
average?”
The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) administered to
students at Urban Students Achievement Academy (USAA) contained 33 questions.
Nationwide approximately 82,000 students participated in the survey. At USAA, there
were 2,225 present the day the survey was administered.Data for question one was
collected via faculty and staff survey/questionnaires, interviews that were tape recorded
and then transcribed, formal and informal observations, and a review of literature
depicting opportunities for involvement in school and student engagement of any kind
(including school newsletters, bulletins, etc.). Multiple data collection procedures were
employed to provide a triangulation of data to sufficiently respond to the research
question.

Student Engagement Comparisons

The results for this researcher’s urban high school, whose students participated in
the HSSSE survey, showed that they are as engaged as the students in the 2006 national

76

profile. Students in the national profile reported to be in the middle range of scores of
student engagement. The 2006 national HSSSE survey was administered to 115 high
schools, to students in 30 different states.
In the national survey, the student distribution by grade level, as well as by
gender, was very similar to the high school in this study. The greatest difference was in
the ethnic composition, as this high school was represented by a large number of minority
students. The students in the national study for the most part (54%) identified themselves
as Caucasian. The other most significant factor was that of English Language Learners,
particularly in this case study school. Seventy nine percent of national survey students
stated that English was spoken in the home, which was not the case in our urban school
case study, particularly this researcher’s school. These are some of the most marked
differences between prior studies and this researcher’s study group. These are also the
most important reasons for this study and the comparison of outcomes.
Interestingly, despite some marked differences in student population, based on
results of the study survey questions, students in this high school scored similarly to the
nation’s study, they were neither more engaged nor less engaged than their counterparts
throughout the country. In addition, based on the responses to the questions, it cannot be
said that these students are particularly highly engaged.
Klem and Connel (2004) define student engagement as having behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive components. The behavioral components include time on task,
concentration, effort, willingness to persevere through difficulties, reaction to challenges,
and willingness to show initiative. The emotional components include positive feelings

77

and emotions in completing activities, enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest. The
cognitive components include perceptions about the importance of school (Klem &
Connell).
The categories measured in this survey as Dimensions of Engagement were in the
following areas: Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement, Social
Behavioral/Participatory Engagement, and Emotional Engagement.
The first dimension of engagement, Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic, is based on
the “student effort, investment, and strategies for learning” (HSSSE, 2006, p.).
The cognitive/Intellectual/academic engagement category, as presented in HSSSE 2007,
has to do with “engagement of the mind,” for example, “Hours spent in a typical week
doing written homework or reading and studying for class.”
Students at the researcher’s high school had a mean score of 31.73 in comparison
with the national profile average score of 31.43. See Table 1. The maximum possible
score was 60.

Table 1: Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement Mean Score Comparisons

GRADE HSSSE USAA
Grade 9 31.07 31.36
Grade 10 31.91 31.86
Grade 11 33.02 32.88
Grade 12 33.07 34.21

78

Both the HSSSE students and the urban HS students show an increase, however slight, in
engagement from the 9
th
grade to 12
th
grade.
The second dimension of engagement, Social/Behavioral/Participatory, is based
on the “students’ actions in social, extracurricular, and non-academic school activities”
(HSSSE, 2006), including interactions with other students within the school community.
The Social/Behavioral/Participatory engagement category, as presented in HSSSE 2007,
has to do with “engagement in the life of the school,” for example, “Hours spent in a
typical week participating in school-sponsored activities (athletics, clubs, student
government, etc.”
The students at the researcher’s high school had a mean score of 8.70 in
comparison with the national profile average score of 8.61. (See Table 2). The maximum
possible score was 18.
Table 2: Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement Mean Comparisons

GRADE HSSSE USAA
Grade 9 8.81 8.52
Grade 10 8.93 8.76
Grade 11 8.99 8.86
Grade 12 8.93 9.22

In the Social/Behavioral/Participatory engagement area, the students at the
researcher’s high school reported that they were slightly less engaged than the students in
the national average group. However, the engagement rose consistently from the 9
th
to
the 12
th
grade. It should also be noted that in the case study 12
th
graders showed a higher
level of engagement than the national average.

79

The third dimension of engagement, Emotional Engagement, is based on the
“feeling of connection or disconnection to their school” (HSSSE, 2006).
The Emotional Engagement, as presented in HSSSE 2007, has to do with “engagement of
the heart,” for example, “Overall, I feel good about being in this school.”
The students at the researcher’s high school had a mean score of 23.90 in comparison
with the national profile average score of 24.25. See Table 3. The maximum possible
score was 37.
Table 3: The Emotional Engagement Mean Comparisons

GRADE HSSSE USAA
Grade 9 24.36 24.86
Grade 10 24.35 24.26
Grade 11 24.54 24.66
Grade 12 24.71 25.58

Although the results were very comparable to the national mean, the urban high school
students showed an increase in engagement in the 12
th
grade.

Discussion of the First Research Question
Overall, the level of student engagement at this urban high school, as compared to
the national profile of the High School Survey of Student Engagement average, can be
considered moderate. However, in some cases the level of engagement increased from
the time students enter school in the 9
th
grade to the time they reach 12
th
grade. The
researcher believes, based on the observations and interviews, that this increase takes
place due to several factors perceived to be contributing to higher engagement, one of

80

which is the staff’s commitment to engaging students, true to the district motto of doing,
“Whatever it takes.”
The district sent a team of educators to visit model schools that utilized the
pyramid of interventions designed to create alternatives and support for students who are
not achieving academic success. USAA has taken this program and adapted it to its
particular needs and specific program schedules, creating interventions such as lunch
tutoring sessions and professional development concepts for their teachers. This concept
is ever present in this case study school. This subject will be discussed in the section for
the third research question concerning high achievement.
Another factor that may make a difference at USAA is the Senior Project.
Seniors are required to spend their entire senior year involved in a project that requires
extensive work in their area of study, including writing a project proposal, researching
and formulating a thesis paper, doing whatever fieldwork may be needed to complete the
project, and presenting a culminating oral presentation to a panel of judges. This panel
consists of various community leaders in addition to educational staff. During the course
of their senior projects, students put together a portfolio that demonstrates the process in
and academic competence in their selected area. In addition to the time and effort spent
on the academic portions of this project, students acquire a mentor, which further engages
them. It is important to note that the literature regarding engagement of minority
students, particularly Hispanics, states that specific, individual connections make a
significant difference as the literature in Chapter Two attests.

81

Although the student survey did not seem to indicate a significant level of
student engagement, particularly when compared to the national student survey, when
asked about student engagement in interviews, staff disagreed with the results of the
HSSSE student surveys. Staff mentioned a number of factors that contribute to student
engagement, arguing that the cocurricular activities offered by the school and student
participation in in-school activities were vast and had an effect on academics. Many staff
members mentioned that USAA believes that a well-rounded education must include
extracurricular activities. The ones mentioned during the interviews were A. P. classes,
drama, clubs, sports, and a number of “Spirit” activities. It was also stated that USAA
has a large athletics program. Their sports include football, Powder Puff, track and field,
soccer, volleyball, baseball, softball, wrestling, and basketball.

Boys football and girls
volleyball are held in the Autumn; boys and girls basketball and soccer are held in the
Winter; and boys baseball and girls softball are held in the Spring every school year.
Comments made by a parents from the Great Schools website also disagreed with the
HSSSE survey findings. One parent’s comments were as follows:
USSA offers the student a well rounded education. The focus is not totally on test
scores only. It seeks to engage all in the learning process through a variety of
techniques. USAA not only has a good reputation for its academics, but also
boasts amazing drama, art, music, and sports program. It has a good faculty and a
dedicated support staff. I wouldn’t send my daughter to any other school in the
area.

Another parent wrote, “Very fine school with focus on academics and the arts. Drama
program second to none.”

82

Throughout my interviews there was mention of students feeling connected, even
those who don’t like school, this response being primarily attributed to the caring and
respect of teachers and community mentors. Those interviewed talked about how
students also know that if they don’t attend school there will be follow up calls home,
home visits, and so forth Many of the staff recognized that some students may be more
difficult to engage but for those ”kids in limbo” there are many intervention and tutorial
programs. For those who do well or improve, there are rewards and extra privileges,
including gift certificates from Borders or from other community partners. There are
drawings for those who do well academically, some students can even win I Pods. The
most important factor to the staff is the climate of high expectations, as “failure is not an
option.”
To illustrate further discrepancies between the overall results of the survey and
the results of interviews and observations, sample questions from the survey and the
responses given by USAA students are included below.

83

Out of 2,225 students responding to the survey, Table 4, below, shows a
breakdown of the top, or top two most popular responses:

Table 4: Selected HSSSE Questions-Response by Categories

SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree,
Total Percentage
1. I care about my school.
A: 1250 SA: 375 77%
2. Overall I have a good feeling about being here.
A: 1270 SA: 450 77%
3. I feel safe.
A 1350 SA: 300 76%
4. I am treated fairly
A: 1290 SA: 300 71%
5. Overall, I feel good about being in this school
A: 1300 SA: 500 81%
6. At least one adult cares and knows me well
A: 900 SA: 600 67%
7. I feel supported by my teachers
A: 1400 SA: 300 76%
8. Adults in the school want me to succeed
A: 1350 SA: 400 79%
9. I am engaged in school:
A: 1175 SA: 300 66%

The only area noted by this researcher in which there may be a possible
disconnect in student engagement was with some of the English Language Learners who

84

were bussed in from other areas in the district outside the immediate community.
Notably, this influence may be very specific and may prevent these students from
becoming more engaged in activities within the school, such as sports, clubs, and
leadership (ASB) positions. Although there are busses providing later transportation, like
the 5:00 p.m. bus, the distance between home and school and their limited English ability
may still be compelling factors that limit their participation in certain activities and their
overall engagement particularly in the Social/Behavioral/Participatory dimensions.
In the course of this researcher’s observations and interviews, the question arose
as to how these students were able to participate in the HSSSE survey. In order for
students with limited English ability or English Language Learners (ELL) to have taken
the HSSSE, they would have had to have been able to read the questions, and thus be of
higher English language ability— or they would have had to have someone read and
translate the questions of the survey. ELL students who participated in the survey
represent the following language ability breakdown:
• 38 Transitional Level Students (ELD 3)
• 34 Level 1 Students
• 24 Level 2 Students
Apparently, the Level 1 teachers translated the survey questions and the students’
responses in class. This effort may have been a noble attempt to include this student
population but may or may not have been the most accurate assessment (translations can
lose something in the process and third party interpretations may also varied in content
and question intent).

85

During interviews where specific questions were asked about the ELL population
and their academic and social engagement at the school, some of the comments that were
made by staff reflected the following concerns.
• Since students are bussed in from other areas within the district, and most
of the new arrivals attend USAA (there is another school that has mostly
the home-grown and Transitional ELL students), these students may feel
somewhat lost by not attending their neighborhood schools, others may be
able to handle the language better but still may not feel totally a part of the
school.

• Although there is feeder school articulation and different programs for the
different group levels, it is not easy for them, or for their teachers, to help
them assimilate and feel an integral part of the school.

• The teachers that work with them are very caring teachers but may need
additional help assisting the students to integrate and become more
engaged.

• The ELL students don’t seem to participate in activities-they tend to sit on
the side benches. The fact that they are bussed in may not help make them
feel comfortable and as much a part of the school.

• Parents of ELL student don’t come to the school much, they don’t attend
meetings regularly. There needs to be more done to education parents and
try to get the more involved. They do get letters and phone calls, in their
language, but they sometimes are single parents that have to work two and
three jobs, due to their economic concerns, and don’t speak English
themselves.

• The ELL students struggle with the language, even though they get help
from their bilingual teachers but they still get lower scores. Some of them
seem to want to stop coming. There are many efforts made to help them
feel included, they are given recognition in academic, social, and sports
assemblies, there is even a late bus to enable students to participate in
sports, tutoring and other after school activities but, somehow, they still
don’t seem to feel like they always belong. The district tries to help in this
area by doing training, we have translators for conferencing, we bring
college students on campus to do extra tutoring, we make sure they have
computers available to them at school, just in case they don’t have them at
home.

86

The school appears to be making efforts to help these students become engaged
but there still may need to be additional brainstorming about how to assist these students
and their parents to integrate and become academically and socially engaged. More on
this will be will be discussed in the third research question.

Research Question Two: “What perceived school factors contribute to student
engagement in high-performing urban high schools?”

At USAA a number of factors contribute to student engagement. Despite the
results of the HSSSE, apparently indicating that the student engagement is not
significantly higher than in other studies and not high in general, this researcher believes
that the basis of the high achievement and the engagement at this school is the well-
articulated district motto, “Whatever It Takes.” This motto, which is embedded in the
shared vision and mission of this school and others in the district is foundational to all
factors that contribute to student engagement.
The relationships between and among staff and students, the collaboration, the
high expectations, and the shared leadership among all staff members, help promote the
programs that make this motto come alive, supporting academic learning success and
contributing to overall student engagement. Although most definitions of student
engagement include student motivation to learn and do well in school, they also involve
the construct of school connectedness (Libbey, 2004). At USAA the culture of the school

87

emphasizes caring, collaboration, enthusiasm, communication, rewards, and the
connection made between students and staff.
To further illustrate the enthusiasm and expectations that staff has of its students, here
is a tally of the responses in the USAA Teacher Survey.
On the date that the teacher survey was conducted 74 teacher, representing all
departments, were in attendance. The survey was conducted at a faculty meeting and was
administered as a paper and pencil activity. The survey questions were adapted from the
Hoy/Moran Sense of Efficacy Scale.
Despite the complaint that students may not put out the type of effort that teachers
would like to see (questions 1, 2,7,9), overall teachers’ responses indicate a sense of
empowerment. Teachers seem to believe that they have the ability and the resources to
assist their students to learn and achieve academic success (questions10, 11, 15, 16, 18,
19).

Engaging Special Interests
In addition to the commitment that the district and school site personnel have to
keeping students in schools, maintaining their interest in learning, and promoting high
academic achievement and social and community involvement, all of which will be more
thoroughly presented and discussed in the third research question, USAA offers enticing
programs whose value is seen by students as going beyond the immediate requirements
for high school success.

88

In these times, when schools and teachers compete with the engagement
students have with X Box 360, Wii, Play Station 3, PC, and numerous cell phone games-
-to name just a few technology-related activities, the school experience needs to be
particularly meaningful and interesting. Students spend hours engaged in these activities,
thinking nothing of putting in the time and effort to increase their skills and scores in
these games. In the literature research, found in Chapter Two of this dissertation,
Richard Sagor (1993) asks what motivates young people to master the challenges of
sports and how we, as educators, can inspire the same level of motivation in the
classroom?
An important motivational construct includes personal interests and values.
Students must see usefulness and importance of the learning topics and activities
(Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). USAA offers three academies in practical areas that spark
student interest. One is the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Academy, a three-year
program that begins in the sophomore year. This academy provides students with
technical preparation for either employment out of high school or postsecondary
education. Students in the program participate in an integrated meaning-centered
curriculum designed around the Labor Secretary’s SCANS report.
This work by the Department of Labor began in 1990 when it established a
commission to determine the skills our young people need to succeed in the world of
work. The commission’s purpose was to encourage high-performance economy
characterized by high-skill, high-wage employment. Although this work was completed
in1992, its findings and recommendations continue to be an important source of

89

information for schools, businesses, and other organizations involved in education and
workforce development. Taking into account the research and finding of this report and
incorporating its usefulness at the high school level to promote student engagement and
interest in preparing themselves for the future, USAA combined this information and its
Expected School-wide Learning Results to formulate a sequence of courses for this
academy. More specifically it prepares students to think conceptually, solve complex
problems, and communicate their ideas. The curriculum also provides students with
opportunities to apply concepts and skills in a meaningful real-world context and to learn
many skills applicable to careers. Academy students also have the opportunity to meet
people from business and industry, take field trips, participate in community service, and
gain valuable work experience contributing to their success after high school.
Articulation contracts are in place with Tri-Cities ROP and two of the nearby community
colleges that agree to give credit for specific courses such as computer application, thus
allowing some students to earn college credit while still attending high school.
The following are examples of the activities and learning experiences that
students in this academy had:
• developed interpersonal connections with their teachers
• learned through cross-curricular units/role performances among English, social
studies, and economics/career awareness classes incorporating important business
concepts
• received guidance by business and higher education representatives who have
made recommendations for the program

90

• incorporated technology as a tool for problem solving and project production on
an on-going basis
• adopted community service projects (Adopt-A-Beach and Chamber of Commerce
“Mixer” volunteers)
• were provided with a “mock interview” experience with business and personnel
specialists
• participated in the Student Chamber of Commerce
• formed a link with California State University, the Pathway to Success Program-
Venture Improvement Senior Project
In order to be considered for admission to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Academy students must:
• Submit an application
• Have a minimum 2.0 GPA
• Have satisfactory attendance & citizenship
• Provide the names of 2 teachers who will recommend you
• Submit a copy of most recent report card

Students are expected to maintain a grade of no less than a “C” in Academy
classes. A “D” (60%) at the quarter grade will result in probationary status, as will
citizenship marks of an “N” or “U.” Poor citizenship may require a behavior contract and
result in loss of good standing in the program. Any student earning a “D/F” at the end of
the semester or, if on a behavior contract, has not made satisfactory improvement may be

91

retained only with the teacher’s permission. All students earning a grade of an F at the
end of the year will not be considered for the program the following year.
The Sports Careers Academy not only adds breadth by empowering students
through a challenging curriculum but also offers the interest level (“a hook”) for so many
of our youth interested in sports and a career in this arena. Students gain knowledge
about pursuing careers such as: Athletic Trainers, Physical Therapists, First Responders,
Medical Assistants, to name a few.

At the present time there are two options of study in this academy. See Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5: Marketing Academy

Sophomores: Juniors: Seniors:
English 2 English 3 English 4
World Civilization US History Government/Econ
Anatomy and Physiology Chemistry Radio/TV Broadcasting
Fitness for Life (P.E. Cr.) Sports Marketing Elective
Math Math Elective
Elective Elective Elective

92

Table 6: Sports Medicine Academy

Student applicants to this academy must demonstrate the following characteristics:
• Be interested in sports
• Be reliable, responsible, and dependable
• Be willing to learn and put in work hard
• Be a collaborative worker
• Have a passing grade (of C or better) for both semesters of biology (may be
completed during summer school)
The school has just begun its third academy in the area of Films and Media. As a
Los Angeles based school, USAA wanted to take advantage of our city’s film industry by
teaching job skills in all types of film media. The focus will include (but not be limited
to) costume design, production, acting, directing, commercials, graphic design, and film
editing. Students have the opportunity to gain hands-on experience, go on field trips to
Sophomores: Juniors: Seniors:
English 2 English 3 English 4
World Civilization US History Government/Econ
Anatomy and Physiology Chemistry Sports Medicine/First
Responders
Fitness for Life (P.E. Cr.) Physical Rehab/Training Elective
Math Math Elective
Elective Elective Elective

93

film locations, shadow professionals in the field, and be inspired by guest speakers. This
program has been designed as a three-tier structure. Students enter as sophomores and
leave as seniors, studying with the same classmates all three years in order to build an
artistic community. Each tier builds upon previous ones, moving students from basic
comprehension of such programs as Photoshop up to a mastery of Final Cut Pro. In
addition, the Academy coordinates themes and topics with Science, English, and Social
Studies so that the student has a holistic learning experience. Whether students pursue a
career in a film-related arena or not, the skills gained will be transferable ones that can be
applied to any career path. This Academy is another way to stimulate student engagement
and intellect, while training them for possible careers in the arts.
There is a push in the district to have their schools start academies. The main
purpose is to focus on the more at-risk students who might otherwise be less engaged or
motivated in a “regular” system. These academies generate a great deal of interest and
have more student applications than admissions every year. To participate, students go
through an application process and interviews. These students begin, for the most part, in
their sophomore year (some may enter in junior or senior year) and work in cohorts.
Most of these students may have an interest in one of these fields and then go on to the
community college or one of the Cal States. The Business Academy, which has been in
existence the longest, and the Sports Medicine academy attract between 35 and 70
students in each of the in-coming freshman classes, whereas the newly founded Film
Academy attract more.

94

USAA prepares students for higher education and promotes their continuation on
to institutions of higher education, and these academies can and do prepare students for
their work at the university level in these fields. However, the reality is that a college
education may not be of interest to every student; therefore, these programs offer
alternatives to those who want to pursue careers with less postsecondary education and
engage those students (so they are more motivated to come to school do not drop out) by
offering a true avenue for their future advancement, preparing them to become the
productive citizens our society needs.
It is difficult to judge the level of effectiveness of these programs, as not enough
data exists for the time during which they have been implemented. (This information
could perhaps be the basis of another study). However, this researcher believes that
giving students who might be at risk of losing interest in the regular curriculum another
avenue by which to succeed can only be a positive venture.
On one of the websites, a student posted the following statement (the name of
school has been changed for this dissertation):
“USAA” is a school for a great education. This year is my Jr year at this school. I
have been here every year so far, and will be attending next year. The school is
very safe compared to others that I know of. It sets the bar when it comes to
standards and learning. The teachers and staff are willing to help students and
teach so that students will understand. They really do get the students to think of
college and what comes after high school. That is one of the best things about my
high school. Before I came to “USAA” I never wanted, or even really thought
about going to college and now i want to go because of the many people from
“USAA” opening my eyes to a new possibility. To everything “USAA” has done
for me I thank everyone at that school.

95

Extracurricular Programs
Included in the concept of engagement is involvement in and out of school, as
presented in the literature review of this dissertation. USAA has a plethora of school
activities. Extensive extracurricular programs include sports, music, performing arts, and
clubs. The school provides out-of-school activities such as volunteering in the community
and conducting research, and participating in community activities, in order to fulfill
many of the Senior Project areas. The regular schedule for academic activities begins by
offering zero period classes at 6:45 a.m., followed by regularly scheduled classes that
begin at 8:00 a.m., with the final bell concluding the school day at 2:50 p.m. Most of the
extracurricular programs are scheduled after the regular school day and on weekends, in
order to promote rigorous academic work. Notably, despite the school’s efforts to offer
extensive opportunities for student engagement, some of the students that are bussed in
from other areas in the district may not be able to participate in before or after school
programs, consequently they are less engaged. The following parent quotation was taken
from the Great Schools website:
My daughter graduated with honors last year. She is attending a top Ivy League
school this year. This Link Leaders program is something special in terms of
caring for others, which is something our community, needs more of. She talks
fondly of several of her teachers and her counselor has been top notch. The
college Corner was a great resource as well. My son is attending this year as a
freshman and he is getting challenged and supported as well. Combined with
parent support, USAA is a fine school.

Due to the outcome of the survey that indicated just moderate involvement, this
researcher pursued the line of questioning regarding student engagement in
extracurricular activities. One of the teachers said that there was a recent change in the

96

Activities Director and “there is a different level of spirit and feel mounting on campus,”
It was not clear as to whether the student survey had anything to do with the change but
apparently there is a greater sense of student involvement in extracurricular activities at
this time. The following comments related to student activities and involvement were
taken from those posted on the school’s website (only the school name was changed for
the purpose of its use in this dissertation):
Posted October 24
I am a current senior at “USAA”, and I have to say this year is the best.
“USAA” has not been known for its school spirit, but this year we have really
stepped it up. The Link Crew program for mentoring freshman has added to the
schools school spirit because they are no longer afraid to be themselves. We
have 'loud crowd' shirts, which are given away to the most enthusiastic people
during lunch or at the football games. These shirts are a prized possession, and
students wear them everywhere. We also have a new victory 'assembly'. The
day after one of our teams wins a game, during nutrition band members come
out on our stage in the middle of campus and play while the captains of the
team raise a lancer 'victory flag' and ring our 'victory bell'. It gets everyone
excited for the next game.

Discussion of the Second Research Question

Based on faculty and staff surveys, interviews, observations, and documentation,
the data revealed that most teachers, staff, parents, and administrators believe that the
school provides ample programs and activities to promote student engagement. Every
factor involved in promoting student engagement goes back to the fundamental theme of
“Whatever It Takes.” Although the HSSSE indicates that students at Urban Student
Achievement Academy do not reflect the high level of engagement that one would

97

assume, the evidence examined by this researcher through the collection of data, artifacts,
observation, and interviews paints a different picture of the level of the engagement in the
school.
It was the intent of this researcher to gain an understanding of the organization
and the factors that made a difference in student achievement and student engagement.
As I walked about the campus, attended meetings, and observed classrooms, I utilized the
template designed by the cohort of student researchers, including the four frames of
Bolman and Deal, which shows the breakdown of the four areas: Structural Frame,
Symbolic Frame, Human Resource Frame, and Political Frame.
The Structural Frame was very apparent in the general organization. From the
district office to the school site, work was conducted in an organized fashion that allowed
for consistency and uniformity in academic standards. Several of the interviewees stated
that each school was doing what it believed to be appropriate for its students. In more
recent times, the district (and sites) became more centralized in their approaches in order
to have more consistency in the opportunities provided to students. The school, although
positive and relaxed in its environment, maintained a safe and orderly atmosphere, made
apparent by the entrance security, the use of walkie-talkie type radios, and the mere
presence of security and the school resource officer (SRO) on campus. The principal,
visible and readily available, also communicated clear expectations and consistency in
the school’s vision. It was evident that staff knew the mission of the district and the
school and the importance of their roles as individuals and as members of a team. Even
the students’ over all behavior indicated a sense of structure the promoted “business.”

98

The Symbolic Frame was probably one of the most visible. From the district
motto of “Whatever It Takes” stemmed a myriad of words and actions that depicted the
importance “how things were done” around USAA. During my observation of the
“Quad” area, where students drew murals depicting the various clubs and organizations,
it was clear that participation was of importance at the school and to the promotion of
leadership and student engagement. Although this activity may be regarded as school
spirit, it was also a symbol of unity for all to observe and feel, as they walked to and from
their classes or as they stood in the Quad during break times. Recognition of student and
adult work supports effort and achievement. There are special rewards for academic
achievement and good character. Students get “caught in the act” when they make
positive choices and are entered into a drawing for prizes. Adults are given special
recognition at meetings and in the community via newspaper articles.
In the observations, ELL students did not seem to be participants in the overall
school culture. Although many students in the quad area were hanging out with their
friends, the bilingual students seemed to stay in their own groups, some of them just
waited outside of their next bilingual class. One small group of students being observed
was speaking Spanish to each other. They said they liked the school and they felt they
got help from teachers but felt discriminated against by some of the other students. They
did not feel like a part of the “establishment.” In looking at student engagement, perhaps
the ELL students are the least engaged of all due to a number of factors.

99

The Human Resource Frame was very apparent during my observations and
interviews. Everyone seemed highly valued and the promotion of respect was manifest in
interactions between staff and staff, staff and students, and students and students.
To illustrate the connections made between students and staff at USAA, I will present the
student responses to three of the survey questions:
• Overall I have a good feeling about being here: 77% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

• I feel safe: 76% Agreed or Strongly Agreed with this statement

• I feel supported by my teacher: 72% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

During observations of a staff breakfast meeting, participants mentioned several
individuals and departments that had contributed to the advancement of student success.
Again, everyone seemed to have a high regard for others and for the teamwork that was
of importance in getting things done.
The Political Frame may have been the one that was the least apparent, which, in
the opinion of this researcher, a good thing. As in any organization politics exist in the
system, from the district-level to the site-level, but here it seemed to be kept at a
minimum. As an example of information that was received during interviews, the
employee unions worked together with the administration to create the best working and
learning environment for all, with the center of their work reflecting the importance of
working together toward student success. There was even a comment made about the
progressiveness and support of the union leaders in a strong and professional work force

100

and the hiring and retaining of the best employees, while not supporting poor
performance on behalf of any of their members.

Research Question Three: “What perceived school factors contribute to high
performance?”
USAA has been a California Distringuished School three times, in 1990, 1996,
and 2003. A California Distinguished School is an award given by the California State
Board of Education to public schools within the state that best represent exemplary and
quality educational programs. Approximately 5% of California schools is awarded this
honor each year following a rigorous selection process. Eligibility is based on federal and
state criteria including the No Child Left Behind program, Academic Performance Index
(API), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The program was established in 1985 and
alternates each year between elementary (even years) and secondary (odd years) schools.
The award is valid for four years.
In addition, parents and community members have the opportunity to rate schools
through a special website. USAA has an average rating of 8 out of 10 from parents and
students, making it a "great school." USAA was also rated 9 out of 10 by the state of
California in their California School Rankings of API (Academic Performance Index).
Some of the major achievements that the school boasts include:
• Academic Performance Index (API) increased by 35 points to 777
• California High School Exit Exam (CASEE (pass rates continue to be
strong; 85% of student pass in math and 83% in English/Language Arts

101

• The number of students on target for graduation rose to 43%
• USAA had a pass rate of 77% on Advanced Placement (AP) exams
This researcher was able to confirm through documents and observations that
there are a number of perceived factors that contribute to the high performance of this
urban high school; these include leadership, programs, and instructional practices,
teamwork and collaborative efforts, and school culture.
In addition to giving the school a “5 Star” rating (5 being the highest rating
possible on this scale), one of the parents offered the following comments on the Great
Schools website, illustrating an overall satisfaction with USAA:
I have two boys at USAA and one on the way. The academics are strong with an
emphasis on helping children in need, demonstrated by their half-lunch program.
There is a good variety of AP classes. The Water Polo and Swim teams seem
organized. Parents seem to be involved and take part in activities such as
evaluating the senior projects. I’m glad we live in the attendance area of USAA.
It’s the reason I bought my home.

Leadership

Chapter Two cites the literature from the Association of Washington School
Principals (1998), which listed seven key responsibilities for school leaders, including:
promoting a safe and orderly school environment, sustaining a school culture of
continuous improvement, implementing data-driven plans for improving student
achievement, implementing standards-based assessment, monitoring school-improvement
plans, managing human and fiscal resources to accomplish achievement goals, and
communicating with colleagues, parents, and community members to promote student
learning. All of these applied to the leadership at USAA.

102

Leadership is represented by the administration but is not limited to it. Starting
at the top, the Superintendent has set the tone for the perseverance for high performance.
The philosophy that is widely spread throughout the district is one of doing everything
necessary to help students succeed. Again, the theme is “Whatever It Takes.” The
principal, as the formal leader of the school, sets the stage for the structural and cultural
atmosphere and forms the basis of the instructional programs. The comment that
illustrated this most vividly was “Failure is not an option.” He and his Assistant
Principals have also empowered the Leadership Team and the entire staff to be leaders in
their own right. The shared philosophy and teamwork produces the push towards high
graduation rates, college preparation, and the completion of “a-g” requirements. New
ideas from all staff members are always welcome and taken into consideration in the on-
going development of programs and practices that not only engage students academically
but also in overall school and community activities.
In the areas of teacher evaluation and improvement, the administration formally
evaluates teachers on an annual or tri-annual basis, depending on the teachers’ experience
and effectiveness. There is also a process of informal evaluations where administrators
and department chairs visit every teacher throughout the year. For teachers who are in
need of extra help, there are opportunities in the form of additional training courses, in
addition to the regular staff development days during the year, and the late start days that
provide teachers with planning and meeting time for the improvement of curriculum and
instruction. In addition these identified teachers are assigned a mentor teacher for greater
support. The high visibility and personal contact by the principal, A.P. staff, and

103

leadership team are another factor the supports staff and students in their goal for high
academic achievement. This support fits in both the Human Resource Frame and the
Culture Frame of Bolman and Deal, which will be further discussed in this section.
During interviews, it became evident that, just as USAA tried to provide “safety
nets” for its students, it did so also for new teachers and those working with the limited
English students, who may need more support. In addition to their Course Leads in the
critical areas and ELD, the development of course finders, pacer guides, and their
Secondary Academic Literacy Tools (SALT) help teachers find the materials and
approaches they need to be successful. New teachers and ELD teachers have specific
meetings to discuss issues pertinent to their areas and concerns. One new teacher said,
“If we have a problem or questions about materials, we have many sources and people to
go to.” One of the Assistant Principals stated, “Although there are monies available for
supplementary workshops, should the money at the site fall short, the district office
provides the money.”
That school leaders administer on-going, uniform assessments, jointly review data
and how it can be utilized to improve curriculum and instruction, and pursue the
development of interventions all contributes to the high level of performance. Just as the
students who need help are given extra tutoring or a modified schedule, staff members
are offered additional conferences, time to plan and collaborate, and mentoring by other
staff members. Also, through assemblies and other venues, students receive recognition
and rewards for their achievement on a consistent basis. Teachers are also praised and
their success is highlighted, showcased, and shared with the entire staff by the site and

104

district administration. The latter is done publicly at meetings, assemblies, bulletins, and
even posted on the website. To achieve goals, the school recognizes the importance of
hiring teachers and staff who are student-oriented. In hiring, it looks for highly motivated
individuals who can work collaboratively and be responsive to the changing needs of the
institution and the community. These goals, as observed, are part of the Bolman and
Deal Human Resource Frame used in this study and will be further discussed in a later
section.
During staff interviews there were several comments regarding the leadership and
their support of all staff members. Almost every staff member made a comment about
the “collegiality,” “family atmosphere,” “team approach,” “collaboration,” and overall
cohesiveness at the school. Much of this climate was attributed to the leadership,
beginning with the district’s superintendent and emphasizing the principal and the
leadership team. One of the attendance clerks talked about having a “team approach” to
any problems or concerns that arose, “We know we will always get help and direction for
any needs we may have.” One of the college advisors mentioned that the school enjoys a
“wonderful network supported by the administration,” which ultimately served everyone
well, students, teachers, and community alike. One of the chairpersons reinforced feeling
valued and recognized by the administration for the work he does. It was apparent during
my observations, as well, that the formal and informal leadership at the district and site
were responsible for setting a tone of excellence and service.

105

Teacher Quality and Staff Development
Interviews and observations indicated that one of the factors perceived as
contributing to student engagement at USAA is the quality of teachers at the school.
Experience, education, and high qualifications, as stated in Chapter Two, matter in
promoting high achievement, especially in urban schools with high minority student
populations. The Tripod Project, which included more than 40,000 secondary school
students, concluded that student success depends on three qualities of teaching: content
knowledge, pedagogy, and strong relationships with students (Lewis, 2004).
The district and site strive to attract and retain highly qualified and talented staff
in order to fulfill the mission of educational excellence. The federal law known as No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires districts to report the number of teachers considered
“highly qualified.” By definition these teachers must have a full credential and
bachelor’s degree to teach in a core subject such as reading, math, science or social
science. They also have to demonstrate expertise in these fields. At USAA the average
percentage of teachers teaching courses “out-of-field” (those lacking the appropriate
authorization) are 6%, in comparison to 12% in the county and 12% statewide. If you
break this down by core subjects, the average percentage of teachers without appropriate
subject authorization can be seen in Table 7, below.

106

Table 7: Teacher Credentialing

This demonstrates the commitment of the school and the district to fulfilling the NCLB
requirements and Williams Legislation (2004), which also requires appropriate staffing.
More importantly the school aspires to hire, train, and retain staff that is highly qualified
so that it can, in turn, more effectively support students in striving for and maintaining
academic excellence.
As cited in the literature review in Chapter Two, studies (1991) found that teacher
expertise, as measured by teacher education, licensing examination scores, and
experience, accounted for 40% of the difference in student achievement in reading and
mathematics. The average years of teaching experience at USAA is 11, as compared to
12 at the county level, and 13 at the state level. The percentage of new teachers with up
to two years of experience is 11% versus 17% at the county level and 15% throughout the
state. The percentage of teachers with a master’s degree or higher is 37% at USAA, as
compared to 41% at the county level and 38% throughout the state. Ninety six percent
of the faculty members hold full credentials, as compared to the state average of 92% and
the county average of 88%. Again, this information is significant as it reflects a school’s
ability to support high student academic achievement particularly in an urban, high
Subject USAA County State
English 5% 10% 10%
Math 6% 10% 11%
Science 0% 10% 13%
Social Science 12% 19% 16%

107

minority populated school. According to the literature, teacher quality explains most of
the gap in achievement between African American and White students, after controlling
for socioeconomic status. Another study found that differences in teacher qualifications
accounted for 90% of the variation in student achievement in reading and mathematics.
At USAA the staff works collaboratively to identify school-wide areas of need
and plan staff development activities to meet those needs. Teachers take some time
yearly to improve their teaching skills and to extend their knowledge of their subject
matter. Customarily, the school uses three buy-back days per year to work on the
alignment of curriculum with state standards. Teachers also set aside time to develop
pacing guides for consistency in the delivery of curriculum. This time is also used for
teachers to share best practices with each other and review assessment data to determine
program effectiveness.
During interviews, the Principal and several staff members emphasized that when
a teacher is hired whether he or she is a “fit” with the rest of the staff team is of great
importance. As one interviewee explained:
Through the extensive professional development that the site and district provide,
we can help teachers be highly successful, however, we cannot inject enthusiasm,
the belief that all students can and will be successful, and the care and concern
that they have toward students.

Programs and Instructional Practices

Although courses in all departments reflect the high performance standards for
graduation (a-g requirements) and academic units for college preparation (in addition to

108

A.P. courses), the base philosophy comes from the focus on the “Three R’s”:
Relationships, Rigor, and Relevance.
Beginning in 2005, the school-site staff, with the support of district philosophy
and staff, began an in-depth examination of data, reading extensive education research on
programs and practices such as those of Rich Du Four, Doug Reeves, Willard Dagett,
Raymond McNulty, and James Collins. They also paid visits to exemplary school suchs
as Adlai Stevenson High School to observe best practices that were yielding high levels
of achievement and engaging their students to stay in school and pursue greater learning.
The district sent teams from all of the schools to be trained at an Illinois model school
that exhibited the education research and philosophy of Rick Du Four, also known as the
“Whatever It Takes” philosophy. This program is based upon promoting student success
through interventions at every turn to ensure that no student fails. This systematic
program of safety nets, combined with on-going common assessment, attempts to catch
every student that could fall behind academically.
The school also consistently surveyed parents and students to gather input into the
needs and expectation of their primary stakeholders and clients. These approaches
resulted in the implementation of programs that would stretch learning for ALL students
and provide support systems to ensure success. Prevention and intervention programs of
a dynamic caliber were adopted, continuously adjusted, and fine-tuned to meet the needs
of all USAA students.
Even prior to students beginning the ninth grade at USAA, communication with
feeder schools stands as a priority and a summer Bridge program offers in-coming at-risk

109

students a jumpstart on their academic year and a boost in preparation and level of
confidence to succeed. The program includes core subjects such as math and English,
study skills, and an extracurricular activity. Homework is a vital part of the learning
process for every student and is an extension of course content. Course goals and
objectives influence the type and length of assignments. Teachers create web sites to list
upcoming assignments and inform student and parents of expectations.
Once a student enters USAA in the ninth grade, he or she begins a rigorous
academic program in required academics. As support needs arise, interventions begin.
Based on programs and instructional practices, school data shows that 86% of students,
from freshmen to seniors were on target to graduate. At the Urban Student Achievement
Academy (USAA) every Senior is required to complete a Senior Project in order to pass
high school.
Because interventions are of great importance at USAA, a number of programs
reflect this philosophy— they include Link Crew, Campus Watch, Lunch tutoring, and
modified schedules for these interventions to take place. The following is an example of
the schedule that allows for modifications and interventions.

110

Table 8: Intervention Bell Schedule

Period 0 6:54 7:54 (60 min)
Period 1 8:00 8:50 (50 min)
Period 2 8:56 9:50 (54 min)
Nutrition 9:50 10:05 (15 min)
Period 3 10:11 11:01 (50 min)
Period 4 11:07 11:57 (50 min)
Lunch 11:57 12:58 (61 min)
Interventions 12:03 12:28 (25 min)
Period 5 1:04 1:54 (50 min)
Period 6 2:00 2:50 (50 min)

Additional interventions include hiring retired teachers to assist students prior to
CAHSEE. To highlight one of these programs, CAHSEE interventions have yielded 85%
passage rate in Language Arts and 86% in Math by the end of the sophomore year. As an
example of the improvement that has taken place through the interventions, the Language
Arts CAHSEE rate of passage in 2005 was 78% and 80% in Math. It is apparent that
staff at USAA is committed to ensure that all students receive opportunities for an
effective education, as evidenced by their on-going efforts.
State and federal funds were utilized in order to provide after-school tutoring,
supplemental materials for ELD, additional conference opportunities for teachers, support
for technology upgrades, student incentives, and staff salaries. Although additional
categorical funds were set aside for staff development and conference attendance at the
California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), in addition to social studies and

111

math courses within the language development program, English Language Learners
remain a source of concern. Evidence of needs exist, particularly as ELLs are the only
subgroup that has still not made sufficient gains in academic achievement. A specific
illustration emerges from the California Standards Tests (CST), which demonstrates how
well students are learning what the state content standards require in English/Language
Arts, Math, Science, and History/Social Science (grades 9 through 11). USAA’s results
for the category of “All Students” not only demonstrates a growth from year to year, of
between 2% and 15%, but also leads the district (by an average of 11%) and the state (by
an average of 13%), in the most recent reports. The percentage of mainstream students
who are at a proficient or advanced level are at least 50% in most academic areas,
whereas the results for English Learners, despite on-going efforts, range from 4% to 20%
proficiency. The Subgroup Test Scores, illustrated by bar graphs in the School
Accountability Report Card (SARC), illustrated the discrepancy between English
proficient student scoring Proficient or Advanced as 57% and English Learners scoring
Proficient or Advanced at 11%. The comments made on the SARC were, “English
learners scored lower on the CST than student who are proficient in English because the
test is given in English and the English learners tend to be at a disadvantage.” Another
example illustrating this subgroup discrepancy, although seemingly more encouraging, is
the Academic Performance Index (API), which measures annual academic performance
and the progress of schools in California (scores range from 200 to 1000, with a statewide
target of 800). The most recent API scores for USAA presented an increase of 35 points

112

in the “All Students” category and an increase of 28 points for ELL students. This
academic discrepancy remains a concern.
One piece of data that stood out among the documents for the district and this
particular urban high school was that the only subgroup tested that did not show the
expected growth (reached and/or exceeding expectations, as of 2006 testing data, on API
and AYP) was the English Language Learners. I was specifically interested in what
strategies or practices were being used to counteract this situation and further assist these
students. The most recent test score for the ELL subgroup shows an API of 678, as
compared to 650 in 2006. Therefore, despite the fact that this subgroup was the only one
that did not make the API target, it still showed improvement. It used to be that ELL
students were able to opt out of testing but now they must be tested and even if they
know the subject matter (Math, Science), they can’t read the problems. Sometimes is has
to do with them leaving for their home country during spring or winter break and not
returning on time. Nonetheless, USAA and other schools in this District are clearly
focused on consistently striving to help all students succeed.
According to this researcher’s review of documents, observations, and interviews,
USAA’s English learner (EL) students receive a comprehensive program by being placed
in one of three levels of English Language Development instruction. While developing
skills in English, the students are enrolled in academic courses required to meet
graduation and/or college entrance requirements. For Spanish speakers with little or no
proficiency in English, core content classes are taught through their primary language.
Students with intermediate fluency in English are placed in Specially Designed Academic

113

Instruction in English (SDAIE) classes where teachers utilize special methodologies that
enable comprehension of the language and the content. There are currently 13 E.L.D.
classes, 9 Primary Language Instruction classes, a Spanish for Native Speakers class, and
12 academic S.D.A.I.E. classes in the Language Development Program. As English
learners develop proficiency in the language, they are gradually mainstreamed into
General Program classes.
USAA has one director, two bilingual (English/Spanish) specialists/instructional
aides, one full-time clerk, and 14 teachers working with the ELL students. The most
recent arrivals spend two hours per day in English Language Development (ELD)
classes. For the remainder of their subjects, they are assigned to teachers who use
specific strategies to make the subject matter comprehensible in English or in their
primary language. This researcher was able to observe both of these types of classes. As
students become more English-proficient, they take more courses in the general program.
These students all use state-adopted materials, meeting state standards, and an effort is
made to have them in classes where all teachers are credentialed.
Since this researcher began to explore this disconnect, USAA has implemented a
program to meet the academic and language development needs of the English learners
(E.L) more specifically. This program is taking place through the Language
Development Program (L.D.P.) for E.L. students, who represent approximately 16% of
the school’s enrollment, come from different countries, and speak approximately 18
different languages (the majority of these students are Spanish speakers). The goals of the
Language Development Program reflect the district’s commitment to quality education

114

for ALL students. Therefore, students in the Language Development Program are also
expected to:
• Attain high levels of English proficiency.
• Achieve success/parity in all academic areas.
• Experience positive psychological adjustment to school and to a multicultural
society.

The Language Development Program also oversees a satellite office known as the
Student Resource Center, which is equipped with computers as well as other instructional
supplies that enable EL students to meet the demands of their academic courses. In
addition, the Student Center houses Bilingual Specialists and an after-school tutoring
program where tutoring in Math, Science, Social Studies, and English is available.
The Expanded Horizons club is another avenue through which the Language
Development Program student’s educational experiences are personalized. Expanded
Horizons provides a variety of student leadership positions, and club and extracurricular
activities that enable students to use their time and special talents in a positive manner.
Expanded Horizons is not only a club for English learners, it is also a club striving to
generate extracurricular activities in which ALL USAA students may participate and get
involved.
USAA continues to push for a greater success rate. Although ELs made their
11% target, next year will be another challenge or, as one A.P. said, “[I]t will be tight.
Some of the students may also need a fifth year in order to meet the graduation
requirements.” Notably, the school continues to provide academic and nonacademic

115

support for the limited English students. Not to make excuses, but the fact that this
school received most of the new arrivals (even its Level 3 students have only been in the
country for 2 to 3 years), getting students involved in extracurricular activities is not easy.
Though the school tries to involve them in clubs and activities with the help of
interpreters, and these students have mentors in their Link Crew experience, having to
take a bus to and from school makes a difference in their ability to participate in
activities. As one of the A.P. said:
Although most of these students prefer soccer, when they get involved in football
or volleyball it’s celebrated, it’s just not common. We also try to make fieldtrips,
like to the theater, more accessible by having the bus pick them up at the district
office, a more central location for most students.

The District is committed to empowering parents to become active participants in
their children’s education. Therefore, at the time of enrollment, the students and the
parents receive information on how they can become actively involved in the educational
process. Furthermore, parents are encouraged to attend the Bilingual Parent Advisory
Committee meetings, which are held in the USAA’s library. Flyers in English and
Spanish are sent home one week before the Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee
meeting. Further information can be obtained by contacting the Language Development
Program. The Bilingual Coordinator mentioned that the school tried having parent
meetings at the district office, thinking it would draw people to its more centralized
location, but such was not the case. Parents come to the campus every six weeks.
Notably, when parents arrive to the area, word-of-mouth leads them to USAA. They

116

want their children to attend this school, as they know the program is geared for optimum
success.

Teamwork/Collaboration

As part of the staff’s commitment to offering a consistently effective education
for all students using common assessment in the core areas, teachers must meet to discuss
effective instructional strategies and standards that need to be retaught. In order for this
to take place and for the expansion and support of teamwork and articulation among staff
to promote and support these programs and practices, the administration sets aside
specific time for collaboration. One example of this is the Friday schedule, as seen below
in Table 9.
Table 9. Friday Late Schedule

Collaboration 7:30 8:25 (55 min)
Period 1 8:30 9:18 (48 min)
Period 2 9:24 10:14 (50 min)
Nutrition 10:14 10:29 (15 min)
Period 3 10:35 11:23 (48 min)
Period 4 11:29 12:17 (48 min)
Lunch 12:17 1:02 (45 min)
Period 5 1:08 1:56 (48 min)
Period 6 2:02 2:50 (48 min)

Teachers and administrators take part in decision making through Lancer
Roundtable. Teachers determine instructional methods as a team and the entire staff
develops staff training programs. The School Site Council (SSC), which includes

117

parents, teachers, and administrators, along with the PTSA, plays a key role in shaping
the educational experiences of students.

Parent Involvement
As has been previously mentioned, USAA enjoys a great deal of parent
involvement and support. Yet another example of teamwork is illustrated by the
communication that consistently takes place between staff and parents through Tele-
Parent.
The TeleParent program is an automated parental notification system that allows
teachers, counselors, and administrators to send student-specific and general messages
home over the telephone or internet. The service is able to:
• Send messages to each parent concerning his/her child's school
experience
• Send emergency messages in under 15 minutes
• Send general broadcast messages concerning school events
• Send immediate attendance notification

USAA has adopted this service because it believes that when parents receive messages
concerning their student's behavior, performance, and achievement, they are more
involved in the educational process. Studies have shown that parental involvement
contributes to higher academic performance. Aside from the benefits to students, by
using TeleParent teachers can increase their teaching effectiveness through improved

118

classroom management, allowing them to spend less time disciplining and more time
teaching.
In the event that parents do not speak English, TeleParent can also address
language barriers by allowing messages to be sent in any language. Through advanced
calling technology each call gets through by utilizing both the telephone and the internet
to deliver messages.

Culture

The definition of culture as described by Dr. Terry Deal, is “ how we do things
around here.” I believe the following descriptions will more than support the positive
organizational culture that exists in USAA.
When you walk into the main office of USAA some of the things that catch your
eye are the plaques, awards, and newspaper articles. You also see many pictures of
teachers and their new babies. Being that the school has a young staff, there were many
such images. The energy level is quite high— it hits you even as you walk through the
office hallways.
While attending one of the staff meetings, the teachers wore their school tee-shirt
or school colors. The principal interacted with teachers as he walked around the room
There was food at the meeting and while teachers served themselves there was a great
deal of chatting about programs and kids.
The first words out of the principal’s mouth were “Congratulations,” for
achievement based on all of their hard work. As they took care of the business at hand,

119

staff members shared information. During the school year, a number of surveys were
administered— from WASC Accreditation surveys to The Dagget Foundation survey that
measured the “Health of the Organization.” The results of the WASC surveys showed
that 80% of students felt supported by their teachers, 85% felt that their teachers wanted
them to succeed, and 84% are proud to be at USAA. The Dagget survey results showed
that the health of the organization was “off the chart,” with 8 out of 10 scored over 85%
in this area. Broken down by the top three strengths: innovativeness was number one
with an overall score of 96%, the second highest strength was morale at 94%, and the
third highest strength was cohesiveness at 91%.
After regular business, which included many humorous interjections, one of the
teachers “presented” the annual Awards through power point including such honors as
“Most likely to attack construction workers” accompanied by images of some of the
construction taking place on campus. At the end of the meeting, they showed a short
video that started with the song “We’re not gonna take it” and showed one of the
custodians cleaning up the campus and chasing students pretending to litter. One of the
perceived great factors of student success is the culture of USAA!

Discussion of Third Research Question

During staff interviews the first question asked, which corresponded to the third
research question, elicited several consistent answers. In response to, “What school
factors do you think contribute to a high-performing urban high school?” many

120

interviewees mentioned the stability of the administration--in 42 years the existing
principal was only their third principal. Interviewees also mentioned that although the
superintendent and principal are the formal leaders, there are many informal leaders such
as department chairs, course leaders and others. The ”team approach” was consistently
mentioned, as in “It’s about all of us.” It was thought that one positive factor is the high
teacher buy-in for new programs. One person said, “Even if it means more work,
teachers will do it because there is a commitment to making it difficult for students not to
succeed.” Another factor was the “driving force for academic excellence” (this includes
common assessments) reflected in the principal’s motto, “Be Your Best.” This notion
allows staff, students and parents to know where the each students stands and what needs
to be done to progress. Parents value education, and for the most part, push their students
to succeed.
In responding to the second interview question, which also correlates to this third
research question, staff felt that factors that may contribute to high performance have to
do with the school’s culture. The positive atmosphere and culture of respect was among
the factors most mentioned during interviews, “Professionals feel we are valued.” The
administration wants input from “those in the trenches.” As an example, some of the
teachers wanted to adopt a specific curriculum for their area and the administration
supported it without question. The culture of the school is one of family, just like in a
family we sometimes have our disagreements but the collaboration and caring about
everyone keeps things positive, “We have fun”!

121

Responding to the third interview question about district support in high
performance, many stated that there is a shared vision and mission that is regularly and
clearly communicated. The district attitude of academic excellence and caring filters
down. The district distributes funds well, which allows for trust and positive feelings. It
was also stated that the parents and community groups at USAA are very supportive and
active in fundraising to honor students and staff and to participate in programs such as the
Senior Projects. Even businesses in the community readily take on roles that enhance
student education, for example, there were 118 community people who sat in on the
presentation of senior projects. There were several mentions of the Whatever It Takes
program and three trips to Chicago to cement this concept.
One of the websites that allows parents and community members to post their
sentiments regarding the school contained this comment from a parent (the school name
was the only change made, for inclusion in this dissertation):

Posted May 28
“USAA” is a fabulous school for the teens that attend. The academics, the
leadership, the top notch teachers , counselors, administration and openness to
new programs is first rate. We as parents appreciate the work put in by the
security, administration, teachers, counselors to those that maintain the
school...We are proud of “USAA”. I give the school 5 stars and thank you for
the great education and positive experiences both my kids have as now
graduates.--Submitted by a parent

Recently, the District gave a symposium, hosting 70 visiting educators from 16
school districts throughout the county, offering tips for implementing systemic reform

122

that has improved test scores and helped students succeed. USAA’s principal spoke to
principals and superintendents about the role of administrative leadership in the
collaborative effort that has brought about the type of academic gains the school and
district have achieved. It is impressive to note what these guest administrators said
during the symposium about this school and district. One administrator said, “This is the
only district I’ve seen that’s doing this kind of work. It is really a model for districts that
are researching professional learning communities. There are a lot of districts interested
in that.” Another Principal stated, “Personally, I’ve always been impressed at how
innovative and positive the district is. They don’t shy away from their issues and they
don’t deny them—they just confront them. Honestly, I’m a little jealous of them.” “I’d
heard about this school district and what they do with interventions, so I was very
interested to see what ideas I could steal from them for my school,” commented another
principal.
This group of professionals, in partnership with parents and business partners,
continue to make great gains in scholastic achievement. The “Whatever it Takes” effort
was developed to ensure that every student is given the time and support necessary to be
successful. “It has been an evolutionary process with input from throughout the district
and has proven that collaboration and teamwork are essential to getting extraordinary
things done,” said the Superintendent.
Although based on the HSSSE, students at Urban Scholastic Achievement
Academy do not demonstrate the high level of engagement that one would assume based
on their level of high achievement, the evidence examined by this researcher through the

123

collection of data, artifacts, observation and interviews paints a different picture of the
level of engagement in the school. Therefore, there are definite reasons to believe that
the students at USAA are more engaged than it may seem and that their level of
engagement goes beyond that which can be measured by this survey.

124

Chapter 5

Analysis and Discussion

The literature on the topic of student engagement is plentiful; however, literature
regarding factors that can be attributed to high performance in urban high schools is slim.
This study examined factors that may contribute to high performance and, more
specifically, sought a direct link between student engagement and high achievement in
urban high schools. The factors studied were programs, instructional practices,
leadership, and culture.
This researcher’s study, combined with four other thematic studies, attempted to
demonstrate findings about the impact of student engagement in high achievement. The
schools studied were identified as high-performing by national standards and were also
deemed to be urban schools per their demographics.
The University of Indiana, as a part of the High School Survey of Student
Engagement has conducted a number of studies, similar to this one, throughout the
United States. The major difference between these thematic studies and those previously
conducted was that these studies involved urban high schools located in Los Angeles,
California, whereas the others involved rural and suburban schools in the midwestern
states. One of the most noteworthy differences is that the demographics in these studies
included a high concentration of minority, low socioeconomic status populations in the
urban high schools studied. With the high minority population came another distinct

125

factor, non-English and limited English speaking students, addressed here as English
Language Learners (ELL).
At this researcher’s school, Urban Scholastic Achievement Academy (USAA),
another unique factor was bussing. The English Language Learner population at USSA
is bussed in from various other areas and home school within the district. This group of
students consisted of those who were in their early stages and some in the middle stages
of acquiring the English language. It appeared that the more proficient English Language
Learners were housed at another of the district’s schools. If the expected finding
occurred, this could potentially identify factors regarding high achievement and student
engagement applicable and replicable for other urban schools and districts working with
English Language Learners (ELL).

The research questions that guided the studies were:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high-performing urban high school
as measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HESSE)? How
does it compare to the national profile?
2. What perceived school factors contribute to student engagement in high-
performing urban high schools?
3. What perceived school factors contribute to high performance?
In this chapter the researcher will discuss the findings of the case study and
analyze their relevance to other school populations. The chapter will conclude with
implications for practice and recommendations for future research.

126

Summary of Study Findings

Part of the purpose of this study was to determine if there was a higher level of
student engagement at this urban high school due to its high level of academic
achievement. This school, along with others in the district, was identified as “exceeding
expectations” and “beating the odds.” This characterization was based on comparisons
with the academic performance demonstrated in the national profile.
As much as this researcher anticipated findings that would support a link between
student engagement and student achievement at USAA, the initial student survey failed to
support this hypothesis. As compared to other students in the population of the other
nationwide studies, students at USAA were no more engaged than their peers. Although
the staff of USAA works hard to increase and sustain high academic achievement and
provides many opportunities to keep students engaged in school, based on the HSSSE
students did not appear to be as highly engaged as this researcher expected. In analyzing
the findings, based on the triangulation of the multiple pieces of data collected, several
factors may have contributed to the high level of student achievement and, overall,
student engagement.
Data examined in the form or documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations
indicated the there have been significant increases in student achievement over the past
several years. The observations conducted were documented utilizing Bolman and Deal’s
Four Frames (2003) to analyze organizations. The teacher survey was based on questions
developed by the doctoral candidates, correlated with the HSSSE, and included questions

127

related to teacher efficacy. The researcher also utilized the students’ responses from the
HSSSE as a secondary data source.
Several factors, in the form of themes, emerged from this study that supported the
success of USAA. Among these were leadership at site and district levels, best practices
in the delivery of a rigorous curriculum, a common and uniform focus on curriculum and
methodology, staff that shares accountability for student success, professional
development emphasizing proven and promising practices, a climate of collaboration and
collegiality among staff and leadership, and a school culture of doing “Whatever It
Takes” to promote student learning and student success.

Summary of Findings by Research Question

1. What is the level of student engagement in a high-performing urban high school
as measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)? How
does it compare to the national profile?

The group of researchers chose these schools in the district because of their urban
location and high performance. This researcher’s school, although considered an urban
school, is situated in a high socioeconomic pocket. Most of the students, with the
exception of those English Learners who are bussed in from other areas, reside within the
boundaries of this high socioeconomic area. This school’s economic level is indeed an
exception within the school district, as its other schools are considered to be of middle to
low socioeconomic status.

128

Notably, based on responses from the High School Survey of Student
Engagement, the students at this school mirrored the students in the national survey in
terms of engagement levels, despite the impressive efforts to engage students in school
site activities. The results unfortunately did not show a high level of engagement overall.
The researcher can analyze this information from a few different perspectives.
First, it could be that this urban school with suburban-like surroundings mirrored the
national findings because the responses were based on the suburban mentality of the
general student population in the school, therefore, it would make sense that the results
would be the same. Another possibility is that, if considered an urban school, this site
may be doing well to have the same level of engagement as the national study’s suburban
schools. A third perspective could be that this school might have demonstrated higher
response ratings of engagement had it not been for the influx of the lower socioeconomic
student population that is bussed in and is possibly less engaged than its peers.
The greatest observed discrepancy in student engagement was in the English
Language Learners bussed in daily from other schools within the district. These students
are part of the district’s English Language Learner program. Most of them come from
lower socioeconomic areas and their command of the English language ranges from
beginner to intermediate.
During several of the observations, particularly in the quad area, the researcher
noticed that these students did not seem to blend in with the “home” students. Most of
these students tended to stay with their own group of friends and congregate around their
teachers and classrooms. In approaching a few of these students, who were standing

129

along the wall of one of the buildings, the researcher informally inquired in Spanish
about their participation in the regular school activities. The students who responded
seemed to feel that they were not a part of the school. They shared that because they did
not have good command of the language, they did not feel completely comfortable
participating in some of the general activities, like general clubs and sports. To illustrate
this point further: after school a group of ELL students was playing soccer on the front
lawn of the school. When the researcher inquired as to their participation in school
sports, they responded that despite their interest in sports and soccer, they did not intend
to participate in the school’s organized sports teams.
In examining the documentation, I noted that many of the students at this school
were primarily in the beginning levels of English. In addition to its limited English
status, this subgroup of students was the only one that had not shown the improvement
that the rest of the school demonstrated in the API and AYP test scores. Despite the
staff’s commitment to improving the group’s connection to the school and their work to
boost academic achievement in English and other subject areas, the ELLs posed a
challenge in these areas. This information presents an opportunity for future studies to
focus on this group and topic.
In summary, despite the push to engage students in school site activities, the level
of student engagement at this researcher’s high-performing urban high school is
consistent with, and no higher than, the level of engagement measured by the same
instrument in a number of other high schools throughout the country. However, it was
still highly evident that site leadership and staff were committed to building and

130

enhancing relationships between staff and students by making positive connections for
students in order to facilitate engagement.

2. What perceived school factors contribute to student engagement in high-
performing urban high schools?

There is limited information regarding the effects of student engagement on
student achievement in urban high schools and almost no studies in which all of the
schools in a district were high-performing and exceeding expectations. In this high
school district all of the urban schools met and exceeded achievement targets, based on
API. It is also important to include the factors that the student population was ethnically
diverse and that the subgroups include socioeconomic disadvantaged and English
Language Learners.
Although the research, based on the HSSSE, indicated that students at USAA
were only as engaged as their national peers, which may give way to questioning whether
student engagement was linked to student achievement, there were a number of factors
that contributed to the promotion of student engagement. Through the collection of data,
other than the HSSSE, this researcher was convinced that students were more engaged
than the profile indicated.
The first theme that emerged as significant in promoting engagement and
achievement was the leadership, both formal and informal. The expectations of the
leadership are that all stakeholders work together toward the development of the “whole
student.” This theme encompassed the district theme of “Whatever It Takes,” delivered

131

and shared by the Superintendent, district office personnel, principal, teachers, classified
and support staff, parents, and community. The principal of USAA had a high level of
energy and enthusiasm. During my interviews and meetings with him there was a
consistent positive energy evident in his words and actions. In his interactions with
students, parents, and staff, he promoted positive thinking, productive actions, and
empowered those around him.
The school’s culture is the second significant theme that emerged, as noteworthy
and instrumental in supporting student engagement and high academic achievement. The
principal placed a great deal of emphasis on hiring caring individuals that would work
well with the team and the culture of the school: one of success and support for students
and staff that has been developed and consistently reinforced. It was extremely evident
that a positive environment was of the utmost importance to the staff of USAA. Staff
appeared to be highly motivated and engaged in student achievement, not accepting the
idea that students may fail or be less than successful in achieving the highest level of
individual potential. Specific efforts demonstrating ownership and responsibility for
student learning were evident among teachers and other staff during observations and
interviews. Every stakeholder is accountable and supportive of others in their roles. The
academic expectations were high and nonnegotiable. The principal’s secretary, a
graduate of USAA stated that she chose to work at this school site because of its culture.
She said, “There is a climate of collaboration, collegiality, and cooperation with the
underlying premise that everyone does whatever it takes to help students succeed.”

132

Part of the culture factor and in conjunction with achievement efforts is the focus
on building student relationships and helping students to make positive connections. This
agenda includes connecting with other students through organized activities and
coordinated projects, such as school clubs, sports, and various extracurricular events.
Student connections with staff were exemplified in everything from classroom techniques
and intervention activities to the mentoring that takes place during and after school hours.
It was evident that this are was of utmost importance. During observations staff
implemented instructional strategies that assisted in connecting students to subject matter.
As one example, the Pyramid of Interventions provides students with support for the
rigorous curriculum, working to help them discover their interests in specific topics, as in
the special academies of Business and Film.

3. What perceived school factors contribute to high performance?
As stated in Chapter Two of this dissertation, research has shown that high-
performing schools share some characteristics. Among them are a clear and shared
focus, high standards and expectations, high levels of collaboration and communication,
curriculum and instruction (along with assessment) aligned with standards, frequent
monitoring of teaching and learning, focused professional development, a supportive
learning environment, high levels of community and parent involvement, and effective
school leadership.
Leadership is evident throughout the school and the school district. Interviews
with various staff members made it evident that the principal and the superintendent are

133

held in high esteem and respected for their energetic “hands-on” approach and support
for student success. As one staff member stated, “The superintendent communicates the
message, that is shared by all, about student achievement being at the forefront of our
daily work.” Although the principal is considered the instructional leader, and certainly
lived up to the role, leadership was clearly shared among the other staff members, who
gave their input and took charge of various programs affecting teaching and learning.
Teachers feel empowered and take the initiative to participate in decision making that
will further growth in their students and themselves.
Another important element that surfaced throughout interviews was the level of
trust, not only in their principal and in the district but also in each other. Such trust
enables each of them to participate, as individuals and as members of the team, in the
implementation of new approaches that will advance student success.
Data-driven instructional practices were another significant factor in the school’s
high academic achievement. USAA places an emphasis on instruction, a rigorous
curriculum, common assessments, pacing calendars, and student interventions for
struggling youth. The principal, department chairpersons, and teachers analyze the best
way to select and utilize resources that will yield the highest results.
Collaboration is the standard among teachers and administrators. From the
instructional programs within each classroom to the support programs such as block
scheduling, lunch period tutoring, Guided Study, Link Crew, and CAHSEE intervention,
money, time, and personnel are invested in the most productive manner. Teachers and
support staff engage in staff development that assists them in meeting the needs of their

134

student population, including working more effectively with the English Language
Learners.
Although this has been mentioned earlier, it bears repeating: From the district to
the school site beliefs and practices, the concept of “Whatever It Takes” is alive and
thriving at USAA. This motto permeates the entire district and evidently plays an
important part in the practices and overall leadership (teachers, administration, and
district office support staff) that support the positive outcomes documented and observed
at USAA.

Implications for Practice

This researcher anticipated that examples and patterns would emerge that could
be replicated to assist other urban schools to promote the high achievement outcomes that
were evident at USAA. As a result of the findings in this study, the following
implications for practice are offered.
• Leadership. Although the site principal and district superintendent are key people
in setting the tone for high achievement, it is important to empower staff, at all
levels, to be leaders and in doing so be accountable for all programs and activities
leading to student success.
• Early Interventions. Establishing benchmarks and early interventions, based on
specific data, to support students who may require remediation is an important
effort in promoting and sustaining high academic achievement. These should be
in place at the earliest stages possible and guide the instructional program.

135

• High Expectations. The motto of the school and the district, “Whatever It Takes,”
lays the foundation for all programs and activities.
• Collaboration. It takes every person in the school community, including
administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other site and district staff to work
as a team to assist students in achieving their highest potential. It is important for
each person to realize the significance of each of his or her roles in the success of
all students yet work together to ensure the highest level of success.
• Organizational Culture. A positive school culture where students feel safe, cared
about, connected and find meaning in their educational programs, and who enjoy
being in school will not only keep them there but will also make them more
successful in their academic achievement. The saying “I don’t care what you
know until I know that you care” (author anonymous) holds true in this area.

Recommendations for Future Research

High schools are under tremendous pressure from accountability factors put in
place by government and regulatory agencies, not to mention public scrutiny. High
student achievement and performance results are of political and societal concern. There
are a number of articles that express the concern of students dropping out of school and
not being prepared for the world of work. Much of this concern encompasses the lack of
student engagement in school.
Although the findings are not what this researcher anticipated, meaning the
HSSSE did not suggest a notably high measure of student engagement, substantial

136

evidence was gathered to support the hard work and extensive efforts made by the school
and the district to ensure academic and overall success of the students at USAA. It is also
possible that more research is needed to discover what other factors may contribute to
student engagement and may link to high achievement, particularly in urban schools. The
following recommendations for future studies are, therefore, offered.
• Future studies should include student interviews in order to gain more
understanding of their survey responses and of their opinions of what schools can
do to support greater levels of engagement.
• Although this school had the unique factor of ELL students being bussed in from
other schools, further studies could include a larger sample of students of limited
English proficiency at all levels--from beginning to advanced--to see what factors
would motivate these students to engage themselves in activities offered at the
school site and to become more engaged in school.
• Further research regarding the roles of district personnel and their impact on
student engagement, as well as achievement, should be included.
• Future studies might include an instrument for parents to contribute their
responses and opinions as to what factors encourage their youth to be more
engaged in school.
• Because research indicates that students become disengaged long before high
school, another recommendation is that similar surveys, at the middle and upper
elementary school levels, be conducted. These could include questions that may

137

help identify more specifically the grades and circumstances under which students
become disengaged from school and “drop out” mentally.

138

References

Alexander K.L., Entwisle D.R., & Horsey C.S. (1997) From First Grade Forward:
Early Foundations of High School Drop Out. Sociology of Education.

Allen, J. (1994). A primer on school accountability. The Center for Education Reform.
Retrieved ,from http://edreform.com/pubs/accountl.hrm

Atkins, J. M., & Black. (1997). Policy perils of international comparisons: The TIMSS
Case. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1),

Armour-Thomas, E., Clay, C., Domanico, R., Bruno, K., & Allen, B. (1989). An outlier
study of elementary and middle schools in New York City: Final report. (pp. 256-
842) New York: Board of Education.

Ascher, C. (1985) Raising Hispanic achievement in elementary and middle schools in
New York City: Final report (pp. 256-842) New York: Board of Education.

Barth, R.S. (1991). Restructuring schools: Some questions for teachers and principals.
Phi Delta Kappan. 73(2), 123-128.

Barth R.S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11

Bates, P. (1990) Desegragation: Can we get there from here. Educational Leadership
72(1), 8-17.

Bennett J.B., & Figuli, D.J. (2002). Enhancing departmental leadership: The roles of
the chairperson. In American Council on Education. New York: McMillan
Publishing.

Bliss, J., Firestone, W., & Richards, C. (1990) Rethinking effective schools: Research
and practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brewster, C., & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation: From
time-on-task to homework. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved, from http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/textonly.html

139

California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS).Retreived , from
http://www.cde.ca.gov

California Dropout Research Project. (2008). Research conducted by the University of
California Santa Barbara. California Department of Education. Retreived , from
http://www.cde.ca.gov

Cavazos, L.F. (2002). Emphasizing performance goals and high quality education for all
students. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(9), 690-692.

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

Cosner, S., & Peterson, K. (2003). Building learning communities. Leadership.

Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory. Portland, OR:

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cuban, L. (1989). At-Risk students: What teachers and principals can do.
Educational Leadership, 46(5), 29-32
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co, Inc.
Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

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

Earl, L., & Fullan, M. (2002). Using data I leadership for learning. Cambridge Jounal of
Education, 33,.

Eccles, J.S., Wigfield A., & Schiefele, U. (1998) Motivation to Succeed: Social,
emotional & personality development. Handbook of child Psychology. (5
th
ed.).
(pp. 1017-1095). New York: Wiley.

Entwistle, Alexander, & Olson, (1997) Children, schools and inequity. Boulder, CO.
Westview Press.

140

Ferguson, R. (2001). Addressing racial disparities in high-achieving suburban schools.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Policy Issues.

Fullan, M. G. (2002). Leadership and sustainability. Principal Leadership, 3(4),

Goals 2000, Educate America Act
Greene, J. (2002). Public school graduation rates in the United States. (Civic Report 31).
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. New York:

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L.V., & Laine. R.D. (1996). The effect of school resources on
student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3),

Gross, B., & Gross, R. (1985). The Great School Debate. New York: Simon & Schuster,
Inc.

Guthrie, J. W. (1983) Funding and Adequate Education, Phi Delta Kappan, 64(7), 471-
476.

Guthrie, J.W. (2002). Who holds the purse? American School Board Journal, 189(5), 38-
40.

Hansen, J.M., & Childs, J. (1998). Creating a school where people like to be.
Educational Leadership.

Harter, S. (1992). Visions of self: Beyond the mirror. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 40, 99-144.

Holloway, J. (2002). Extracurricular activities and student motivation. Educational
Leadership, 59

Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data:
Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20-30.

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

Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2000). Dropping Out of High School: The role of school
organization and structure. University of Michigan.

141

Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2003). Moving beyond
dropout prevention to school completion: An integrative review of data-based
interventions. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 342-364.

Lehr, C., Sinclair, M., & Christenson, S. (2004). Addressing student engagement and
truancy prevention during the elementary school years: A replicaton study of the
check and connect model. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(3),
279-301.

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.

Lewis, A. (2004). Washington Commentary: Schools that engage children. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(6), 483-484.

Lewis, A. (2005) Public education network. No Child Left Behind, Hearing Report.

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

Locke, L.F. Spirduso, W.W., & Silverman, S.J. (1987). Proposals that work. Beverly
Hills, CA; Sage.

Lomotey, K. (1989) Cultural Diversity in the School: Implications for Principals.
NASSP Bulletin, 739(521), 81-88.

Maehr, M., & Parker, S. (1993). A tale of two schools-and the primary task of leadership,
Phi Delta Kappan, 233-239.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

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

Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCarthy, M. (2003). High school survey of student engagement. Bloomington,
IA. (Power point Notes)

142

McCarthy, M. (2005). High school survey of student engagement. University of
Indiana.

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

McPartland M.J., (1994) Dropout prevention in theory and practice, schools and
students at risk: Context and framework for positive change. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Maehr M., & Parker, S. (1993). A tale of two schools and the primary task of leadership.
Phi Delta Kappan. 233-239.

National Center for Education Statistics (1989) Dropout Rates in the United States.
Washington, DC: Education Department, OERI Information Services

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1993). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative For Educational Reform.

Natriello G., McDill E.L., & Pallas A.M. (1990) Schooling disadvantaged children:
Racing against catastropey. New York: Teachers College Press.

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

Newmann, F. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary
schools. Educational Leadership.

Norris, C., Pignal, J., & Lipps, G. (2003). Measuring school engagement. Education
Quarterly Review, 9(2), 25-34.

Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

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

Peterson, K. (1994). Monograph: Building Collaborative Cultures: Seeking Ways to
Reshape Urban Schools. Retrieved , from
http://www.crel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educators/leadership/leOpet.htm.

Peterson, K.D., & Deal, T.E. (1998). The shaping school culture fieldbook. San
Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass Publishers.

143

Pintrich P. & Schunk D. (1996) Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Ramirez-Smith, (1995). Stopping the cycle of failure: The comer model. Educational
Leadership, 52(5), 14-19.

Renninger K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). Individual interest and development:
Implications for theory and practice.

Reville, S.P. (2005). Reinventing high school accountability: Authenticity, pressure,
and support. Voices in Urban Education. Annenberg Institute for School
Reform.

Sagor, R. (2002). Lessons from skateboarders: What motivates young people to
master the challenges of sports? How can we inspire the same level of
motivation in our classrooms? Educational Leadership Association for
Supervision and Professional Development.

Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational
Leadership, 41(5), 4-13.

Sergiovani, T.J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston,
MS: Allyn and Bacon.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London:
Falmer Press.

The California Dropout Research Project. (2008). University of California Santa
Barbara.

Voke, H. (2002). Motivating students to learn. InfoBrief, 28, .

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

Wheatley, M. (2000). Good-buy, command and control. In The Jossey-Bass Reader
on Educational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

West Ed. (2004). California’s graduation rate: The hidden crisis. Retrieved ,
from http://www.wested.org

144

Wright, J., & Mischel, W. (1992). Influence of affect on cognitive social learning person
variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 901-914.

Young, L.F., & Melnick, S. L. (1988). Forsaken lives, abandoned dreams: What
will compel us to act. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 380-394.

145

Appendix A: Document Review Instrument
DOCUMENT REVIEW
API & State Test Data Student achievement data – subgroup data
School SARC Test scores, demographic information
Attendance & SARB
(Student Attendance
Review Board reports)
Attendance information, truancy follow-up
a-g completion rates College preparation courses offered, access to rigorous
curriculum
Master schedule Course offerings and enrollment by class.
CDE website, and other
website information
Demographic information, test scores, teacher
information
CBEDS Reports Student enrollment, ethnicity, teacher and staff
information, students on inter-district permits,
demographic data
School publications –
newsletters, reports,
school/district website,
mission statement,
correspondence with
public
Validation of school values and priorities, areas of
concern for staff and community.
Graduation rates with
California High School
Exit Examination data
Student achievement – subgroup information

WASC Self-study Site report of areas of strength and weaknesses, visiting
committee report of areas for future growth.
District publications Programs and features of the school highlighted by the
district office.
Internal memorandums Important areas of work in progress, areas of concern by
the school staff.

146

Appendix B: Teacher Survey Instrument
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Please indicate the content area/s you teach:
 Career/Technical  English  History  Math  PE  Science Visual/Performing Arts

NCLB Compliant (please check one):  Yes  No

Please check the box to the right, that best answers
the question for you:
All or
Almost all
of my
students.
Most of my
students.
Some of
my
students.
None or
a few of
my
students.
My students attend class with readings and/or
assignments completed.

My students take pride in their schoolwork.
My students have the skills and abilities to
complete their assignments.

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

My students think it is important to make good
grades.

My students care about their school.
My students place a high value on learning.
My students have a voice in classroom decisions.
My students put forth a great deal of effort when
doing their schoolwork.

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

I am able to help students care about their
schoolwork.

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

If a students stops trying in my class I have the
capacity to motivate them to start trying again.

If a student in my class is struggling, I have the
necessary skills to increase their achievement.

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

147

Appendix C: Interview Instrument
Case Study
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

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

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

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

a. Follow-up: are there specific programs that this school has in place that
contribute to higher student engagement?

b. Follow-up: are there specific teacher practices that contribute to higher
student engagement?

c. Follow-up: are there any aspects to the school culture or school
atmosphere that contribute to higher student engagement?

d. Follow-up: who are the formal and informal leaders at your school?

e. Follow-up: what do both the formal and informal leaders at the school do
to contribute to high student engagement?

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

Again, Thank you for participating in this study.

148

Appendix D: Observation Instrument

OBSERVATION TEMPLATE
ORGANIZED BY FOUR FRAMES
(Bolman & Deal, Reframing Organizations, 1997)

(The actual Template is one sheet per frame.)

Structure
(Consider: Interaction between staff and administration,
familiarity with school vision, recognition programs for staff
and students, leadership style, selection of substitutes, visible
standards, visible agenda and objectives, student work
displayed in classrooms, instructional practices, levels of
questioning, types of assessments utilized to evaluate student
work.)
Human Resources
(Consider: Level of teachers engaged in school activities,
interaction of administration with students and staff,
environment in staff meetings, how or if organization is
tailored to people, use of conflict management,
empowerment of employees.)

Political
(Consider: Cleanliness of campus, display of student work
and important events, sense of safety and security, students
on task with or without visitors.)

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

149

Appendix E: Staff Interviews

Department Chair Biology/Life Science
The main focus is high performance. There is teacher buy-in to try new things
even if it means more work, there are no contract issues at this school, teachers do
what they need to do to make it difficult for students not to succeed. The common
assessments make it so teachers and students know what they need to work on.
Students feel connected to teachers, even those who don’t like school. The school
keeps close track of attendance, there are automatic calls home and Saturday
School.
There are many informal leaders for example, Course Leaders (each course has
one teacher), Link, etc.
Students have lots of opportunities to get involved including several clubs. They
also have assignments to do community service; these get them involved outside
USAA, especially during their Senior Project, they give many hours.
The district office is supportive and always willing to let us try different strategies.
We are able to go to Chicago three times for ideas on “Whatever It Takes.”

Activities Director
The leadership at the school is very stable (only 2 principals in 42 years). He is
open to innovations and he sets the tone of an academic culture. The staff is very
cohesive which benefits the students and all of us. The Superintendent and
principal are the formal leaders but there are other leaders such as Department
Chairs, Course Leaders and other “informal” leaders by “personality”. This year
we had a large Frosh. Class that we tried to engage early through “Link” and
assigning upper classmen to small groups of Frosh to “teach them the culture”.
The school is a comprehensive high school, it’s not all academics; students are
involved in clubs, ASB, other spirit activities. There are school-wide expectations
that are well articulated. We have a program for new teacher awareness of culture
and expectations. It’s intangible, developed over years. It’s positive, makes
people fell welcome and perpetuates but must be consciously maintained. The
district is about communication; many newsletters in our mailboxes. The Friends
of USAA raises thousand of dollars, as does the PTSA, for activities (football
luncheon, for example).

We have community partners like Whittier Presbyterian that does our blood drive.
Additional Comments: The superintendent’s daughter attends USAA

150

Appendix E, Continued

Attendance Coordinator
There is a real team approach on the part of adult and kids. Teachers work
together to resolve problems and give each other ideas. Kids help each other with
work, outside on the benches. Everybody coordinates to make sure they do
everything the can to get kids to school and to keep them in school. If students are
absent from class, parents get a call at home. One concern is that the parents of
the bilingual kids don’t come to the school much for meetings. Teachers and staff
do what they can to get them more involved, they make contact by letter, phone
calls-educating parents slowly to get involved.

College Adviser Senior Project Coordinator
The driving force is academic excellence. The district’s attitude filters down. The
principal’s motto is “Be your best”. There is great collegiality among faculty,
wonderful network that is supported by the administration. The faculty foster a
culture of mutual respect across the board. The guidance and counseling
department carries a large load but they do so much more than just scheduling.
Parents and the community are very involved here. Even the actual location of the
school helps it be the center of community attention. One hundred eighteen (118)
community people came in on Saturdays to listen to the presentation of senior
projects. There are lots of A.P. classes available and many opportunities for kids
to get involved in the school, like drama, athletics, clubs (example the Atheist
Club meets today at lunch),

English Teacher A.P. 11
th
Grade Literature, Philosophy
We are more suburban at this school, compared to others in the district. We are
high-performing, among the top 5% in the nation, a high percentage of kids attend
college, there is a low drop out rate. The socio-economic status of the community
has a lot to do with the success of the kids. Not all families but many are wealthy
(there are some mansions in the area). Mostly, parents value education, good
work ethics, and push students to succeed. If the staff was transplanted to another
area things could be different. The strongest feature is the hiring of good teachers
who enjoy what they teach, enjoy the kids, have confidence and are very
professional. The teachers can focus and inspire the kids. There is an atmosphere
of high expectations, test scores improve yearly. If students need extra help, it’s
available through a number of ways like tutorials, small groups, study halls. There
is a lot of recognition of students and community partners, like Borders, give gift
certificates as rewards, kids can even get IPODS.

151

Appendix E, Continued

Co-Chair/Teacher

Mathematics
The staff is cohesive, collaborates across subject areas. There is a lot of
innovation, it’s about all of us. This builds culture of support. Professionals feel
valued, included in the decision-making and recognized, our input is sought (those
of us in the trenches) and implemented. For example, the Math Dept. wanted a
curriculum that was written by non-professional company from up north and the
administration accepted it. The district notices teachers with leadership qualities.
There are Course Leads that monitor common assessments and lesson plans.
There are no Title I funds but the booster club raised $35,000 and bought some of
the extras that we needed.
There are many intervention programs for students to achieve. The also have
access to clubs and sports

Assistant Principal Guidance
This is a very collaborative faculty. The principal and assistant principals don’t
drive one decision; they look to get buy-in. Decision are made looking at student
needs first. We are realistic about students but believe all students can learn. The
principal’s motto is “Do you best”, never give up, look for alternate methods of
success –many time it’s through nurturing. Teacher always stretch themselves to
find new and more interesting strategies. They work cooperatively. They treat
students with great respect. Students feel valued, they know their teachers care.
It’s important for kids to know what’s expected. Sometimes they need a variety of
opportunities to reach success. They know that it’s a “work in progress”, they
need to stay with it but it’s the learning that counts. The teachers, custodians,
clerks, and administration are all one family, and like a family sometimes
disagree. It is a culture of collaboration, caring and fun. The district office has
high expectation. They are proactive regarding student needs, they support many
interventions. The school has a strong P.T.A. and Booster Club.

Teacher Social Science/ELL Program
USAA has a unique program for the English Language Learners. Many of our
E.L. population are early arrivals, some are more at the intermediate level. One of
our other schools has those that are intermediate and advanced, some of those are
even “home-grown” but still have some language challenges. We begin
identifying them and working with the feeder schools. There are different
programs for the different groups, content areas are more per language level and
not grade level. We have a great deal of support from the school administration
and the district. All teachers are well trained for the needs of E.L. population.
There are college students that come to campus to tutor them, computer labs,
counselors who work with the parents and there are late buses to enable students
to participate in the sports program and tutorials. There are many safety nets for
our subgroups.

152

Appendix E, Continued

Counselor
The faculty and staff here is great. Everyone is competent, caring and
collaborative. They are flexible and not afraid to try new things, especially
because the administration is so supportive. The administration hires good people.
There are very high standards here and everyone knows this. USAA is always on
the cutting edge. It’s not only academically advancing but student-centered, very
personalized learning goes one here. From a counselor’s perspective, kids are
prepared well for college (about 85% of our students attend college) and for life-
long learning. The morale of staff and students is always positive. The district
and superintendent communicates and supports rigor, relevance, and relationships.

Custodian
Kids attitudes are good, the staff is real nice, like a big family. Graffiti and trash
are not big problems. Subbed at other schools and it’s not the same.

Librarian
The staff is very cohesive. They work together to plan for their students’ success.
The use every method and resource (especially those in our library), to advance
student knowledge and learning. It’s always about the students and best practices
for high achievement and personal student success. Our teachers and
administrators really care about kids!

Secretary Main Office/Principal
We have a very united staff, this makes it always about the students and the work
they, as a staff do, to make great things happen for their education. It’s also about
longevity, stability and consistency of staff. The school opened in 1961, the first
principal was here for 22 years, the second principal was here for another 22
years, our current principal is only the third principal in the history of the school.
I am only the second Principal’s secretary. The school offers a well-rounded
education experience for all students. Students are well prepared for college
through the offering of a variety of courses, including .A.P., and Honors classes.
They are also offered a lot of cocurricular and extracurricular activities. The
teachers are very caring and they try to make connections with their students in
many ways. One of the greatest things is that everybody here goes out of their
way to treat students, and each other, with respect. Students are listened to, they
feel valued. This does not mean they always get their way, of course. Another
thing is that there is no division between classified and certificated staff, this is not
always true of other campuses-I know, since I have worked at other schools. I
also worked at the district office and can tell you that they are not only supportive
of the schools but are always looking for ways to increase the efficiency at the
sites, through workshops, conferences and consultants. It used to be that each
school did their own thing, now there is more of a uniform approach, this helps
teachers and students make greater advances. Also, in the 41 years I have worked
for this district and school, there have been very few teachers that “don’t fit in”,
this is a credit to the hiring process, they know who to select that will work well
with the staff and programs. On this campus we are all family. We respect and
value our working relationships.
By the way, I was also a high school student here!

153

Appendix E, Continued

Principal
This is a high-performing school because of its high-performing staff! We all
share the vision of high expectations, that every student can (and will) learn and
“Be Their Best”, through our many approaches. Failure is not an option, we do
“Whatever It Takes” to help students succeed. There is wonderful collaboration
that takes place, everyone her has a tremendous work ethic and they truly care
about each and every one of their students and colleagues. We also receive
phenomenal support from the superintendent and district office personnel. We
concentrate on nurturing relationships while building academic backgrounds in all
subject areas. We are constantly striving for more and better. Our teachers have
many opportunities to attend conferences and receive training in all areas of their
work. We study our data from test, both standardized and our common
assessments, to match the best practices with the standards and curriculum that
will yield the best teaching and learning possible for our students. I can’t say
enough about the support we receive from parents and community members and
partners. We are a real team here at USAA and a family, too.

Comp. Ed. Coordinator District Office
All of our high schools have some ELL students but most of the students are
USAA are more recent arrivals. However, there are not sufficient numbers at these
levels to have a full program at each school in the district. There is another school
that focuses on the intermediate and advanced Els. There about almost 300
students that score up to the Intermediate level on the CELDT. We concentrate on
helping them become able and proficient in English while making sure they have
access to graduation requirements. Although they are encouraged to get involved
in sports and activities, and they have representatives on ASB cabinet and play on
the soccer team (which is a very good team, by the way), it’s not easy when they
don’t live in the area and have to take the bus home. After a while, they don’t fell
more attached to this school and even though they get a choice to return to their
home schools, after reaching a certain language level, several of them stay.
USAA does not have Title I, only about 500 students out of 2500+ are eligible for
free or reduced lunch. However, the school does get Economic Impact Aid and
Title III funds. These are used for professional development, personnel, and other
resources. The school reaches out to the parents and they have representatives on
the site and district councils but I can’t say there is a great deal of involvement, it
is also about being at a physical distance from the school.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate evidence of a link between high academic achievement and high engagement in high-performing urban schools and, if found, to determine what factors were significant in producing these outcomes. Among the factors examined in the study are culture, instructional programs and practices, and leadership.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

PDF

A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Outperforming nontraditional urban school: a high school case study

PDF

Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school

PDF

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

PDF

Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study

PDF

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

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Lopez-Reid, Norma (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/01/2009

Defense Date 08/24/2009

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

Tag Academic Achievement,high performing,OAI-PMH Harvest,student engagement,urban high school

Place Name Los Angeles (counties)

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 mscarlt@hotmail.com,norma4mtb@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2628

Unique identifier UC1497568

Identifier etd-LopezReid-3279 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-252721 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2628 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LopezReid-3279.pdf

Dmrecord 252721

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lopez-Reid, Norma

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