Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
(USC Thesis Other)
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE IMPACT OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND
BLOCK SCHEDULING ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER STUDENTS
AT OAK POINT MIDDLE SCHOOL
by
Horace Darren McDuffie
____________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Horace Darren McDuffie
ii
DEDICATION
For my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ from whom all blessings flow. To
my beautiful bride, Kaishawn McDuffie; my two beautiful daughters, Ayanna and
Kiya McDuffie; and my father and mother, Annie and Robert McDuffie. Words
cannot express my gratefulness to all of you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank my dissertation chairperson, Dr. Dennis Hocevar and my
committee members: Dr. Reed and Dr. Conklin. Your guidance and support have
been invaluable.
To my thematic group, Frank Gomez and Terry Nichols, “we got er
done!” I’ll never forget the experience that we shared together and I look forward
to working with both of you in the future.
I wish to thank all of my classmates who took this journey with me over
the three years. I was blessed to have a great cohort and I will miss our time
together.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM ....................................................................... 1
Problem Identification................................................................................... 1
Oak Point Middle School .............................................................................. 2
Setting and Demographics ............................................................................ 5
Problem Analysis and Interpretation ............................................................. 7
Problem Solution ..................................................................................... 13
Preparations for the Interventions ............................................................... 14
Adding Structure ......................................................................................... 15
Team Functions ....................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 22
Professional Learning Communities ........................................................... 23
The Block Schedule .................................................................................... 27
Historical Perspective .............................................................................. 27
Today’s Block Schedule ......................................................................... 29
Middle Schools and Block Scheduling ................................................... 30
Diversity Issues Impacting Block Scheduling ........................................ 34
ELL students and Standards-Based Education .......................................... 37
Instructional Strategies ................................................................................ 38
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 44
Summary of Research Design ..................................................................... 44
Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Design .................................................... 45
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design ............................................. 46
Formative Evaluation Design .................................................................. 50
Interventions................................................................................................ 51
v
Block Scheduling .................................................................................... 51
Professional Learning Communities ....................................................... 52
Participants and Setting ........................................................................... 53
Setting ..................................................................................................... 54
Achievement ........................................................................................... 55
Instrumentation ........................................................................................... 57
Interviews ................................................................................................ 57
Observations ............................................................................................ 59
Documents and Materials Analysis ......................................................... 60
Formative Analysis ..................................................................................... 61
Summative Analysis ................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ............................................................................... 63
Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Design ........................................................ 63
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design ................................................. 64
Results of Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Design ....................................... 65
Comparison School Results ........................................................................ 70
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 73
Overview ..................................................................................................... 73
Purpose ........................................................................................................ 73
Oak Point Middle—Summary of Findings ................................................. 74
Statistical Significance ............................................................................ 75
Interviews ................................................................................................ 77
Observations ............................................................................................ 81
Summary of Findings: Oak Point Middle School and Francisco Middle
School.......................................................................................................... 83
Research Implications for Block Scheduling and Professional Learning
Communities ............................................................................................... 85
Block Scheduling .................................................................................... 86
Professional Learning Communities ....................................................... 86
Site-Based Recommendations ..................................................................... 88
Limitations .................................................................................................. 91
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 92
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 94
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Subgroups and API Growth ............................................................... 3
Table 2. ELA CST Data ................................................................................... 4
Table 3.. ELA CST Data: 5-Year Longitudinal ............................................... 4
Table 4. ELA CST Data: Subgroups At or Above Proficient .......................... 5
Table 5. Similarities of OPMS and Francisco Middle, 2007 School Year .... 48
Table 6. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Performance Band
Differences for OPMS: Statistical Findings .................................... 65
Table 7. Pre- Versus Post -Intervention CST ELA Performance Band
Differences for ELL Students at OPMS: Statistical Findings ......... 66
Table 8. Pre-versus Post intervention CST ELA Performance Band
Differences for ELL Students: Practical Significance .................... 67
Table 9. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention ELL CST ELA Percent
Basic and Above .............................................................................. 69
Table 10. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention ELL CST ELA Percent
Proficient and Above....................................................................... 69
Table 11. OPMS API School-Wide Comparisons ......................................... 71
Table 12. OPMS API English Language Learner Subgroup Comparison ..... 71
Table 13. AYP English Language Arts for the Experimental and
Comparison English Language Learner Students’
Percent at or Above Proficient ...................................................... 72
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine and evaluate the impact of two
interventions, block scheduling and professional learning communities, on the
academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELL) on the English-
language arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST). A nonequivalent
independent groups design was used. A benchmark school was selected based on
similar school characteristics and the pre and post intervention comparisons were
made between the experimental school and benchmark school which had no
treatment, but had historically outperformed the experimental school.
Participants in the study included the entire middle school population of
1,072 students grades 6-8. The percentage of ELL students was 50% of the entire
population. The block schedule and professional learning communities began in
August of 2007, the first day of school and continued through June of 2008. The
primary findings would come from the student performance on the English-
language arts section of the CST that was administered in May 2008.
Performance level data were coded on a scale of 0-4 for all students in grade 6-8.
A pre-post analysis of the experimental school indicated an increase on the
English-language arts section of the CST for ELL students in grades 6 and 8.
While 7th grade did not increase, qualitative findings reflect that teachers
implemented the multiple interventions at various levels of fidelity. The results
viii
also indicated a positive increase in the experimental school's Academic
Performance Index ( API) score for ELL students and students school wide.
When the experimental group was matched against the benchmark school,
both schools had an 11% increase the achievement of the ELL student on the
CST. However, the benchmark school still outperformed the experimental
school suggesting that the experimental school has room for considerable
improvement.
This study only examined this research through the lens of the current
California accountability system. It is still necessary for further research to be
accomplished to pinpoint the accuracy of school achievement data for ELL
student. In particular, longitudinal data is needed to track grade to grade student
growth.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
The problem many California school districts face was raising the
proficiency level of English Language Learner (ELL) students as measured by the
California Standards Test (CST). The results of not keeping pace with the
requirements of the federal mandate No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (United States
Department of Education, 2002) are punitive. More and more California districts
are falling into Program Improvement (PI) status due to ELL students not
reaching the required proficiency level set by the federal government. The results
for the students themselves are even more damaging. Students continue to be
tested and fall farther and farther behind and the stakes to raise scores fuels every
decision from the school site and district. ELL students have a dual predicament
of becoming fluent in a second language as well as to score proficient on the CST
along with their English Only (EO) counterparts. At Oak Point Middle School
(OPMS), there are a very small percentage of ELL students who are proficient on
the 2006 CST and the achievement gap was not closing between White students
and ELL students in California. CST data show overwhelmingly that minority
students, specifically ELL students are not achieving significant gains in the areas
of math and English-Language Arts (ELA). There had to be a shift in how we
Problem Identification
2
approach educating our ELL students in order for them to receive the tools they
need to compete and contribute to society.
Student achievement had not shifted much over the past few years at
OPMS yet the API scores still improve every year. In 2005, the API base for Oak
Point was adjusted to 633 due to a large boundary shift. According to the
California Department of Education (2007), Oak Point’sAPI was 656, a growth of
6 points from the previous year, and a 23-point growth since 2005. Although Oak
Point experienced a 6-point growth from 2006-2007, OPMS did not make its API
growth target of 658. An analysis of the demographic sub-group data shows
Hispanic/Latino and White subgroups making their growth target by 11 and 10
points respectively, while the ELL subgroup made only a 3- point gain. Table 1
shows the various subgroups and where ELL students went from an API score of
587 up to 590 illustrating the ELL subgroup making the smallest gain of all of the
significant subgroups.
When measuring scores in the context of the Federal Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) model, ELL students did not reach the growth target of 24.4%
proficient in ELA and Math. The data shows a 5-year trend with minimal growth.
Oak Point Middle School
3
Table 1
Subgroups and API Growth
Looking at Oak Point’sdata for 2007-2008 for the entire school
population, there had not been significant change in the number of Oak Point
students proficient in Language Arts as measured by the CST. Table 2 shows
between 68% and 70% of OPMS students scoring from the basic range to far
below basic.
Table 3 displays the longitudinal data for the school for the past 5 years.
Over a 5-year trend, the differential in test scores was a +3. This was progress but
over the 5 years, it does not put a dent into where students should be according to
NCLB proficiency set at 24.4%.
Subgroups
Subgroup API
Number of
Students
Included in
2007 API
Numerically
Significant
in Both
Years
2007
Growth
2006
Base
2006-
07
Growth
Target
2006-
07
Growth
African American (not of Hispanic origin) 35 No
American Indian or Alaska Native 8 No
Asian 22 No
Filipino 25 No
Hispanic or Latino 727 Yes 619 609 10 10
Pacific Islander 3 No
White (not of Hispanic origin) 167 Yes 764 753 5 11
Socio-economically Disadvantaged 734 Yes 624 617 9 7
English Learners 567 Yes 590 587 11 3
Students with Disabilities 125 Yes 460 453 17 7
4
Table 2
ELA CST Data
Grade
No. of
Students
Adv
Prof
Basic
Below
Basic
Far
Below
Total
Prof
6 376 8% 21% 29% 24% 18% 29%
7 336 9% 21% 29% 26% 15% 30%
8 339 9% 19% 36% 18% 18% 28%
Table 3
ELA CST Data: 5-Year Longitudinal
Grade
1-Year
Change
2-Year
Change
3-Year
Change
4-Year
Change
5-Year
Change
6 +3 +7 +7 +5 +2
7 0 +3 +2 0 +4
8 +1 +4 +1 +5 0
Table 4 breaks down the students into sub-groups on the 2006-2007 CST
showing ELL students are the second lowest group at 16.4%.
5
Table 4
ELA CST Data: Subgroups At or Above Proficient
Group Percent
School-wide 30.2
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 29.4
American Indian or Alaska Native n/a
Asian 72.7
Filipino 64
Hispanic or Latino 22.7
Pacific Islander n/a
White (not of Hispanic origin) 53.3
Socio-economically Disadvantaged 24
English Learners 16.4
Students with Disabilities 10.6
Note: 2006 Percent Proficient Target 24.4%
Setting and Demographics
OPMS had a student population of 1,072, with the Latino population
comprising the largest demographic group with 806 students or 75% of the
student population. Oak Point’snext largest demographic group was White with
163 students or 15%, and finally African-American and Asian students rounded
out the population roughly at 10% with 39 African-American students and 24
Asian students. This demographic enrollment was consistent for the previous 4-6
years. OPMS had 69% of its students who were considered socio-economically
6
disadvantaged (SES), 50% ELL students, and about 12% Students with
Disabilities (SWD).
OPMS had 62 faculty members along with 2 assistant principals,
curriculum coach, and 2 counselors. There were 19 staff members who had five
or less years of teaching experience, 16 staff members with over 15 years, and
five staff members with 30 plus years. The average years of teachers staying at
OPMS was 13.4 years against the district average of 12.5 years. I had been
principal of OPMS since the start of the 2006-2007 school year. My role as
instructional leader of OPMS was to develop a shared vision for the community
of learners. The curriculum was an important part of how students received the
knowledge to perform on assessments like the CST. As principal I ensured
fidelity to the curriculum and ensured that teachers were differentiating
instruction for ELL students. The Hampton Brown High Point (2006) curriculum
was used to assist students who were two years below grade level to bring them to
grade level in ELA. Specially Designed Academics Instruction in English
(SDAIE) strategies were an expectation for all teachers to employ during
instructional delivery. Some of those teaching strategies included: choral
reading, extensive pre-teaching, vocabulary and oral language development,
visual aids, body gestures, and movements.
7
Problem Analysis and Interpretation
An assessment of the culture in the previous year revealed a school with a
history of many traditions and strong pride. The teachers had a reputation around
the school district for being very talented and skilled but a maverick of sorts when
it came to following district policy. The culture of OPMS was one built upon
distrust and blame. Many of the staff commented on their frustration due to their
perceived lack of support from the district, administration and parents, as well as
sympathy for the Hispanic/Latino population. Many teachers believed students’
lack of commitment to education, and lack of parent involvement was a major
factor in student performance. It was quickly discovered that the OPMS faculty
did not work together and they liked it that way or many of them felt comfortable
working solo. One teacher wrote to me saying how he/she felt the principal’s role
was to be the disciplinarian for the problem students who acted up and to keep
them out of the classrooms so they could teach.
Four distinct causal factors were used as a lens through which to examine
the gap between current and desired achievement of ELL students at OPMS. The
factors focused on teacher knowledge, motivation, student, and organization
(Clark & Estes, 2002). These are factors were addressed with the interventions
being implemented at OPMS.
The knowledge factors was important to closing the gap for our ELL
students. Even though all Oak Point teachers had the state's Cross Cultural
8
Language and Academic Development (CLAD) certification, the practical
application of CLAD strategies, instituted in California due to the diverse student
population, needed constant review and enhancement. Moreover, some staff
members felt what knowledge they had acquired was good enough in the past and
would stand the test of time.
The veteran staff, those who have taught for over 20 years, were resistant
to taking workshops and trainings that would assist them in employing the most
effective teaching strategies. This resistance can often lead teachers to a self-
fulfilling prophecy when they are being asked to apply new strategies or learn
new systems. Edusoft was a data management system that allows teachers to
disaggregate student test data. A survey was given out regarding Edusoft and
teachers’ use of this system. It showed that teachers at Oak Point rarely used
Edusoft if at all. One of the reasons given for why they did not use Edusoft was
that the previous administration did not require them to use it. Another reason
was the frustration of not having the proper training or support on the new system
that caused teachers who did try it, to revert back when faced with difficult
challenges in learning. This job aid had been in our district for 5 years and was
widely used at other schools to disaggregate assessment data. This training would
definitely enhance the knowledge and skill of teachers analyzing student data so
they could better target areas of strengths and weaknesses to drive their
instruction. Clark and Estes (2002) suggests that job aids like Edusoft “provide
9
people with recipes for achieving performance goals in a form that permits them
to do it on their own” (p.58). The Edusoft (2006) was a job aid that would assist
teachers in achieving the goal with little training (Estes & Clark, 2002).
In the area of employee motivational factors, Oak Point had several
problems. According to Clark and Estes (2002) motivation influences three
crucial features of work, “first choosing to work toward a goal; second, persisting
at it until it was achieved, and third how much mental effort we invest to get the
job done” (p.44). The critical feature missing at OPMS was the choosing to work
toward a goal. In the past, teachers at Oak Point had not worked well together
towards goals. Many of the teachers felt that past goal failure was a
determination of how any future goals would play out. In the 2006-2007 school
year, teachers worked within departments, some departments working well and
stronger than others, but working in isolation of each other all the same. In 2007 I
recall hearing an English teacher in a leadership meeting said that he/she wanted
everyone to know that he/she was advocating for the language arts teachers. This
was followed immediately by the math department chairperson stating that they
were not changing their teaching practice because nothing new ever works. These
types of statements made it clear that OPMS teachers were not choosing to work
toward the same goal. Clark and Estes (2002) assert that only the active pursuit of
goals counts over just the intention of doing something. The statement from the
math and English chairs indicated the active choice not to pursue shared goals.
10
The mental effort aspect that Clark and Estes (2002) refers to had an affect on
motivation of teachers and what they were willing to do. There was a feeling at
Oak Point of what Clark and Estes (2002) refers to as an over-confidence
problem. The cause for the problem was blamed on every system, organization,
and person, except teacher instructional practices. Teachers did not take
responsibility for the low-test scores the ELL students had received over the
years. They blamed the district office for not giving them the proper resources.
They blamed the parents and the lifestyle they lived or the fact that students were
not prepared to learn. Some thought that the students (the majority of whom were
Latinos) could not achieve higher test scores because it was too hard for them.
There was never a question about the role of instructional practices might play in
the current achievement level nor the role that reflecting on teacher delivery of the
curriculum might have on achievement.
In the area of student factors, Marzano (2003) provides three elements of
student factors that schools have the ability to affect. They are home
environment, background knowledge, and motivation. Whether it is parent
education or low socio-economic status (SES), Marzano (2003) writes, “Where a
school cannot change the income, education, or occupation of adults in the home,
it can have a potential impact on the atmosphere in the home” (p.128).
Building background knowledge was key to raising student achievement
of ELL students. Marzano (2003) asserts there is a strong relationship between
11
background knowledge and achievement. Hill and Flynn (2006, p. 44) write,
“Students construct meaning by drawing connections between new information
and what they already know (background knowledge).” Teachers who do not
attempt to build this knowledge for ELL students may assume that either students
have the ability or not and there was nothing they can do about it. Last year, a
OPMS teacher was exasperated and said that he “gives up.” He began explaining
how the students did not want to learn and they all just stare into space. It may be
that many of the ELL students did not have any background knowledge of a
concept that this teacher just assumed all students had.
Student motivation was sometimes a challenge for teachers with ELL
students. What was interesting about this dilemma was that teacher expectations
of ELL students may have been a major contributor to the lack of motivation they
saw in their students. Often teachers will make assumptions about a student’s
ability not based on a student’s cognitive abilities, but rather on other factors like
SES, appearance, race, language, and the type of school (Cotton, 1989). In
classrooms, expectations are often vastly different for heavily populated ELL
classes as opposed to non-ELL classes. In an ELL classroom, students may not
have the same opportunities of learning because the teacher does not expect the
student to achieve to high levels. As a result of this type of expectation, ELL
students become passive and although they may not cause problems in class, they
do not work to their fullest potential. Furthermore, they are not expected to do
12
what was required academically of other students. Cotton (1989) found, “When
teachers engage in differential treatment of high- and low-expectation students,
students are aware of this difference” (p. 3). Teacher low expectation connects
closely with the lack of student motivation. There are many times when students
profess they are in the dumb class. No one says this, but it was an awareness they
have about their teacher’s expectations. These types of statements relate to how
students perceive themselves. Marzano (2003) describes the self-worth theory
and how self-acceptance was one of the highest human priorities. Marzano
quotes Covington, “individuals are thought to be only as worthy as their
achievements” (Marzano, 2003, p. 146). In the case of our ELL students, there
was nothing they felt they had achieved in the classroom that could give them a
sense of self worth.
Finally, organizational factors are an important facet of the problem.
There are many organizational patterns at Oak Point that cause the problem of
low ELL achievement. The former principal of OPMS was there for 8 years with
all of his experience coming from a high-school background. The principal had a
high school organizational influence on OPMS. For instance, teachers planned in
isolation and worked only in departments similar to traditional high schools.
Other than the department meetings, there were no other collaborative settings for
teachers to plan, reflect, or share best instructional practices. Also, teachers
looked at middle-school students as transitioning from adolescence to adulthood
13
opposed to transitioning from childhood to adolescence. This organizational
culture was the norm for 8 years. With the educational practices being very
different from the culture at OPMS, the change in this organizational culture
would be the most difficult, yet most important, process of analysis.
Problem Solution
In 2007, teachers had no experience working with each other in a
collaborative fashion. The department meetings were used to disseminate
information and communicate teacher concerns about school issues but never
dealt with improving instructional practice through collaboration. OPMS had all
the symptoms of a low-performing school but as a result of the High Priority
Schools Grant Program (HPSGP), there had been a major push to becoming a
high-performing school. OPMS qualified to receive state funds due to years of
low scores on the CST. A school improvement plan was developed and prepared
for the 2007-2008 school year with the assistance of an outside consultant. This
HPSGP would fund changes in the organization based on research for the purpose
of improving state test scores. HPSGP required the school to improve 10 API
points over the next 2 to 3 years to continue with the funding. The consultant
guided the Oak Point School Leadership Team (SLT) through an Academic
Performance Survey (APS) and school reform research to assist with a school
improvement based on the school’s strengths and weaknesses. As a result, the
14
SLT made a decision to implement Professional Learning Communities (PLCs),
and a block schedule to lengthen instructional time in the day to allow teachers
more time to differentiate instruction and provide more depth in their lessons in
order to raise student achievement. The structure would also enable teachers to
have a daily collaboration time with members of an interdisciplinary team of
teachers called castles and their grade-level department members. This would
allow them to look at data about students they share, and to seek appropriate
interventions to assist struggling students academically, socially, and
behaviorally.
Preparations for the Interventions
The Professional Learning Community (PLC) intervention began with an
initial workshop at the end of the 2006-2007 school year where the staff
developed a shared vision and mission statement. This was in preparation for the
changes in teaching and organizational structure that were going to take place in
the 2007-2008 year. The workshop’s concepts were taken from the book Failure
is Not an Option (Blankstein, 2004). Each teacher was given a copy of the book
to read and refer to in the coming weeks and months. Blankstein devotes an
entire chapter on developing a shared or common mission and vision, which
becomes a catalyst for the school. “The mission of an organization was essential
to its success. A mission statement should be created and published as a means of
15
giving those involved with the organization a clear understanding of its purpose
for existence” (Blankstein, 2004, p. 66). The adopted mission statement of OPMS
was: It is the mission of the Oak Point Middle School community, including staff,
students and parents, to educate all students to meet district and state standards
regardless of academic performance, socio-economic status, race, or gender.
This was done while fostering a school of resourceful problem solvers, who
respect diversity and the environment, and are prepared to meet their future
goals. The Oak Point community commits to assure this outcome. This
collaborative effort was the first activity taken on by the staff members. It served
as a symbol of the change that was going to take place.
Teachers also developed an understanding of the common language for the
PLC and important tenets that make a school a true PLC.
Adding Structure
As principal, I was able to form collaborative teams that were not a part of
the organizational structure of OPMS in 2006-2007. An Instructional Leadership,
Curriculum, and Success Team were the new components of the organizational
structure that drove the successful implementation of the OPMS professional
learning community.
The organizational structure was in place and provided time for teachers to
connect and get to know their students. Teachers must connect with every student
16
on their level so they may develop a rapport and motivate them to achieve at a
higher academic level, specifically with our ELL population. Darling-Hammond
(2002) describes it as personalizing school and developing student-centered
environments by focusing on activities that tell about the student and their family
and other student experiences. According to Darling-Hammond (2002), “These
activities give teachers information about where their students are coming from
and where they are going” (p. 161). Therefore, the structure narrows the focus of
the teacher’s purpose to the student.
OPMS was a developing PLC working together to increase student
achievement. The implementation of block scheduling and PLCs aided in this
effort to make connections. The block schedule allowed OPMS to create an
interdisciplinary team, called castles consisting of two language arts and math
teachers, a social studies teacher, and science teacher. The castles work and
collaborate around a smaller number of students for a longer period of time. Each
castle was assigned approximately 180 students over the course of 1-2 days.
There were 90 minutes of instructional time allotted to each class in the block
schedule. The master schedule placed students by grade level in PE class and
exploratory class at the same time to allow for teachers to meet and collaborate by
grade-level department or by castle. Teachers are given 45 minutes of preparation
time for their classes and 45 minutes to collaborate with their castle or grade level
department. This gave teachers ample opportunity to meet with their colleagues
17
and collaborate on student achievement on a daily basis rather than weekly or
monthly. Teachers regimented the teacher collaboration times in order to
maximize the use of that time. During the teacher preparation days before
students began the year, teachers had to get together in their teams and create
norms and protocols for their groups and goals for the year. Teachers at OPMS
initiated a learning organization because of the expansion of capacities, and
people were continually learning together, creating the results they desired
(Dufour, Dufour, Eaker & Many, 2006).
The curriculum division was the coaching and professional development
piece that had been missing from OPMS. The division consisted of a full time
English Learner Curriculum coach, a part-time ELA coach, a part-time math
coach, two assistant principals, and the principal. The curriculum division
developed professional development that was focused around district- and school-
identified goals for the Instructional Leadership Team and faculty. The
curriculum division was also charged with keeping the focus on learning through
providing data and engaging teachers in analyzing student data. They needed to
make sure every teacher knew how to use the data management system, Edusoft
(2006), to disaggregate student data. This curriculum component bridged the
knowledge gaps that teachers had when working with ELL students or employing
instructional strategies that engaged students.
18
The Instructional Leadership Team was the hub of what goes on
instructionally at OPMS. The Instructional Leadership Team included department
chairpersons from math, ELA, social studies, science, exploratory, and PE classes.
It was expected that the Instructional Leadership Team create common goals that
could be agreed upon to raise student achievement. Having common goals was
important for this group in order to sustain the impact on teacher practice.
According to Dufour et al. (2006), “In the absence of a common goal, there can be
no true team. Effective goals generate joint effort and help collaborative teams
clarify how their work can contribute to school-wide or district-wide
improvement initiatives”(p. 26).
Finally the Success Teams ensured the participation of every faculty
member in some aspect of the OPMS mission to raise student achievement within
the PLC. These collaborative teams met once a month to develop goals around
areas of school climate, attendance, behavior, academic, and parent/community
involvement. They analyzed problems in these areas and worked together to
obtain solutions. The Success Teams continued to build capacity of teachers by
giving them a voice on issues normally facilitated by the principal of the school.
Team Functions
The Curriculum Team had the most difficult time with creating coaching
relationships. The coaching of teachers was a huge shift in thinking for many of
19
our teachers. This was most effective if teachers understood what coaching was
and was not and knew the benefits of coaching. Creasy and Paterson (2005)
write, “The focus of coaching was the in-depth development of specific
knowledge and strategies” (p. 9). The veteran staff at OPMS had to understand
that experience was not the key component of coaching (Creasy & Paterson,
2005). Once accepted, the benefits are evidenced in improved student learning,
increased motivation, increased teacher self-efficacy, and a clear focus on student
learning (Creasy & Paterson, 2005). If the Curriculum Team can create this
culture then it is easier for teachers to learn from each other.
The Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) had to include every teacher in
the instructional process. This was done so that non-ILT teachers would feel
valued and respected as professionals (Marzano, 2003). In past years, the ILT
was formally known as the School Leadership Team. It was a meeting made up
of department chairs who were there to advocate for their department on what was
or was not to happen at OPMS. It was a gripe session for lack of a better word.
Every department chair had their own agenda and the focus was never on student
learning and instruction. Now, the ILT focused on student learning through
instructional strategies. This common purpose, as well as developing norms of
how the team works together was a key feature at OPMS. Dufour et al. (2006)
writes, “Principals must do more than assign teachers into teams and hope for the
20
best: They must establish clear parameters and priorities that guide the work of
teams toward the goal of improved student learning” (p.99).
The OPMS Success Teams involved a teacher representative from each of
the castles to make a collaborative team of about six to eight teachers. Building
these collaborative teams developed a forum where all teachers were involved in
the decision-making process of the school. Blankstein (2004) writes, “Members
collectively brainstorm ways to improve and celebrate successes. Being
committed to constant improvement, these teams will always find ways to ‘raise
the bar’ once their current goals are accomplished” (p.130). OPMS built the
leadership capacity of the school and its teachers through the Success Teams. It
was not a workshop or professional development but a daily interaction and
working together. The teams were learning by doing the work (Dufour et al.,
2006). The Success Teams’ interaction also built collegiality and
professionalism. Marzano (2003) identifies those terms as having strong
statistical relationships with student achievement. It was important to note that
collegiality among teachers was defined as sharing professional mistakes and
failures and constructive analysis of practices (Marzano, 2003). Marzano noted
when taking action steps in a school, establishing norms of conduct and behavior
was critical in producing collegiality and professionalism. Every Success Team at
OPMS created team norms that were reviewed before each meeting.
21
Conclusion
The interventions employed at OPMS of block scheduling, and
professional learning communities increased collaboration and collegiality among
teachers, engaged students in the learning process, developed knowledge and
skills of teachers, increased accountability among staff members, developed a
positive school culture, provided more time for teachers to use a variety of
instructional strategies, and worked with a shared mission. These are many of the
byproducts of the interventions that benefited students, and specifically our ELL
students to achieve proficiency as measured by the CST.
22
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review was to illuminate the connections that
may be present in the research involving block scheduling and professional
learning communities, and the potential possible advantages for closing the
achievement gap for ELL students. The literature was focused on the paradigms
that bring out those elements which are beneficial for ELL students.
The Professional Learning Community (PLC) was a process of doing
things. The literature presented on PLC gives a common viewpoint of a process
over program mentality. It was a paradigm shift that took the focus away from
how teachers were teaching and puts the focus on how students were learning. It
created a culture of continuous improvement and a commitment to a shared vision
(Dufour et al., 2006). This systematic approach to student learning may be a key
factor in the academic achievement of the English Language Learner. There are
no programs or specialized skills that are a part of a PLC, rather a collective
sharing of goals and continuous improvement.
The block schedule allowed a longer instructional period for teachers to
deliver instruction. The schedule also facilitated time needed for teachers to work
and collaborate more effectively as a PLC. This time was another critical element
that was needed for the English Language Leaner. Teachers have the ability to
23
integrate strategies that research recommends in developing academic
achievement for the English Language Learner. The literature presented in this
section gives an historical view of block scheduling and the effect it had on
student achievement, particularly in middle schools.
Finally, the literature on the English Language Learner (ELL) presents
research on the struggles of ELL students and factors that prevent them from
achieving academic success. Additionally, the literature presents effective
strategies that assist in the academic achievement of ELL students. The block
schedule and PLC benefited the teachers in the development of effective teaching
strategies for ELL students and creating a powerful vehicle for educational
reform.
Professional Learning Communities
Professional Learning Community(ies) was a fairly new concept in the
educational arena. Morrissey (2000) refers to the term as defining itself: “A
school that operates as such engages the entire group of professionals in coming
together for learning within a supportive, self-created community” (p. 3). It was
to a school’s advantage to have time for teachers to come together and develop a
PLC. The design of a block schedule and PLC coming together create a fit that is
beneficial to student achievement.
24
There are five components that are found in a PLC environment.
Professional learning communities are schools in which the professional staff
operate along the following dimensions: “(a) Supportive and shared leadership,
(b) shared values and vision, (c) collective learning and application of learning,
(d) supportive conditions, and (e) shared personal practice” (Hord, 2008, p. 4).
These components are foundational in how the professional learning community
functions.
Supportive and shared leadership was a component where the staff was
growing professionally and reaching shared goals and administrators have a
willingness to participate in collective dialogue (Morrissey, 2000). There was a
sharing of responsibility and teacher leaders emerge to become key decision-
makers where normally they had no input. The benefits of teacher leadership
include teacher efficacy, teacher retention, a commitment to change, and an
increased accountability for results (Blankstein, 2004). According to Blankstein
some teachers feel inadequate to share that leadership role due to lack of training
and never having considered themselves in the role of leader. Blankstein (2004)
asserts, “Teachers feeling unable to rise to the challenge need two things: (a) To
understand the positive impact they will have on student achievement by
assuming an active role in the school, and (b) support and encouragement in
taking on leadership roles” (p. 192). When teachers can broaden their
perspectives, develop a higher level of professionalism, and deepen their
25
effectiveness, the element of leadership was shared with the principal. The
principal becomes the guide for collaboration to take place (Hord, 2008).
The second component of shared vision and values was another basic
component of professional learning communities that was recognized in the
literature. Shared vision, missions, goals and values are the common purpose of a
staff in professional learning communities (Hord, 2008). The vision and values
had to be focused on student learning. Morrissey (2000) notes the focus on
student learning was a fundamental characteristic of the PLC. "The shared values
and vision among school staff guide decisions about teaching and student
learning, and support norms of behavior" (p. 5). This shift to student learning was
essential to professional learning communities and Dufour (2004) notes with this
shift in student learning, staffs must build shared knowledge and find common
ground. Dufour (2004) writes,
As the school moves forward, every professional in the building must
engage with colleagues in the professional learning community: What do
we want each student to learn? How will we know when each student had
learned it? How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in
learning? (p. 2)
Blankstein (2004) claims the vision should guide the collective direction
of the organization and its stakeholders. The lack of a shared vision would allow
decisions to be made randomly without supporting the entire community. There
was a correlation found in research between clarity of purpose and effective
schools (Dufour et al., 2006). Just to read a mission statement does not mean that
26
there was a change in how teachers act and behave. Dufour et al. (2006) stress the
importance of reaffirming the mission in the improvement process and how
educators need clarity about the vision and mission of the organization.
The tenets of collective learning and application of learning takes form in
many ways. Collective learning and application of learning was the PLC
engaging the staff to collectively seek new knowledge and ways of applying that
knowledge to their work (Morrissey, 2000). This collective learning and
application was another term for teacher collaboration. Setting up teacher teams
who share common students or common problems make collaboration a means to
an end (Blankstein, 2004). Morrissey (2000) writes,
The collegial relationships that result produce creative and appropriate
solutions to problems, strengthening the bond between principal and
teachers, and increasing their commitment to improvement efforts. (p. 6)
There was recognition among educators who are building professional
learning communities that they must work together to achieve their collective
purpose. Collaboration within a PLC was systematic and engages an ongoing
cycle of questions promoting team learning. This systematic approach leads to
higher levels of student achievement (Dufour, 2004). There are two critical
questions that should guide the collaboration between colleagues: (a) What was it
we want our students to learn, and (b) how will we know when each student had
learned it? This should not be an assignment for a selected few rather a constant
collective inquiry of these questions should be the professional responsibility of
27
every staff member (Dufour, et al., 2006). The importance of this collective
inquiry ensures teachers become even clearer about the curriculum and its
effectiveness with students. According to Dufour et al., (2006) every student
must have an opportunity to master the same essential learning and that teachers
should be expected to clarify essential learning with their colleagues. This
collective inquiry does the following:
(a) Promotes clarity, (b) promotes consistent priorities, (c) was crucial to
the common placing required for formative assessments, (d) can help
establish a curriculum that was viable, and (e) creates ownership of the
curriculum among those who are asked to teach it (Dufour et al., 2006,
p. 53).
The creation of professional learning communities was further established
in a school organization when there was time allotted for collaboration of
teachers. Block scheduling is an option that assists in facilitating this movement.
The Block Schedule
Historical Perspective
Although block scheduling had existed since the late 1960s, research
literature that supports a deeper student understanding of course content and the
necessity for sustained uninterrupted instructional learning periods accelerated
block schedule implementation in public schools in the late 1980s (Cobb, Abate,
& Baker., 1999). During the late 1980s, the use of block scheduling as an
alternative to the traditional, shorter class periods increased further when the
28
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) first published standards
for mathematics and set a vision for a deeper student understanding of
mathematics and vision for how mathematics should be taught in schools. On
January 8, 2002, when President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) (United States Department of Education, 2002) into law, high-stakes
accountability for schools to show sustained progress in academic achievement
was launched. Under NCLB, students in grades 3-8 need to demonstrate
improvement in achievement based on standardized tests. As a result, the
emphasis on reading/language arts and mathematics standards accelerated the
implementation of sweeping reform initiatives in U.S. public schools. Ultimately,
NCLB ensured that schools use scientifically based methods to encourage higher-
order thinking skills and problem solving for all students (Flynn, Lawrenz, &
Schultz, 2005).
In the past two decades, block scheduling had become a popular
educational reform initiative that was receiving attention in secondary public
schools. Over the years, block scheduling had been implemented in a wide
variety of ways with several modifications (often called (hybrids). Whichever
scheduling alternative was implemented, the various types of block scheduling
extend the class period beyond the typical 50-minute class periods in traditional
schedule settings (Cobb et al., 1999; Lewis, et al., 2003).
29
Today’s Block Schedule
While there are a variety of block scheduling options, all block schedules
provide an extended amount of instructional time beyond the traditional 50-
minute class period. DiBiase and Queen (1999) conceptualize four organizations
of school scheduling options. The traditional schedule comprises regular, every-
day class meetings that are 40 to 55 minutes in length. Students typically have six
to eight periods they attend every day, depending on the courses the school offers.
The 4 X 4 semester block, also known as Accelerated Schedule or Copernican in
recent research literature (Lewis et al., 2003), was a scheduling format in which
students meet every day in 90-minute class periods to complete four year-long
courses in one semester. The alternate day or A/B block offers 90-120 minute
classes in an odd/even day format for the entire school year. Finally, the fan
block schedule provides a schedule of five to six classes that meet every day or
every other day, and includes a combination of classes that meet for extended or
shortened blocks of time. Seed (1998) suggests yet another form of block
scheduling known as the flexible block schedule where teams of teachers have
flexibility to adjust time periods for academic subject areas. Using this model,
class sessions are divided into four, 70-minute time periods.
30
Middle Schools and Block Scheduling
The focus for the purposes of this study was on the block scheduling,
which provides 90-120 minutes of instructional time in the middle schools.
Peterson, Schmidt, Flottmeyer, and Weincke (2000) presented a study titled,
Block Scheduling: Successful Strategies for Middle Schools at the 27
th
Annual
National Middle School Association Conference in St. Louis, Missouri. This
study explored achievement data and the school climate effects from an upper,
middle-class middle school that recently transitioned from a traditional, eight-
period day, to an alternating-day-block schedule. Although several advantages
for the transition were noted, including the perceived effectiveness as a catalyst
for change, academic achievement of students at this school remained stable
before, during, and after implementation of block. This study also suggested that
student retention of information was lower for some students in the block
schedule due to the every other day class format. While the alternating-day-block
schedule did not inhibit the ability of students to perform well on tests, teachers
admittedly covered less of course content but developed a deeper student
understanding of material with the addition of longer class periods. The study did
not cite data that supports the block-scheduling system as a means for promoting
academic achievement.
While there are studies showing very little, if any, impact of block
scheduling on student achievement, there are four studies cited in this paper that
31
show relatively positive results from achievement data involving students who
attend schools operating on a block scheduling format.
Lewis et al. (2003), conducted an analysis on effects of a 4 X 4 block, an
alternate-day (A/B) block, and a traditional scheduling program on language arts
and science student achievement at junior high level. Results from the ex post
facto study of 9
th
grade achievement from a criterion-referenced test showed that
students in both types of block-scheduling options had favorable gains in
language arts and science achievement and actually outperformed their
counterparts attending schools under a traditional scheduling format. Students in
A/B block had the largest positive impact on achievement for low-achieving
students. Little or no effect on student achievement was found from this study for
data analysis of high-achieving students.
Mattox, Hancock, and Queen (2005) provide an empirical study exploring
the effects of block scheduling on 6
th
grade student math achievement. The data
from this study show significant increases in math achievement scores of 6
th
graders enrolled in five different middle level schools that transitioned from
traditional to block schedules. The first three years of the six-year study (1994-
2000) examined math achievement in traditional schedules while the last three
years studied achievement on either a 4 X 4, A/B, or fan-block schedule.
Improvement in 6
th
grade math achievement was realized over the three-year
period when block scheduling was employed.
32
DiRocco (1999) highlights a comparison study analysis of two middle
school cohort groups of students who attended the same middle school. One
group was the 1996 graduating class who received a majority of instruction in a
traditional-schedule format while the other was the 1997 graduating class of
students who received nearly all of their instruction on an alternating-day block.
All of the achievement data was gathered from the same school. Analysis of
covariance adjusted for academic ability showed the means of all final course
GPAs. The means of four (language, mathematics, total battery, and social
studies, excluding reading or science) of the six achievement tests favored the
alternating-day-block schedule. There was no such positive trend in data for
reading or science achievement tests in this study.
In another study, DiBiase and Queen (1999) present a scholarly opinion
regarding the previous study by DiRocco (1999) mentioned here. The impact of
block scheduling on middle-school social studies student achievement was
measured by an increase in overall social studies achievement from 60.2% to
72.9% as measured by the California Achievement Test (DiRocco, 1999).
DiRocco (1999) states that positive trends in data could be due to the
Hawthorne effect of teachers excited about the schedule change, or the Pygmalion
effect of teachers who perhaps expected better achievement gains from their
students and translated these to higher expectations. Other factors, such as
parental care, socioeconomic status, student collaboration outside the classroom,
33
or time on homework cannot be ruled out as possible reasons for the improvement
in achievement. Alternating-day block can be more successful than semester
blocks since the exposure to political risk was low, there was a limited disruption
to school culture, and there was a potential for improved academic performance.
Teams of teachers made the change to block. This resulted in teams of teachers
working closely together for a family-like atmosphere.
Brown (2001) interviewed teachers from two middle schools that were on
a 4 x 4 block schedule with questions focused on the effects the schedule had on
their instructional strategies, student learning, assessment and curricular decision
making. Brown (2001) found that 9 out of 10 teachers altered their instruction.
Teachers used more hands-on strategies, more in-depth discussion, and critical
thinking. The perceived effect on students’ learning as a result of the change was
another question posed to teachers. They were asked to explain what students are
doing when they are learning. Responses mentioned were problem solving,
cooperative group work, creating or producing new knowledge, and manipulating
objects or ideas. In response to the effects on curricula, most teachers admit
curriculum guides are a primary source. The longer blocks requires teachers to
readjust. All respondents in the study admitted that curriculum needs had to be
adjusted and the need to change the curriculum was perceived by the majority of
teachers as a positive aspect of implementing the block schedule. Finally the effect
on assessing students in the block revealed that only 5 of 10 teachers altered their
34
assessment strategies as a result. Brown (2001) notes that findings of this study
revealed middle-school teachers perceive positive results from their instructional
behaviors and in student learning.
Diversity Issues Impacting Block Scheduling
Increased time for instructional class periods resulting from converting
from traditional to block schedule provide teachers with the ability to employ a
variety of instructional strategies to meet the various student-learning styles. Two
current research studies of teachers use class time to engage students in learning
illustrate how students of various ethnic backgrounds can benefit from extended
learning class periods as a result of the implementation of a block schedule. First
a study by Mattox, Hancock, & Queen (2005) presents data supporting the
positive impact block-scheduling had on mathematics achievement for African-
American students, Latino students, and students with disabilities. A second
study illustrates the benefits of extended class time afforded by the
implementation of block-scheduling conducted by Flynn et al. (2005) explores the
benefits of more class time and teachers’ instructional strategies that impact
learning for students with various learning modalities.
Mattox et al. (2005) conducted research on the effects of block scheduling
on middle-school students’ mathematics achievement. Results from this study
revealed significant increases in math achievement scores of 6
th
graders enrolled
35
in five middle-level schools using a form of block scheduling. Two of the middle
schools, School A and School B, that realized the highest percentage of
achievement gains in mathematics after transitioning to a block-scheduling
format, had demographic groups predominantly comprised of students receiving
free or reduced-priced meals, 60% and 46%, respectively. The school district
average for students receiving free or reduced-priced meals was 26%.
Additionally, both of these schools had high percentages of African-American
students, 49% and 30% respectively, while Latino students comprised 25% of
School A’s total student population; the highest percentage of Latino students
from schools included in this study. Furthermore, Schools A and B were among
the schools with the highest percentage of students with disabilities, 18% and
14% respectively, and were among the lowest percentage of gifted students, 8%
and 11% respectively. Possible reasons for the outcomes from the study of
schools implementing block-scheduling format include: (a) Students can take
more classes (i.e., electives) and may experience improvement in self-esteem
factors when taking courses in which students can excel, (b) longer class periods
provide more time for interactive instruction and the utilization of various
instructional strategies, (c) reduced time from passing periods increased time in
class thereby improving the focus on learning while reducing frequency of student
misbehavior, (d) increased instructional time improves the potential of teachers
altering their instructional strategies to meet the needs of the variety of student
36
learning styles, resulting in more individualized instruction and personal attention
to students of diverse socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds, and (e) teachers
are provided more time to prepare for instruction.
Flynn et al. (2005) performed a similar empirical study of mathematics
instruction in the block-scheduling context that examines the differences of
eighth-grade math students’ engagement in standards-based curriculum and
instruction when attending a school on block versus traditional schedules.
Although findings from this study indicate few differences in curriculum and
instruction practices that eighth-grade students receive based on type of school
schedule, block-scheduling had been found to extend the amount of class time
teachers can utilize to engage students in a wider variety of instructional strategies
while engaging students in activities in which they learn best (e.g., cooperative
learning, hands-on projects, and experimentation). This study also addresses the
need for teachers to employ a wide variety of instructional strategies so that all
student-learning styles can best be accommodated.
When considering school reform change initiatives, Corbett and Wilson
(1995) suggest a shift from thinking about students as beneficiaries of school
reform to students as participants. Moreover, the authors suggest that informed
decisions about school changes should include student perspectives which is a
notion that was lacking in current decision-making processes with respect to
school change initiatives.
37
ELL students and
Standards-Based Education
English Language Learner (ELL) students are in a complex situation when
it comes to achieving academic success as measured by the state of California.
For ELL students, every test given becomes a language or literacy test (Abedi,
Courtney, & Leon, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (United States
Department of Education, 2002) determines the bar for all students including ELL
students to reach through standardized testing. This mandate to have ELL
students reach proficiency with state standards regardless of their language
proficiency is a key to educational reform in California.
The focus on standards in federal and state mandates shifts emphasis from
access to all to high quality learning for all. This standards-based educational
reform brought together people who were committed to excellence and those
committed to quality. Those who looked to excellence expect standards to raise
student achievement; people who were focused on equality expect standards to
supply students with access to challenging curricula and learning experiences
(Lachat, 2004). The standards movement leaves no doubt that schools will have
to engage culturally diverse students in higher-order instruction. Lachat (2004)
asserts,
The question was no longer whether it was feasible to provide a high
quality education for students who vary widely in their characteristics,
38
learning styles, levels of English proficiency, and educational needs. The
question was how to reform curriculum and instruction and improve
teachers' abilities to respond to diversity so that high-quality learning
becomes the norm for all students. (p. 7)
Schools mirror the trend in the United States of becoming more ethnically
and linguistically diverse. The dilemma for educators was based in the diversity
of the ELL population. According to Ed-Data (2007) the percentage of the
Hispanic student population in California will form the majority by 2009-2010.
Currently, Hispanics make up 48.1% of California students. Of that number, 25%
are ELL students and 21% are Spanish speaking. ELL students have diverse
backgrounds, languages, and education profiles. They also have different levels
of cognitive ability. Lachat (2004) reports a large proportion of ELL students live
in high-poverty areas and neighborhoods that come with an array of societal
problems--insufficient employment opportunities, crime, and lack of health and
social services. Schools with a population of poor students emphasize basic skills
rather than higher-order skills. These are some factors that increase the risk of
failure for some of these students. How can schools meet the need of such a
diverse population during instruction in ways that will increase their proficiency
as measured by high stakes accountability measures or CSTs?
Instructional Strategies
Teachers must create meaningful learning contexts for ELL students,
which involves noticing how instruction connects to their cultural values,
39
background knowledge, and experiences. Teachers must know different cultures
and be aware of their language, not so teachers come up with different strategies
for each student, but to understand and appreciate the range of diverse thought
students bring to the classroom (Lachat, 2004).
Short and Echevarria (2005) assert teachers should be aware that problems
with ELL students who are struggling may be related to background knowledge
rather than intellectual ability. Hill and Flynn (2006) identify this phenomenon as
knowing a student's zone of proximal development(ZPD). When a teacher can
assess a student’s ZPD, they can engage students at the correct level of discourse.
This will allow teachers to ask the appropriate questions and assess the content
knowledge in addition to language proficiency. Hill and Flynn (2006) assert that
English language was divided into two parts: conversational and academic
language. They depict the two languages as an iceberg with the tip of the iceberg,
which was also the visible part of the iceberg, being the conversational language.
This language was developed after about 2 years of non-English speaking
children living in an English-speaking country. This conversational language
allows non-English students to sound fluent yet schoolwork and exams may not
demonstrate this fluency. Hill and Flynn (2006) write, “Frustrated parents and
teachers, faced with this contradiction, often conclude falsely that such students
have learning disabilities, are poorly motivated, or are just plain lazy” (p.17).
Going back to the iceberg depiction, Hill and Flynn (2006) proclaim the larger
40
part of the iceberg was hidden under the sea, which represents the academic
language. The academic languages of the classroom are terms and vocabulary not
commonly found or used in conversational language. ELL students have to
master academic language. Hill and Flynn (2006) assert, “Without a mastery of
academic English, students cannot develop the critical thinking and problem-
solving skill needed to understand and express the new and abstract concepts
taught in the classroom” (p. 18). Teaching strategies that will assist ELL students
include: setting objectives and providing feedback, using nonlinguistic
representations, cues, questions and advance organizers, cooperative learning,
summarizing and note taking (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
Setting clearly stated targets for learning for both content objectives and
language objectives eases anxiety over exactly what they are going to learn. ELL
students have to learn the content of the subject and the language of a subject as
well. In this light, vocabulary development and modeling are key components of
language objectives. In the area of feedback, ELL students want to know if they
can do the work and if the teachers like them. Teachers should deal with ELL
students learning a second language by modeling correct structures
unceremoniously by restating what students say (Hill & Flynn, 2006). ELL
students must also have opportunities to express their conceptual knowledge and
learning nonlinguistically. Teachers can bring realia in to lessons, conduct
demonstrations, use film or video, and have students doing hands-on activity (Hill
41
& Flynn, 2006). Cues, questions, and advance organizers allow ELL students to
construct meaning by drawing connections between new information and what
they already know. This was known as activating background knowledge.
Advance organizers are frameworks to catch the essential ideas in a lesson and
assist in ELL students’ understanding concepts they were exposed to in a text
(Hill & Flynn, 2006). Cooperative learning fosters opportunities for ELL students
to speak and negotiate meaning as they speak, by adjusting their language in order
to be understood by other members. ELL students are less self-conscious and
cooperative learning reduces student anxiety so they feel more comfortable
speaking (Hill & Flynn, 2006). Summarizing and note taking can be effective
strategies when modifications are appropriate for ELL students. These techniques
work best when accompanied with kinesthetic and visual clues. Note taking for
ELL students was a good way for them to store and retain information, especially
when students were encouraged to use visual representations along with writing
notes (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
Conclusion
The literature review focused on professional learning communities, block
scheduling, and ELL students. There was still much research to be done on
professional learning communities and block scheduling and its impact on student
achievement, particularly for ELL students. The research identified
42
characteristics of the interventions that have shown positive effects and would
compliment each other.
In regard to block schedules and PLCs, they compliment each other with
block scheduling creating more time for expert teaching. Brown (2001) reports
the positive perception by teachers in the block and DiRocco (1999) reports on
how there was a family-type atmosphere as a result of teachers working in teams.
This time was exactly what PLCs need in order to develop a shared vision and
collective inquiry (Dufour et al., 2006). When looking at what works for ELL
students it was clear that strategies described by Hill and Flynn (2006) can be
facilitated with much greater success with the implementation of PLCs and block
scheduling. Teachers can bring realia in to lessons, conduct demonstrations, use
film or video, and have students doing hands-on activity. Through cooperative
learning, teachers can provide more ways ELL students can express conceptual
knowledge through nonlinguistic avenues (Hill & Flynn, 2006). The planning,
collaboration and time that goes into developing those strategies are provided
through block scheduling and PLCs. Lachat (2004) makes it apparent that
priorities must be reordered where we are asking how do we improve teacher’s
ability to respond to diversity so that all children meet high standards. Explicitly,
the PLCs create the forum for teachers to look at improving student achievement.
Morrissey (2000) writes regarding PLCs, "The collegial relationships that result
produce creative and appropriate solutions to problems, strengthening the bond
43
between principal and teachers, and increasing their commitment to improvement
efforts" (p. 6).
The enforcement of the federal mandate, NCLB (United States
Department of Education, 2002) forces public schools to look at ways to better
teach the ELL population in order for them to get over the hurdle of high
expectations to cross over the proficiency finish line. This was a population of
students who may have been overlooked by schools in the past and not expected
to jump so high or cross the finish line at all. With the implementation of PLCs
and block scheduling, schools may be able to provide ELL students with the
adequate equipment to jump over the hurdle of high expectations to cross the
proficiency finish line.
44
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Summary of Research Design
The purpose of this study was to observe the impact of multiple
interventions on the academic achievement of English Language Learner (ELL)
students in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade at OPMS. The interventions that
are at the center of this study include the implementation of block scheduling,
teacher collaboration, and building teacher capacity by forming professional
learning communities. These interventions allow teachers the time to incorporate
Specially Designed Academics Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies and
differentiated instruction of ELL students. Furthermore they create a positive
school culture where teacher collaboration and accountability is focused on
student learning and achievement.
The design was based heavily on quantitative data (CSTs) but was
supplemented with a collection of some qualitative data to provide evidence for
summative and formative purposes. This mixed methods design was referred to as
“sequential explanatory” (Creswell, 2003, p. 213). According to Creswell (2003,
p. 215), “The purpose of the sequential explanatory design typically was to use
qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the findings of a
primarily quantitative study.”
45
Summative Evaluation Design
The summative data that was collected for this study assisted in the
analysis of the interventions as to their effectiveness on two dependent variables
of: (a) The percent of students who scored proficient and above on the ELA CST,
and (b) the proficiency band scores on the English-Language Arts as measured by
the California Standards Test. The proficiency bands were set up in the following
manner from lowest band to highest: 0 = Far Below Basic (FBB), 1 = Below
Basic (BB), 2 = Basic, 3 = Proficient, and 4 = Advanced. The data analysis
examined the school-wide population of students in grades six through eight and
the ELL subgroup.
The research question that was chosen to lead the summative process was:
Do the multiple interventions being implemented at OPMS, specifically longer
instructional time through block scheduling and teacher collaboration, and teacher
capacity building through PLCs, have an effect on the academic achievement of
ELL students as measured by the CST?
The design of the study utilized: (a) An independent pre/post group
design and (b) a non-equivalent control independent groups’ design.
Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Design
The pre/post independent groups’ design analyzed the findings from the
CSTs of 2006-2007 (pre-intervention) at OPMS to the CSTs of 2007-2008 (post-
46
intervention) at OPMS). The design allowed for the analysis of whether there was
a change as measured by the CST. The following statistics were used for each
dependent variable: (a) an independent groups t-test to assess the statistical
significance of the change (p < .15), (b) Cohen’s d to assess practical significance
(criterion for practical significance (d > .20), and (c) percentage gain to assess
practical significance per the NCLB (10% improvement). This design allowed
analysis of the data to assess change that may have been caused by the multiple
interventions.
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design
This design included an experimental group and one comparison group
that was not randomly assigned. The non-equivalent control group design had
Francisco Middle School and OPMS as the participating groups. OPMS will be
the treatment group or experimental group and Torch Middle School will be the
benchmarking group. The experimental and comparison groups were compared
on the post-test data. The treatment was administered only to the experimental
group, OPMS. Post CST scores were analyzed for both groups.
The selection of Francisco Middle School was based on the 2007 Similar
Schools Report from the California Department of Education (CDE) (2007)
website to determine the similarity of the schools. The schools were similar based
on CDE criteria, which are: (a) API scores, (b) grade levels within the schools, (c)
47
schools within the same geographic region, (d) percentage of students participating in
the free or reduced price lunch program, and (e) percentage of students classified as
English learners and participating in STAR. Francisco Middle School had a 20-
point gain on their API. Its school’s demographics were similar to OPMS in the
percent of English Learners and socio-economically disadvantaged (SES)
students. The comparison in the progress of these two schools determined
whether OPMS could make similar gains in growth. Table 5 depicts the
similarities of the benchmarking and experimental groups.
The 2006-2007 CST scores in ELA constituted the pre-intervention
observation for both the control and experimental groups. OPMS was the
experimental group and implemented the following interventions during the 2007-
2008 school year: (a) Block scheduling of 90 minutes and (b) collaboration, and
teacher capacity building through PLCs.
Post-intervention results were taken from the 2007-2008 CST scores in
ELA based on the aforementioned implementation of the multiple interventions at
OPMS.
48
Table 5
Similarities of OPMS and Francisco Middle, 2007 School Year
School Name
API Scores
Grade
Levels
Percent Free
or Reduced
Price Lunch
(STAR)
Percent
English
Learners
(STAR)
OPMS
(Experimental)
656
(6 points
growth
from 2006)
6-8 75% 61%
Francisco
Middle
(Control)
735
(20 points
growth
from 2006)
6-8 82% 49%
The two summative evaluation designs used in this study are annotated in
scientific notation as follows:
E 01 X 02
C 02
The E represents the experimental group, which in this case was OPMS:
Pre (2006) X Post (2007).
The C was the benchmarking group of Francisco Middle School Post (2007).
Figure 1. Post-Intervention Results
49
For the pre/post design, as described above, data outcomes on the 2006-
2007 CST English-Language Arts for the English Learners at OPMS were
compared to the data outcomes of 2007-2008 CST English-Language Arts. The
purpose of this analysis was to assess change at OPMS that possibly was caused
by the intervention.
For the nonequivalent comparison group design, as described above, data
outcomes on the 2006-2007 CST English-Language Arts for the English Learners
and at Francisco Middle School were compared to the data outcomes of 2007-
2008 CST English-Language Arts for the English Learners at OPMS. The
purpose of this analysis was comparative. Are the scores at Francisco Middle
School in 2006-2007 different from those at OPMS, a matched comparison
school?
The evaluation for the multiple interventions of this study is modeled after
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level model which advocates evaluating
the major points of impact: (a) reaction, (b) learning, (c) use, and (d) results.
It is essential to recognize that the results of this study are limited to
OPMS. Of equal importance is the acknowledgment that because of the limited
scope of this study, causation cannot be proven because random assignment did
not occur. This study provided insight into the effectiveness of the multiple
interventions and their impact on the academic achievement of students,
particularly English-language learners, at OPMS School. It was essential to
50
recognize that the results of this study are limited to OPMS. Additionally, in this
design there was limited internal validity. Therefore causation cannot be proven
due to selection bias.
Formative Evaluation Design
Formative data were collected to determine the areas of the multiple
interventions that had a positive impact for English-language learners, as well as
areas for improvement in utilizing the interventions at OPMS. The goal was to
develop triangulation through the various methods of data collection (Patton,
2002). Qualitative data was collected through informal observations, teacher
surveys, and informal interviews. Meeting agendas and success team minutes
were analyzed to identify the characteristics that show either strengths or
weaknesses of the study.
As principal, I had the opportunity to do informal observations of teachers
using a classroom observation sheet and notes. Teacher interviews and other
support staff responses were very informal through conversation in collaborative
meetings. The use of these data helped to identify intervention strengths and
weaknesses and suggestions for program and organizational improvement.
According to Patton (2002):
Multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single
source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program. By using a combination of observations,
51
interviewing, and document analysis, the fieldworker is able to use
different data sources to validate and crosscheck findings. (p. 306)
In addition, Patton (2002) also points out that each type of data source has
its strengths and weaknesses. Triangulation (the use of multiple data sources)
increases validity because the strengths of one approach can compensate for the
weaknesses of another approach.
The overarching purpose of the formative evaluation was to determine the
level of consistency in the structural operation and implementation of the
interventions for program improvement at the experimental school, OPMS.
Interventions
Block Scheduling
The 90-minute block was the intervention that doubles the instructional
time for students in the classroom. It was an "A" "B" schedule, meaning that on
"A" days a student met with their PE and science teacher and the next day, on "B"
day, they met with an exploratory and social studies teacher. Students had a math
and language arts class everyday which rounded out the four block of classes the
student had as opposed to the traditional eight periods a day. This meant an
additional four math teachers and two additional language arts teachers had to be
hired in order for the block schedule to work. Teachers had professional
development on ways to plan and teach in a block in order to use the time in the
52
most efficient manner. The master schedule had an additional 30 minutes added
to the day so that this could be accomplished. In the block schedule, grade levels
had either their PE or exploratory class at the same block time. This allowed
teachers to meet by grade level and have a full 90 minutes of time for
collaboration.
Professional Learning Communities
This block schedule allowed the facilitation of professional learning
communities more easily. This term and concept of PLC was fairly new and was
becoming very popular in the educational arena. A few of the key elements of a
PLC were focusing on learning, developing a collaborative culture with a focus
on learning, and a commitment to continuous improvement (Dufour et al., 2006).
At OPMS, collaborative teams met everyday and the teachers had three or four
collaborative teams they met with. They were: the Castle Team (a team made up
of two math, two language arts, one social studies, and one science teacher. They
met two consecutive days out of the week for 45 minutes. They had a Grade-
Level Department, a team of same-grade level, and same department members.
Once a month, teachers met as an entire staff, department, or leadership-type
teams called success teams. Each success team took on a specific school-wide
need or aspect that relates to student learning. Every collaborative team had goals
that were tied in with the established mission and vision of the school.
53
The implementation of block scheduling and PLCs allowed more time for
teachers to identify student need and the time to collaborate with colleagues on
student learning. It was important to note that with the implementation of these
multiple interventions, multiple treatment interference was a limitation to the
study.
Participants and Setting
The participants for this study included the entire student population of
OPMS, a traditional 6-8 middle school with an enrollment of 1,072 of who took
the CST. The focus of the study was on the ELL students who attended OPMS
and their performance, as compared to the entire school population. The
participant’s data was analyzed for their effectiveness as it related to the
implementation of the multiple interventions.
This study measured the impact of the multiple interventions utilizing the
percentage of students achieving “proficient” and “advanced” on the English-
Language Arts portion of the California Standards Test. The CST scores for the
2007-2008 school year were used to measure the participants’ progress in
achievement from the prior year 2006-2007.
Other participants included in the study were teachers, teacher coaches,
assistant principals, instructional aids, and other support staff. They made up the
qualitative portion of the study by responding to questionnaires, interview
54
questions, and classroom observations. The purpose of these participants in the
study was to share their feelings and opinions regarding the effect of the multiple
interventions implemented in the 2007-2008 school year. Not all participants in
this group or category were a part of the study.
Setting
Palomar Mountain Union School District (PMUSD) was a school district
that was in its third year of Program Improvement. There was a five-member
school board and second-year superintendent in place. It was a traditional K-8
elementary school district with 24 elementary schools and 5 middle schools. The
district was a centralized unit and was structured in a traditional fashion with
departments and directors of categorical funds. There were three assistant
superintendents who handled human resources, special education, and the
educational services division who controlled hiring practices, budget, and
implementation of curriculum, respectively. PMUSD was a Program
Improvement (PI) District and had several schools under PI from years 1 up to a
year 5 in the process. The districts were also experiencing declining enrollment
as many California district were all over the state.
Oak Point Middle School (OPMS) was located in the heart of Palomar
Mountain, California. OPMS was built in 1962 and was the second middle school
built in the Palomar Mountain Union School District. In the 1960s and 1970s,
55
farming land and wide-open space surrounded the school. Department stores, an
auto park, and more restaurants than you could imagine encircled OPMS. The
school’s appearance within the setting was out of place and one might assume the
students were from a high socio-economic class. However, students walked home
into a neighborhood right beyond the shops and restaurants to reveal a clearer
picture of student’s situation. The majority of OPMS students had a low SES and
the neighborhood and schools were in a constant battle against societal ills such as
gang violence, high school dropouts, and poverty.
Achievement
Scores from the California Standard Test (CST) were used as the primary
data. This data was collected by the California Department of Education (2007)
and publicly accessed each year, which was used in measuring student growth.
The focus of the CST results was targeted on the whole school and ELL subgroup
performing at or above proficient at OPMS, the experimental group, along with
the control group of Francisco Middle School. Scores were from the English-
Language Arts portion of the test from the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 CST.
The CST measures academic performance of students among California
schools in grades 3-12. EdSource (2007) asserts, "These tests are based on the
state's challenging and rigorous academic content standards" (p. 1). The bar at
which all students must reach was set at proficient or advanced scale. The scale
56
had five bands that students fall into from low to high. They are: far below basic
(FBB), below basic (BB), basic, proficient, and advanced.
The state and federal government summarize the test scores each year.
The state uses the Academic Performance Index (API) to measure growth
whereas the federal government uses a model known as Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP).
The API was an accountability tool that serves three purposes: (a) To rank
schools, (b) compare schools, and (c) set and track target scores. In ranking
schools, deciles are used. A decile represents 10% of schools and ranks are
assigned from 1 being lowest to 10 being the highest. This provides information
on how schools of the same type compare to all other schools. School
characteristics or factors and student characteristics are compiled into a similar-
schools ranking. This allows comparison and provides information on how well
schools with similar challenges are doing. Schools are then given a target score to
reach to improve their API score from the previous year. API scores range from
200 to 1,000 and schools are expected to reach 800 as a benchmark (EdSource,
2007).
The AYP was the federal measure that was instituted under No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) (United States Department of Education, 2002) that focuses on
significant subgroups of students and their achievement within schools. Under
the NCLB, all schools must gradually increase the percentage of all student scores
57
to proficient or advanced on the CST in English and math by the year 2014. In
addition, schools are held accountable for testing 95% of students in each
subgroup and failure to do so results in sanctions. Schools that fail to make their
AYP target for 2 consecutive years are labeled as Program Improvement and
results in sanctions and other consequences that include possible school closures
(EdSource, 2007).
Procedure. CST results in the area of English-Language Arts were
collected from OPMS and Francisco Middle School and their entire student
population (grades 6-8). The data was analyzed for students' proficiency levels
and the percentage of students scoring at or above proficient on the English
language arts portion of the test. A comparison of the proficiency level was
accomplished by analyzing the 2007 and 2008 CST scores for both the
experimental school (OPMS) and the comparison school (Francisco Middle
School).
Instrumentation
Interviews
This study used interviews for another source of data collection. The
interviews were in the form of informal conversations. The general interview
guide approach outlines a set of issues that were explored with each respondent
prior to the beginning of the interview. The guide, thus, becomes a checklist
58
which is used to make certain that all relevant topics are covered. The
standardized open-ended interview “consists of a set of questions carefully
worded and arranged with the intention of taking each respondent through the
same sequence and asking each respondent the same questions with essentially
the same words” (Patton, 2002, p. 342). This approach is used to minimize
variation in the questions posed to the respondents. The general interview guide
approach was used for the purposes of this study for collecting qualitative data on
the implementation of the core curriculum for English-language development.
Patton (2002) writes that the informal conversational interviews involve the
"spontaneous generation of questions in the natural flow of an interaction"
(p. 342). The following questions were weaved into these informal conversations.
1. How was the PLC model working?
2. How had your instruction changed in the block schedule?
3. Do you feel PLCs and/or block scheduling had a positive effect on
student achievement?
4. What are the strengths of block scheduling?
5. What are the weaknesses of block scheduling?
6. What are the strengths of PLCs?
7. What are the weaknesses of PLCs?
Procedure. As principal, I was able to ask these questions of staff
members to search out information to use in the overall evaluation of the
59
interventions by finding things that cannot be quantified or directly examined
(Patton, 2002). I looked for teachers' feelings, thoughts, opinions, intentions, or
behaviors (Patton, 2002) about the implementation of the multiple interventions
of block scheduling and PLCs.
These informal interviews were conducted during leadership team
meetings and post-observation meetings with teachers. The interviews ranged
from 2-10 minutes in length and took place throughout the 2007-2008 school
year. All interview notes, in a note-taking format to maintain an unobtrusive
quality, were recorded immediately after a conversation had occurred or during
post-observation conferences.
The observations also focused on the fidelity and consistency of
implementation of the multiple interventions throughout the English classrooms at
OPMS.
Observations
Observations were another source of qualitative data that assisted in this
research. Observations offer a better understanding and holistic perspective on
the subject, provide firsthand experience in a setting, help learn things not talked
about in an interview, and allow observations of things that people may not be
aware of in the setting (Patton, 2002).
60
The observations focused on student/teacher actions and interactions as
they related to the block schedule and PLCs. Observations looked for strengths
and weaknesses of each as an instructional leader and if what was talked about in
theory and professional development was carried out in professional practice.
Procedure. The observations of the block scheduling and PLCs was
conducted in the classrooms during routine walkthroughs, routine teacher
observations, and in PLC meetings from September 2007 to June 2008.
Information was recorded through hand-written, note-taking method maintaining
an unobtrusive observation method by the researcher. The researcher was a non-
participant observer during observations.
Documents and Materials Analysis
The final collection of data were documents and materials related to the
multiple interventions. This included documents such as training materials,
meeting agendas, and minutes.
Procedure. An analysis of the documents and materials in this study
involved a review of all materials of implementation and observation of block
schedule and PLC.
61
Formative Analysis
The summative analysis of this study was guided by Creswell's (2003)
generic six step process: (a) Organize and prepare the data for analysis which
involves transcribing interviews, field notes, and reviewing documents, (b) read
through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the information and to
reflect on its overall meaning, (c) begin detailed analysis with a coding process—
organizing the material into chunks or categories, (d) use the coding process from
Step C to organize the categories into themes for analysis and look for
connections between the themes, (e) define how the themes were represented in
the qualitative narrative, and (f) formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data
(Creswell, 2003).
Summative Analysis
The collection of CST data was used in the quantitative portion of the
analysis for both the independent pre/post group design and the non-equivalent
comparison group design. The purpose of the study was to determine the
statistical and practical significance of the multiple interventions.
A pre/post design was used to examine the change from the 2007 CST
scores to the post-intervention 2008 CST scores. The three statistics that were
used are: (a) An independent groups t-test to evaluate statistical significance of
the change p< .15, 2), (b) a Cohen's d to evaluate practical significance >.20, and
62
(c) a percentage change to evaluate practical significance as it relates to
NCLB >.10.
There was no random assignment in the nonequivalent control group
design that was used to compare the experimental group of OPMS and the
benchmark group of Francisco Middle School. OPMS was the school where the
multiple interventions were taking place. Francisco Middle School, the control
group, was used only for comparison.
63
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
A summative evaluation of a pre/post independent groups’ design at Oak
Point Middle School was conducted. A non-equivalent comparison group design
was utilized in comparing post-test scores of the English Learners at Oak Point
Middle School and Francisco Middle School—the experimental and comparison
group respectively. Francisco was used as a benchmark for Oak Point because of
the growth in their API score as compared to OPMS. There were three dependent
variables incorporated in the aforementioned designs: (a) the CST performance
band scores in ELA, (b) the percentage of students who scored "basic and above,"
and (c) the percentage who scored "proficient and above" on the CST in ELA.
The following coding was used in regards to performance band scores: 0 = Far
Below Basic; 1 = Below Basic; 2 = Basic; 3 = Proficient; 4 = Advanced.
Proficient is the benchmark score that every student must attain. Each descending
performance band score indicates lower scores.
Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Design
The pre/post independent groups’ design was used at Oak Point
(experimental school) to analyze the change in the 2006-2007 scores to 2007-
2008 scores as measured by the CSTs in ELA. The 2006-2007 scores were used
as the pre-intervention and the 2007-08 scores being the post-intervention. An
64
independent groups t-test was performed to assess the statistical significance of
the change (statistical significance = p < .15). A Cohen's d analysis was
performed to assess the practical significance (criterion for practical significance
= d > .20). A raw change from 2007 to 2008 to determine the percentage gain
was performed to assess practical significance per the NCLB improvement target
(10% improvement). Finally, a percentage change to analyze the practical
significance was performed.
A non-randomly assigned comparison group (Francisco Middle School)
and an experimental group (Oak Point Middle School) were used for comparison
purposes. The comparison group school was selected because of its similarities to
the experimental group regarding free or reduced priced lunch, grade level, and
their percent of English Language Learners’ population. The experimental and
comparison groups were compared based on the post-test CST ELA data. The
multiple-interventions (treatment) were only implemented at the experimental
group. The treatment included: block schedule and professional learning
communities for the entire 6th, 7th, and 8th grade student population. The focus
of the statistical analysis between the comparison and experimental group was
inferential in nature.
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design
65
Results of Pre/Post Independent Groups’ Design
The pre/post independent groups’ results are shown in Table 6. The
findings (p < .15) are for the entire school and grades 6-8 students at OPMS
(experimental school).
Table 6
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA Performance Band Differences for
OPMS: Statistical Findings
Whole
School
Pre N
2007
Post N
2008
Pre M
2007
Post M
2008
Difference t-ratio
Observed
Probability
School 933 881 1.90 2.03 .13 +2.39 .017*
Grade 6 296 222 2.06 1.92 -.14 -1.52 .130*
Grade 7 302 325 1.80 2.05 .24 +2.61 .009*
Grade 8 335 334 1.83 2.09 .25 +2.69 .007*
* = p < .150.
The first row shows a significant increase overall in the experimental
school as measured by the CST ELA performance bands from 2007 to 2008.
Table 6 illustrates statistical significance (p < .15) for the entire school as well as
at each grade level. The data show that 6
th
grade had a decline of .14 from pre to
post scores, which resulted in a t-ratio of -1.52. The 8
th
grade made the most
66
significant increase from an average pre-mean of 1.83 to 2.09 and t-ratio of +2.69,
a .25 increase with 7
th
grade having a .24 increase and a t-ratio of +2.61.
When comparing the entire school with the English Language Learners,
Table 7 shows the statistical findings for the ELL students.
Table 7
Pre- Versus Post -Intervention CST ELA Performance Band Differences for ELL
Students at OPMS: Statistical Findings
English
Learners
Pre
N
2007
Post
N
2008
Pre
M
2007
Post
M
2008
Difference
t-ratio
Observed
Probability
Grades 6-8 395 426 1.57 2.09 .51 +6.238 000*
Grade 6 128 156 1.72 2.22 .50 +3.604 .000*
Grade 7 110 140 2.00 1.78 -.22 -1.471 .143*.
Grade 8 159 130 1.16 2.27 1.11 +8.436 000*
* = p < .150
The ELL students in grades 6-8 increased a half point in performance level
from 2007 to 2008. The t-ratio of +6.238 indicates an even larger increase than
the entire school population. Furthermore the 6
th
grade English Language Learner
students had an increased performance level of .50 while the entire 6th grade
student population decreased in performance level from 2007 to 2008. The 8
th
grade English Language students had the most significant increases with
67
increasing an entire point from a pre-mean of 1.16 in 2007 to 2.27 in 2008.
Disaggregating of the data indicates positive findings for the English Language
Learner subgroup which are higher than the school-wide gains.
Because statistical significance was highly dependent on sample size and very
large differences on a practical level can be statistically insignificant, practical
significance was measured for this study utilizing three methods: (a) Raw change
in scores from 2007 and 2008, (b) effect size (Cohen’s d), and (c) the raw
percentage change is the post-test score minus the pre-test score. Effect size was
computed using the ratio of the change from 2006 to 2007 to the pre-test standard
deviation. Percentage change was assessed using the ratio of the change from 2006
to 2007 to the pre-test mean. Results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Pre-versus Post intervention CST ELA Performance Band Differences for ELL
Students: Practical Significance
Grouping
ELL 6-8
Pre
M
2007
Pre
SD
Post
M
2008
Pre/post
Change
Effect
Size
Percent
Change
School 1.57 1.13 2.09 +.52 +.21 .33
Grade 6 1.71 1.14 2.22 +51 +.21 .26
Grade 7 2.00 1.21 1.78 -.22 -.09 -.11
Grade 8 1.16 .890 2.27 +1.11 +.44 .96
* = effect size > .20 and % change > .10
68
Practical significance was examined in three ways:
1. Raw Change. In this area, the 8
th
grade made over a 1-point change
which is over one performance band going from a pre-mean of 1.16 to a post-
mean of 2.27. The entire ELL population made a half point increase while the
change for 7
th
grade was an opposite trend decreasing from 2.0 , the highest pre-
mean in 2007 to 1.78 in 2008.
2. Effect Size. Based on our pre-established criteria, practical
significance is achieved when the effect size is > .20. Table 8 shows the effect
size in each grade level except for 7
th
grade as showing an effect size greater than
.20. The 8
th
grade effect size was twice as much at .44.
3. Percentage Change. The pre-established criteria for practical
significance is 10%. This was assessed through analysis of the percentage change
in the performance band scores in 2007 (pre-test) to 2008 (post-test). The last
column in Table 8 displays the findings and shows a positive practical
significance was noted for all ELL students except in 7th grade where there was a
-9% change from 2007 to 2008. Again, the gain of 8th grade with 96% change far
exceeded the 10% expectation.
Tables 9 and 10 summarize the results of the pre and post test in two more
categories: (a) Students who scored Basic and above on the post test and (b)
students who scored Proficient and above. Both Basic and Proficient scores are
based on NCLB (United States Department of Education, 2002) guidelines.
69
Currently, NCLB uses the Proficient bar to measure where all students should be
in 2014. The percentage of students scoring Basic and above was added, in
addition to the NCLB requirement, so if the school is urban school with a
significant number of English Language Learner students—it is possible that the
2014 No Child Left Behind goal of 100% Basic and above becomes a more
pragmatic target for 2014.
Table 9
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention ELL CST ELA Percent Basic and Above
Percent Basic and Above
Grouping ELL
Pre 2007
Post 2008
Pre/post
Change
Percent
Change
School 68% 69% +.01 1.5%
Grade 6 72% 69% -.03 -4.2%
Grade 7 73% 68% -.05 -6.8%
Grade 8 59% 69% +.10 16.9%
Table 10
Pre- Versus Post-Intervention ELL CST ELA Percent Proficient and Above
Percent Proficient and Above
Grouping ELL
Pre 2007
Post 2008
Pre/post
Change
Percent
Change
School .33 .36 +.03 9%
Grade 6 .36 .33 -.03 -8.3%
Grade 7 .36 .34 -.02 -5.6%
Grade 8 .29 .40 +.11 38%
70
Table 9 illustrates ELL students in 8
th
had the highest gain in percent basic
and above. Grades 6 and 7 decreased to 4.2% for 6
th
grade and 5.8% in 7
th
grade.
The 16.9% change in 8
th
grade ELL students was the largest gain of any grade
level.
Table 10 repeats a very similar pattern of students reaching proficient and
above as Table 9. The 6
th
and 7
th
grade decreased 8.3% and 5.6% respectively.
Again the 8
th
grade ELL students had a 38% change in one year.
Comparison School Results
Francisco Middle School was selected and compared with the
experimental school of Oak Point Middle School. Selection was based on similar
school traits/criteria/demographics. Francisco Middle School was selected as a
benchmark school for comparison due to the continued increase in CST ELA
scores of English Language Learners. In 2007, Francisco Middle School had 82%
of the student population on free and reduced lunch as compared to 75% free and
reduced lunch for Oak Point. Conversely 49% of Francisco Middle School
students were English Language Learners as compared to 61% for Oak Point. In
addition, the benchmark school grew 20 API points as compared to Oak Point
(experimental) growing 6 API points in 2007. Table 11 shows this comparison
along with the 2008 API score. Both schools had significant gains in their API
score with the experimental growing 22 more points and the benchmark school
71
growing 35 points. The API scores of the experimental school ELL students are
reflected in Table 12. Table 12 shows a 12-point larger gain that the experimental
school has over the benchmark school but both schools showed significant
improvement as compared to prior years.
Table 11
OPMS API School-Wide Comparisons
School API 2007 API 2008 Gain
Oak Point Middle
Experimental
School
656 684 +28
Francisco Middle
Benchmark School
735 770 +35
Table 12
OPMS API English Language Learner Subgroup Comparison
School API 2007 API 2008 Gain
Experimental ELL 590 639 +49
Benchmark ELL 684 721 +37
Table 13 illustrates the data related to Academic Yearly Performance
(AYP) and the percentage of students who scored proficient and above.
According to the NCLB, for 2007-2008, schools should have 35.2% of students at
72
proficient or above. This is a substantial increase from the previous year standard
of 24.4%. The school-wide result was 35.8%. Oak Point made the standard with
a 5.6% gain from 2007.
Table 13
AYP English Language Arts for the Experimental and Comparison English
Language Learner Students’ Percent at or Above Proficient
Group OPMS (Experimental)
AYP
Francisco MS (Benchmark)
AYP
2007 2008 Gain 2007 2008 Gain
ELL 16.4% 27.4% 11% 25.7% 36.8% 11.1%
School
Wide
30.2% 35.8% 5.6% 38.2% 48.0% 11.8%
The benchmark school had an 11.8% gain in AYP percentages from 2007.
The experimental school, Oak Point, reached the bar in the school-wide category
but the bar will continue to be raised until the year 2014 when every school is
required to be at 100% proficiency. In Table 13, ELL students in both the
experimental school and benchmark school made an 11% gain in their scores.
The experimental school did not make 35.2% level, but with the 10% growth will
be considered in “Safe Harbor.” This means the federal government in any way
will not penalize the school because of the significant one-year growth.
73
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
The intent of this study was to determine the relationship between the
implementation of multiple interventions (block scheduling and professional
learning communities) and their impact on achievement for English Language
Learners at Oak Point Middle School. The implications of the findings in this
study have been elaborated from the quantitative findings and strengthened with
qualitative data. This provided a direction and recommendations for further study
in this area.
The purpose of this study was to research the impact of multiple
interventions on English Language Learners at Oak Point Middle School. The
key interventions were: (a) Block scheduling and (b) professional learning
communities. An analysis of the California Standards Test (CST) in English
Language Arts (ELA) from pre-intervention in 2007 to post-intervention in 2008
by students and subgroups at Oak Point Middle School was conducted. To
determine the effectiveness of the interventions, summative data were collected
on three dependent variables: (a) Percent proficient and above as measured on the
Purpose
74
CST in ELA, (b) percent basic and above as measured on the CST in ELA, and
(c) proficiency band scores as measured on the CST in ELA.
The participants in the study were the entire student population and
specifically English Language Learners in grades 6-8 at Oak Point Middle School.
Additionally, the staff of OPMS participated which included 62 certificated
teachers from all content areas; math, language arts, social studies, science,
exploratory, and physical education. Also administratively there were three
coaches available: a math, language arts, and ELL coach, and two assistant
principals.
Thirty-five staff members agreed to respond to interview questions
regarding the multiple interventions. The data were gathered to understand what
staff members felt or perceived to be the effect of the interventions. This, along
with our observations as administrators, is discussed in the findings section. Once
the collected data became redundant, the sampling of participants stopped.
The research question that facilitated the analysis and findings of this
paper is important to the direction in which education at Oak Point will go and
how we tackle the enormous endeavor of educating all students. The question
was: Do the interventions of professional learning communities and block
scheduling have an impact on the academic achievement of English Language
Oak Point Middle—Summary of Findings
75
Learners as measured by the CST? The overall impact was positive not just for
ELL students, but also for the entire school at Oak Point Middle School. The API
score was an initial indicator where there was a 28-point gain from pre-
intervention in 2007 to post-intervention in 2008. Oak Point went from a score of
656 to 684. This would suggest that the multiple interventions might have
contributed to the positive gains in student learning at Oak Point.
Statistical Significance
When analyzing the data for statistical significance at Oak Point Middle
School (experimental school), positive changes were made in all of the subgroups:
6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade, and English Language Learners. This was evident
through Oak Point meeting the AYP standard and going beyond the 7- point API
growth target set by the state of California. In the previous year, ELL students
gained only 3 points on the API while this year after the implementation of the
multiple interventions, ELL students had a 49-point gain.
The ELL students at Oak Point outperformed the school-wide population
from pre-intervention to post-intervention on the CST scores when looking at the
AYP. Table 13 reflects an 11% gain in terms of the proportion of students
proficient and above versus a 5.6% gain made school wide. Table 13 also shows
that the Oak Point growth of ELL students even kept pace with the benchmark
school. Although the overall AYP average score of proficient is lower at Oak
Point, the growth of ELL students at both schools was significant. The
76
benchmark school was chosen for comparison due to the similar demographic
population of ELL students and other criteria such as free and reduced price
lunch, geographic location, and grade levels.
The eighth grade proficiency band results reflect the largest difference in
means with +1.11, which is one whole performance band increase. This
significant growth reflects shift of how teacher instruction changed due to the
elongated instructional time. Several teachers commented on the fact that they
did not feel rushed in the instructional time and they were able to go into more
depth, allowing students the time to process and comprehend. One teacher noted
that with her students she was able to pull students who were struggling and had
small group-instruction during the block. In observing the 8th grade collaborative
teams or castles, teachers found it a more rewarding experience than originally
thought. The 8
th
grade teacher stated, "This 'castle' format is really helpful to me.
I'm really getting to know my colleagues and what they have to offer. Last year, I
wouldn't have even cared.” The teachers in the 8th grade castles seemed to buy in
to the whole concept of professional learning communities and working
collaboratively. As to grade-level departments meetings, 8
th
grade language arts
teachers always had a strong collaborative team and had a common planning time.
The ability to meet 90-120 minutes weekly in their grade level simply created
more time for them to analyze data and to look at student work.
77
The 6th grade castles were more used to collaborating than 7th and 8th grade
when Oak Point had no structured time in 2007 before the implementation of the
multiple interventions. The two 6
th
grade castles also had a gain of almost half a
performance band with their ELL student subgroup. The 7
th
grade castles were
not as successful with the ELL subgroup with a –1.5 t-ratio while the two other
grade levels had the positive gains with the ELL students. The 7
th
grade castles
did not function as well as the 6
th
and 8
th
grade GLD teams because the teachers
did not work as well together. The teams often did not have an agenda or meet at
all.
Interviews
The interviews were set up based on my interaction as principal with
teachers during collegial conversations. These conversations occurred during
one-on-one post-observation discussion, leadership team meetings, grade-level
team meetings, and staff meetings. The questions were divided into two
categories for the purpose of this study: (a) Perceived success and strengths of the
multiple interventions of block scheduling and professional learning communities
and (b) perceived challenges and weaknesses of the above named multiple
interventions.
When receiving feedback from language arts teachers regarding success
and strengths of block scheduling, it was apparent they felt that having an
78
uninterrupted 90-minute block of instruction was favorable for students. Teachers
had an opportunity to structure their classes to allow for more in-depth study of a
specific standard or element within a lesson. Some teachers felt that it allowed
ELL students and their other low-performing students time to practice skills and
for teachers to pull small groups of student for instruction. When I asked an 8
th
grade language arts teacher about the strength of the block schedule, she
expressed how she was able to assess student learning in small reading groups
more quickly and work with those individual students. A 6
th
grade teacher talked
about how block scheduling allowed student collaboration to take place in the
classroom. “My students are able to manipulate language and do cooperative
groups without me rushing through a lesson.” As a result, teachers felt learning
experiences were more meaningful and their students "bought in" to the
classroom instruction.
Teachers believed that the implementation of the block scheduling
certainly improved the API scores over the past year. This belief may allow for
further growth and change in some teachers who were not on board with the
initial shift to block scheduling and professional learning communities. Many
teachers came to this conclusion based on the API score growth target of seven
points being surpassed four times higher with the 28-point gain. One teacher
stated, “Well, it’s obvious to me that having a 90 minute period made a
difference.”
79
The opinion about professional learning communities (PLCs) has also
been most favorable. Teachers felt that the school and our students benefited
from PLCs because of the collaboration that took place among teachers. A
science teacher said, “Our 6
th
grade castle is really bonding and we talk about the
students we share and then figure out ways we can help the student together as a
team.” The master schedule had been configured to allow 45 minutes of daily
collaboration time either with content area teachers or with a multi-disciplinary
group of colleagues in castles. One teacher commented, "I can't believe how
much time we have to sit down with other teachers to talk about the students we
share.” Many teachers felt empowered with having the ability to make
instructional decisions in their collaborative groups.
In my conversations with teachers as to the weaknesses of the block
schedule, the concerns came from many teachers who only had students every
other day. Oak Point had the block schedule with alternating days. This gives
math and language arts teachers 90 minute instructional blocks everyday but all
other subjects had twice as many students, seeing a group of students every other
day. Many of the teachers outside of the math and language arts teachers felt they
did not get to really know the students and that students did not retain as much
because their classes were every other day. After a post-observation meeting, a
social studies teacher said to me, "It's really difficult to remember their names not
to mention how they're doing in the class.” The 8th grade social studies teachers
80
felt that students did not care about the classes they took every other day and they
had a real problem with students completing homework assignments. The teacher
felt going back to a humanities block of language arts and social studies where
one teacher taught the same group, would be more meaningful to the students and
teachers would have decreased problems with motivation.
Professional Learning Communities’ weaknesses were a little more
difficult for teachers to articulate. The block schedule allowed Oak Point teachers
to collaborate everyday for 45 minutes, which did not interfere with their 45
minutes of prep time. It is very interesting to note that teachers had concerns
about the grade-level collaboration versus their "castle" collaboration. When
examining the differences between the two meetings, grade-level meetings were
focused more on looking at instructional practice and student results, whereas
castle meetings focused more on student activities, awards, interventions, and
behavior. There were some teachers who believed the castle meeting were easier
and they get a lot more done but there were too many meetings. As for the grade-
level departments (GLD), teachers felt it was a waste of time and when they had
planned and looked over the pacing guide, they ended the meeting.
Many teachers did not like that we had so many meetings and that the time
was not always well spent.
81
Observations
Observations of the block schedule and professional learning communities
were performed in the classrooms and in grade-level meetings about 75 times
during the 2007-2008 school year. The duration of the observations ranged from
20 to 60 minutes in length providing ample time to gain a broad view of the
implementation of the multiple interventions and its impact on ELL students. As
principal, observations were a normal and routine part of my role and
responsibilities. Note taking was used to record observations during and after
observations in order to maintain an unobtrusive method of the data collection.
The researcher remained a non-participant during the observations.
The year prior to implementing block scheduling, professional
development was given to teachers on how to use the instructional block
effectively for student achievement. The professional development chunked the
block into four categories: Focused instruction (lecture), Guided Practice,
Collaboration (students), and Independent Practice. The category of student
collaboration was a piece missing from the conventional or traditional lesson
planning. The researcher noted that those teachers who had struggled with the
block schedule had not changed their instructional practices to accommodate such
a model into their classroom. For instance, the researcher observed several math
teachers who continued to teach by lecturing longer and giving more time for
82
students to do their homework in class. These teachers did not allow students an
opportunity to collaborate and interact with the curriculum or each other.
The researcher noted the enthusiasm many teachers exhibited during the
initial implementation at the beginning of the school year. The collaboration time
embedded in the block schedule gave teachers the opportunity to develop
protocols and set norms for their collaborative teams. Marzano (2003) notes the
strong statistical relationship between collegiality and professionalism with
student achievement. Marzano (2003) believes teachers establishing these
protocols and norms of conduct are critical to producing collegiality and
professionalism. The castle and grade-level meetings the teachers had established
allowed for teachers to begin the idea of teachers working together without the
principal being directly involved.
In the classroom, the researcher noted how the extra time was being used
in most of the classrooms to engage students and particularly ELL students. In
the language arts classes with ELL students, teachers worked on guided reading
groups. While teachers worked with students in those reading groups, the other
students would be doing other structured, yet independent, activities. It was
apparent in classroom observations that ELL students had more opportunity to
practice and develop their oral language and students had a greater opportunity to
have oral practice around academic language. Many teachers took advantage of
cooperative learning and pair-share type activities. Hill and Flynn (2006) contend
83
these opportunities allow ELL students to negotiate meaning as they speak so
they can be understood by their teacher and peers.
There were still some observations where teachers did not take advantage
of the 90 minutes of instruction. There was a 7
th
grade math teacher who
continued to give students more time in class to finish their homework opposed to
using the time to teach the concepts more in depth. Observations revealed that
some teachers could not let go of the control that came with giving students time
to work collaboratively and specifically for ELL students to practice oral
language. A 6
th
grade social studies teacher said, “My students do not know how
to behave if I put them into groups to work.” I asked her if she ever tried it and
she told me that she had not but it would have been a disaster if she had. Her
expectations could and did affect student achievement and attitude according to
Cotton (1989). This can occur when teachers behave different with certain
students. Teachers expect a certain behavior and achievement, and students will
conform to those expectations when they are consistently treated that way
(Cotton, 1989).
Summary of Findings: Oak Point Middle School and
Francisco Middle School
84
The following summary of findings was provided for Oak Point Middle
School and Francisco Middle School when comparing the two schools: (a) The
Academic Performance Index (API) in a school-wide comparison, (b) the API for
the English Language Learners’ comparison, and (c) the comparison of school-
wide and English Language Learners’ categories for the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) for both the experimental and comparison schools.
There was an improvement in both the experimental and benchmark
school in their school-wide API results. Table 11 focuses on Francisco Middle,
the benchmark school, and shows it gained seven points higher than the
experimental school, Oak Point. In looking at the ELL subgroups for the
experimental and benchmark schools, Table 11 shows both schools achieving
significant gains in their API. In contrast to the school-wide comparison, the
experimental school's ELL population gained 12 points more than the benchmark
school. Overall, gains for the benchmark and experimental schools in their
school-wide and ELL categories demonstrated that Oak Point School had better
results in the ELL categories whereas the opposite results occurred with the
school-wide category. The findings show that Francisco Middle School, the
benchmark school, continued to improve which means there was still a need for
growth at Oak Point Middle School, the experimental school.
Table 13 demonstrates the percentage of students "at or above proficient"
in English Language Arts (ELA) for the benchmark and experimental schools. In
85
2008, the NCLB requirement for percentage of students "at or above proficient"
was 35.2%, a jump of 10.8% from the previous year of 2007 when it was 24.4%
in the category of English-Language Arts. The benchmark school, Francisco
Middle, and the experimental school, Oak Point Middle, both achieved the target
in the school-wide category with Francisco achieving at higher levels of
proficiency than the experimental school, Oak Point Middle School. Each school
achieved gains of 11% for the ELL category and the benchmark school made the
mark of 35.2% set by NCLB. Although the experimental school did not make the
mark, the percentage gained in the single year was significant enough to keep
them from being penalized as a program improvement school by the federal
government's NCLB program.
Research Implications for Block Scheduling
and Professional Learning Communities
Multiple interventions at Oak Point Middle School demonstrated a
positive effect for students at Oak Point, specifically ELL students. Teachers and
administrators were working more closely and building instructional capacity
through the structures set up through professional learning communities. In
addition, teachers adjusted instructional practices to meet the needs of all students
through effectively utilizing the 90-minute instructional time in the block
schedule. The curriculum coaches assisted teachers in this adjustment as well as
86
provided professional development opportunities to assist teachers with effective
strategies, particularly for our ELL students.
Block Scheduling
Block scheduling was integral in the belief of teachers that students would
do better in their academic achievement. The increased time for teachers was a
resource that rarely found critics because time was normally the chief reason why
teachers felt they could not do their job any better. The block schedule allowed
time, time, and more time. Teachers took this time and extended their activities to
go more in depth in their content area. The block scheduling afforded Oak Point
teachers time to engage students in cooperative learning, project-based activities,
and had more time for collaboration with their colleagues as well.
The adoption of block scheduling at Oak Point painted a positive picture
of future success in assisting English Language Learners achieve proficiency.
The researcher notes, out of the five middle schools in the District, Oak Point, and
one other school are on the block schedule and both made significant gains on
their API and AYP scores in 2008.
Professional Learning Communities
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) was a very positive component
to add in the goal of academic achievement for all students, and in particular ELL
87
students. PLC was a concept rooted in the ideology of continuous improvement.
Oak Point Middle School teachers had to have a belief that working together was
better than working in isolation. In 2006, teachers functioned only as departments
and did not take advantage of each other's talents. The researcher observed PLCs
as an accountability tool because teachers had to show up at meetings or answer
to the PLC.
Once the Oak Point schedule allotted time and put structures in place to
allow for PLCs to thrive, teachers at Oak Point became energized in working
together and developing plans to improve student achievement. If the time and
structures were not used properly, it could have caused the same effects of the
past years. The culture of collaboration was critical to the continue health of a
PLC.
The PLC was the way the Oak Point staff members who had no voice
before were able to build, grow, and have a voice in how the campus was run.
Teachers built capacity and took control of some of the decision-making that was
normally left up to the principal. They had the autonomy school wide that was
only remotely available within the confines of teachers’ individual classrooms.
The continued development of the school culture cannot be
underemphasized. Dufour et al. (2006) identified collaborative culture as one of
three big ideas of a PLC. He writes:
Educators are committed to working collaboratively in ongoing processes
of collective inquiry and action research in order to achieve better results
88
for the students they serve. PLCs operate under the assumption that the
key to improved learning for students is continuous, job embedded
learning for educators. (p. 9)
Site-Based Recommendations
Despite the limited scope of this study, implementing block scheduling
and professional learning communities to improve academic achievement of ELL
students at Oak Point Middle School, for the purpose of meeting the
accountability measures of NCLB was successful. The school did extremely well
with ELL students making statistically significant change as well as practical
change. The school-site was focused on a newly adopted mission statement that
assisted in the transition to PLCs. The qualitative findings certainly reinforced
the feeling of a positive change due to the block schedule and PLCs. This was
evident with teachers collaborating with each other on a daily basis. Teachers
began looking at student work and planning lessons together which empowered
them to continue the process of looking at student work. There was negative
findings in 7
th
grade yet, overall, the quantitative and qualitative results from this
study furnished positive outcomes for Oak Point Middle School and a basis to
continue block scheduling and PLCs for all grade levels.
Another recommendation to take Oak Point to the next level of continued
student achievement would be the use of SMART goals when considering student
achievement. SMART stands for specific, measurable, attainable, results
oriented, and time-bound goals. Measurable goals must be established when
89
seeking academic improvement (Marzano, 2003). As mentioned previously,
teachers were positive and enthusiastic about the time they were allotted to plan
and collaborate with their colleagues. The SMART goal was way to apply focus
on the very important task of improving the academic achievement of all students.
The key was having the goals produce results and not have goals for goals-sake.
Blankstein (2004) writes, "If clear evidence emerges revealing that the goal or
means of achieving it is not bringing about the desired results, then one or both of
these should be amended or abandoned"(p. 92). Again SMART goals would
allow teachers to build their capacity when it comes to strengthening the
professional learning community.
Additionally, it was recommended that teachers continue to plan the use of
the 90 minutes of instructional time to engage students with a variety of
instructional strategies, particularly ELL students. Academic language can be
developed for English Language Learners which will allow them to master the
language and further develop their critical thinking and problem solving skills
(Hill and Flynn, 2006). This may be best accomplished through small group
instruction and cooperative learning groups.
Finally, it was recommended that staff and administration continue to
build an environment of trust through shared leadership. The PLC was an ever-
breathing organism that needed relationships to be productive and meaningful.
"The relationship among the adults in the schoolhouse has more impact on the
90
quality and the character of the schoolhouse--and on the accomplishments of
youngster--than any other factor" (Blankstein, 2004, p. 58). The relationships at
Oak Point must be nurtured in this manner in order to sustain the professional
learning communities. Blankstein (2004) writes, "While it is relatively easy to
install the technical aspects of a professional learning community--systems to
collect data, time for teams to meet, etc.--the tough part is subtler less scripted,
and more human" (p. 59).
The focus of this study was squarely aligned on the impact of professional
learning communities and block schedule on ELL student's academic achievement
as measured by the CST in English-Language Arts. ELL students did experience
a statistical and practical significance in this area. Further study should be
developed and continued in professional learning communities and block
scheduling. The multiple interventions provided time and a structure for the
school community to learn and grow to improve professional practice and
academic achievement.
The researcher noted the key to a smooth transition from a traditional
schedule to a block schedule with professional learning communities was
professional development. Professional development was done in May of 2006,
which helped save time when teachers came back to work from their summer
break. The interventions would not have started at the very beginning of the
91
2007-2008 school year unless there was time to implement staff development the
prior school year.
Professional development continued to be a very critical part of sustaining
PLCs. The principal and curriculum coaches planned on the types of professional
development that would assist teachers in this paradigm shift. They worked with
the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) and built their capacity in book studies
on Dufour et al. (2006) Learning by Doing and Blankstein (2004) Failure is Not
an Option. Professional development also brought in teachers sharing strategies
at staff meetings and participating in videos clips of them teaching in their
classrooms which was based on the professional development.
Limitations
The results of this study should be viewed cautiously when making
generalizations. An internal validity threat was selection bias in the following
areas: Non-randomized identification of participants, history, maturation, and
testing. This was a quasi-experimental study where the participants were not
randomly assigned. The limitations existed in the use of a pre/post design
because there was no control for the experiences that different students
encountered both inside and outside of the classroom during the treatment year.
Teacher efficacy could be another factor affecting the 2007-2008 school year.
Maturation must be considered as a threat to internal validity in this study.
92
Students do not develop at the same rate physically or emotionally and could have
an influence on the results of the study. Finally, testing was a threat to internal
validity. Students respond and are affected by testing in different ways,
particularly English Language Learners. Students had another year to learn and
time to develop English and their skills in test taking could affect the results of the
study.
Other limitations to consider were the fidelity of implementation of the
interventions. This could be a threat to the internal and external validity of the
study. No methods were in place to guarantee that teachers were implementing
the interventions with the same effectiveness or fidelity.
The multiple interventions of block scheduling and professional learning
communities in this study present a concern for external validity because of the
difficulty to determine which intervention had the most effect or impact on
student achievement. In looking at PLCs and block scheduling, the evidence of
teachers collaborating or having more instructional time does not necessarily
translate into academic achievement on the CSTs.
It will be important to continue further research in order to pinpoint the
accuracy of school achievement data for ELL students. More specifically,
longitudinal data is needed to track student growth from grade to grade.
Conclusion
93
This study’s results demonstrated positive changes for the students’
academic achievement at Oak Point Middle School. This conclusion was reached
chiefly through school comparisons of the CST scores from pre-intervention
(2007) to post-intervention (2008). The greatest percentage changes noted were
in 8
th
and 6
th
grades respectively. The group of administrators and curriculum
coaches were able to keep the principles of the PLC in the forefront of school life
in the treatment year. Oak Point had yet to make such a gain through any other
treatments employed in past years to assist students in academic achievement. It
is apparent that the steps taken in developing professional learning communities
and block schedules have been a solid foundational piece for continued positive
effects for ELL students.
94
REFERENCES
Abedi, J., Courtney, M., & Leon, S. (2003). Research-supported
accommodations for ELL students in NAEP. Los Angeles:
CRESST/University of California, Los Angeles. CSE Technical Report
586.
Blankstein, A.M. (2004). Failure was not an option: Six principles that guide
student achievement in high performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Brown, D. F. (2001). Middle-level teachers' perceptions of the impact of block
scheduling on instruction and learning. Research in Middle Level
Education Annual, 24, 121-141.
California Department of Education (2007). 2006-07 Accountability Progress
Reporting (APR). Retrieved April 2, 2008, from
http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AcntRpt2007/2006BaseSch.aspx?allcds=376
80986038194.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cobb, R. B., Abate, S., & Baker, D. (1999). Effects on students of a 4 X 4 junior
high school block-scheduling program. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 7(3), 1-17.
Corbett, D., & Wilson, B., (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A
plea to researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher, 24(5), 12-17.
Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. NW Archives: School
Improvement Research Series (SIRS). Retrieved November 12, 2007,
from http://www.nwrel.org/sepd/sirs/4/cu7.html.
Creasy, J., & Paterson, F. (2005). Leading coaching in schools. National College
for School Leadership (pp. 1-74). Retrieved March 13, 2007, from
http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media-883-ad-leading-coaching-in-schools-2.pdf.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
95
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DiBiase, W. J., & Queen, J. A. (1999). Middle school social studies on the block.
The Clearing House, 72(6), 377-384.
DiRocco, M. D. (1999). How an alternating-day schedule empowers teachers.
Educational Leadership, 56(4), 82-84.
Dufour, R. (2004). What was a “Professional Learning Community”?
Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eacker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by
doing—A handbook for Professional Learning Communities at work.
Indiana: Solution Tree.
Ed-Data. (2007). Profiles and reports. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%
3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16.
EdSource. (2007). Reauthorization of ESEA. Retrieved November 13, 2007,
from http://edsource.org/edu_nclb.cfm.
Edusoft. (2006). Edusoft Assessment Management System. Retrieved March 10,
2008, from www.edusoft.com.
Flynn, L., Lawrenz, F., & Schultz, M. J. (2005). Block scheduling and
mathematics: Enhancing standards-based instruction? NASSP Bulletin,
89(642), 14-23.
Hampton Brown High Point. (2006). Hampton Brown High Point Internet.
Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.hbhighpoint.com.
Hill, J., & Flynn, K. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with ELL students.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Hord, S. (2008). Evolution of the Professional Learning Community. National
Staff Development Council, 29(3), 10-13.
Lachat, M. (2004). Standards-based instruction and assessment for ELL students.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
96
Lewis, C. W., Cobb, R. B., Winokur, M., Leech, N., Viney, M., & White, W.,
(2003, November 11). The effects of full alternative day block scheduling
on language arts and science achievement in a junior high school.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(41). Retrieved May 25, 2007,
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n41/.
Lindsey, R., Robins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (2003). The first tool, descriptive
language: The cultural proficiency continuum. In R. Livsey & P.
Cappello (Eds.), Cultural Proficiency: A Manual for School Leaders
(2
nd
ed., pp. 83-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development..
Mattox, K., Hancock, D. R., & Queen, J. A. (2005). The effect of block
scheduling on middle-school students’ mathematics achievement. NASSP
Bulletin, 89(642), 3-13.
Morrissey, M. (2000). Professional Learning Communities: An ongoing
exploration. Austin: TX. Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3
rd
Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, D. W., Schmidt, C., Flottmeyer, E., & Weincke, S. (2000, November 4).
Block scheduling: successful strategies for middle schools. Paper
presented at the 27
th
Annual National Middle School Association
Conference in St. Louis, MO. Retrieved May 20, 2007, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000001
9b/80/16/c5/9c.pdf.
Seed, A., (1998). Free at last: Making the most of the flexible block schedule.
Middle School Journal, 29(5), 20-21.
Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2005). Teacher skill to support ELL students.
Educational Leadership, 62(4), 8-13.
United States Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine and evaluate the impact of two interventions, block scheduling and professional learning communities, on the academic achievement of English Language Learners (ELL) on the English language arts portion of the California Standards Test (CST). A nonequivalent independent groups design was used. A benchmark school was selected based on similar school characteristics and the pre and post intervention comparisons were made between the experimental school and benchmark school which had no treatment, but had historically outperformed the experimental school.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An analysis of the impact of the total educational support system direct-instruction model on the California standards test performance of English language learners at experimental elementary school
PDF
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
PDF
English language learners utilizing the accelerated reader program
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
PDF
School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...
PDF
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
Predictors of success in meeting the high school mathematics and English requirements for college entrance: a longitudinal study
PDF
Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District
PDF
Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners
PDF
Where does the money go?: an analysis of student level resource allocation at the school level
PDF
Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools
PDF
Navigating troubled waters: case studies of three California high schools' resource allocation strategies in 2010-2011
PDF
Teaching interpersonal and communication feedback skills to standardized patients: assessment of a cognitive model
PDF
The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
McDuffie, Horace Darren
(author)
Core Title
The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
06/22/2009
Defense Date
04/17/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
block scheduling,California Standards Test,English language learners,middle school reform,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Conklin, Dean (
committee member
), Reed, Margaret (
committee member
)
Creator Email
dmcduffie@eusd4kids.org,hmcduffi@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2313
Unique identifier
UC1502517
Identifier
etd-McDuffie-2911 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-237672 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2313 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-McDuffie-2911.pdf
Dmrecord
237672
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
McDuffie, Horace Darren
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
Tags
block scheduling
California Standards Test
English language learners
middle school reform
professional learning communities