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

Jane Yuguchi Gates

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 Jane Yuguchi Gates

ii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my daughters, Katherine and Kelsey Gates, to my
brother David Yuguchi, and to my parents, Irene and Cy Yuguchi.
I am very blessed to have two wonderful daughters who are the joy of my life.
They were a great support to me throughout the many years of classes and writing.
They have the world ahead of them with much yet to explore and discover.
I am very grateful to my parents who provided a rich and supportive childhood
that was filled with every opportunity possible, personally and academically. They
always emphasized education while providing us with lessons in music and sports
while also making sure we were exposed to travel and entertainment too. My father is
still with me every day though he passed in 1992. He always believed in me and I
know he would have been proud to have seen me complete this doctoral program.
I also want to thank my brother and his wife Linda Wu, for their constant
support and care throughout my life’s events.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe more than a simple “thank you” to the many people who provided
support and encouragement throughout the years spent completing this doctoral
program.
Dr. Stuart Gothold, my dissertation chair, has always held my highest respect
over the last twenty-five years, but now even more so. His patience and steady
support were at the core of this work. I can’t say enough to express my appreciation
of his guidance and feedback every step of the way.
I want to thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Kathy Stowe who were also on my
dissertation committee. Their guidance, understanding, and insight into this work
helped our entire team’s process, as a group and with each of us individually.
I also want to thank the members of our thematic dissertation team. We truly
had the team spirit of extending support to each other all along the way. I’m
appreciative of Amy who would check-in on me long after she had finished her own
dissertation and I owe a special “thank you” to Norma who was an especially strong
partner as we extended support to each other through the last days of the writing
process.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER I 1
Purpose of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Background of the Problem 2
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 6
Methodology 7
Assumptions 8
Definition of Terms 9
Organization of the Study 10

CHAPTER II 12
Review of Related Literature 12
High Schools in the United States 15
Student Achievement 15
Assessment & Accountability 20
Student Engagement 25
Organization & Leadership 30
Cultural Engagement 32
Conclusion 33

CHAPTER III 35
Introduction 35
Conceptual Base 36
Conceptual Model 37
Figure 1, Conceptual Model 37
Research Questions 38
Methodology 38
Population and Sample 40
Instrumentation 42
Data Collection 45
Validity and Reliability 46
Data Analysis 47

v

CHAPTER IV 48
Findings, Analysis, and Discussion 48
Background of City High School 49
City High School 50
Summary of Strategies 54
Findings by Research Question 65
Data for Research Question One 65
Discussion of the First Research Question 79
Data for Research Question Two 80
Discussion of the Second Research Question 87
Data for Research Question Three 88
Discussion of the Third Research Question 90
Themes 91

CHAPTER V 95
Introduction 95
Purpose of the Study 96
Summary of Findings 97
Implications for Practice 98
Recommendations for Future Research 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY 102

APPENDICES: 108
Appendix A. Interview Instrument 108
Appendix B. Observation Instrument 109
Appendix C. Document Review Instrument 110
Appendix D. Teacher Survey Instrument 111

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Free/Reduced Meals Program 41

Table 2. Class Schedule 52

Table 3. Student Survey Response Rate 65

Table 4. Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement by Grade Level 67

Table 5. Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement Responses 69

Table 6. Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement by Grade Level 72

Table 7. Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement Responses 73

Table 8. Emotional Engagement by Grade Level 74

Table 9. Emotional Engagement Responses 75

Table 10. Teacher Perceptions of Student Engagement 79

Table 11. Teacher Perceptions of Their Ability to Impact Student Engagement 85

vii
ABSTRACT

This study was conducted at a high performing urban high school to determine
whether it had higher levels of student engagement and if so, what school factors
contributed toward that engagement. Leadership, instructional practice, and school
culture were examined in this study.
The high performing urban high school in this study was located in the eastern
portion of Los Angeles County, California. It had been considered a high performing
school district by the California Department of Education because of its rise in
Academic Performance Index (API) scores and demonstrated success with subgroup
populations.
The study was conducted using a mixed-method qualitative research design,
collecting data through surveys, interviews, observations, and analysis of documents.
The study incorporated the findings of a concurrent research project of Indiana
University, High School Survey of Student Engagement/HSSSE, which was used as a
secondary data source. Triangulation of data was possible using multiple methods of
data collection.
The study found that strong leadership of the administrative team and content
area teacher crews developed effective instructional practices that had an impact on
student achievement and engagement, especially in establishing an emotional tie to the
school. The High School Survey of Student Engagement found moderate levels of
student engagement at the site.

1
Chapter One

The public has become more demanding of an effective educational system
and placed more attention on the state of our schools. As we work to examine what
makes a school truly effective in reaching out to students, it is instructive to determine
the factors and attributes evident in high performing institutions. An introduction of
this dissertation outlines the purpose of this study, background of the problem,
significance of the study, research questions and the methods used to conduct the
study. The assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of the study are listed.

Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to determine the relationship of high student
engagement in high performing high schools. If high student engagement is present in
high performing high schools then is it one of the factors perceived to contribute to
high student performance?

Statement of the Problem
School reform and restructuring to close the achievement gap for low income
and minority students has been difficult to achieve, especially in urban high schools
though significant gains have been demonstrated in many elementary and middle
schools across the country. Some urban high schools however, have been able to
narrow this gap and have successfully increased the academic achievement of their
most challenging students. We do not know if the attributes of a high school such as
2
scheduling, supervision, school structure, counseling, advisement, instructional
strategy, content focus, thematic instruction, and extracurricular activities, impact a
positive increase in student engagement and thereby lead to high scholastic
achievement among these students.

Background of the Problem
In every area of the country, schools are feeling intense pressure to increase
the academic achievement of their students and to examine how student engagement
impacts the achievement of students in high performance settings. Many reform
efforts have been instituted focused on increasing the scores of a school’s high stakes
tests and to avoid the possible consequences of being identified as an under
performing school under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2008), which
mandates a level of academic growth each year. Schools which fail to meet this level
of “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) face consequences of increasing sanctions that
can culminate in a takeover by the state. Each state has developed their own system of
accountability, requiring schools to show increased growth in student achievement
each year, on their statewide tests.
The focus on raising student achievement has brought standards based
instruction to schools throughout the country. Grade level content standards have
been developed by states to outline what is taught in each academic area by grade
level, in order to keep student achievement on track. The intention was to clarify the
learning that is expected in order for students to accomplish the gains needed to stay at
grade level each year.
3
Some contend however, that a standards based curriculum has stilted and
limited the focus of instruction: limiting electives, focusing all instruction on test
preparation, causing a loss of inspiring instruction, and pushing out underachieving
students (Lewis, 2004). However, without the focus and consistency brought to
classrooms through a standards based approach schools cannot ensure that their
students have had exposure to the curriculum needed for them to stay on track, at
grade level, and learning the essential elements of every given content area.
In the effort to raise achievement for all low performing students, change has
been more successful in elementary and middle schools than in high schools
throughout the country (Bainbridge, Lasley & Sundre, 2003). High schools have not
kept pace with the reform that has occurred in the lower grades, and the achievement
gap has persisted most noticeably between lower income students and those from
upper and middle class families. In California, the lower achieving, lower income
students are also more likely to be children of minority ethnic heritage. Nationally,
the graduation rates for Whites and Asians were reported at 75 and 77 percent with
those from historically disadvantaged minority groups (American Indian, Latino and
African-American) at 50 percent (Swanson, 2001). Why this achievement gap persists
and is so difficult to overcome has brought many issues into the discussion: economic
issues of equity and access to resources, environmental issues of crime and poverty,
and issues within a school setting relative to quality of instruction, rigor, and teacher
expectations of students (Bainbridge, Lasley, & Sundre, 2003). Yet a child’s
education is ever more important as the world becomes more competitive and the
4
traditional forms of teaching are found to be inadequate in meeting our current
national education goals, goals that call for students to …”master rigorous content,
learn how to learn, pursue productive employment, and compete in a global
economy.” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 23).
As schools strive to raise the achievement of all students, they quickly
acknowledge the difficulties they encounter each day as they strive to keep students
engaged in the academic process at the secondary level. Marks (2000) found students
in a high school setting to be the least engaged in the educational process when
measured by their feelings of alienation and their academic success. Though students
in their younger years had a natural curiosity to learn and make sense of the world
around them, as they grew older this joy of learning often becomes a boring ritual
(Lumsden, 1994). Students are shaped by their success or failure in school, thereby
shaping their attitude and their approach to school work. Lumsden reports that
students may avoid working in school to protect their self-esteem, choosing to do
nothing or to be disruptive rather than to risk failing in a public setting.
Students who are truly engaged make an investment in their own learning,
working hard to learn what school offers. They strive to truly understand the material
being studied, not just working to earn the grades but to grasp the material and
incorporate the knowledge into their lives (Voke, 2002). Engaged students are
persistent in accomplishing goals and in pursuing their learning, even when presented
with hurdles or difficult situations (Schlecty, 2001), they are able to work with others
in cooperative settings and have internalized their knowledge to then apply it to solve

5
problems effectively (Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, & Rasmussen, 1994).
Both engaged students and those who are at risk of failing may not be engaged
when the activity level of the work presented to them is not challenging or they’re
bored (Day, 2002: Means, 1997). When students are bored, they avoid the work,
copy the work of others, or do it in a sloppy manner which results in a limited
engagement in the learning (Dowsen & McInerney).
Schlechty (2002) has identified design qualities which enhance engagement:
content and substance (connected to standards), organization of knowledge
(challenging work using a variety of resources), product focus (work with an end
result that has a meaning to the student), clear and compelling product standards
(standards by which the product will be judged are clear and compelling), a safe
environment (one in which students feel free to take risks in their learning),
affirmation of performance (acknowledgement of the importance of the student’s
work), novelty and variety (a way to engage students in the activities), and authenticity
(work that is genuine to the learner).
Engaging students in their learning clearly has an effect on their achievement.
What is not clear is if student engagement is a factor contributing to student
achievement in high performing urban high schools. The impact of instructional
practices, leadership, and school culture are also not clearly understood in these high
performing urban high schools.

6
Research Questions
This study focused on the following questions:
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? How
does it compare to the national average?
2. What school factors are perceived to contribute to student engagement in high
performing urban high schools?
3. What school factors are perceived to contribute to high performance?

Significance of the Study
This study examines the relationship between student engagement and high
performing high schools. It looks at the school factors that build student engagement
and student achievement, especially with students from minority ethnic backgrounds
and those who are economically disadvantaged. The successful practices of these high
performing high schools adds to the ongoing research and discussion of successful
strategies that support continuous improvement in an urban setting.
Despite the limitations of a study of a single high school, the study was one of
a thematic dissertation team and contributed to a series of studies from a successful
urban high school district. As a case study, the findings are limited to this one school.
However, the examination of the school’s daily practices may provide others with
strategies and insights, and add to the body of promising practices in the field of
education. The series of school studies may reveal common elements that appear

7
often in high-performing urban schools, and may warrant further study.
An increased knowledge of successful practices that engage students in school
may assist the field in addressing the issues of disengagement and in the
implementation of interventions to assist in drop out prevention.
In addition, this study identifies the success of the leadership and staff at the
school selected for this case study, describing the attributes of the students and
celebrating the school’s successful practices.

Methodology
This study utilized a multi-method qualitative research design to understand
the relationship between student engagement, other factors, and high performing high
schools in an urban setting. The school factors that contribute toward student
engagement and achievement provided a reflection of the behaviors, and practices of
the staff at the school site. A variety of data collection measures were utilized to gain
insight into the different perspectives of those on site and assisted in the triangulation
of the data (Creswell, 1997). Observations, surveys, interviews, and document
analysis contributed to the collection of data. The observation instrument was
developed using Bolman and Deal’s (1997) Four Frames categories (political,
structural, symbolic, and human resource) into which observed behavior and
interaction can be identified and sorted.
In addition, a second set of data on this case study school was collected
from an outside source, the University of Indiana, during the same time frame. Their

8
national study entitled “The High School Survey of Student Engagement”
administered a student survey that contributed statistical results of student responses
and information from the national profile that was used in comparing data gathered at
the school site.
The analysis of the data took the six steps and interpretation as outlined by
Creswell (1997).
This study was one of five case studies of schools in a single urban high school
district that were conducted within a year’s timeframe by a thematic dissertation team.
The team collectively designed the research approach, research questions, and
research instruments as they worked collaboratively to review and reflect on the entire
process.

Assumptions
In conducting this study, the researcher assumed the following:
The school selected for the study was accurately identified as a high
achieving urban high school.
The findings would be limited to the single school site selected for the case
study and represents a snapshot in time.
The respondents would have sufficient knowledge about the activities and
students at the school site to provide knowledgeable answers.
There is a relationship between student achievement and student
engagement.
9
There were factors at the school site impacting student achievement and/or
student engagement. The factors included, but were not limited to, school
culture, leadership, and instructional practices.

Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): California’s standardized measurement
tool used to determine whether schools are making adequate yearly progress according
to the achievement of their students on standardized tests. The comparative scores are
scaled from 200 to 1000 points, with 800 being the target performance score for all
schools.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The national measurement tool used to
determine annual minimum proficiency levels regarding whether a school is making
adequate progress in meeting the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Achievement Gap: The differential performance between subgroups of
students on standardized tests.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): The state’s exam that assesses
each student in English/Language Arts and in Mathematics. Students must pass both
portions with a minimum score of 350 each, to receive a high school diploma.
California Standardized Test (CST): The state’s exam which measures a
student’s performance on the 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.
10
Engagement: The High School Survey of Student Engagement conceives of
student engagement as a multi-dimensional research-based concept that has three
major components of cognitive/intellectual/academic engagement (the work students
do and the ways students go about doing their work; social/behavioral/participatory
engagement (the ways students interact within the school community); and emotional
engagement (how students feel about their place within the school).
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The federal law enacted in 2001 that
governs how federal funds may be spent by states. NCLB was the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by the U. S. Department of
Education. It requires states that receive federal funding to follow the provisions of
the law regarding teacher qualifications, student achievement, parental choice,
tutoring, and supplemental services.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): a format for schools in California
to report on school site data relating to performance, environment, resources, and
demographics.

Organization of the Study
Chapter One presents the purpose of the study, the statement of the problem,
the background of the problem, the research questions, the significance of the study,
the methodology, the assumptions, the limitations and delimitations of the study and
the definition of key terms.
Chapter Two offers a review of relevant literature to address the history of high
11
school education, the accountability movement, school reform, the achievement gap,
student engagement, self-efficacy, instructional practices, extra-curricular activities,
organizational structures, leadership practices, and school culture.
Chapter Three outlines the methodology used in this study with an
introduction, a conceptual base, a conceptual model, the research questions, the
research design, the population and sample, the instrumentation, the data collection
methods, the validity and reliability of the study, and the strategies used for data
analysis and interpretation.
Chapter Four presents the findings of the study.
Chapter Five presents a discussion of the study findings, implications for
practice, conclusions, and recommendations.

12
Chapter Two

Review of Related Literature
This review of the relevant research presents the factors contributing to student
achievement in high performing urban high schools and the theories and research
regarding student engagement. In addition, it describes the historical role schools
have played in the lives of students and specifically, support and activities that have
contributed to keeping students involved and active participants in their own education
throughout the high school years.

High Schools In The United States
Historically, the nations high schools have met the instructional needs of a
limited segment of students while failing to meet the instructional needs of an ever
increasing diverse learner population representing a range of social, economic, and
ethnic backgrounds.
High schools were originally designed in the latter part of the 19
th
century to
instruct the upper stratum of the community. They were not intended to address the
issues of, nor to educate, the entire population of students in society. It was an
accepted practice that the majority of students would be moved toward employment in
their late teens where they only needed to have the knowledge required for their
vocation. The intention was to maintain high standards of education that only a small
percentage of students could achieve, requiring students to test into high school and
13
creating high failure rates. Those who failed thereby became the workforce to be
employed in factories, building a large industrial complex (Deschenes, Cuban, &
Tyack, 2001) in the early years of the 20
th
century. Working in factories as early as
thirteen to sixteen years old, students from lower income backgrounds also found
more dignity and autonomy in the workforce when they compared it to the treatment
they received as struggling students on a school campus.
Momentum grew throughout the 1900’s towards enriching the educational
experience of all students through the acknowledgement of the unique gifts every
child holds. Educational interventions were introduced to meet the instructional needs
of disadvantaged students and those with special needs. The definitions and services
to be provided for students with special needs were identified in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). In 1983 the publication of A Nation at Risk
by the National Commission on Excellence in Education expanded this focus of
meeting the learning needs of all children when it became apparent that the nation was
falling behind the performance of students in other industrialized countries and a
concern for the national security of the nation became an issue during the Cold War of
the 1950’s with the race against the Soviet Union to reach out into space (Bybee,
1997). The nation has now moved to a climate of reform and educational
improvement as a result of the national panel on standards and assessment appointed
by Congress, Raising Standards for American Schools, and a variety of other national
council and panel reports produced in the 1990’s (Baker, 2004). Adopting the beliefs,
norms and values necessary for sustained improvement into a school culture for one

14
reason, reform measures have struggled to take hold and be sustained. Change that
isn’t absorbed into the culture of an organization, will eventually be overtaken (Cosner
& Peterson).
With the current version of the ESEA, No Child Left Behind Act of
2001(NCLB), the importance of student achievement is monitored through test score
results; a format considered to be impartial, measurable, and a means of gauging
progress across all states (though underlying issues are inherent within this
comparison). As a result, NCLB is now mostly known for this focus on testing with
related accountability, while it does also provide an emphasis on other forms of
performance among subgroups of students within schools. In response, leaders often
express a feeling of powerlessness in response and a shift is needed to focus on
accountability for performance improvement instead of the traditional, assessment for
surveillance (Earl and Fullan, 2003).
A noteworthy report on school performance that has drawn much attention to
the instruction that occurs within the four walls of a classroom is the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) which again demonstrates that
students in American schools are lagging far behind students in other countries, in this
case, in the content areas of math and science. The report found that students in the U.
S. were exposed to more (in some cases six times as many) content concepts each year
at a shallower depth (one to three days) and are revisited multiple times across several
academic years. In other countries, fewer concepts are introduced each year but are
taught more thoroughly (up to six weeks per concept) so that each is not re-introduced,

15
or reviewed in subsequent years of instruction. Another difference is that small,
paperback textbooks are given to students instead of traditional textbooks. This allows
students to take notes in the books, and to keep their notes after the class has been
completed. The gap in achievement between the U. S. and other countries in the study
continues to widen throughout the school-age years to a point at which America’s
highest performing students fall below the threshold of the lowest achieving students
in other countries in their high school years (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
As we push for standardized curriculum, assessment, and performance, it is
important not to lose sight of the whole child while continuing to strive for
collaboration rather than competition and to deepen instruction (Lewis, 2004).
Theodore Sizer pushes us to consider the worth of a school …
by the character of its students. Students who are thoughtful and decent young
adults who have an informed imagination and the restraint to use it wisely. I want
them to be respectful skeptics, accustomed to asking ‘Why?’ and being satisfied
only with an answer that has as solid a base of evidence as possible. I care about
how they use their minds and all that they have learned, when no one is looking –
that is, beyond any formal testing situation, in which they know that they are on
the line. “I care about their habits of mind” (p. 76-77).

Student Achievement
Teachers with strong content knowledge are able to adapt their instruction to
meet the needs of students from wide racial and socio-economic backgrounds, build
supportive teacher-student relationships, and offer strong support to students who
require assistance in overcoming gaps in background knowledge, skill development,
and family support. State issued content standards, statewide grade level and content
16
area assessments, high school exit exams, and the NCLB legislation were all put in
place to ensure high levels of accountability for schools and high performance at the
student level. This is an example of the shift in focus from school wide performance
standards of the past, to an evaluation of individual student results as an indication of
success, with high-level demands for evidence of instruction firmly rooted in school
site practices (Earl & Fullan, 2003).
At the secondary level, high school graduation rates became a performance
requirement under NCLB, and states began instituting high school exit exams as a
graduation requirement nationwide. Passage of California’s high stakes test, the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) became a graduation requirement in
June 2006. Currently, every state has at least one accountability report that is aligned
to a high stakes tests.
The Public School Accountability Act of 1999 was adopted in California by
the state legislature to install an accountability process that incorporates the state’s
grade level and subject matter content standards with associated rewards and sanctions
based on school site testing results. Each school has an academic performance index
(API) score that is one representation of their level of success in instruction of students
and also provides a ranking in relation to comparable schools. The API score
incorporates school site data from the Standardized Testing Reporting System
(STAR), the California Standards Test in English-language arts, math, history-social
science and science (CST), the California Achievement Test in Reading/language arts,
math and spelling (CAT6), the California Alternate Performance Assessment in
17
English-language arts and math, and the CAHSEE in English-language arts and math
(California Department of Education). LEA’s and those schools choosing the
alternative schools accountability model (ASAM) reporting model do not receive API
ranks. Schools are given a growth target each year. Those that meet their growth
target are eligible to become a California Distinguished or National Blue Ribbon
School.
As a result, the reporting of student test scores as evidence of instructional
success is a clear focus of schools as they demonstrate progress in their work to reform
instructional practice. The NCLB requires that all schools, local educational agencies,
and state departments of education demonstrate growth in student achievement (at
grade levels and in categorized subgroups of: free and reduced lunch,
ethnically/racially diverse, English language learners, and those with disabilities)
through their adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals, as part of the federal
accountability requirement that all students demonstrate grade level proficiency by
2014.
Today, however, a higher percentage of students fail to graduate from high
school than is readily apparent to the general public. Though the National Center for
Education Statistics reports an overall graduation rate of 87% for California, the more
accurate Cumulative Promotion Index found a California graduation rate of 71% for
2002 when tracking back to entering ninth graders in its calculations (Swanson, 2005).
States have been found to consistently under-report the numbers of students
known to have dropped-out of high school in their statistics sent to the U.S.
18
Department of Education under the requirements of No Child Left Behind and as
estimated by the National Center of Education Statistics in their reports of a high
school completion rate close to 90%. Various researchers (Barton, 2006; Haney,
Madaus, Abrams, Wheelock, Miao, & Gruia, 2004 ; Barton, 2005a) have been within
a range in their more accurate accounting for graduates by reporting high school
completion rates ranging from 66% to 74.4% in the years of 1998 to 2001 (Barton,
2006).
Graduation rates in high minority groups reflect higher proportions of drop-
outs with 64% receiving regular diplomas. Just 58% of students graduate in socio-
economically segregated urban districts. Research has found that African American
and Latino students attend high schools in which less than 60% of entering students
earn a high school diploma four years later. In one local educational agency, Los
Angeles Unified School District, only 48% of entering African-American and Latino
ninth grade students are awarded a diploma at the end of their senior year (Balfanz &
Legters, 2004; Mendoza, 2005). A study by Elaine Allensworth (2005) found that in
Chicago public schools only 39% of male African-American students graduated by the
age of 19, 51% of male Latino students, and 58% of male white students. In her study,
girls demonstrated higher graduation rates of 57% for African-American students,
65% for Latino and 71% for white students.
In districts in large urban high poverty environments, high percentages of
students with IEP’s or who are English language learners are more likely to have low
graduation rates. Students with IEP’s alone earn graduation rates of 32% (Orfield,
19
Losen, Wald, Swanson). However, the pattern has improved slightly with gains in the
lowest performing group of students narrowing of the graduation gap from 1998 to
2005 (Swanson, 2005).
A review by Paul E. Barton (2006) of causal factors for the high rate of drop-
outs discussed the low-income background of students, the single-parent families, a
history of lower achievement in school, frequent absences, and changing schools
frequently, as issues impacting student performance. Increasing school retention was
identified through programs (Barton, 2005b) and models which utilize small learning
communities, curricular reform, longer class periods, individual case management,
counseling, mentors, remedial support and tutoring, life skill classes, career guidance,
and after-school programs.
Currently, successful high schools have been designed using student personal
and performance data to support the instructional needs of learners by providing
diverse educational strategies, a nurturing school community, and an environment that
requires active engagement of students in their own learning process. Supporters of
the focus on accountability contend that high stakes testing and concern over
performance data is responsible for increased performance by individual schools.
Successful schools have demonstrated that teachers skilled in teaching to the
state’s content and grade level standards who adhere to the standardized curriculum up
to 95% of class time produce students with the knowledge to test well on standardized
tests, keep up with grade level coursework, and who overall, are successful in their
school progress (Ybarra & Hollingsworth).

20
Assessment & Accountability
Informal and formal assessment plays an important and vital role in daily
instruction when it is used to diagnose learning needs, create strategies for
intervention, determine where bridges are needed to cover gaps in knowledge, boost
instruction for those with command of the subject matter, and design tailored
instruction for individual students. However, assessment has become most commonly
known for its role in high-stakes testing used by states to identify failing schools
(Stiggins, 2004). While identifying schools failing to educate our youth is important,
the central role of assessment is guiding and evaluating effective instruction as an
essential instructional tool.
A focus on testing was brought into schools in the late 1970’s by politicians
who were instigating a reform movement out of their concern that schools in the
United States were falling behind those of other industrialized countries. A concern
arose that the schools were concentrating on minimum competencies for students,
which in effect was “dumbing down” the curricular content delivered in schools. A
Nation at Risk, published in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, brought the focus to high stakes testing in an effort to raise the standards of
achievement for students, again, out of concern for our lowered ranking alongside
other countries.
The accountability movement launched by A Nation at Risk was well intentioned
in its effort to ensure a high quality education for all students. It moved states to adopt
high content standards by grade level and subject matter, to make sure teachers knew
21
what they were responsible to teach, and to adopt rigorous assessments that would
hold schools responsible for meeting those standards. It was thought that if schools
were held responsible, in a tangible way through the data accumulated from student
test scores, they would be forced to teach to that higher instructional level and lead the
country toward a more highly educated and powerful workforce. The report
emphasized the lack of skill cross over to the workplace environment when students
haven’t reached mastery of content material. In many states, rewards were attached to
rises in test scores while low performing schools were penalized (Hentschke, 1997).
A study of eighteen states found high stakes testing has not produced definite
gains in student learning. Test scores remain at the same levels as before testing was
implemented, or in fact, have declined since testing was instituted. It also found that
test scores…
often promoted as diagnostic tools useful for identifying a student’s achievement
deficits and assets, they are rarely used for such purposes when they emanate from
large-scale testing programs. Two major problems are the cause of this. First, test
scores are often reported in the summer after students exit each grade and second,
there are usually too few items on any one topic or area to be used in a diagnostic
way. As a result of these factors, scores on large-scale assessment are most often
used simply to distribute rewards and sanctions. (Amrein & Berliner, 2002)

As the use of content standards and assessment measurements were intended to
improve schools and to increase accountability of schools for the success and
achievement of students a push for sanctions and punitive measures for schools was
put in place when they did not meet the performance levels set for improvement. Data
collection and analysis of test scores became the means of assessing the success of
instruction (Earl and Fullan, 2003). The National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) is an example of a national assessment of students in the core academic
22
subjects of reading, writing, and math, that is conducted every two years across the
country when students are nine, thirteen, and seventeen years old. It is used to
compare performance levels from year to year and by various demographic categories.
At a state level, all students are tested with at least one high stakes test. In
California, the Governor authorized the Standardized Testing and Reporting System
(STAR). This involved the administration of the Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth
Edition/Stanford 9, in 1998 to students in grades two through eleven. The year 1999
brought additional questions which measured student acquisition of the California
content standards in English and in mathematics. The testing of content standards was
broken away in 2003 as a separate test from the Stanford 9 and was named the
California Standards Test (CST). As of 2006, the STAR program now includes five
assessments: 1) the CST which measures what students know related to the state’s
academic content standards in grades two through eleven, 2) the California
Achievement Test (CAT-6) which tests students in grades three and seven on material
that represents the national standards and allows for this national comparison of
achievement, 3) the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) which is
provided for students in grades two through eleven who exhibit cognitive impairment,
and 4) the Aprenda: La prueba de logros en espaÑol/Aprenda 3 for Spanish-speaking
English learners (additional to the CST and the CAT-6, and as of Spring 2006), 5) two
new science tests that were administered to students in grades nine and ten according
to their course schedules (biology, chemistry, earth science, physics and
integrated/coordinated science 1, 2, 3 and 4).
23
In addition to the STAR, California requires that high school students pass the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The graduating class of 2006 was the
first class held to this requirement as the date was re-set after much public outcry and
legal challenges since its original date of June, 2004.
Schools in California find their success measured by the Academic
Performance Index, known as their API. Each school is assigned a growth target of
five percent that must be met as a total school population in addition to a five percent
growth target for each of their numerically significant demographic subgroups of
enrolled students until an API of 800 is attained or surpassed. Funding was originally
rewarded to schools that met their growth target though these funds are no longer
available. The state ranks a school’s scores relative to those of similar schools within
the state, on a scale of one to ten. There are two, statewide and similar schools, API
ranks. The statewide ranking is calculated separately by school type (elementary,
middle, or high school) and compared to all other schools in the state of the same type.
The similar schools ranking calculates schools by type as above, and compared to 100
other school that have similar opportunities and challenges.
As part of California’s Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 state school
improvement monies have been provided to those schools designated as
underperforming. The Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program
(II/USP) started with a one-year planning grant to develop site “action plans.” The
provision of additional funds allowed schools to implement the action plan, pinpoint
24
the obstacles to academic success for their enrolled students, and discover and
implement solutions while adhering to the guidance and criteria established by the
California Department of Education.
As schools work to improve their performance on test scores there is the
tendency of districts and administrators to bring in prepackaged programs that promise
gains in student achievement. However, this approach would be in conflict with the
effective school organizational practices that have been promoted over the last ten
years that encourage the establishment of strong learning communities with
curriculum development and collaboration at the core of faculty work. Pre-packaged
approaches pull core decisions away from teachers, in the design of classroom
instruction and alignment of lessons to the state’s content standards, and places them
in the position of being disseminators of information instead of teachers (Darling-
Hammond, 2005).
The principal’s leadership role has been found to be a key factor in the success
or failure of systemic gains in student performance at a school site. When a principal
leads with professionalism and focuses on the empowerment of teachers and staff to
bring about the use of assessments as a guide for instruction to bridge student growth
from their current level of knowledge about achievement standards, the steady gains
continuously raise student outcomes. However, when a principal institutes whole
school scripted programs, the gains in student performance have been found to be
short-term with decreasing returns over time (DeMoss, 2002). Teacher practices must
change to improve the achievement gains of their students. Eroding their confidence
25
by taking instructional decisions out their hands undermines their confidence and
destroys motivation (Leithwood, Steinback, and Jantzi, 2002).
When highly skilled teachers are not encouraged to use their instructional
expertise in the classroom, as is the case with many of the initiatives adopted by low
performing schools under threat of sanctions, they often leave their positions because
they have the seniority and initiative to work in high performing schools. Their
vacancies are then filled by less experienced teachers. Yet, these are the schools that
need the benefit of their high quality of instruction, and their depth of knowledge and
experience, to reach beyond the curriculum to the instructional needs of low
performing students (Darling-Hammond & Ifill-Lynch, 2005; Black, Harrison, Lee,
Marshall, and William, 2004).

Student Engagement
Students are most productive and committed to school achievement when they
are engaged in activities that require a high level of challenge, have the skills to meet
the challenge, and believe these highly geared activities are important to them and are
engaging and fun (Tomlinson, 2002). Engagement as a concept is described by Marks
(2000) as “a psychological process, specifically, the attention, interest, investment, and
effort students expend in the work of learning.” Engagement has been defined by
Newman as, “the students’ psychological investment in learning, comprehending, and
mastering knowledge or skills” (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006, p 665; Newman, 1989).
A high level of engagement in school has been linked to higher performance
26
levels and is considered a reliable predictor of student achievement and behavior
regardless of family economic or social standing (Klem and O’Connell, 2004;
Brewster & Fager, 2000). Capturing the interest and attention of students in the
school community and program is highly productive as it results in higher grades
(Willingham, Pollack & Lewis, 2002), and is essential to the development of deeper
cognitive engagement and the widening of a student’s interest. This positive result is
often best facilitated through independent learning projects (Voke, 2002).
Student disengagement has been found to increase as a student progresses
through the grades from elementary to middle and high school (Marks, 2000). Klem
and O’Connell (2004) differentiate between the concepts of a challenging school
curriculum which entices a child to actively persist in the face of failure versus a
threatening environment which induces a mental or physical escape response which
then is usually accompanied by emotions of anger, anxiety, and hopelessness
(Connell, J. & Wellborn, J., 1991). A definition of student engagement by Skinner
and Belmont (1993):
Children who are engaged show sustained behavioral involvement in learning
activities accompanied by a positive emotional tone. They select tasks at the
border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and
exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks;
they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including
enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest.

A school in the San Francisco Bay area, Railside High, was found to have
great success in engaging groups of students of varying levels of ability through their
approach to math instruction; where the more traditional approach splits students into
27
classes by skill level (algebra v. remedial algebra). The school studied then engaged
students in discussions of open-ended problems as a form of instruction that required
students to apply their acquired knowledge in solving problems and putting the “tools”
they had acquired to use in a purposeful and pragmatic way. Teachers lectured 4% of
the time, posed questions to the whole class 9% of the time, allotted 72% of the time
to group work by students and thereby left 9% of the time for student presentations of
their work. In a two-year study, the school was found to outperform neighboring,
more affluent schools with the additional results of more students who enjoyed math
courses. “All said they wanted to pursue mathematics courses in college – compared
with 67 percent of the students who learned traditional math. In addition, 39 percent
of Railside students said they planned a future in mathematics compared with just 5
percent of those from other schools” (Boaler, 2004). Staff made sure the instructional
environment allowed for various approaches to problem solving and graded students
on “asking good questions, rephrasing problems, explaining ideas, being logical,
justifying methods and bringing different perspectives to a problem” (Boaler, 2004) in
addition to grades for correct answers. Their use of block scheduling which provided
math classes of 90 minutes a day, allowed students to complete one section (ex:
Algebra A and B) in a semester. This encouraged students to take high level math
courses as they were completing two a year versus the normal comprehensive high
school schedule of one per year.
This example illustrates how schools that have a theme focus have been found
to engage students and encourage collaboration among the staff leading to successful
28
outcomes and stimulating environments for small high schools. The theme focus
provides an attractive option to students who still engage in work that is consistent
with the state content standards and frameworks but also allows for a specialized
curriculum in an identified area of study designed by faculty and often shaped through
student input. However, students and faculty also make choice an inherent part of the
learning process within a theme focused school. This choice includes the themed
school to attend and also choice of an area of particular interest within the theme.
These alternative schools often build in an array of unusual elective classes, self-
governance options, and entrepreneurship (Raywid, 1999 & 2006).
Engagement, and a strong tie to school, does not have to be through an
academic content area and often occurs through an extracurricular activity in which a
student is involved. Extracurricular activities connect students to school through bonds
established between students and staff as they participate in complex skill
development and through engaging activities. It is a fun activity that matches a
student’s interest and talents and also, through its inherent structure, builds habits and
skills that contribute to personal achievement such as following the guidelines for
project based work, adhering to production deadlines for a school newspaper, or
participation in a theater performance (Scherer, 2002). Engagement in an area of
personal interest increases a student’s tolerance to complete the academic credits
required in high school as they aim their sights on longer-term goals for the future
(Silliker S. & Quirk, J. 1997).
Through engagement, students demonstrate self-efficacy when they believe

29
they can organize and tackle the action required in accomplishing a task (Linnenbrink
and Pintrich, 2003). It is a very specific perception of one’s own ability to tackle new
learning that has a predictive quality. The authors were very clear in differentiating
the predictive aspect of self-efficacy that does not exist when someone expresses just
their self-concept. One’s self-concept tends to be more general in nature and driven
by an emotional reaction to accomplishments. It often does not predict outcome in an
individual’s behavior and learning. The more a student is engaged, and the better they
perform, the higher their self-efficacy is developed. A student’s self-efficacy is
impacted every day, through both the subliminal and overt actions of those they
encounter. It is influenced and changed by the nuances and activities of the
classroom. Instructors can design their instruction and classroom environment to
ensure successful educational experiences that will then bolster and build positive self-
efficacy in students (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Tomlinson, 2002). Staff in high
performing, high poverty schools noted these schools “deliberately and purposefully
introduced strategies into students’ daily routines that were intended to create self-
directed and reflective learners. The approaches focused on strengthening students’
meta-cognitive, higher-order thinking and planning skills – areas identified in the
research of Robert Marzano (1998) and Bransford, Cocking, and Brown (1999) as
instrumental for the production of expert learning” (Bell, 2001).

30
Organization & Leadership
Current research in organizational design and leadership has built a large
knowledge base across the field of education to guide practitioners in best practices
that will ensure academic achievement for all students. This research has contributed
to the design of schools throughout the country that have proven to be successful with
students of all socio-economic and educational backgrounds. Ronald Edmonds of
Harvard University has been quoted as saying “We can, whenever and wherever we
choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We
already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally
depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far” (Bell, 2001).
High performing schools with large populations of high-poverty students
support educators who exert strong command over the quality of instruction, the
curriculum delivered to students, and the community and organization in which they
work. They provide content area instruction that delivers a high level of intellectual
challenge for students by bridging up to the grade level standards as needed, rather
than scaling down to the incoming skill level of students. The leadership in these
high-performing schools do not accept excuses for low academic performance but
instead, encourage a culture that reflects the aim on success and excellence while
respecting the role of teachers as the first and most important piece in driving the
instruction (Ali & Jerald, 2001; Ali & Johnson & Skrla, 2000).
The strong instructional leadership evident in high performing schools
demonstrates their persistence in focusing on innovative approaches that access
31
resources to serve student needs, share leadership with staff to use assessment as a
diagnostic tool to drive instruction, use staff development to stay abreast of research
proven best practices, provide early intervention with students to ensure success,
create inclusiveness and a sense of family, and work actively with parents as partners
in the educational process (Haycock, Kati, 1999). The sense of family on campus in
establishing strong ties with parents and the larger community are also important in
gaining the trust and support needed to sustain a strong learning environment (Bell,
2001).
It is often proposed that the community needed to support a high performing
learning environment must be small in size and student number. As school size is
often not an option in local restructuring, Raynor (2005) instead proposes the focus
should shift to the community aspect of the learning environment, regardless of size.
The benefits of a small learning environment including the establishment of links and
bonds among students, between students and staff, and among staff members should
be implemented on larger campuses of urban high schools. The trust built in smaller
organizations with members all focused on a common purpose and frequent
encounters among all members to share information, issues, and goals, is important to
maintain as one works in the larger context of a big urban high school (Lee &
Burkham, 2000; Dufour & Eaker, 1998).

32
Cultural Engagement
The cultural aspect of a school can enhance student engagement by providing
an emotional attachment to the students and establish a close community among the
students, staff, and instructors. “School culture is the behind-the-scenes context that
reflects the values beliefs, norms, traditions, and rituals that build up over time as
people in a school work together. It influences not only the actions of the school
population, but also its motivations and spirit” (Peterson, 1999). Deal and Peterson
(1993) describe school culture as the “inner reality” of a school campus. It is the inner
reality that shows what the staff on campus really care about, what they devote their
time to, how they celebrate and what they discuss (Robbins and Alvy, 1995).
School culture can influence the way everyone on campus relates to each other
and how the school relates to the surrounding community. It can affect the approach
that is taken toward problem solving and how difficult issues are handled. Successful
professional learning communities are though to share a common purpose and
maintain positive norms for learning and overall improvement. There is thought to be
a shared commitment to the nurturing of students within a collaborative and collegial
school culture (Cosner & Peterson, 2003).
The culture on a campus can influence whether students feel cared for and
noticed within the school environment. How students interact with instructors and the
climate of the campus can be determining factors as to whether a child stays in school
or drops out before graduation (Lee & Burkam, 2000, Barth, 2002). The culture
impacts all that occurs during a school day. It is the shared agreement and
33
commitment as to how things are done on campus and the focus on what is worth
devoting time to doing well. It is the shared experiences both in school and outside of
school, the sense of community.
Schools that have an atmosphere of negativity can interfere with learning and
engagement, pushing students out of school with an unhealthy culture. “Unhealthy
school cultures tend to beget at-risk students – students who leave graduation with
little possibility of learning” (Barth, 2002). A more positive academic culture that
encourages students to work toward an intrinsic level of motivation is emphasized by
Darling-Hammond and Ifill-Lynch (2005); “A more difficult but effective approach is
to create a strong academic culture that changes students’ beliefs and behaviors,
convincing them to engage with their school.”

Conclusion
As the review of literature has demonstrated, gains in student achievement are
a result of higher student engagement in many large urban high schools (Barton, 2006;
Tomlinson, 2002: Klem & O’Connell, 2004; Brewster & Fager, 2000; Willingham,
Pollack & Lewis, 2002; Voke, 2002). State content standards, grade level and content
area assessments, high school exit exam, and national legislation to provide high
levels of accountability on the academic gains of individual students to demonstrate
success. Yet the research does not state that a high performing urban high school will
necessarily demonstrate a higher level of student engagement. The researcher looked
at a successful large urban high school to determine the level of student engagement

34
and the program attributes that led to the school’s effectiveness.
This study will add to the literature by sharing whether student engagement is
higher in a high performing urban high school, and if so; the practices and strategies
utilized by the school that might be related to this higher level of engagement.

35
Chapter Three

Research Methodology
Introduction
This study was conducted to examine a high performing urban high school in
southern California to determine whether the higher level of student engagement was a
contributing factor to its success, and if so, what other school factors contributed to
that improvement. The study focused on a high achieving urban high school as part of
a thematic dissertation cohort study of an urban high school district comprised of
seven comprehensive high schools and one continuation high school. The district was
selected for study after consideration of its ethnically and socio-economically diverse
student population and its designation as a high performing school district based on
the marked improvement in the Academic Performance Index (API) scores of the
individual schools over the last five years of testing. The district API rose 454 points,
the largest yearly gain of all eighty-one school districts in the county.
This case study was among five in a thematic dissertation cohort, which met
over a yearlong period of time. Group members designed the study, shared resources,
and developed the research instruments. Each member of the cohort conducted a
study on one of the districts high schools on an individual basis. As a result, each
stands alone with their unique findings particular to one school site. However, it is
hoped that in the future, the five studies collectively may provide insight across the
five schools into the linkages between student engagement and other factors impacting
36
student achievement and high performing high school status; factors that are common
to student engagement across the entire district.
This study sought to identify student engagement in relationship to student
achievement in the environment of an urban high school using a multi-method
qualitative case study methodology to identify the attributes of engagement and other
factors from the perspective of the various roles on the high school campus. Although
this is a single case study and the results will not be transferable, it is hoped that the
studies could be viewed collectively to discover emerging themes, features, and
solutions that were evident across the five school sites.

Conceptual Base
This study built upon the work of the University of Indiana in their study of
high school engagement entitled the “High School Survey of Student Engagement.”
The University of Indiana examined student engagement in school related activities
and the success of students in rigorous academic work, collecting 81,499 student
surveys from 110 schools within 26 states. This involved an examination of the
specific areas of engagement across subgroups (High School Survey of Student
Engagement, 2005). The aim of the dissertation cohort was to add to the available
research pertaining to the relationship between student engagement and high student
academic performance in high performing urban high schools, looking at the
controllable school factors that contribute to student engagement.

The dissertation cohort sought to identify successful practices and strategies
that could be replicated on other urban high school campuses to assist in the work of
building high performing urban campuses.

The conceptual model below (Figure 1) was developed by the thematic
dissertation cohort to illustrate the process involved when resources are employed to
build programs that will engage students. It is also intended to show how an increase
in engagement might con
urban high school.
Figure 1.
The dissertation cohort sought to identify successful practices and strategies
that could be replicated on other urban high school campuses to assist in the work of
building high performing urban campuses.
Conceptual Model
eptual model below (Figure 1) was developed by the thematic
dissertation cohort to illustrate the process involved when resources are employed to
build programs that will engage students. It is also intended to show how an increase
in engagement might contribute to higher student performance at a high performing
37
The dissertation cohort sought to identify successful practices and strategies
that could be replicated on other urban high school campuses to assist in the work of
eptual model below (Figure 1) was developed by the thematic
dissertation cohort to illustrate the process involved when resources are employed to
build programs that will engage students. It is also intended to show how an increase
tribute to higher student performance at a high performing

38
Research Questions
This study examined the following research questions in an effort to identify
the level of student engagement, the factors contributing to high student engagement,
and the factors leading to high overall academic performance at the individual school
site.
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? How does it
compare to the national average?

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

3. What school factors are perceived to contribute to high performance?

These questions were developed by the thematic dissertation cohort over the
course of a year with the aim of unearthing distinctive practices that might be
replicated by other urban high schools in the areas of leadership, school climate, and
instruction.

Methodology
The format for this research utilized a multi-methods case study model, a
qualitative methodology chosen for its ability to examine non-quantitative data for the
inherent qualities in the data. The multi-methods case study method was used to
convey the whole picture of the school in order to highlight attributes that contributed
to successful school outcomes. It utilized the multi-methods from a variety of data
sources to gather information included in questionnaires, interviews, observations, and
examination of school and district documents (Yin, 2003). This allowed the study to
39
examine the topic of student engagement through the layers that might have been
hidden under each question, and to look at written communication and documents for
the underlying message in each narrative. In a case study model, the researcher peels
apart the layers to find the individual details and also steps back to see the whole in
context (Patton, 2002; Merriam, 1998). As a case study, the scope is restricted to a
single high school (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003), chosen as one in a district that met the
criteria developed by the thematic dissertation cohort as a high performing urban high
school.
The qualitative method, with the predominance of qualitative narrative
information, was a valuable strategy in examining the selected school site as it
incorporated the input of staff and students as they reflected on events and programs
(Creswell, 1998). The qualitative approach brought depth to the data through the
descriptions provided by those interviewed as they reflected on past events, program
attributes, success stories, and observed changes in student behaviors (Patton, 2002).
An additional source of school data was included with the results of a school-
wide administration of the HSSSE/High School Survey of Student Engagement from
the University of Indiana, as secondary data.
The case study model required the research team cohort to develop “why”
questions in testing out the theory that had been generated, that higher student
engagement is a contributing factor to higher academic performance. These questions
were formed after the research team cohort had reviewed research literature on student

40
engagement, related school factors, and historical issues impacting large urban high
schools.
In August, the chairperson of the thematic dissertation cohort made an initial
contact with the superintendent of the high school district and, through a series of
discussions, reached agreement about participation in this study. The thematic
dissertation cohort received approval from the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board staff to conduct the study of these five high schools, in the
fall, prior to the start of this study. The high school district administered the data
source survey during the months of January and February at which time each member
of the thematic dissertation cohort took on one of the high schools as their individual
case study. Each cohort member was responsible for initiating contact with the site, to
establish an understanding of the study and to obtain their support for the process
involved.
Interviews of selected roles in the school added to the surveys distributed to all
staff. The interviews allowed for the researcher to delve more deeply into the
specifics of an issue and to clarify questions that arose in the surveys (Creswell, 1998).

Population and Sample
The urban high school in this study met the criteria of an “urban high
achieving high school” as determined by the thematic dissertation cohort:
1. The high school has a large percentage of students from ethnically and socio-
economically diverse subgroups and is located within a large, densely populated
urban community.
41
2. The high school has demonstrated high levels of student achievement through
significant improvement in API scores over the past five years.
This case study focused on “City High School” one of six comprehensive in a
high school district, along with a continuation high school program.
City High, with an enrollment of 1,837 students, is located in an urban city of
83,680 residents on the eastern edge of Los Angeles County, approximately fifteen
miles from downtown Los Angeles. An examination of the student population at City
High reveals a higher representation of minority students than are represented in the
total population of the district or the city. Of the 301 English learners, 16.5% of the
school population, all but three are predominately Spanish speakers. The
Free/Reduced Meals Program/CalWORKS is offered to students of families with
incomes at $34,873 or below for a family of four. City High has over thirty percent
more students who fall into this category than the district population overall.

Table 1. Free/Reduced Meals Program

City High
School
Local School
District
Local City
Population
White 4.2% 15.5% 37.61%
African American 1.1% 1.6% 1.22%
American Indian .3% .4% 1.32%
Asian 1.0% 1.4% 3.31%
Hispanic 92.4% 79.7% 55.89%
Multiple/No Response .3% 1.0% 5.01%
English Learners 16.5% 12.8%
Free/Reduced Price Meals 63.7% 41.3%

42
Of City High School’s 78 certificated teachers, nearly 80% (62) are fully
credentialed, 12 are university interns, 3 have emergency teaching permits and 1 is on
a waiver. Close to 18% of the teachers are in special education assignments (11.4% at
the district level) and 20% fail to meet the federal No Child Left Behind requirements
as a Highly Qualified Teacher (3.6% at the district level). The school is staffed with a
higher staffing ratio of paraprofessionals (49.3%) than at the district level (35.3%).

Instrumentation
The study triangulated the results of this study of City High School using
several research instruments in order to support the findings (Creswell, 1998) using
interviews, observations, document analysis, and surveys:
The interview questions in the Interview Instrument, Appendix A, directly
reflect the study’s research questions and the follow-up questions allowed the research
to clarify responses at a deeper level. Whenever possible, interview questions were
open-ended to allow as much input from the participant as possible, with minimal
constraints.
Observations of students and staff interacting in the variety of settings that
engage students on a school site were conducted over a period of five non-consecutive
days. The Observation Template in Appendix B was structured to note observed
behavior in line with Bolman and Deal’s Four Framework Approach: structural,
human resource, political, and symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
43
The documents identified in the Document Review Instrument, Appendix C,
provided the researcher with an overview of the school and with background
knowledge of the following:
• City High School’s website provided master schedule, school activity, and
other campus information prior to the site visit.
• Student and staff data was reviewed to inform the researcher of overall student
achievement, subgroup achievement, and the qualifications of staff.
• a-g completion rates were reviewed to clarify course offerings and the level of
participation by students in a rigorous curriculum.
• Publications and memorandums were reviewed to determine consistency in
school values, messages, and priorities.
• CAHSEE/California High School Exit Exam data was reviewed to assess
student achievement.
• Graduation rates were reviewed against the class’s freshman year enrollment to
examine drop-out/transfer rates and success rates with students.
To examine the teacher perspective, the Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix D)
was developed to parallel the questions of the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE); this assisted in the comparison of teacher responses with the
student responses. The questions were stated in a format that would reflect the
viewpoint of the entire teaching staff to whom it was administered.
The University of Indiana administered the HSSSE to the entire school in
January, in their nationwide study of student engagement. All students had the
44
opportunity to participate and reflect on their feelings and behaviors related to student
engagement. The student’s survey responses were organized at grade and school wide
levels, and were compared to the national profile of students participating across the
country.
Bolman and Deal’s Four Framework Approach was used to sort responses of
the research instruments, attributing behavior into areas of interaction within the
context of the organization:
• Structural Framework – Social architect whose leadership style is analysis and
design – focus on structure, strategy, environment, implementation,
experimentation, and adaptation.
• Human Resource Framework – Catalyst and servant whose leadership style is
support, advocate, and empowerment – visible and accessible; they empower,
increase participation, support, share information, and move decision making
down into the organization.
• Political Framework – Advocate, whose leadership style is coalition and
building – clarify what they want and what they can get; they assess the
distribution of power and interests; they build linkages to other stakeholders;
use persuasion first, then use negotiation and coercion only if necessary.
• Symbolic Framework – Prophet, whose leadership style is inspiration, view
organizations as a stage or theater to play certain roles and give impressions;
these leaders use symbols to capture attention; they try to frame experience by
providing plausible interpretations of experiences; they discover and
communicate a vision (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
45
The parallel dissertation team developed the research instruments, which were also
supported by current research.

Data Collection
The data collection at City High started in the spring and covered a time span
of one month. The researcher conducted a document analysis to build background
knowledge of the site and to provide an overview of the school’s operations. The
documents reviewed included: the School Accountability Report Card, API and
standardized testing information, attendance records and School Attendance Review
Board reports, a-g course completion rates, scheduling options, school publications,
graduation and CAHSEE data, WASC self-study, internal memos, and other
information about the school available at the California Department of Education
website (CBEDS, APR, Ed-Data). Information about the district was also reviewed to
help discriminate between initiatives unique to the school site and those driven from
an organizational level.
A series of interviews was conducted with the site administrators, three
counselors, the attendance coordinator, a campus security officer, three teacher
department chairs, and the school secretary. Interview questions were available to
each person interviewed, prior to the interview session. As indicated in IRB
guidelines, a letter of consent was signed and a copy was given to each person
interviewed. All staff interviewed were advised that the interview was strictly
voluntary and that they could choose to not answer a question or could stop the
46
interview before or once it was in process, at any time. All those interviewed were
asked the same questions (Appendix A) from the interview script. All interviews were
recorded to ensure accuracy in transcription and analysis of responses. All interviews
were transcribed from the recordings and held confidentially at the researcher’s home
to ensure confidentiality of participants. Further protection was provided in
identifying interviews by a letter coding of tapes and transcripts.
Observations occurred during the same month-long period during which
interviews were conducted. Each observation session involved a 60 to 90 minute
timeframe at different times of the day/week to observe the entire campus in its variety
of activities and to observe the range of behaviors of a high school campus. The
observation template (Appendix B) was used each time to record the behavior and
activities of participants in keeping with the Four Framework Approach of Bolman
and Deal (1997).

Validity & Reliability
The study was designed to ensure validity and reliability in its use of triangulated
data and the analysis of the data in keeping with Creswell’s six step model of data
analysis (1997). This qualitative study addressed issues of validity and reliability in
each step of the study. The research conducted, planning, and execution of each step
was thoroughly investigated and analyzed by the thematic dissertation cohort. The
survey conducted through the University of Indiana at Bloomington is validated as a
national study.

47
Data Analysis
The following six steps were followed in analyzing the data (Creswell, 1997).
1. Data was organized and reviewed for analysis using methods appropriate to
each data type.
2. All data was read and reviewed by the researcher to obtain a broad view of
responses and to develop themes to the data.
3. A color coding method was used to chunk the data into identifiable areas.
4. Detailed descriptions and themes were generated to group information into
identifiable areas.
5. A qualitative description reflecting on the themes expressed by participants
was developed by the researcher.
6. All data was interpreted by the researcher. Conclusions were drawn based on
the findings to address the research questions, confirm connections to prior
research and lead to inferences for future studies.

48
Chapter Four
Findings, Analysis, and Discussion
This chapter presents the findings of the case study conducted at “City High
School.” The study examined the core question do high performing urban high
schools have higher levels of student engagement? If yes, then what school factors
build this higher level of student engagement? Leadership, instruction, and school
culture, were examined as possible school factors to determine their contribution to
student engagement and to student achievement.
The following research questions were the focus of this study:
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?
How does it compare to the national profile?
2) What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing
urban high schools?
3) What factors contribute to high performance?
The data collected and analyzed included qualitative and quantitative portions
obtained from interviews, teacher surveys, observations, and document reviews.
Information gathered in a student survey (High School Survey of Student
Engagement) conducted at City High School by Indiana University, contributed an
additional perspective to this study.

49
Background of City High School
City High School had the lowest socio-economic profile, and was the smallest
campus with 1,755 students, of five comprehensive high schools in an urban high
school district, thirteen miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. At 95.5% it had
the highest ethnic population of all five high schools; with slightly over 91% of
Hispanic origin. This was a higher ethnic minority population than at the district’s
continuation (90.9%) and alternative high schools (84.8%). 64.5% of the students at
City High qualified for free/reduced price meals, compared to 43.7% district wide, and
14.2% were English learners compared to 12% district wide. The school was built in
1959 and was considered by many in the community as the lowest performing and
least attractive of the district’s five campuses.
City High School met all 18 criteria, of the 2006-2007 school year, for yearly
progress, and thereby achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) at that time. 22.3%
of the students attained proficiency on the English/Language Arts portion and 20.9%
on the math portion of the CAHSEE, including all significant ethnic and
socioeconomic subgroups; 95% of the school’s tenth grade students took the
CAHSEE. The graduation rate for the class of 2006 was higher than 82.9 percent.
The School District had the highest API growth in the year prior to this study,
of all school districts in Los Angeles County with an overall API gain of 454 points.
City High School increased their Academic Performance Index (API) score from 643
to 657, an increase of 14 points. In comparison to all other high schools in California,
the state placed City High at a rank of 3 out of 10, while the school ranked 5 out of 10
50
in comparison to schools most similar in students, teachers, and class sizes. City
High’s freshman class had the highest gains of any school in the district with a 9.9
percent growth rate.
The principal retired and a new principal was hired from a neighboring school
district the summer before the year of the study. In addition, two of the three assistant
principals were replaced in an effort by the district, to form a new administrative team.
The one assistant principal who remained was brought in the year prior, and had a
strong reputation for her ability to reorganize and support a restructuring effort. The
administrative team was young and vibrant, with an extremely high level of energy,
and an obvious exuberance for their work.

City High School
City High School, located in the lowest income residential neighborhood
relative to the district as a whole, is situated one block east of a major southland
freeway, a local strip mall, and shopping district. The students all arrived at school
carrying backpacks and tote bags, with books and school materials. They arrived well
before the first bell of the day, catching up with friends in the large quad area just
inside the gate to the school. The security guard at the gate greeted each student and
seemed to know just about each one by name. Most of the students were dropped off
or walked to school, with only a small portion of the population driving their own cars.
Students dispersed quickly to classrooms, leaving common areas completely quiet,
within minutes of the first bell of the day.
51
The school instituted a unique bell schedule that provided three, one hundred
minute instructional periods each day (block schedule), followed by a twenty-minute
tutorial for each class. City High was one of the two schools in this high school
district to adopt the block schedule. If students were caught up, had all of their
homework turned in, and were maintaining good attendance, then they were free to
socialize during the tutorial time slot, followed by a break or by lunch. This gave
students a substantial amount of time (35 minutes including Nutrition in the morning,
50 minutes including lunch at noon, and a 20 minute early release at the end of the
school day) to socialize if they were doing well in all of their classes. Students
attended three classes each day on an alternating basis: Periods 1, 3, and 5, on
Mondays and Wednesdays; Periods 2, 4, and 6, on Tuesdays and Thursdays; and all
six periods, with an early release, on Fridays, to allow time for staff meetings and
professional development. During class periods, 90 to 95% of students were on task in
every classroom observed. Stand-up, teacher directed instruction was apparent in all
cases with attentive students engaged during class time. The attentiveness of students
may have been attributed to the free time earned during the school day (tutorial
period) based on their engagement and performance during their instructional minutes.

52
Table 2. Class Schedule
Monday Tuesday Wednesday
Period Time Period Time Period Time
0 7:00 – 7:55 0 7:00 – 7:55 0 7:00 – 7:55
1 8:00 – 9:40 2 8:00 – 9:40 1 8:00 – 9:40
Tutorial 9:40 – 10:00 Tutorial 9:40 – 10:00 Tutorial 9:40 – 10:00
Nutrition 10:00-10:15 Nutrition 10:00–10:15 Nutrition 10:00–10:15
3 10:20–12:00 4 10:20–12:00 3 10:20–12:00
Tutorial 12 – 12:20 Tutorial 12 – 12:20 Tutorial 12 – 12:20
Lunch 12:20–12:50 Lunch 12:20–12:50 Lunch 12:20–12:50
5 12:55 – 2:35 6 12:55 – 2:35 5 12:55 – 2:35
Tutorial 2:35 – 2:55 Tutorial 2:35 – 2:55 Tutorial 2:35 – 2:55

Thursday Friday
Period Time Period Time
0 7:00 – 7:55 0 7:00 – 7:55
2 8:00 – 9:40 1 8:00 – 8:35
Tutorial 9:40 – 10:00 2 8:40 – 9:20
Nutrition 10:00 – 10:15 3 9:25 – 10:00
4 10:20 – 12:00 Nutrition 10:00 – 10:15
Tutorial 12 – 12:20 4 10:20 – 10:55
Lunch 12:20 – 12:50 5 11:00 – 11:35
6 12:55 – 2:35 6 11:40 – 12:15
Tutorial 2:35 – 2:55 Staff Buy Back Time

Though the school population was almost entirely of Hispanic origin, most of
the students were born and raised in the surrounding area and all were observed
conversing in English outside of class. Some students were clearly discussing
homework, but most were teasing and chatting about the night before, or were settling
on plans for later in the day.
The office staff and administrators were all observed packing boxes to move
out of their office spaces as their phase of building renovation was about to get started.
Classrooms were considered a priority and were renovated first over the prior year and
a half. Though much of the school plant stood as it was conceived when the school
53
opened in 1959, the campus was in good order and well cared for, with many pictures
of students posted in display cases, and student-made posters hung in passageways
promoting school slogans or school events. It was a very clean and well-maintained
campus, with no signs of graffiti on walls, furniture, or windows of the school.
Security guards and staff wore t-shirts with inscriptions boosting support for students
taking the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
The school functioned as a focal point of the local area, garnering much
respect from the students, parents, and the surrounding community. Though City High
raised less money in fundraisers than their more affluent sister campuses, the school’s
families provided support in any way they could, and were especially appreciative of
the effort extended by the staff and administration as they worked to nurture the
instruction of all students enrolled.
The administrative leadership of the school consisted of a new principal and
three assistant principals. The entire administrative team was young, with an
exceptionally high level of energy and an intense dynamism. The principal made it a
point to get into every classroom once every two weeks for observation or a “stop by.”
The feeling of the campus was very upbeat and optimistic, with a driving force at the
level of a gale wind. All staff members were on the same page, focused on raising the
achievement level of every single City High School student, working to not allow a
single child to fall through the cracks. The students had no choice but to run to stay in
step, getting caught up in the energy of everyone else on campus. Even one assistant
principal, who’s position was being eliminated and would therefore be without a job in

54
June, didn’t seem to miss a beat in her enthusiasm for the work and the support of the
school. It seemed beyond question that she would still be working at lightening speed
and with a positive focus as everyone strived to squeeze out additional academic
gains, late in the academic school year.
City High’s counseling staff was in an older age range; calmer, and more
settled in their work. They too were focused on individual students and their success,
as they provided guidance and support to students throughout their years at City High
School; however they displayed this support in a calmly nurturing and heartening
manner.

Summary of Strategies
Summary of the strategies impacting student engagement and achievement
emerging from the narrative:
1) Focus on achievement
The entire campus of City High School was focused on the achievement
levels of students. This included all classified and certificated personnel.
Office, administrative, security, and coaching staff commented with students
about their performance on the CAHSEE as they encountered each other
throughout the school day, just as teachers do in classrooms during their
instructional minutes. T-shirts worn by staff, banners, and posters around the
campus had a mathematical equation that focused students on how their
personal achievement would raise the API/academic performance index scores
of the school as a whole.
55
Teachers were focused on achievement in their daily instruction, requiring
active participation from students and maximizing the use of their instructional
time. Administrators provided continuous written feedback of their informal
observations to teachers. The feedback was specific and timely, which then
reinforced the desired instructional
behavior and kept at the forefront for staff, that their strength in instruction is
what built the success of the organization.
The tutoring time built into the bell schedule that was mentioned
earlier, kept a focus on individual student achievement. Teachers had the
discretion to keep a child in class for additional instruction, to ensure that they
grasped the current information and lesson just taught, before he/she fell too
far behind. This provided more authority, in the political frame, to teachers, as
it was up to their discretion, which students were to stay in for the tutorial time
slot. The teachers were the decision makers. This also encouraged students to
perform at a higher level in class in order to demonstrate their acquired
knowledge and thereby be allowed the extra break time between classes.
2) Focus on attendance
Attendance was at a high of 96 percent five years prior, but had remained at
about 94 percent in the last two years of the study. This drop was attributed to
the school’s switch to a block schedule. When a child missed one day of
blocked instruction it actually counted as missing two school days of
instructional content. The school had instituted interventions to increase

56
attendance and achievement levels of students: tutorials, a Saturday program
of instruction by subject matter, an intervention program for Freshman students
earning D’s or F’s which was checked every four weeks by their counselors.
Students who attended the Saturday program earned back ADA (average daily
attendance) for the school. The School Resource Officers issued citations to
students who were habitually truant, and students were referred to
SARB/School Attendance Review Board hearings for intervention. The
school’s truancy rate increased to 7 percent in the past year, up from 2.8
percent two years ago. Some of this increase was attributed to the earlier
inconsistencies among staff in the use and application of the term “habitually
truant,” and to the increased attentiveness to keeping order on campus. The
school distributed awards and incredibly attractive incentives of iPods and gift
certificates, for perfect attendance. The school’s attention and diligence in the
tracking of each child’s attendance (by campus security, clerical,
administrative, and instructional staff) sent the message that each was valued
as an individual, and that when they had not attended a day of school, it was
noticed, and they had been missed.
3) Use of data.
The school district as a whole was focused very constructively, on the
use of data for decision-making and for evidence of student success. A new
software system adopted by the district, provided schools with easy access to
student and school data for site planning and instructional purposes. The
57
school submitted an annual report of student data to the district office,
outlining the site’s progress in meeting their annual goals; goals which guided
the actions and direction of the school. With the compilation of these site level
annual reports, the district was able to compare the achievement data among
schools, thereby creating a healthy competitive environment that was
motivating to local staff. The data also carried great import with staff as it was
clear that it was what was being used to measure, compare, and judge the
performance of students, whose achievement was the result of the performance
of staff.
The school site maintained a focus on data in their planning,
forecasting, and evaluation of programs as they strived for success with
students. On a classroom level, content intake assessments were often a part of
the class syllabus. Through their focus on student data, teachers individually
and in teams, continually moved their instruction to the development and use
of the most effective practices in daily instruction.
4.) Intervention and support
Various practices were put in place at City High, to build success for
students who were struggling or not prepared for a high school curriculum.
These practices were described as their “pyramid of interventions” which
specifically focused on incoming freshmen.
The math and English instructors articulated with feeder middle schools
to build vertical discussions regarding curriculum and content, working to
58
ensure students were prepared for the high school curriculum and middle
school teachers were aware of what students would encounter.
Campus Watch identified incoming freshmen considered most at-risk to
achieve at proficient levels and flagged them to be assigned appropriate
intervention and support. Middle school counselors and teachers filled-out a
“campus watch form” that documented the specific academic needs and social
concerns so that high school counselors could place students in appropriate
support programs in the summer or right at the start of school.
The Summer Bridge program was an intervention strategy for students
who had struggled in middle school. They were enrolled in this program of
enrichment during the summer between their eighth and ninth grade years.
The summer program provided tutorial instruction in reading, and taught
organizational skills to help students manage high school course material.
Entering students were required to participate in a 9
th
Grade
Orientation that covered information about the school facilities, policies, and
expectations. During this session, students and their parents worked on their
first “four-year learning plan/portfolio” review. (This plan was reviewed
again, at the end of the 9
th
grade and during a 10
th
grade counseling session as
well, to help students focus on their post-secondary goals). The aim of the 9
th

Grade Orientation was to lower the anxiety that often builds in anticipation of
the first day of high school, and to increase the student’s connection to their
new school.
59
The Student Study Team (SST) process provided intervention strategies
to assist students who were having difficulty maintaining a typical course load
and assistance for those whose parents had requested support for their child.
The SST provided increased levels of intervention and support based on the
demonstrated need and may have resulted in the development of an Individual
Education Plan (IEP) to ensure success for the academically struggling student.
Guided study was an intervention that was guided by the Campus
Watch process and provided a Guided Study Teacher to assist and support a
student in their school work.
Academic Community for Enrichment (ACE) enrolled students based
on their achievement data and also was a part of the Campus Watch process.
The intervention specialists and counselors were responsible for overseeing
this support to students in need.
CAHSEE Review classes were made available to all students and were
provided on Saturdays as well as during the school day. Academic English
skills classes were provided for students scoring below the 30
th
percentile in
reading.
The City High Titan Intervention Program (TIP) monitored and
intervened with students throughout the year. It was conducted by the
guidance counseling staff with the assistance of teachers.
Summer School was provided for students needing to get ahead or to
address issues of remediation, in order to promote entry (or re-entry) to a

60
college-going track. Tutorial sessions were provided twice a week before
school in addition to the Academic Saturday School (PASS) which was
attended on a voluntary as well as on a compulsory basis.
All parent letters and course syllabi were provided in both English and
in Spanish to reach all parent groups at the school. Phone calls were made on a
continuous basis to keep parents informed of their child’s progress. Parent-
Teacher conferences were scheduled regularly, if students showed signs of
needing assistance. Community members were recruited as mentors for
students completing their fieldwork, and as judges of their senior project oral
presentations.
The many intervention strategies demonstrates a system of support that
was built to identify and intervene for students who were at risk of not
graduating and the staff who take on the responsibility of monitoring and
providing assistance as part of their role within the organization. This support
is an example of the organizational value that every child matters and that
every staff member is responsible for ensuring student success.
5.) Raising academic expectations.
One of the main goals of the school’s leadership and staff was to guide
all students toward a more demanding and rigorous college preparatory
curriculum. A school district objective had also been established to increase
the students who had completed the a-g requirements for entrance to the
University of California campuses, and enrollment in AP (Advanced
61
Placement) and honors level courses. The school was required to provide
enrollment information in these courses to the district office for planning and
progress monitoring purposes. The school received an AP Challenge Grant
that funded the purchase of materials and textbooks to increase their AP course
offerings and trained instructional staff in the classes that were added as a
result: AP Biology, AP English Language, AP English Literature, AP
Calculus BC, and AP European Civilizations.
The school had worked to strengthen their overall curriculum to be
aligned with the California State Content Standards as a means of ensuring that
all students had mastery of the skills needed to take advanced level classes and
were prepared to eventually tackle college level courses.
AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) program was
added to the campus to respond to students who needed to develop study skills
to gain access to and be equipped for college. AVID focused on learning to
use Cornell notes, building study groups, setting goals, and helping students
manage their time. Tutorial sessions were set-up for students to work with
City High graduates who were already enrolled in college. AVID students
attended presentations by college admission representatives and went on field
trips to visit college campuses. AVID participation required students to apply
to the California State University system, and to the University of California
system if they qualified, as well as to FAFSA (Free Application For Federal
Student Aid), the DELL Scholarship, and five additional scholarships of their
62
choice. The program also educated parents on the requirements for college
admission since their child would often be the first in the family to attend.
The addition of rigorous courses and the enrollment of students in these
courses was a clear and tangible example of the school’s culture of high
expectations for every child. This was an illustration of the faith that staff had
in the potential of every student to succeed beyond their own expectations.
Setting the use of resources for the placement of students in college
preparatory classes was a clear result of the organizational value for access to
higher learning. This message had to come from the staff in this community
since, unlike the affluent communities surrounding the districts other high
schools, City High needed to provide equitable opportunities for college
preparation for their students.
6.) Staffing
The school district had been very focused on placing the right staff in
the right positions to make sure their schools operated as efficiently as
possible. They had recently moved administrators around within the district,
which had not been the normal practice in the past. City High School kept one
assistant principal and welcomed a new principal and two additional assistant
principals who were new to the site. One of the assistant principals was a
graduate of City High and had also been a teacher on staff at the school.
Ninety-one percent of the school’s ninety teachers on staff were
considered highly qualified according to NCLB (No Child Left Behind)
63
standards. One third of the teachers held a CLAD (Cross-cultural Language
and Academic Development) or SDAIE (Specially Designed Academic
Instruction in English) certificates and three teachers had a BCLAD (Bilingual
Crosscultural Language and Academic Development) certificate. Three
teachers held National Board Certification. The teaching staff averaged
thirteen years of teaching with seventeen percent (twelve teachers) in the first
or second year of teaching. Fifty-four percent were female and forty-five
percent were mail. Fifty-four percent were Caucasian and thirty-seven percent
were Hispanic. Over one-third of the staff held a master’s degree and one
teacher had earned a Ph.D.
In addition to the four full-time counselors and one part-time counselor,
the school added a Dean of Discipline. This put the student to counselor ratio
at four hundred-ninety students to one.
There were sixty classified employees on site covering offices, the
library, computer oversight, security, attendance, custodial and food services.
This staff was as focused on student achievement as the instructional staff and
were visibly supportive of students in encouraging them to make it back to
classrooms on time and in chatting between classes about their school work.
7.) Effective feedback
The school leadership received continuous feedback from the district
office through reports and compilations of performance data. Key to the use of
this data was the accompanying recommendations and suggestions on how to
64
use the data to improve the performance of the school. The school’s
administrative team then used this data, and the suggestions for improvement,
to plan strategies to be used with staff to bolster and direct good teaching
practices as they guide their local improvement work.
The collection and use of data as an ongoing process also encouraged
staff when a demonstrated gain in achievement was evidenced in site and
district reports. Also, the administrative team was in classrooms on a daily
basis providing consistent feedback and encouragement. However, the most
impact on instruction had resulted from the departmental meetings and
discussions, in their review of student achievement and assessment data. Staff
mentioned the value of pushing their peers to be more accountable. That it
sometimes took an assertive member of the team to push others to have the
difficult conversations about strategies that weren’t working and to examine
them to improve instruction. This constant review of student performance data
lead to changes in the instructional practice of the school, moving teachers to
work differently to work for positive results.
The new tutorial period offered in the daily class schedule (twenty
minutes at the end of each class period, Monday through Thursday) offered a
time to provide the needed instructional support needed by struggling learners,
and an incentive to pay attention during class time for others (students who’d
completed their work weren’t required to stay for the tutorial and gained a
longer break period between classes).
65
The focus on instructional data provided continuous feedback to all
staff on their teaching while emphasizing that good instruction was valued and
of supreme importance at the site. Immediate intervention opportunities for
students facilitated the timing issues essential in any learning experience while
also symbolizing the school’s beliefs that high academic expectations were
held for every student on campus.

Findings by Research Question
Data for Research Question One
Research question one asked, “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)?”
City High School’s enrollment at the time of the HSSSE was at 1,724 students.
With 1,492 respondents to the survey, they achieved a response level of 86% percent.
These students responded fairly equally among 9
th
, 10
th
, and 11
th
grade students, with
a drop in the number of 12
th
grade respondents.

Table 3. Student Survey Response Rate
City High
Grade Level Column %
9
th
26.85
10
th
27.88
11
th
25.55
12
th
19.71
Total 100.00

66
The 2006 national HSSSE, with compiled data from 115 high schools in thirty
states, found students reported in the middle range of possible student engagement.
The City High School respondents also reported to be in the middle range of possible
student engagement.
The HSSE discusses three dimensions of student engagement
(Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic, Social/Behavioral/Participatory, and Emotional)
allowing for comparisons to be made between City High School students and the
aggregate of students in the national study.
The area of Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic engagement examined student
responses to questions describing how much effort they extended, how much time and
effort they invested, and examined the strategies they utilized for learning. It looked
at how students went about doing their work and the work that was accomplished as a
result of their effort. In this area, the City High School students reported that they
were engaged at a level of 30.89. This is a level that is slightly less engaged than the
national average of 31.43. The scores in this category ran up to a maximum of 60,
which clearly placed both City High’s and the national average in the middle range of
scores. In comparisons of grade level engagement, both City High’s and the HSSSE’s
sets of scores demonstrated that the 9
th
graders were the least engaged and became
more engaged in each subsequent year; with one exception which was the sophomore
class at City High which was .34 less engaged in 10
th
grade (30.29) than in 9
th

grade(30.63). In comparing local and national scores, City High students were less
engaged than the national study by an average of 1.06 in their freshman through their
junior years but were more engaged than the national average in grade 12. This
67
demonstrates that though the local students entered 9
th
grade less engaged than the
national average, City High students graduated at a higher level of engagement
(increase of 2.8 points from grades 9 to 12) than students in the national profile
(growth of 2.0).

Table 4. Cognitive/ Intellectual/Academic Engagement by Grade Level

Grade
HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
City High School
Mean Score
9
th
31.07 30.63
10
th
31.91 30.29
11
th
33.02 31.90
12
th
33.07 33.43
Overall 31.43 30.25

A sampling of City High student responses, compared with those from the
national profile, demonstrate that local students spent less time: on homework, reading
and studying for class, and reading for themselves. They also reported that they had
fewer instances of: asking or answering questions in class, making a class
presentation, preparing a draft of a paper or assignment before turning it in, working
on a paper or project that required research outside of assigned texts or required
interaction with people outside of school, working on projects or assignments with
other students outside of class, discussing questions that have no clear answers,
connecting ideas or concepts from one class to another, discussing ideas from readings
or classes with teachers outside of class, or writing a paper of fewer or more than five
pages. Though the discrepancy in scores was minimal, there is an apparent pattern of
less complexity to assignments for City High students than those in the national study.
68
When the demographics of City High students is considered (92.4% Hispanic, 64.5%
free/reduced price meals, 27% of parents without a high school diploma, 9% of
parents had earned a bachelor’s degree) in comparison to those in the HSSSE (46%
non-white, 10.21% Hispanic, 21% free/reduced price meals, 12.99% parents without a
high school diploma, 24.42% of parents had earned a bachelor’s degree), the closeness
of reported student responses would be considered a significant gain on the part of
City High in closing the achievement gap that could be present without their strong
measures of engagement.
More City High students responded Often at a higher rate than the national
average (though they were less engaged otherwise): of talking to their teacher about
their class work, talking to an adult in the school about how to apply for college, and
discussing grades with their teachers. City High students also reported taking teacher
made tests with multiple-choice questions, at a lower rate (40.83) overall than the
national average (44.32). This attests to the work of classroom teachers to use teacher
made tests that are more complex and offer deeper responses from students to
demonstrate learning gained in classes.

69
Table 5. Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement Responses
HSSSE % of
Responses
City High %
of Responses
Hours spent in a typical week: doing written homework
o 0
o 1
o 2-5
o 6-10
o 10+

6.98
35.74
39.99
12.48
4.81

7.50
42.98
38.51
7.98
3.03
Hours in a typical week: reading and studying for class
o 0
o 1
o 2-5
o 6-10
o 10+

12.41
42.95
35.03
7.29
2.32

18.88
49.93
25.73
4.15
1.31
Hours in a typical week: reading for yourself
o 0
o 1
o 2-5
o 6-10
o 10+

15.53
39.90
30.20
9.40
4.97

21.48
41.37
27.00
7.04
3.11
How important: reading and studying for class
o not at all
o a little
o somewhat important
o very important
o top priority

8.42
18.80
33.41
31.69
7.68

10.09
23.43
34.17
26.32
5.98
How important: reading for yourself
o not at all
o a little
o somewhat important
o very important
o top priority

15.76
29.21
32.98
17.94
4.11

19.67
33.84
29.50
13.81
3.18
How often have you: asked questions in class
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

3.49
17.24
42.45
36.82

4.21
19.13
44.75
31.91
How often have you: answered questions in class
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

2.73
16.14
43.95
37.19

4.07
19.82
49.59
26.52

70
Table 5: Continued
How often have you: talked to your teacher about your
class work
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

4.02
19.80
45.45
30.74

5.00
21.88
42.01
31.11
How often have you: made a class presentation
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

5.41
24.46
46.62
23.51

14.97
30.08
38.30
16.64
How often have you: prepared a draft of a paper or
assignment before turning it in
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

8.06
21.65
39.07
31.22

11.28
26.18
39.14
23.40
How often have you: written a paper of less than five
pages
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

4.96
13.53
37.95
43.57

10.72
20.60
37.28
31.39
How often have you: written a paper of more than five
pages
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

26.21
31.31
38.48
12.00

s
41.22
29.46
20.78
8.54
How often have you: worked on a paper or project that
required you to do research outside of assigned texts
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

5.02
16.64
49.72
28.61

8.22
22.42
44.15
25.21
How often have you: worked on a paper that required
you to interact with people outside of school (for
interviews, observations, etc.)
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

19.54
34.38
35.16
10.91

31.89
31.19
27.77
9.14
How often have you: worked with other students on
projects/assignments during or outside of class
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

7.96
22.08
48.37
21.59

12.03
23.77
46.77
17.44
71
Table 5. Continued
How often have you: discussed questions that have no
clear answers
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

7.04
23.40
45.70
23.87

13.76
32.93
37.42
15.89
How often have you: taken a test in class with
multiple-choice questions created by your teacher
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

2.99
8.37
33.97
54.67

5.41
12.92
40.73
40.94
How often have you: connected ideas or concepts from
one class to another in doing assignments or
participating in class discussions
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

7.61
24.36
48.88
19.16

14.13
32.08
42.12
11.66
How often have you: discussed grades with teachers
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

6.58
23.77
45.51
24.15

6.01
19.93
42.33
31.73
How often have you: discussed ideas from readings or
classes with teachers outside of class
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

26.55
34.90
29.06
9.50

32.84
36.96
22.67
7.53
How often have you: talked to an adult about how to
apply for college
o never
o rarely
o sometimes
o often

28.96
26.73
30.84
13.48

32.30
25.77
26.54
15.38

The area of Social/Behavioral/Participatory engagement studied how students
interacted within the school community in social, extracurricular, and non-academic
school activities. The City High students responded less engaged than those in the
72
HSSSE in grade levels 9, 10, and 11. In grade 12, the City High students responded
.01 higher than those in the national study. As in the Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic
Engagement category, the students locally and nationally showed a higher level of
engagement with each subsequent grade level, again, with the exception of City
High’s 10
th
graders. And, as in the prior category, the HSSSE responses demonstrated
a higher level of engagement than the City High responses with the exception of the
12
th
graders. The City High 9
th
graders were engaged at a lower level (8.16) than the
HSSSE 9
th
graders, and the City High 12
th
graders scored just slightly higher (8.94)
than the HSSSE 12
th
graders (8.93).

Table 6. Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement by Grade Level

Grade
HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
City High School
Mean Score
9
th
8.81 8.16
10
th
8.93 8.10
11
th
8.99 8.78
12
th
8.93 8.94
Overall 8.70 8.32

The students in the HSSSE study however, were markedly more engaged than
the City High students, in grades 9 (+.65), 10 (+.83), and 11 (+.21) despite the fact that
the HSSSE respondents were much more likely to have jobs way from campus
working for pay and were also volunteering outside of school at a higher rate overall
than the City High students.

73

Table 7. Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement Responses
HSSSE % of
Responses
City High % of
Responses
How important: participating in school-sponsored
activities (clubs, athletics, student government)
o not at all
o a little
o somewhat important
o very important
o top priority

24.27
15.92
21.49
27.44
10.87

29.62
16.69
19.51
23.12
11.05
Hours spent in a typical week: working for pay
(babysitting and other after school jobs)
o 0
o 1
o 2-5
o 6-10
o 10+

33.94
13.25
18.46
12.94
21.41

55.82
12.54
16.59
8.08
6.97
Hours spent in a typical week: doing volunteer
work
o 0
o 1
o 2-5
o 6-10
o 10+

48.25
30.28
16.26
3.38
1.83

53.39
21.96
18.93
2.82
2.90
School encourages: participate in school events
and activities
o very little
o some
o quite a bit
o very much

15.67
27.58
33.08
23.67

22.32
24.10
31.33
22.25

The area of Emotional Engagement surveyed how connected students felt to
their school and to the students and staff within the school community. The HSSSE
described the essence of this dimension as “engagement of the heart.”
In this area, the City High students scored a higher level of engagement than
those in the HSSSE in three (9
th
, 10
th
, and 12
th
) of four grade levels. The one grade,
74
11
th
, was just .01 higher in the HSSSE group. The gap in grade level scores between
the two sets (City High v. HSSSE), was minimal.
Overall, this illustrates that the City High School students are slightly more
emotionally engaged from the start of high school and remain more engaged through
to graduation, than those in the national study.

Table 8. Emotional Engagement by Grade Level

HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
City High School
Mean Score
9
th
24.36 24.73
10
th
24.35 23.61
11
th
24.54 24.53
12
th
24.71 24.80
Overall 23.90 23.98

Students at City High responded most strongly in the Agree category to many
statements about their emotional engagement in their school while those in the HSSSE
often showed higher numbers in the Strongly Agree category. However, the school
counselors received the highest numbers of Strongly Agree at City High, when
students were asked about support they provided along with teachers, administrators,
and other adults on campus. Students did respond to Strongly Agree that adults in the
school want them to succeed, that they have opportunities to be creative in their
assignments, they can “be who I am,” and that the school made them feel confident
about themselves.

75
Table 9. Emotional Engagement Responses
HSSSE % of
Responses
City High %
of Responses
Overall I feel good about being in this school
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

7.20
13.95
59.74
19.11

6.54
12.11
66.48
14.87
I am treated fairly in this school
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

8.91
19.26
58.61
13.21

6.30
15.17
66.97
11.57
I have a voice in classroom and/or school decisions
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

9.85
24.59
53.35
12.21

8.66
26.13
54.44
10.77
My opinions are respected in this school
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

11.39
28.82
50.83
8.96

8.40
27.43
55.91
8.26
I feel supported by the following people:
Counselors
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

7.93
19.28
57.99
14.80

7.69
19.72
56.29
16.29
Adults in the school want me to succeed
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

3.73
9.55
65.77
20.95

3.13
8.96
65.32
22.59
I have opportunities to be creative in classroom
assignments and projects
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

4.75
14.62
64.20
16.43

4.66
12.80
64.12
18.43

76
Table 9: Continued
I can be who I am at school
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

8.11
17.41
55.10
19.38

6.05
12.73
58.28
22.95
This school makes me feel confident about who I
am
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o agree
o strongly agree

11.02
30.49
49.72
8.77

10.58
28.98
51.20
9.24

The student responses at a moderate level of engagement overall, for City
High, throughout the areas surveyed might have appeared adequate, especially since
they were consistent with those of the national study. In looking at specific questions
however, there may be cause for concern. The City High students responded that
68.81% spent zero to one hour a week reading and studying for class compared to
55.36% in the national survey. When asked how important it was to read and study
for class, 33.52% of the City High students responded “not at all” or “a little” while
the HSSSE survey showed a 27.22% response level.
City High students reported less engagement in the Social/Behavioral/
Participatory category, spending less time (46.31% not at all or a little) in school
related clubs and activities than the national average (40.19% not at all or a little).
They also reported that the school didn’t encourage participation in school events and
activities (very little: national 15.67% v. local 22.32%) as much as at the national
level (very much: national 23.67% v. local 22.25%).
77
With regard to attendance, more students at City High (57.14%) had skipped
school one or more times than the national average (49.93%) and more (30.27%) had
considered dropping out than in the national survey (21.92). In looking at the various
reasons for dropping out, those with the significant differences in responses from the
national survey were attributed to: work was too hard (18.23% locally v. 10.52%
nationally), family issues (13.87% locally v. 8.55% nationally), other (23.99% locally
v. 15.43% nationally), or belief they might be held back a grade that year (20.97%
locally v. 12.83% nationally). More City High students had skipped school one or
more times (57.14% locally v. 49.93% nationally) than the national average.
Student engagement has been strongest at City High School in the area of
emotional attachment. The school received the highest responses in the areas of:
treating people with respect (very much: 34.89% locally v. 24.05% nationally),
understanding yourself (very much: 26.26% locally v. 18.61% nationally), speaking
effectively (very much: 21.16% locally v. 17.28% nationally), thinking critically (very
much: 22.73% locally v. 20.58% nationally), working well with others (very much
25.16% locally v. 21.02% nationally), and understanding people of other racial/ethnic
backgrounds (very much: 24.09% locally v. 17.97% nationally).
In examining the data of City High graduates, 26% passed all of the courses
required for admission to the University of California (UC) or the California State
University (CSU) systems, compared with 41% county wide and 38% at the state
level. In the yearly data, City High graduates passed at a rate of 24% while the
average within the district was at 29.3%. The school’s drop out rate was at 1.3%
78
compared to the district total of 8.0%. The school staff had worked to actively engage
students in classroom participation and reported an increase in the attendance of
students.
Staff interviews were consistent in reporting an increase in student engagement
on campus. The block schedule (three periods a day) with the tutorial in between
classes, was mentioned as motivating students to work extra hard during class time.
An English teacher stated, “Kids work hard in class to make sure they get their break
and don’t have to stay in for tutoring!” The teacher survey was in conflict to the staff
interviews in reporting less engagement on the part of students. The survey question,
which asked if students completed readings and/or assignments for class, received the
highest number of votes for Disagree (39%) of the entire survey. This is in contrast to
the student response of Never or Rarely, at a rate of 24.78%, to a question on the local
HSSSE that asked how often they attended class with all assignments completed but
consistent with student responses to attending class with no assignments completed at
39.59% (Sometimes and Often categories combined). The teacher survey question
asking if they agreed that students put a great deal of effort into doing their
schoolwork received a positive response rate of 31% and the second highest negative
response rate of Disagree, at 29%. Teachers responded that students felt it was
important to make good grades (55%) but that students didn’t place a high value on
learning (68%). Local student responses to the question of how motivated they were
by a desire to learn reached a positive 81.71% (61.11% agree, and 20.60% strongly
agree).

79
Table 10. Teacher’s Perceptions of Student Engagement
Question % Agree % Neutral % Disagree
My students attend class with readings
and/or assignments completed.

35 21 40
My students take pride in their school
work.
38 37 26
My students have the skills and abilities
to complete their assignments.
57 21 25
My students value the rewards (grades,
awards, etc.) that they get at school for
their work.
65 25 13
My students think it is important to
make good grades.
56 25 18
My students care about their school. 49 32 19
My students place a high value on
learning.
25 41 26
My students have a voice in classroom
decisions.
65 19 .09
My students put forth a great deal of
effort when doing their schoolwork.
31 37 29
My students are challenged to do their
best work at school.
76 15 .06
Agree category = responses reported as Strongly Agree and Agree.
Disagree category = responses reported as Strongly Disagree and Disagree.

Discussion of the First Research Question
In reflecting back on the first research question “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)?” City High School was closely aligned to
the national data of the HSSSE. The school appeared to make growth in deepening
their own level of engagement, but did not have baseline data for comparison. There
is evidence from this data however, that student engagement clearly increased from
the time 9
th
graders entered City High as freshman, and increased through to the year
80
they graduated as seniors. Compared with the HSSSE average, City High students
increased their engagement at a higher rate by the time they graduated.
Students at City High were most engaged in emotional areas and more
inconsistent in their engagement in academic areas. In academic areas, they were not
as challenged as the national respondents to do research outside of assigned texts, or
interact with people in the community for their projects. The students were more
likely than those in the national study to arrive at class without their assignment done.
In emotional engagement, students felt supported on a personal level by all
staff on campus, from clerical and custodial all the way up to the site administrators.
The literature that addresses the engagement of Hispanic students (over 91% at City
High) stressed the importance of a personal connection. The fact that this is a
particular area of strength for this campus is significant in maintaining their low drop
out rates, maintaining high levels of attendance, and increasing their levels of
academic achievement. With a significantly more diverse student population (95.5%
ethnic population v. 30.13 % in the HSSSE), this may demonstrate that City High has
had a positive impact overall, given the more difficult population it serves.

Data for Research Question Two
Research question two asked, “What school factors are perceived to contribute
to student engagement in high performing urban high schools?”
Student engagement on an emotional level is at a level of strength on the City
High School campus as indicated in the local responses to the HSSSE. Students and
81
staff are closely linked in daily school activities and in the block schedule of the
academic day. As you walk onto campus, the emotional ties between staff, faculty,
and students can be felt in the warmth of their greetings, the cheery smiles on
everyone’s faces, and in the calm that pervades the atmosphere. There is a palpable
level of energy to the site that feeds this emotional tie for students. A teacher
commented that the City High staff was “very caring and a tight community. There is
a true feeling of family. Staff and kids care for each other. It’s a smaller campus with
fewer class options so we see each other more.”
Starting three years ago, City High did not meet its API (academic
performance index) and AYP (annual yearly progress) for two years in a row. With
state intervention progressing at one of the school district’s other high schools, City
High decided to be proactive and conducted a voluntary mock-audit of its campus.
District office level personnel were brought in as well as consultants from the local
county office of education. This visiting committee found three things: inconsistent
implementation of a standards-driven curriculum that incorporated appropriate and
engaging instructional strategies; limited evidence of standards driven assessments to
improve instruction; and a culture on campus which did not reflect a challenging and
rigorous program in all classes for all students. As a result of this audit, the staff
adopted the Professional Learning Communities (PLC) model in order to tackle their
action plan and the block schedule was adopted to provide two things: more planning
time among staff, and more instructional time with students. As a result of this effort,
City High did meet its AYP for the following school year, and again for the
82
subsequent two years. The district as a whole was the most improved district in the
county last year, a year in which City High gained 61 points in their score under the
prior site administration.
The district was focused on increasing the number of students completing a-g
entrance requirements of the University of California, reducing the rate of D’s and F’s
on student report cards, and increasing the graduation rate at each site. In working on
these areas and as part of its implementation of the PLC model, the entire City High
counseling staff attended three trainings at the district level to develop a district-wide
system of interventions. Acknowledging that the City High staff was already into this
process and a little ahead of the other sites, the district provided additional days of
consultation with the visiting PLC trainer from Illinois. Together they worked on the
site’s system of interventions, examined grading policies, and brainstormed ways
teachers could reduce the percentage of D’s and F’s in their classes. In an
examination of student grades, it was determined that the majority of D’s and F’s were
awarded in math and science classes on campus with the fewest given in English
classes.
City High maintained a graduation rate at over 90 percent, higher than the
district, county, and state averages. The dropouts that did occur (6 in the current year)
were at the ninth grade level. Staff reported they were unable to determine a reason
for these students to drop out at that time.
One of the English teachers shared that “the block scheduling really made a
difference for many of my students” (see Table 1). It was especially helpful in the
83
content area of English as it allowed for more classroom time to read and discuss
passages in depth, and offered a level of assistance in writing assignments that had a
real impact on the student’s skill level. She shared that it was helpful if the teacher
was adept with technology, to use power point presentations to keep students engaged
for a longer instructional period. Other faculty shared that a good rapport with
students was essential. The tutorial period embedded within the block schedule
allowed teachers to get to know students really well since many of their class sizes
ranged up to thirty-four students at a time making it hard to interact with students
during normal class periods. Over and over, the teachers shared the benefits of the
block schedule and its impact on improving student engagement at the school.
Another English teacher shared, “The tutoring time helps me see what didn’t work that
day with Monday’s kids so that when I teach this on Tuesday, I make changes.”
A math teacher mentioned that the cohesive staff at City High contributed
greatly to higher student engagement. “We have a really collegial staff. We’re
usually here after four o’clock, working together. I think it creates a welcoming and
nurturing environment for kids.” He emphasized how they worked together to make
sure students would succeed. Research has shown that students in schools where the
staff is working well as a group generally outperform their peers in schools where the
staff is not functioning as well (Wheelan & Kesselring, 2005).
City High worked to engage students in extra curricular activities. The school
aimed to have very student, at some point in the school year, involved in an extra
curricular program or event. The school recognized that students often arrived on
84
campus without the skills and resources to succeed. One special education teacher
shared that they had adopted an attitude of, “so, what are we going to do about it” as
they worked to overcome these outside factors to ensure that every student would be
equipped to achieve. “We all know that we can make the difference through how we
teach a lesson. We can make the difference. Also, the tutoring session in the block
schedule gives us time with kids to make it work.”
The faculty had actively adopted the attitude conveyed by “Whatever It
Takes,” an initiative of the school district.
The school adopted a senior project as a culminating activity for graduating
seniors. This contributed to student engagement and substantially increased
interaction with individual faculty members as students worked to: engage a teacher
and/or a volunteer as a mentor, develop a project concept, complete a minimum of
fifteen hours of research and fieldwork, write a six to eight page research paper with
support from their English teacher/s, and orally deliver an eight to ten minute
presentation of the project in front of faculty and community members.
The teacher survey responses indicated that they believed they had the skills
and talent to impact student engagement. Of the sixty-eight City High teachers who
took the survey (of a possible eighty-two), 76% believed they were able to influence
student attitudes towards school, while only 52% believed they could influence
student attitudes about their schoolwork. Although 80% responded that they had the
capacity to motivate students who had stopped trying to start trying again, 59%
reported that they were able to get through to the most difficult students.

85
Table 11. Teacher’s Perceptions Of Their Ability To Impact Student Engagement
% Agree % Neutral % Disagree
I am able to influence the attitudes my
students have about school.
76 15 .04
I am able to help students care about
their schoolwork.
52 13 .06
I have enough time to get to know the
personal characteristics and interets of
all of my students.
54 13 .06
If a student stops trying in my class I
have the capacity to motivate them to
start trying again.
80 18 .06
If a student in my class is struggling, I
have the necessary skills to increase
their achievement.
84 10 .03
Resources and assistance are available
to students, to meet their personal and
academic needs.
84 10 .12
I can get through to the most difficult
students.
59 22 .13
I can help my students think critically. 66 10 .03
I can foster student creativity. 79 11 .03
I can assist families in helping their
children do well in school.
57 31 .09
Agree category = responses reported as Strongly Agree and Agree.
Disagree category = responses reported as Strongly Disagree and Disagree.

The school staff mentioned the significance of the courtyard area that was at
the center of the school campus. They felt this area contributed to the school
atmosphere of engaging and connecting among and with students, “the kids work hard
in class so that they can get out there and visit with friends and don’t have to stay for
tutoring.” This courtyard area provided a meeting place for students to do homework,
get help from each other, and as a place to sit and visit. Staff frequently wore t-shirts
appropriate to the activity of the day.
One day it was to encourage all students to do well on the CAHSEE, on
another day their t-shirts said “Got College?” A security guard said, “we say good
86
morning to kids every day to get them started off on the right foot. It helps to see a
friendly face in the morning.”
The City High staff created “crews” within subject areas, to work on the
curriculum content in their classes. A crew was made up of three to four teachers who
worked together every week, with one serving as the crew leader. The crew leaders
then met with their department chair, once a month. The crews spent time looking at
the upcoming week’s curriculum to see if changes were needed and to focus on
upcoming issues such as CAHSEE testing. In talking to an English crew leader, his
crew had been discussing the change in literature assignment from the Great Gatsby to
the novel, The Namesake. They’d also been working on a research paper assignment
(five library sources, four to five pages in length, revolving around a historical issue),
with each teacher taking a portion to write so they’d have an example to be used in
their classrooms with students. One of the Algebra crew members said, “we eat lunch
together every day anyway so we usually talk about our classes and the kids. We talk
about what we’re doing that day, what worked, and what we’re thinking of doing
tomorrow.” The crew discussed materials for class, their assessments, and strategies
being used for instruction.

87
Discussion of the Second Research Question
City High School had worked hard on rallying behind student engagement.
They had developed strong emotional ties with students and among faculty. The staff
was very caring about every child on campus, which was apparent in the daily
operations of the school. Classified, as well as certificated staff, were engaged in
conversations with students about their classroom work. The data from the HSSSE
showed that students were engaged at an emotional level but were slightly behind the
national average in their academic engagement. This was apparent in student
responses that demonstrated less rigor in assignments and demands within the
classroom (fewer research based assignments, more multiple choice testing over essay
written tests), etc.).
The school appeared to do an extraordinary job of engaging students on an
emotional level, which resulted in a very low dropout rate of 1.8%, and was moving to
do so on an academic level as well through the work of their curricular crew teams.
Their ability to raise the rigor of the school, while also maintaining the high level of
attendance and low dropout rate, was a testament to their work as a whole, coordinated
so gracefully by the site administration. The tutoring provided on a daily basis
inherent in the Block Schedule, assisted in this effort. This tutoring conducted by the
classroom teacher, provided students with immediate assistance on the day’s lesson,
and ready feedback to instructors on the effectiveness of their instruction. Working
hard in class and not having to attend the tutoring session each day built perseverance
within the students through incentives, as mentioned in research (Darling-Hammond
88
& Ifill-Lynch, 2006). The opportunity to be able to keep trying until they had
achieved mastery was key to overcoming obstacles in the learning process. It also
kept the teacher linked to the learners and raised their awareness to the strategies used
that were reaching students and those that were slipping beyond their grasp.

Data for Research Question Three
Research question three asked, “What factors are perceived to contribute to
high performance?”
Four factors were perceived to have contributed to the high performance of
City High School: leadership, use of data, examination of instructional practice, and
school culture.
New leadership was placed at City High School in the fall of the current school
year. A new principal was put into place upon the retirement of the prior principal,
and two of his three assistant principals were also new to the site. This was an
intentional move on the part of the district office, to build an administrative team that
would follow their new site leader. One assistant principal remained but had only
been at the school for one year prior to that September. The new team was young (in
their 30’s) and vibrant with exuberant, outgoing personalities. Their energy was
palpable throughout the school as they worked to boost school spirit and propel
changes in achievement scores. The Crew concept in professional development also
brought leadership out from classrooms to be shared across subject areas.
The new leadership at the school brought in the district’s Block Schedule as a
89
solution to the need for staff planning time, and more intense instructional support for
students. Implementing this was a major change in the daily operations of the school
requiring the administrative team to garner the trust of staff, and a willingness to take
a measured risk in the process. It also demonstrated their success in pulling staff
together as they spent time working out all the kinks that accompany any new change.
The school site and the district office were willing to implement the Block
Schedule as they used effective monitoring systems embedded in data to measure the
effectiveness of this change. The information gained in the examination of various
forms of data contributed to all decisions involving personnel, instruction, and school
operations. This also assisted in measuring success, altering practice to improve
performance, and in being accountable to the district office. The site administrative
team used data to set goals and in developing strategies with staff prior to the start of
the school year. Directives and guidelines were sent from the district office to
influence the planning, but the actual strategies used were designed at the site. The
school was then responsible for monitoring progress, making adjustments, and held
accountable for the end of year results. The district adopted software which was
considered very valuable in tracking progress and in providing student achievement
information by teacher. Teachers found it helpful in clarifying for themselves, areas in
which they were effective in instruction and areas in which they could improve.
In the area of instructional practice, strong department chairpersons and the
subject area Crews were essential to the work of aligning course content to the state’s
curriculum frameworks and content standards. Their leadership at all levels, and
90
ongoing work of refining instructional practice in classrooms, was key to the academic
achievement sought at every level. This daily focus on improving instructional
practice within the classroom had a positive impact on the achievement level of the
school with improved API scores. The district office provided ongoing support but it
was the school that implemented structural and instructional changes to make it work
for students. Through the Crew teams, every subject area of instruction worked to
make sure students would be successful.
In another area of instructional practice a district wide initiative of using
common assessments was instrumental in pulling teachers together to analyze results
and modify instruction accordingly. The analysis of assessment data also assisted in
determining the best type of support provided to students through their Pyramid of
Intervention: CAHSEE Review Classes, Academic Saturday School, Campus Watch,
Intervention Program, Summer Bridge, Guided Study, Academic Community for
Enrichment, or a Student Study Team. The use of common assessments and
examination of the data in crew and department meetings has prompted teachers to
work together. If the students in one class all did well on the test it prompted the
others to ask how that teacher made it happen. This alone has changed the level of
discussion among instructors.

Discussion of the Third Research Question
Instructional leadership from the teacher ranks was a significant finding
through the work of the content area crews. Teachers took to the work of guiding

91
instruction by examining student outcome data for feedback in their development of
effective practices. The strength of this movement within the school was evident in
the difficult conversations teachers were willing to address with each other while still
maintaining a collegial environment on the campus. Perhaps the intensity of the
conversations, though often confrontational in the discussion of an instructional issue,
actual deepened the relationships among teaching staff. A testament to the character
of the teachers as a whole, that they would be willing to put personal egos aside to
make sure they were doing the best job they could for students.
The major gains made in student achievement had been orchestrated by the
prior administration led by the strong principal who had retired. The new and younger
administrative team brought in a vibrancy that carried on the good practices and
pushed to make changes to move the school to the next level.

Themes
Four themes emerged in this study of City High School. As in any institution,
the themes are not isolated but merge and impact each other as crossover occurs
within the operational aspect of the site.
A. Leadership
The influence of the administrative leadership of this school district, of only
high schools, was evident in many operational areas of City High. On most high
school campuses the influence of the district office is not apparent to those on the
campus nor to observers. In this case it may be attributed to the fact that all of the

92
schools within the district were high school campuses. By having a single area of
demographic focus for all staff, the complex issues of an adolescent population could
be influenced with targeted impact by every department at the district level, and
successful measures could then be duplicated at a neighboring site or adopted by the
district as a whole.
The site leadership at City High was selected to work as a team and placed
there very intentionally by the district leadership. The site leadership team was young,
vibrant, and exceptionally high in their energy and focus on students. They were
visible throughout the day, in classrooms and out on campus during break times. They
created an energy level that was almost palpable, that permeated the campus and was
infectious among students and staff. This made it clear to everyone that time could
not be wasted and that student instruction was a priority.
They also empowered teachers to take a lead and make the decisions within
their areas of influence, for example: studying instructional effectiveness through
subject area, small team “crew” discussions, and determining which students stayed-in
for tutorial periods between classes in the block schedule.
Leadership also empowered classified staff to be a positive influence on
students. Office and security staff wore t-shirts along with certificated staff, and
coached students about the issue of the day (CAHSEE testing, good attendance, “Got
College?”).
B. Emotional Engagement
Overall, the school culture was an area of strength for City High in its area of
93
Emotional Engagement. The students and staff were very supportive of each other
and showed that they cared in various ways throughout the day. City High students
scored higher than the HSSSE average in this area of engagement.
The teachers worked as a team and were there to support one another and to
build better instruction for all students. It was mentioned that teachers were looking at
students who weren’t succeeding and asking “why not?” What could have been done
to facilitate a higher student score on the test that week? They took on the
responsibility for student learning and success in both student engagement and in
student achievement.
C. Using Data
The school site and the district office were focused on the use of data to
influence classroom instruction and site operation decisions. The district office
maintained an ongoing use of data for indicators of successful practices and as a
measure of school success. The site leadership used data for ongoing school
improvement, and as a means of determining when instruction was successful at a
classroom level. Discussion of student level data was inherent in the team discussions
of the subject area instructional crews each week, and would then filter through the
school to the other instructional teams as well.
D. Intervention
City High School had an extensive pyramid of intervention that was influenced
by the district in its establishment on campus. The pyramid offered a myriad of
programs and support for students who were struggling for a variety of reasons:

94
freshman students new to campus, lack of academic skills, bilingual issues, need for
accommodations, social concerns, etc. For each issue there was more than one
support program or service available to students, thereby building a strong net to catch
any child who might fall through the cracks. For example, incoming freshman were
ensured a strong start, even if they came in with below grade level skills, through: City
High discussions with teachers from the feeder middle schools, Campus Watch
(flagging of the most at-risk freshman), Summer Bridge (tutorial program in reading
and organizational skills between the eighth and ninth grades), and 9
th
Grade
Orientation (a start to developing a four year portfolio).
Moving students to achieve at grade level regardless of their entry level skills,
required an understanding and care for the individual student, provided through this
system of support and intervention provided on campus. The use of data identified the
learning needs of students and helped direct staff toward the appropriate intervention
and to the next steps required in instruction.

95
Chapter Five

Analysis and Discussion
Introduction
Schools across the country are responding to pressure to increase the academic
performance of their students and to reduce a persistent achievement gap that still
exists within many urban high schools often reflecting racial or economic differences
within their enrolled populations (Ferguson, 2002). As schools work on raising the
achievement of all their students they focus on the research that examines the factors
that are present in successful urban high schools that are generating innovative
strategies (Bell, 2001).
As schools work to raise the scores of their students, they quickly learn to deal
with the difficulties that arise on a daily basis as they work to get students engaged in
academics at the secondary level. Students on a high school campus were found by
Marks (2000) to be the least engaged in the educational process when measured by
their feelings of alienation and their academic success. When they are engaged,
students on a high school campus will become invested in the learning process and
strive to grasp the material presented to them, working to incorporate the knowledge
into their lives (Voke, 2002). They persist in their effort to master the content and in
pursuing their learning, even when they encounter school work that is difficult for
them to master (Schlecty, 2002). They learn to work in cooperative situations and
internalize newly acquired knowledge as they cope to apply this information to
96
solving problems presented in their schoolwork (Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, &
Rasmussen, 1994).
Successful high schools have been designed using student data to support the
instructional needs of learners. The personal and performance data helps guide the
development of instructional strategies targeted to the needs of students as a nurturing
community is built that requires active engagement of students in their learning
process. Engaging students in the process of learning makes them an active
participant and builds more accountability on their part, thereby having an effect on
their achievement. What is not clear is if student engagement is a factor contributing
to student achievement in high performing high schools. The impact of instructional
practices, leadership, and school culture are also not clearly understood in these high
performing urban high schools.

Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of high student
engagement in high performing high schools. Do high performing urban high schools
have higher levels of student engagement? If so, what school factors contribute
toward that higher level of engagement? The study focused on the following
questions:
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?
How does it compare to the national average?
97
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing
urban high schools?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?
The findings of the case study will be addressed and their relevance to other
student populations will be examined, concluding with implications for practice and
recommendations for future research.

Summary of Findings
It appears that school leadership, culture, and instruction did have an influence
on student engagement and achievement at City High as they extended their efforts to
actively engage students. This study also was consistent with educational literature
stating that effective leadership, good instructional practices, and a strong school
culture have a positive impact on student achievement. The level of engagement, both
nationally and locally were at a moderate level, though engagement increased steadily
in both cases from the freshman year through to graduation.
City High School students were slightly less engaged as incoming ninth
graders than the national average, but graduated at a level of “more engaged” than
those in the national survey, by their senior year. This may also be acknowledged as a
significant finding when considering that over 90% of the City High School students
were Latino, an ethnic group that has not historically shown a high level of
engagement in high school settings (HSSSE participants were 7.08% Latino).
Students at City High reported more interaction with their instructors about
98
class work and about how to apply for college. Students may have needed to reach out
to teachers for such support since significantly fewer of their parents had earned a
college degree than the national average. This may also have contributed to the higher
level of emotional engagement of City High School students, than students in the
national study. The school placed an emphasis on this area in rallying a high level of
energy on campus and building strong ties among students and staff with a tight
network of support systems to catch those who would normally fall through the cracks
unseen.

Implications for Practice
As a high performing urban school with a large population of high-poverty
students, the staff of City High demonstrated a strong command over the quality of
instruction they delivered on a daily basis. They delivered content area instruction
that offered a high level of intellectual challenge for students as they bridged up to the
grade level state content standards. The administrative leadership was clear in
building a culture that was aimed at success and excellence, focusing staff to design
and drive instruction toward this end, on a daily basis.
This strong instructional leadership was evident in the school’s focus toward
achievement: utilizing innovative approaches, sharing instructional leadership roles,
implementing research proven best practices, providing early intervention with
incoming freshman, and creating inclusiveness and a sense of family; all building a
sense of trust and support needed to sustain a strong learning environment.
99
As the smallest campus within this high school district, the staff connected on
a more personal level with students and had built a strong on site community, which
met the cultural needs of students, but also helped them maintain a high level of daily
attendance. The block schedule built strong ties between students and instructors as
they worked through classroom material in longer classroom periods of instruction,
followed by the tutorial period when needed. The school also maintained a series of
interventions for students who continued to have attendance issues.
The school district, site administrators, and classroom teachers all used data to
inform instruction and any site administrative decisions. Data was used in discussions
of student performance as teachers met in content area teams to examine and share
successful strategies in the classroom.
A pyramid of interventions and support had been established at City High to
ensure success for students who were struggling or not ready for the high school
curriculum. Teachers, counselors, and administrators were all involved in one or more
levels, providing tutoring, mentoring, intervention sessions, Saturday School, summer
programs, links to middle school staff, portfolio development, and parent meetings, to
identify and intervene for any student who was at risk of not graduating.
Though the instructional gains that categorized City High as a high performing
high school had occurred under the prior principal, this administrative staff had been
selected specifically for City High with their high level of energy and their focus on
raising the achievement of students. 91% of the certificated staff was highly qualified
with high percentages of the staff holding advanced degrees, and three were
100
Nationally Board Certified. The classified staff was also supportive of students and
focused on their achievement as well.
Instructors received continuous and frequent feedback since administrators
were in classrooms on a weekly basis. In addition, they received feedback from other
content teachers within their weekly team discussions of lessons, assessments, and the
data that was generated by students. Staff members were pushed to be more
accountable through these team meetings.

Recommendations for Future Research
The study of the relationship between student engagement and the impact on
student achievement is a topic of ongoing study. Identifying at what point a student
becomes disengaged would assist in the development of programs and strategies to
keep students involved and attentive to their school environment. It is possible that
the disengagement occurs in middle school or even elementary school for a portion of
this population. Also identifying the reason students become disengaged would assist
in the development of support strategies to assist students at risk of dropping out
(family issues, learning or developmental difficulties, emotional traumas, etc.).
A study of engagement strategies used with students is worth studying to assist
in building them into every instructional day. The teacher’s role is often pivotal to a
student who stays in school and is motivated to succeed, and to those who see only
failure and recede from the instructional scene.
A future study looking at high performing high schools with larger populations

101
of students of recent immigrants to the country would be valuable to this work. It
would be interesting to compare the experiences of first generation immigrants with
that of students who are the second, third, or fourth generation immigrants; especially
if contrasted between those who have risen educationally and economically with those
who have remained at a poverty level.
In the next level of study, it would be valuable to include student interviews to
provide clarification to their survey responses and to get the full story of their
experience in the high performing high school.
A study of high performing high schools that are situated in school districts
with Kindergarten through grade 12 students would be interesting, to determine if the
level of support, focus on student engagement, use of student performance data, and
allocation of resources are available at a comparable level to the schools in this high
school district.
A study looking at low performing students and determining reasons for their
low performance: low academic skills, personal/social/family issues, etc.. Possibly
using diagnostic tests to assess the academic skill levels of students who are low
performing and/or drop out and compare them to those who complete their high school
diplomas. The next step would then be to examine what high performing high schools
do to address the instructional and personal needs of low performing students to
overcome roadblocks and provide support through to graduation.

102
Bibliography

Ali, R. & Jerald, C. (2001). Dispelling the Myth in California. The Education Trust-
West.

Allensworth, E. (2005). Graduation and dropout trends in Chicago: A look at cohorts
of students from 1991 through 2004. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.

Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty and student
learning, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18).

Bainbridge, W., Lasley II, T., & Sundre, S. (2003). Policy initiatives to improve urban
schools: An agenda. Education and Urban Society, 35 (3), 292-299.

Baker, E. L. (2004, December). Aligning Curriculum, Standards, And Assessments:
Fulfilling The Promise Of School Reform. National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)/UCLA.

Balfanz, R. & Legters, N. (2004, September). Locating the Dropout Crisis. Which
High Schools Produce the Nation’s Dropouts? The Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.

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

Barton, P. E. (2006, February). The Dropout Problem: Losing Ground. Educational
Leadership, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 14-18.

Barton, P. E. (2005a, January). Unfinished business: more measured approaches in
standards-based reform (Policy Information Report). Princeton, JG: Educational
Testing Service, Policy Information Center.

Barton, P. E. (2005b). One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining
opportunities. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information
Center.

Bell, J. (2001, September/October). High-performing, high poverty schools,
Leadership, Association of California School Administrators, 8-11.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, G. & William, D. (2004, September).
Working inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, September, 9-21.

Boaler, J. (2004). Promoting Equity in Mathematics Classrooms – Important
Teaching Practices and their impact on Student Learning. Paper presented at
ICME, Copenhagen.
103

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

Brewster, C. & Fager, J. (2000, October). Increasing student engagement and
motivation: from time-on-task to homework. Northwest Regional Education
Laboratory.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). The Sputnik Era: Why is this educational reform different from
all other reforms? Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking R., (editors) (1999). How People Learn, National
Academies of Science: National Research Council. Washington, D.C.

Connell, J. & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: a
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In Gunnar, M. & Sroufe, L. (Eds.),
Self processes in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Vol
23, 43-77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cosner, S. & Peterson, K. (2003, May/June). Building learning community,
Leadership, Association of California School Administrators, p12-15.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools
that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Ifill-Lynch, (2006). If only they’d do their work.
Educational Leadership, 63 (5). p8-13.

Day, S. L. (2002, September). Read kids, real risks: Effective instruction of students
at risk of failure. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin.

Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (1993). Strategies for building school cultures: Principals as
symbolic leaders. In M. Sashkin & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Leadership
and school culture (p89-99). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

DeMoss, K. (2002). Leadership Styles and High Stakes Testing: Principals Make a
Difference. Education and Urban Society, Vol. 35, No. 1, p111-132.

Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (2001, August). Mismatch: Historical
Perspectives on Schools and Students Who Don't Fit Them. Teachers College
Record, v103 n4 p525-47.

104
Dufour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Blooomington, IN: National
Education Service.

Earl, L. & Fullan, M. (2003, November). Using data in leadership for learning,
Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), p384-394.

Ferguson, R. F. (2002). Addressing the racial disparities in high-achieving suburban
schools. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Policy Issues,
December 2002, (13), p1-10.

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., and Borg, W.R. (2006). Educational Research: an introduction
(8
th
Edition).

Haney, W., Madaus, G., Abrams, L., Wheelock A., Miao, J., & Gruia, I. (2004). The
education pipeline in the United States, 1970-2004. Chestnut Hill, MA: National
Board on Education Testing and Public Policy.

Haycock, K. (1999). Dispelling the Myth: high-poverty schools exceeding
expectations. The Education Trust. Washington, D.C.

Hentschke, G. (1997) Beyond competing school reforms: A redefinition of public in
public schooling. Education and Urban Society, 29 (4), p474-489.

Johnson, J. & Skrla, L. (2000). Equity-Driven, Achievement-Focused School Districts.
The University of Texas at Austin: Charles A. Dana Center. Austin, TX.

Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing learning
and technology for educational reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional
Education Laboratory.

Klem, A. & Connell, J. (2004, March). Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher
Support to Student Engagement and Achievement, Institute for Research and
Reform in Education. Paper presented at the Tenth Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research on Adolescence.

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

Leithwood, K., Steinback, R. & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’
motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 38 (1).

Lewis, A. (2004, March). Schools that engage children, Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6),
p483-484.
105

Linnenbrink, E. & Pintrich, P. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19,
p119-137.

Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest, Number 92,
Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the
elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(1), p153-184.

Marzano, R. (1998). A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instruction. Mid-
Continent Regional Educational Laboratory. Aurora, CO.

McCarthy, M. & Kuh, G. (2006). Are students ready for college: What student
engagement data say. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), p664-669.

Mendoza, J. (2005). Accountability for Educational Outcomes: A Conversation for
All Stakeholders. University of California All Campus Consortium on Research
for Diversity.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Means, B. (1997). Critical issue: Using technology to enhance engaged learning for
at-risk students. Menlo Park, CA: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Newman, F. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational
Leadership, February 1989) p34 - 39.

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., Swanson, C. B. (2004). Losing Our Future: How
Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis, Cambridge,
MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Contributors: Advocates for
Children of New York, The Civil Society Institute.

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

106
Peterson, K.D. (1999). Time use flow from school culture: River of values and
traditions can nuture or poison staff development hours. Journal of Staff
Development, (20)2.

Raynor, A. (2005). High School Redesign. Voices in Urban Education, Annenberg
Institute for School Reform at Brown University, VUE Number 8.

Raywid, M. (2006, May). Themes that serve schools well, Phi Delta Kappan, p654-
656.

Raywid, M. (1999, April). Central Park East Secondary School: The Anatomy of
Success, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, p131-151.

Robbins, P. & Alvy, Harvey (1995). The principal’s companion. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Scherer, M. (2002, September). Do students care about learning? Educational
Leadership, 60(1), p12-17.

Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers,
principals, and superintendents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Silliker, S. & Quirk, J. (1997, March). The effect of extracurricular activity
participation on the academic performance of male and female high school
students, The School Counselor, 44, p288-293.

Sizer, T. R. (1996). Horace’s Hope, What Works for the American High School.
Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, p76-77.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal
effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4): p571-581.

Stiggins, R. (2004, September). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission, Phi
Delta Kappan, p22-27.

Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999 ). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's
Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press.

Swanson, C. B. (2001). Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t? A Statistical Portrait of
Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001. Washington, D. C.: The Urban
Institute.

107
Swanson, C. B. (2005, March). Who Graduates in California? Education Policy
Bulletin, The Urban Institute Education Policy Center.

The Civil Rights Project (2005, March). Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in
California. Boston: Harvard University.

Tomlinson, C. (2002, September). Invitations to learn. Educational Leadership,
60(1), p7-10.

U.S. Department of Education (2003). National Center for Education Statistics. Third
International Math and Science Study, Washington D. C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education (2008). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Voke, H. (2002). Motivating Students to Learn. Infobrief (28). Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wheelan, S. A., & Kesselring, J. (2005). Link between faculty group development and
elementary student performance on standardized tests. Journal of Educational
Research, 98(6), p323–330.

Willingham, W., Pollack, J., & Lewis, C. (2002). Grades and Test Scores: Accounting
for Observed Differences, Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(1), p1-37.

Ybarra, S., Hollingsworth, J. (2001, September). Increasing classroom productivity –
DataWorks Educational Research's DataWorks Productivity Index. Leadership,
Association of California School Administrators.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

108
Appendix A – 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. 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? (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.

109

Appendix B – 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.)

110
Appendix C – 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.

111
Appendix D – Teacher Survey Instrument
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Please indicate the content area/s you teach: Visual/Performing Arts
Career/Technical English History Math PE Science

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 school work.

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.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was conducted at a high performing urban high school to determine whether it had higher levels of student engagement and if so, what school factors contributed toward that engagement. Leadership, instructional practice, and school culture were examined in this study.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Student engagement in high-performing urban high schools: 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

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

PDF

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban 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

Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school

PDF

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

PDF

Outperforming nontraditional urban school: a high school case study

PDF

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

PDF

The plight of African American males in urban schools: a case study

PDF

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

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

A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban magnet high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Gates, Jane Yuguchi (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 10/05/2009

Defense Date 08/24/2009

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

Tag high performing,High School,OAI-PMH Harvest,Urban

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 jgates@smmusd.org,yuguchigates19@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2641

Unique identifier UC1498993

Identifier etd-Gates-3277 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-258007 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2641 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Gates-3277.pdf

Dmrecord 258007

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gates, Jane Yuguchi

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