University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Making the grade: augmenting Mississippi measures of school quality with local values

(USC Thesis Other)

Making the grade: augmenting Mississippi measures of school quality with local values

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Making the Grade: Augmenting Mississippi Measures of School Quality with Local Values
Kelle Jo Barfield
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Kelle Jo Barfield 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kelle Jo Barfield certifies the approval of this Dissertation.
Anthony B. Maddox
Lawrence O. Picus
Frederick W. Freking, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study applied bounded rationality theory of economics to public policy decision making in
the realm of K–12 public school quality assessment. The purpose of the study was to determine
how local measures of school quality align with metrics found in the Mississippi accountability
model then to examine what barriers exist to applying locally defined measurements of school
quality in parallel with federal mandates for school accountability, which are customized and
applied by states for annual reporting of school quality. The research considered a study
population of 1,800 business leaders in one Mississippi county by surveying a study segment of
approximately 450 business members of the Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of Commerce.
Using a quantitative survey and analysis of various demographic variables such as age, gender,
ethnicity, type of business, and parental status related to having children in the K–12 system, the
study enabled a descriptive analysis of awareness of state assessment of school quality, alignment
of state criteria with local expectations of schools, awareness of the local economic impact of one
state assessment model, and barriers to creating location-specific criteria for assessment of public
school quality. Findings showed a much broader set of criteria for school quality from business
leaders than factors contained in the state model and greater reliance on local representatives than
on state authorities for credible assessments. But despite lack of alignment or satisfaction with
state criteria and strong awareness of potential local economic impact, study participants were not
necessarily willing to overcome barriers suggested by bounded rationality theory (Simon, 1955)
in order to actively engage in narratives of school quality to optimize school outcomes. This study
opens the potential of fresh voices of authority, creative approaches to telling the story, and
deliberate linkage between school quality perceptions and economic impacts in driving narratives
of school quality in systems of public school accountability.

v
Dedication
To my father, Don Charles Banks, who modeled and inspired others to the philosophy of lifelong
learning. My life is made richer by the admonition from Alexander Pope that Don often
reminded me, “Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.”

vi
Acknowledgements
My experience of learning, culminating with this research, was a marvelous journey
guided by the excellent faculty of the University of Southern California Rossier School of
Education Organizational Change and Leadership program. I especially appreciate the keen
interest in this topic and the guidance provided by my dissertation committee, Dr. Freking, Dr.
Maddox, and Dr. Picus. The expertise and support of Dr. Morgan Polikoff also strengthened this
research. Unexpected discoveries along the path to learning were offered by my amazing and
supportive colleagues in Cohort 22, who shared their professional experiences, their special
personalities, and their families and very lives with me. What a team they proved to be.
I am grateful to leaders of the Mississippi Commission on School Accreditation for
opening the door of discovery to me by facilitating my two terms on the commission. I know that
they share my passion for improving lives in our great state by advancing educational and
economic opportunity for each and every Mississippi resident.
This study would not have been born without the Warren County, Mississippi, business
community. I acknowledge those who care deeply about our success at preparing students for
adulthood and who shared their opinions in the survey and their interest in the outcomes. In
particular, Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Pablo Diaz and Chamber & Corporate
Programs Director Christine Rials were invaluable in providing statistical information and in
providing potential participants with access to the survey instrument to support research quality.
Finally, to my consummate cheering squad, my children, I appreciate that you never ask,
“Are we there yet?” or wonder why I do not stop graduating. Arthur Durward Barfield IV,
Allie Ann Barfield, and William Waid Barfield, thank you for understanding why I see the world
as a glorious classroom, with each day offering us a new lesson plan.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................
Dedication ..............................................................................................................................
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................
List of Tables .........................................................................................................................
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................
Study Overview .....................................................................................................................
Background of the Problem .......................................................................................
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................
Overview of Theoretical Framework Applied to the Problem ....................................
Overview of Study Methodology ...............................................................................
Review of the Literature .........................................................................................................
Previous Research Evaluating Systems of School Quality Assessment .....................
Historical Context of Bounded Rationality ................................................................
Theoretical Concepts Underlying the Problem of Community Engagement in
School Quality Assessment ...................................................................................
Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................................................
Methodology ..........................................................................................................................
The Researcher ..........................................................................................................
Study Instrument ........................................................................................................
Research Setting ........................................................................................................
Study Participants ......................................................................................................
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................
iv
v
vi
ix
x
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
7
11
12
16
18
18
19
21
22
23
23

viii
Validity and Reliability ..............................................................................................
Study Findings .......................................................................................................................
Participants ................................................................................................................
Results for Research Question 1 .................................................................................
Results for Research Question 2 .................................................................................
Results for Research Question 3 .................................................................................
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................
Summary ....................................................................................................................
Recommendations for Practice ……......................................................................................
Recommendation 1: Focus on Who ............................................................................
Recommendation 2: Focus on What ..........................................................................
Recommendation 3: Focus on Why ...........................................................................
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................
Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................
References .............................................................................................................................
Appendix A: Definition of Terms ..........................................................................................
Appendix B: Study Participant Demographics .......................................................................
Appendix C: Study Protocol ..................................................................................................
26
27
27
28
35
37
43
44
46
46
48
50
51
53
55
64
66
68

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Types of School Rating Systems Adopted by States in 2021 ................................. 9
Table 2: Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 21
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Variance of Preferred Criteria Demonstrating
School Quality .................................................................................................................... 29
Table 4: Local Assessment of School Quality for Vicksburg Warren School District ......... 32
Table 5: Satisfaction with Mississippi School Rating System .............................................. 33
Table 6: Satisfaction with Mississippi School Rating System Based on Self-Assessed
Scores ................................................................................................................................ 34
Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations, and Variance of Local Impacts of School Quality
Ratings .............................................................................................................................. 36
Table 8: Resources Desired for Better Communicating School Quality ............................... 38
Table 9: Most Recent Mississippi School Rating for Vicksburg Warren School District ... 39
Table 10: Sources of Information Regarding Mississippi School Ratings ............................ 40
Table 11: Means, Standard Deviations, and Variance of Credible Authorities on School
Ratings ............................................................................................................................... 41
Table 12: Time Spent and Sought in Understanding Mississippi School Ratings ................ 42

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bounded Rationality Conceptual Framework .............................................................. 17

1
Making the Grade: Augmenting Mississippi Measures of School Quality with Local Values
Efforts to hold K–12 educators accountable for providing students with quality education
typically rely on consequential accountability, supposing that mathematically determined results
such as metrics from standardized tests produce clear, consistent evidence of student proficiency
and growth (Manna, 2011; Schneider & Gottlieb, 2021). In compliance with the Every Student
Succeeds Act (2015), states have flexibility to develop their own methodologies for assessment
within a framework of federal requirements. In implementing and interpreting federal standards
and requirements, most states attempt to measure the efficacy of individual schools or school
districts in providing a quality education by imposing quantitative measures of their students,
endeavoring to remove subjectivity of assessment (Saultz et al., 2019). The researchers wrote,
“Education sought to depoliticize its work through the use of numerical measurements. The idea
was that metrics were politically neutral, objective levers, not subject to the whims of individual
actors. Presumably, numbers don’t take sides” (Saultz et al., 2019, p. 19).
Background of the Problem
It is unclear whether resulting school ratings, in many states compressing various
measurements into a single summative rating (Sunderman, 2022), capture what the community
would consider to be desired outcomes of primary and secondary education. School accreditation
scores imply definitive assessment of educational quality, while Bolman and Deal (2021, p. 69),
speaking of students, noted that “mystery surrounds the knowledge and skills they will need to
succeed in life.” This potential disconnect between public expectations of schools or educators
and their performance assessments captured in state accountability models becomes a problem as
community members make decisions driven by accreditation-based assumptions, such as where

2
to live or where to locate businesses with access to a quality workforce, countering efforts to
integrate public schools, neighborhoods, and communities (Schneider & Gottlieb, 2021).
Schneider and Gottlieb (2021) pointed out that while federal and state approaches to
accountability have some merit, such models lead to unintended consequences including
perpetuating economic inequality in areas of low socioeconomic status. Accountability models
also carry a risk of “systematic misperception” (Schneider & Gottlieb, 2021, p. 455). Exploring
awareness of existing state metrics of school quality along with parallel measures of quality can
potentially broaden public knowledge of school accountability and alter community narratives of
school quality, bolstering investment in traditionally underrated school districts.
Research related to components of state models of school accountability enacted in
compliance with the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) noted that implementers of these tools
often fail to consider the impact of race on student proficiency as measured by standardized tests
(Grodsky et al., 2008). This impact creates a disparity between the perceived quality of majority
white school districts inferred from results of state accountability metrics and those with higher
percentages of black students, which often have a higher level of student poverty (Wei, 2012).
For example, Wei (2012) pointed out that accountability systems tend to widen the white–black
gap, and her study of state accountability plans found inconsistent patterns of the relationships
between stringent state accountability models and student achievement across grades, subjects,
and ethnic groups.
But it is unclear whether a concurrent set of criteria and source of authority on school
quality assessment can take hold within a community, encouraging a more holistic perspective of
the contribution of schools to the education of its students. Better understanding of barriers to a
community articulating its own expectations and definition of school quality is important to

3
countering the negative impacts of accountability models and economic suppression through
social stratification that may result from school assessment relying solely on these models
(Grodsky et al., 2008). More research would reveal opportunities for a new architecture of public
perception of school quality, undergirded by federal mandates under the Every Student Succeeds
Act (2015) but elevated by community-supplied values in order to craft a more complete public
understanding of school quality assessment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore alignment between state accreditation metrics
for schools, particularly in states that use summative accreditation ratings, and criteria for school
quality held by members of a community. Awareness of results of state assessments was first
determined in the research. Community ranking of criteria for school quality was assessed so that
elements currently contained in one state accreditation model could be evaluated against those
factors not included. Further examination in the study explored understanding of local economic
impact of state accountability models and what barriers exist to efforts that augment metrics
produced by states in compliance with the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) with community
values, producing a more holistic assessment of school quality.
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do locally defined measures of school quality align with metrics found in the
state accountability model?
2. What is the awareness of potential impact of state defined measures of school quality
on a local economy?
3. What barriers prevent expanded, local definitions of school success beyond state and
federal mandates?

4
Significance of the Study
This research serves the interests of local educators as they strive to fulfill their role of
providing quality education to primary and secondary students. From my perspective both as a
business leader and as a member of the Mississippi Commission on School Accreditation, I
designed the study and its scope to examine the varied perspectives and assumptions of school
quality. Overall survey results were communicated to the same population of potential
respondents, whether an invitee responded to the survey or not, in order to reinforce credibility
of the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
I also envision that broader and richer awareness by the local community of how school
quality is defined could benefit economic developers and local business leaders if this awareness
evolves to a stronger positive narrative that reverses trends in real estate choices or business site
selection. One economic evaluation that helps quantify unintended consequences of state
assessment models considers real estate or property value correlation with ratings of school
quality as a hedonic approach to valuing quality education (Levin et al., 2018). Valuation of
property impacts local ad valorem taxes collected for municipal and county budgets (Alexander
et al., 2014), making this consequence of school rating models a concern of all tax-paying
residents of a local jurisdiction.
Nguyen-Hoang and Yinger (2011) conducted an extensive review of methodologies used
in 35 studies since 1999 to evaluate a correlation of school quality with housing values, noting a
difficulty in isolating the impact of school quality or drawing direct causation between school
quality assessments and property values derived from desirable outcomes. They concluded that
almost all studies they evaluated found a positive relationship between a certain measure of test
scores and residential property value, with an increase in test scores by one standard deviation

5
raising house prices by 7% to almost 10% (Nguyen-Hoang & Yinger, 2011). Brasington and
Haurin (2006) found a similar variation in house prices, comparing school districts against a
mean of student test score achievement and showing pricing differences of approximately 14%
when student achievement was one standard deviation below the mean compared with another
school district exhibiting achievement that was one standard deviation above the mean
(Brasington & Haurin, 2006).
Another study, by Black and Machin (2011), similarly attempted to determine how much
parents are willing to pay in the form of housing value, which translates into property taxes that
potentially bolster school budgets, for the opportunity for their children to attend better
performing schools. Reviewing research from several counties, they concluded that the literature
was consistent in finding significantly higher housing valuations where reports of school quality
were higher (Black & Machin, 2011). Yet while Brasington and Haurin (2006) also argued that
test scores alone are not adequate measures of school quality, given that test proficiency also
reflects innate student aptitude or characteristics of their parents and households, they stated that
the prevalence of information about test score outcomes, such as the aggregate results contained
in annual state accountability models, makes this measure the more likely impact on household
capitalization of house prices than on value added measures such as improvement in test scores.
Overview of Theoretical Framework Applied to the Problem
The quantification of school quality via accountability metrics offered an opportunity to
explore community perception of quality through the economic theory of bounded rationality.
Simon (1955, 1956) developed this concept, supposing that humans settle for sufficient outcomes
rather than maximizing outcomes because of several constraints: limited cognitive and
information-processing abilities, limited time, and limited or incomplete knowledge. Unable to

6
evaluate all potential alternatives and their consequences, individuals defer to others rather than
considering a comprehensive range of factors that could lead to optimal decisions; they settle for
results that are sufficient to meet their aspirations (Simon, 1956).
In this case, first exploring community members’ satisfaction with school evaluation
components contained in summative numerical ratings of school quality offered insights into any
misalignment of their perception of school quality and the impression conveyed by annual school
accreditation results communicated publicly by state-level organizations. Next, considering
barriers to a broader narrative of school quality factored in the conceptual framework of bounded
rationality (Simon, 1955, 1956). In investigating the constraints of cognitive and informationprocessing ability, time, and knowledge, this framework was appropriate in highlighting
potential strategies for overcoming barriers to more complete or relevant assessments of local
school quality.
Overview of Study Methodology
Using a quantitative approach, I tested objective theories by examining the relationship
between variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using primarily close-ended questions in a
survey allowed for quantitative hypothesis testing of attitudes and opinions of a population
collected at one point in time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This choice of methodology explored
certain cause-and-effect relationships tied to bounded rationality constraints of community
reliance on state-measured summative ratings even if these metrics are misaligned with
community priorities.
I studied the Warren County, Mississippi, area, with a population of approximately
44,722 that is balanced racially, having 49.1% black and 48.7% white as reported by the U.S.
Census Bureau (n.d.). Within the broader general population, I focused on a study population

7
with more relevance in the survey topic (Robinson & Leonard, 2019), soliciting input from the
business community represented by owners and managers of approximately 1,800 businesses
present in Warren County (Central Mississippi Planning & Development District, n.d.). This
segment of the community may more directly experience socioeconomic impacts of a state
accountability model of schools, yet they may not be fully aware of any lack of alignment with
their own priorities of quality education. I invited survey responses from a convenience study
sample of the entire Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of Commerce roster, approximately
450 members (P. Diaz, personal communication, August 2023), as representatives of the
business community because this population offered demographic diversity and a manageable
representative percentage of business leaders overall (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Review of Literature
Establishment and evolution of public policy is shaped by individual agents within
organizations as they exercise collective choice, choices shaped by the concept of bounded
rationality (Simon, 1955, 1956). Herbert A. Simon’s research and writings of these decisionmaking processes in organizations as being bounded in their rationality is viewed as pioneering,
garnering Simon the 1978 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (Augier, 2001).
In considering the problem of whether a state’s public policy of applying summative school
ratings to assessments of school quality captures what a community considers to be desired
outcomes of its primary and secondary schools, a summary of current national and state models
of school quality assessments and of the theory of bounded rationality, its principles, and its key
concepts offered a roadmap to research connecting these concepts to public policy outcomes.
Previous Research Evaluating Systems of School Quality Assessment

8
More than 20 years ago, the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002) required
states to publicly report primary and secondary school performance, acting on the premise that
public awareness of schools and school districts meeting or falling short of certain goals would
drive school improvement (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Ten years later, with key proficiency standards
being increasingly waived for schools across the United States, reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act in 2015 resulted in the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). This
model of school accountability featured growth measures in addition to proficiency standards
along with non-test standards selected by states (Sunderman, 2022).
Sunderman (2022) noted that although the revised act allows each state to design its own
assessment system, required metrics include student proficiency in annual tests of English,
mathematics, and science, student growth in test scores compared with previous years, and fouryear graduation rate for high schools. States also must design and produce an annual comparative
rating of school performance, but Sunderman (2022) pointed out the scant empirical research
correlating these rating systems with desired goals for students or research evaluating unintended
consequences of such systems. At question is the efficacy of a single summative annual score for
each school, the system adopted by the majority of states (Erwin et al., 2021), in providing
reliable information about the complex issue of school performance and factoring in the
complexity of teaching and learning environments, complexity being one of the key triggers of
bounded rationality in decision making (Dequech, 2001).
Despite lack of a tested correlation between summative systems and achievement of
student performance, Erwin et al. (2021) documented that summative ratings in various forms
persist, as shown in Table 1. Summative ratings are handy accountability tools for bureaucracies
because they distill multiple and varied characteristics into a single, concise score that is easy to

9
share and to access annually (Harris & Liu, 2021). Harris and Liu (2021) suggested that
wholesale change of such systems is unlikely; however, tweaks to the methodologies may be
possible. Informed by research that shows that only some 30% of student academic performance
is attributed to what is offered in the classroom, while the much larger portion stems from
differentiating factors outside the classroom (Adams et al., 2016), stakeholders may call for an
examination of inputs impacting school quality. Budgets or financial resources are one measure
of inputs to student learning, along with school capacity and human resources, effective
processes, school climate, and other facilitators of learning (Bae, 2018).
Table 1
Types of School Rating Systems Adopted by States in 2021
Type of rating system States adopting in 2021 n
A-F rating system IN, LA, MI, MS, NC, OH, OK, TN, TX, UT 10
1-5 (including star) rating system DC, KY, MD, NV, RI 5
Descriptive rating system DE, IL, KS, ME, MA, MN, NE, NJ, SC,
VT, WV, WY
12
Index rating system AK, AR, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, MO, NM,
ND, SD, WA, WI
13
Federal tiers of support,
identifying only schools in the
lowest tier of performance
AL, AZ, CO, ID, MT, NH, NY, OR, PA, VA 10
Dashboard CA 1
Note. Adapted from “State Accountability Rating Systems: A Review of School Report Cards as
Indicators of school Quality,” by G. L. Sunderman, 2022, National Education Policy Center,
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/report-cards.

10
In contrast to the absence of research on efficacy of summative rating systems in
measuring student outcomes, Borman and Dowling (2010) noted established research
documenting a correlation between student test scores, the primary basis for summative rating
systems, and demographics. They pointed out that attendance at highly segregated,
predominately black schools or those with large numbers of students in low socioeconomic
status exacerbates the negative impact of minority status or individual poverty on student
achievement (Borman & Dowling, 2010; Manna, 2011). One Teach for America educator
pointed out that although her elementary students may score a failing grade of 51% on annual
state English language tests, they often enter first grade with a vocabulary only 17% of that of
students with higher socioeconomic status, so she considers test results of 51% a victory (M.
Anderson, personal communication, May 2022).
Finally, Sunderman (2022) suggested a context for the issue of school accountability
models that include federal, state, and local decision makers, but closer examination of literature
indicates the reference to local decision makers as equating specifically to state policymakers,
rarely to local communities. Nevertheless, Sunderman (2022) summarized her review of the
issue and underlying research by suggesting that composite, or summative, ratings of school
quality are inadequate, failing to address the nuances and complexity of the learning
environment, including differences in processes, capacity, resources, and socioeconomic
variables. Yet, due to the highly visible nature of summative rating systems, they also are
tremendously influential when it comes to public perceptions of school quality, regardless of a
system’s accuracy in translating local expectations of school performance into results (Figlio &
Loeb, 2011). Bounded rationality theory offers insights for closing this gap.

11
Historical Context of Bounded Rationality
In the mid-20th century, Nobel economist Herbert Simon published his seminal work,
Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative
Organizations (1947). Simon studied how individuals make decisions specifically within the
context of their position as members of organizations. His findings challenged conventional
economic theory espousing individuals as being rational decision makers, as Simon’s work
highlighted individual limitations on complete rationality in terms of memory, attention, and
capacity (Augier and March, 2001). His theory of bounded rationality (Simon, 1955, 1956)
introduced a core concept of decision making whereby individuals “satisfice” (Simon, 1956, p.
129). As Schwarz et al. (2022) explained, individuals make choices that satisfy or suffice rather
than maximize outcomes because evaluating all potential options for potential outcomes is
limited by their cognitive and information-processing abilities, by time constraints, and by
incomplete knowledge.
Typically categorized as economic theory, bounded rationality provides a link to public
policy studies (Augier, 2001). This is appropriate for Simon, a scholar who bore 24 honorary
doctoral degrees from colleges and universities including Harvard University, Yale University,
Columbia University, and the University of Chicago and who was author of 27 books and almost
1,000 articles in disciplines including political science, public administration, organizational
theory, economics, computer science, psychology, philosophy, and artificial intelligence
(Behrooz, 2010). Kahneman (2003, p. 1449) described the study of bounded rationality as an
“interdisciplinary conversation” between economics and psychology, with applications to
organizational management and to political science and public policy study.

12
As a framework for decision making regarding economic outcomes, bounded rationality
offers rich insights in the collective choices made by individuals in the organizations they
represent that translate into public policy, yet Jones (2002) pointed out the relatively minimal use
of the model in research in economics and political science. In the case of the latter, this lack of
attention to the model has been attributed to bounded rationality being “‘too scientific’ for the
humanistic study of politics” (Jones, 2002, p. 271). Selten (1990) concurred that the relatively
minimal effort by economists to further develop the theory stems from its focus on behaviors
over theorems.
Conversely, in a survey of bounded rationality, Conlisk (1996) detailed considerable
examples of research that rely on bounded rationality precepts. As one example, Williamson
(1986) concluded that organizations’ size, structure, and protocols are influenced by various
transaction costs, a cost generated by individuals’ limited cognitive abilities. “Economizing on
transaction costs essentially reduces to economizing on bounded rationality” Williamson (1986,
p. 110). Similarly, studying the tradeoff between the effort of deliberation of a decision and
effort that could be devoted to other activities, research has pointed to the use of deliberation
processes such as hierarchical decision making to address the bounds of rationality (LePine et al.,
1997). Recognizing the elements of bounded rationality in decision making is an initial step in
individuals making better decisions and engineering superior outcomes.
Theoretical Concepts Underlying the Problem of Community Engagement in School
Quality Assessment
Forester (1984) summarized the assumptions of decision making that posit complete
rationality, suggesting that in a perfect setting, individuals would begin with a well-defined
problem and a full complement of potential alternatives, that they would have complete

13
information of options and consequences of those choices, and that they would have all the time,
resources, and skills to evaluate the various alternatives. Realism suggests the opposite of these
conditions. Forester (1984) supported the thesis that only by understanding the bounded nature of
decision making and action is it possible to arrive at appropriate outcomes in addressing a
problem. As Perrow (1972) summarized, individuals choose the first solution in a limited
consideration of options, selecting familiar options in lieu of optimized outcomes.
Simon (1947) introduced several aspects of bounded rationality in his earliest text that are
directly applicable to the problem of deciding on appropriate criteria for school quality
assessments. One, the principle of intended rationality, points out that although individuals are
generally goal-oriented, they fall short of achieving goals because of environmental complexity
and cognitive limitations including attention, emotion, habit, and memory (March 1994; Simon,
1976). Simply put, complexity of a topic leads to lack of knowledge (Dequech, 2001). Instead, as
Cialdini (2001, 2021) pointed out, the complexity of topics such as state accountability models
for schools and school districts causes decision makers to defer to those with authority in that
policy arena, including individuals with more experience or expertise, as a shortcut to decision
making. This principle may explain a lack of public engagement on the question of definitions of
school quality.
A second principle of bounded rationality is that of uncertainty (Simon, 1947). Studies of
the psychology of individual decision making find that people vary in their sense of connection
to the future and the resulting actions they take to improve an uncertain future (Hershfield, 2023;
Hershfield & Bartels, 2018). Jones (2002) noted that uncertainty in the form of risk assessment
of probable outcomes impacts choice, or decision making. Lacking an understanding of the
underlying factors in a question or problem such as how to best assess school quality creates

14
uncertainty about outcomes and manifests as uncertainty in the entire thought process of an
individual regarding the topic, defined by Simon (1947) as a design problem. Community leaders
may be uncertain of the current or future problem space related to assessing school quality.
The principle of tradeoffs, captured in the notion of satisficing, means that individuals in
organizations often choose alternatives that are simply adequate to satisfy one goal in order to
preserve limited attention span for multiple other goals (Jones, 2002). Simon (1988) wrote of
decision making as a form of design, with those concerned with making decisions about how
things ought to be devising means to achieve goals. But Simon (1988) added that rarely is the
process of designing optimum alternatives easy, leading to problem solutions that are simply
sufficient, not necessarily optimum, for attaining outcomes.
In the case of defining optimal criteria for assessing school quality, while community
leaders may experience the impact of state summative ratings directly or indirectly, other goals
or priorities vying for their attention may result in their acceptance of the rating system as good
enough. March (1978) also noted in the particular case of determining performance measures
that a tradeoff occurs in driving positive outcomes through more precise articulation of
objectives, which then removes creative actions that might better support goal achievement. In
other words, the objective to hold schools accountable for results by defining precise numerical
measures of performance may in fact hamper educators’ efforts to teach in a way that supports
overall positive student outcomes.
A fourth principle of bounded rationality, adaptation, offers potential insights in how to
address the problem of community-based goals for school quality. Simon (1991) wrote that
problem-solving is a learned behavior that can be improved upon. Newell (1990) suggested that
the principle of adaptation means that the more time an individual spends on a problem, the more

15
that person’s understanding of the problem improves, and limitations of cognitive ability
diminish. Adaptation applied to the problem of school quality assessments by community leaders
would require overcoming bounded rationality through time spent absorbing information about
the state summative rating model.
As Conlisk (1996, p. 692) noted, “Models of bounded rationality adhere to a fundamental
tenet of economics, respect for scarcity,” adding that the cost of time makes human cognition,
including the expense of information gathering and deliberation, a precious resource and costly
activity. Additionally, Simon (1947, 1955) wrote of individual decision making and the ultimate
actions produced by decisions in the context of collective behaviors demonstrated by an
organization such as a chamber of commerce and its business representatives. Jones (2002)
summarized bounded rationality as being a predictor of outcomes of this collective choice in the
form of organizational policy and practices such as whether to define and express unique
expectations of school quality.
Jones (2002) added that in overcoming lack of information as an element of bounded
rationality, raising attention and emotion to a problem prompts analysis and a search for
solutions. Awareness, then, becomes a trigger in individuals determining to seek options for
improving or resolving an issue (March, 1978). March (1978) suggested that goals or targets are
tied to decision making either in the way in which they impact searching for alternate solutions
or in the way in which they affect satisfaction with the outcome (March & Simon, 1993). Thus,
awareness of both the content and the economic impact of state summative ratings for schools
might prevent members of a business organization from relying solely on the metrics of state
accountability models in their evaluation of school quality.

16
Concepts such as agenda-setting in organizations and prioritizing by its agents also point
to bounded rationality principles of organizations relying on existing solutions (Jones, 1994;
Simon, 1983). Jones (2002) pointed out that existing processes or solutions must be deemed by
an organization to be inadequate for the process of seeking new processes or solutions to be
activated. Connected to the concept of satisficing is the observation of Friedmann et al. (1973)
that there is a waning of community participation in public policy processes and substance. In
other words, as Selten (1990) wrote, limitations on rationality in decision making are both
cognitive and motivational.
In summary, public policies are shaped as a collective choice in response to stimuli
indicating a need for change (Simon, 1955). Boundaries including lack of information, lack of
time, and lack of cognitive ability to process information may inhibit the uptake of stimuli
necessary for change in public policy (Simon, 1955, 1956). At the same time, inaction or
acceptance of status quo in public policies is also a collective choice, whether decision makers
are conscious of selecting that course of inaction or not. Further study of business leaders’
awareness of and concern for state assessment methodologies and their local economic impact
could offer insights in application of bounded rationality concepts to improving community
participation in public policy outcomes.
Conceptual Framework
The problem of community engagement in defining measures by which school
excellence is assessed and the degree to which these criteria are aligned with state accountability
models may be viewed through a variety of lenses, but potential barriers to engagement were
explored using Simon’s (1955, 1956) principles of bounded rationality. As Maxwell (2013)
explained, applying a conceptual, or theoretical, framework to a topic offers insights into

17
underlying causes of behavior. It is unlikely that any single factor impacts community
assumptions of school quality assessment, but the interconnected aspects of lack of time, lack of
information, and lack of cognitive ability to process knowledge (Simon, 1955) about school
accountability models offered domains of investigation.
This study considered business community awareness of school assessments in terms of
both the merits of components of the state assessment model and the impact or outcomes of those
assessments. Seeking first to determine what business leaders considered to be markers of school
excellence, the research then considered alignment of those markers with state assessment
components along with potential barriers to supplementing the narrative of school quality.
Potential barriers were suggested by the three bounded rationality inputs shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Bounded Rationality Conceptual Framework
Inputs
Outputs
Cognitive
Limitations
Information
Imperfection
Time
Constraints
Rationality
of decisions
by community
members is
bounded
Suboptimal
Decisions

18
Although each individual holds unique views or assumptions on the topic of school
accountability for quality outcomes, bounded rationality also offered a useful conceptual
framework because Simon (1947) specifically considered individual decision making within the
context of an individual’s membership in organizations. He consistently viewed the rationale for
phenomena exhibited by individuals as being more conveniently considered in terms of
organizations and their parts (Simon, 1991). A definition of “organization” offered by Robbins
(1984) suggested coordination by two or more people in order to achieve a common and
expressed goal or objective, which is consistent with Simon’s (1976) position of intent to achieve
goals through decisions made within organizations but with members accepting tradeoffs rather
than achieving their goals (Jones, 2002).
Methodology
This study employed quantitative methodology for data gathering and analysis, which
Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated is an effective means of testing objective theories, enabling
the examination of relationships among variables. A postpositive worldview, which was a feature
of methodology design for this study, assumes a connection between certain causes suggested by
bounded rationality theory and effects related to community expectations and expression of
opinions on school quality (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The survey design used questionnaires
for data collection in order to produce numerical depictions of actions and opinions of a sample
group that could be generalized to a larger population (Fowler, 2014).
The Researcher
I represent the 2nd U.S. Congressional District as a non-career educator on the
Mississippi Commission on School Accreditation. As such, I understand more completely than I
previously did as a member of the general public the Mississippi accountability model created in

19
response to the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). As a business owner, I am also aware of the
impact of school quality perception on decisions such as residential location or business
expansion in an area that result from the summative rating methodology used by Mississippi and
14 other states (see Table 1) (Sunderman, 2022). My deeper understanding of the Mississippi
model combined with my readings of socioeconomic limitations of certain elements of such
models contribute to my biased point of view that such data does not necessarily convey a
complete assessment of schools’ ability to provide quality education.
I limited this bias by posing neutral questions, seeking written responses via an electronic
quantitative survey (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I initially explored the use of a qualitative
approach to inquiry of this topic, either through focus groups or individual interviews. Concerns
that qualitative methodology might incorporate my bias led me to redesign the study using
quantitative methods.
Study Instrument
A quantitative survey instrument designed specifically for this problem of practice and
population was used in data collection. Survey items (see Appendix C) were populated via the
Qualtrics online software program. The survey was first approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board. It was then distributed via email with a hyperlink, with
responses collected electronically as the primary means of data collection and analysis for this
cross-sectional study, offering benefits of cost and convenience (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Survey items included a combination of question types: multiple choice questions to
assess knowledge and opinion, rating scale questions to establish opinion, open-ended questions
to factor in unanticipated or custom responses, and demographic questions to confirm sample
validity as well as to potentially map personal characteristics such as gender or parental status

20
related to having children in school to aspects of the theoretical framework (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). Order effects of survey items were considered (Robinson & Leonard, 2019),
with demographic questions deemed to be more effective at assessing initial willingness to share
opinion and thus included at the beginning of the instrument versus being sensitive in nature and
placed later in the survey. Validity of the survey instrument was maintained by linking survey
items both to the theoretical framework of bounded rationality and to the research questions of
this investigation (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
The electronic survey included 46 items (see Appendix C) related to the research
questions (see Table 2). Categories of questions were: one question to document initial
participation rate; nine demographic questions; five open-ended questions serving to segment
residential status of survey respondents and to allow for responses in addition to the options
provided; two multiple choice questions to assess awareness and alignment of opinion with the
state assessment model; one Likert-style question to assess alignment of opinion with the state
assessment model; 21 unipolar rating scale questions to assess alignment of opinion with the
state assessment model; seven unipolar rating scale questions to assess information source
preferences as a factor in bounded rationality of decisions; one order ranking question to assess
awareness and opinion of the impact of state assessment models on a local community; one
unipolar rating scale question to assess time as a factor in bounded rationality of decisions; and
one multiple choice question to assess time, information availability, and cognitive knowledge as
factors in bounded rationality of decisions. Demographic questions included age, gender, ethnic
background, education completion level, location of current residence, type of business
represented, whether the participant was working in the local K–12 school system, and parental
status related to students in the K–12 education system.

21
Table 2
Data Sources
Research questions Survey items
RQ1: How do locally defined measures of school quality align with
metrics found in the state accountability model?
25 questions
RQ2: What is the awareness of potential impact of state defined
measures of school quality on a local economy?
1 question
RQ3: What barriers prevent expanded, local definitions of school
success beyond state and federal mandates?
5 questions
Research Setting
The Vicksburg-Warren County (Mississippi) Chamber of Commerce includes
approximately 450 members (P. Diaz, personal communication, August 2023) representing a
business community of approximately 1,800 businesses of various legal entity types (Central
Mississippi Planning & Development District, n.d.) in the Warren County population of 44,722
(U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). As leaders of small and large businesses, non-profits, and
government agencies, these individuals experience the economic impact of school assessment
results in the form of real estate prices and sales, in ad valorem taxes, in sales tax revenue, and in
new business location or expansion (Louch, 2014; Nguyen-Hoang & Yinger, 2011). They may
have strong general knowledge of Mississippi’s summative rating of local schools, as this topic
is discussed in various forums of Chamber members.
This awareness by Chamber members of annual state assessment results offered an
opportunity to explore further what they know about components of the state’s summative rating
system. Specifically, the study could determine whether this state assessment model aligns with
the business community’s beliefs about qualities of high performing schools. Additional study

22
questions could assess their understanding of potential economic impact from summative rating
models and what barriers prevent a broader narrative of school quality that incorporates
community-based expectations and priorities.
Study Participants
All members of the Warren County, Mississippi, business community represented the
study population, totaling approximately 1,800 registered businesses (Central Mississippi
Planning & Development District, n.d.). With information about and access to this complete
population limited, stratification of the overall Warren County, Mississippi, business population
was conducted to consider the opinions and actions of members of the business community on
this topic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A convenience sample was used for the study (Robinson
& Leonard, 2019), composed of members of the Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of
Commerce. A complete email list of the approximately 450 members available through the
Chamber office allowed for single-stage sampling of this population sample (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018), representing approximately 25% of the overall business population of
approximately 1,800.
A request to participate in the survey was sent via email to all members of the VicksburgWarren County Chamber of Commerce by Chamber administrative staff. Voluntary research
participation by Chamber of Commerce members was ensured through electronic access to the
survey instrument by participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Informed consent and
confidentiality of their participation and of data provided was assured in the email invitation to
participate in the study and reinforced in the initial survey item, which included a required
selection to proceed with the survey (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).

23
Demographic data sought in the survey established diversity of respondents but no
personally identifying data was collected. The population response included age ranges from 20
to 90, both male and female gender, ethnic diversity, representation of various forms of business,
and a range of parental status related to having children in the K–12 system, one factor that could
potentially impact awareness of and opinions on the problem of practice. The survey was active
from October 10, 2023, to October 27, 2023. Of approximately 450 potential survey participants,
a rate of 87 participants initiating survey response represented approximately 19.3% of the
survey population and approximately 4.8% of the total population of businesses in the area.
Data Collection Procedures
Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of Commerce staff emailed an overview establishing
the purpose and significance of the study to members of the population sample on October 10,
2023. The message included a link to the Qualtrics-formatted survey and requested a response by
October 20, 2023. No remuneration or material incentives were offered to increase participation;
however, intended use of the study was stressed to incentivize participation (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). Based on trial pre-test runs of the survey, total survey response time was
estimated in the communication to require no more than five minutes.
An assessment of response rate was conducted on October 16, 2023. As a result, a survey
deadline reminder was sent via email to the original organization membership distribution.
Actual collection of responses continued until October 27, 2023, as responses were still being
generated toward a response threshold of 20% of the survey population, representing almost 5%
of the total study population of businesses in Warren County, Mississippi.
Data Analysis

24
Statistical techniques were used to analyze survey instrument data, quantifying attitudes
and opinions of area business leaders (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Data collection and analysis
was conducted using Qualtrics software. Data analysis procedures first evaluated volume and
demographic background of respondents as validation of the representative nature of the sample
(see Appendix B) (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Specific survey questions soliciting response to
research questions were then analyzed with methodology appropriate to the given form of
response options consisting primarily of descriptive analysis (Kara, 2017). The descriptive
analysis considered overall responses mapped to specific research questions, including the
means, standard deviations, and range of scores on rated items (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Related to research question one, how well locally defined measures of school quality
align with metrics found in the state accountability model, a frequency distribution of each
criterion in survey questions 15–35 was calculated, noting those criteria contained in state model.
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). Survey question 14 assessed overall satisfaction with the state model
using a Likert-type scale of ordinal responses and was assessed for central tendency and
frequencies to assess variability (Boone & Boone, 2012). A correlational analysis examined any
relationship between satisfaction and variables of parental status or employment status (Boone &
Boone, 2012). Filtering of variables also allowed for assessment of how satisfaction aligned with
self-reported evaluation of school quality from survey question 12, comparing participant scores
that were higher, the same, or less than the state assessment score (Salkind & Frey, 2020). Two
multiple-choice questions enabled comparison of each respondent’s own assessment of local
school quality against the score they reported from the state, whether their knowledge of the
current score was accurate or not, in order to assess the percentage of respondents aligned with
their understanding of state results (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Analysis also segmented

25
selected responses based on demographic information such as parental status and employment
status to evaluate impact of positionality on the research question related to satisfaction with the
state accountability model (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Related to research question two, awareness of the potential impact of state defined
measures of school quality on a local economy, this order ranking question was analyzed by first
assessing the means and standard deviations of scores on rated items (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Perceived impact was also assessed using a frequency distribution based on the most commonly
cited concerns (Salkind & Frey, 2020). Finally, two variables were created and analyzed by
averaging the three factors indicating economic impact and the three indicating school
recruitment and retention elements in order to assess thematic rationale for concerns about
school assessment model impacts (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Input exploring research question three, barriers to expanded, local definitions of school
success beyond state and federal mandates, was assessed to consider limitations of information,
time, or capacity to process knowledge, all features of bounded rationality (Simon, 1955). A
multiple-choice question assessed time, information availability, and cognitive knowledge as
self-reported factors in supporting business members’ sharing of the narrative of school quality.
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). A second multiple-choice question assessing accurate knowledge
of the current assessment rating was used to segment respondents having inaccurate information
about the state assessment, which was also filtered by variables of parental and employment
status. A correlational analysis considered any relationship between the key variable of
satisfaction with the state model and accurate knowledge of the current school rating. A nominal
variable that included an open-ended response sought input regarding information sources, with
central tendency analysis determining relative reliance on each source (Salkind & Frey, 2020).

26
An ordinal response rated sources of expertise in assessing school quality, with mode analysis
conducted (Salkind & Frey, 2020). One unipolar rating scale question assessed time as a factor in
bounded rationality of decisions, which was analyzed using a correlation against willingness to
devote more time to the topic (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability of the survey instrument measuring barriers to community-defined
school quality were addressed in several ways. Face validity of survey questions was addressed
by conducting pilot testing with several respondents not in the survey sample to generate
feedback on clarity, internal consistency of items, and quality of overall formatting and
instructions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In addition, content validity was enhanced by the
review of survey questions by dissertation committee members as well as with a research
specialist at the University of Southern California, Dr. Morgan Polikoff (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Additionally, examining findings cited in previous research of typical definitions of school
quality enabled wording of questions regarding school quality criteria consistent with previous
studies (Dills, 2004; Figlio & Lucas, 2004; Nguyen-Hoang & Yinger, 2011). Input from these
sources prompted instrument modifications prior to research being initiated.
To increase reliability, the majority of non-demographic items in the instrument were
assessed using a single, consistent construct, a 1–10 unipolar rating scale (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Error score was reduced by wording questions in such a way that they would be
interpreted as consistently as possible (Salkind & Frey, 2020). Following input by dissertation
committee members and additional faculty review of the instrument by Dr. Morgan Polikoff, a
number of questions were included to reinforce understanding of the input being sought (Salkind
& Frey, 2020).

27
As an additional effort to ensure reliability, increased participation in the survey was
supported by reminding potential respondents of the survey deadline at the midpoint of the
response window and by extending the period of survey activity (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The mid-deadline prompt, generated by the respondents’ member organization, emphasized the
significance of the problem of practice to the survey population so as to make the survey
invitation more compelling (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Timing of survey initiation and
termination were selected after factoring in timing of external events in order to minimize the
impact of those events on survey response (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Sample confidence was enhanced by reviewing with member organization officials their
various records of member engagement for quality of the sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Two questions related to parental status of schoolchildren ensured the sample was not skewed to
a greater or lesser awareness of the issue of school quality than the general population (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).
Study Findings
Participants
A total of 87 participants from the Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of Commerce
selected the prompt to initiate the survey. Of these, 79 completed the demographic questions and
74 answered most or all questions in the survey instrument. Respondents reported diverse
demographic backgrounds suitable to representation of the business community overall (see
Appendix B). The population response included age ranges from 20 to 90, both male and female
gender, ethnic diversity, representation of various forms of business, and a range of parental
status related to having children in the K–12 system. This latter demographic was collected as
one factor that could potentially impact awareness of and opinions on the problem of practice.

28
Categorical segmentation for age, gender, ethnicity, and type of business, offered few
additional insights into various bounded rationality elements. Response by business members
who work but who do not live in the community was insufficient to draw conclusions related to
this demographic perspective. Categorical analysis was provided in the following results for
research question one (see Table 5) and research question three (see Table 9).
In terms of determining whether participant response was representative of the study
convenience sample, the demographic element of gender was heavily weighted to females, with
more than two-thirds of those responding being women. Active Chamber members, the
organization solicited as the survey sample, was defined as those regularly attending monthly
meetings of the Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of Commerce. A review of records showed
active participation for 2023 to be approximately 59% female and 41% male (Vicksburg-Warren
County Chamber of Commerce, 2023). This correlates with the high percentage of females
responding to the survey.
Results for Research Question 1
A number of survey responses assessed alignment of locally defined measures of school
quality with metrics found in the state accountability model as well as alignment of overall
opinion of school district quality collected from the survey with that found from the state model.
General satisfaction with the state accountability model using a Likert-type scale also provided
an opportunity for descriptive analysis. A high degree of alignment or satisfaction with the state
model would represent a plausible lack of additional community narrative of school quality,
diminishing the impact of bounded rationality limitations of time, information, or cognitive
ability to understand (Simon, 1956).

29
Table 3 offers a descriptive analysis of means, standard deviations, and variance of 21
school outcome criteria, indicating relative rank of preferred criteria that are included in the
Mississippi school accountability model, which are indicated in boldface. With 1.86 points on a
10-point rating scale separating the highest ranked criteria for school quality from the lowest
rated criteria, one broad finding is that business leaders find school excellence to encompass a
blend of many factors. Those criteria with the lowest average rankings also had the broadest
variability, or the greatest amount of deviation from the mean in terms of qualities or features
that people stated are important in determining the quality of schools. Certain state measures
ranked among the highest, with others at the lowest end of the rankings, indicating that these are
not the sole basis for assessing school quality from a local perspective; yet, these are important
factors to business leaders.
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Variance of Preferred Criteria Demonstrating School Quality
Criteria M SD Variance
Teachers are accessible to students 8.97 1.57 2.46
Students achieve an adequate 4-year graduation rate
from high school
8.77 1.73 2.98
The principal is responsive to teachers, staff, and
students
8.74 1.68 2.81
Teachers are accessible to parents and the community 8.52 1.76 3.11
School policies are effective in encouraging school
attendance
8.46 1.78 3.17
School curriculum offers innovative academic programs
to students
8.38 2.07 4.27
Students demonstrate adequate growth in reading
and math test scores compared to previous year
8.34 1.81 3.27

30
Criteria M SD Variance
There is an ideal ratio of teachers to students 8.31 1.99 3.97
School has effective physical safety measures in place 8.26 2.05 4.19
School leaders regularly communicate with parents 8.22 2.09 4.38
The principal is responsive to parents and the community 8.20 2.05 4.19
Teachers receive ongoing professional development 8.20 2.02 4.10
School leaders regularly communicate with community 8.20 2.06 4.25
School curriculum addresses the workforce needs of the
community
8.20 1.98 3.91
School policies regarding student discipline are effective 8.12 2.21 4.88
An adequate number of students meet the ACT
College Readiness Benchmark (ACT math score
50%/ English score 50%)
7.95 1.89 3.58
School programs support student personal and social
development
7.83 2.12 4.51
Teacher retention is above state average 7.62 2.36 5.56
The lowest performing 25% of students demonstrate
adequate growth in test scores compared to
previous year
7.46 2.31 5.36
Teachers involve parents and the community in
presenting lessons and creating projects for students
7.14 2.29 5.26
Students demonstrate adequate proficiency on annual
state-mandated academic tests
7.11 2.38 5.67
Note. The survey question read: There are many qualities or features that people might think are
important in determining the quality of schools. Rate each of the following in terms of their
importance to you (1 = least important, 5 = average importance, 10 = most important). Criteria
that are included in the Mississippi school accountability model are noted in boldface.

31
Another marker of alignment was data indicating what summative rating respondents felt
the Vicksburg Warren School District warranted, which can be compared with the most recent
Mississippi Office of Accountability assessed score of B, released shortly before the survey
period on September 28, 2023 (Mississippi Department of Education, 2023). Converting the A to
F text scale to numerical results, where A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, and F = 5, produces a current
state assessment for the local school district of 2. Survey response indicated a school quality
score from survey participants having an overall mean of 2.47, with a standard deviation of 0.86.
This school quality score of 2.47 represented a modest lack of alignment with the state
summative rating of 2.
Table 4 displays responses for each self-assessment grade in the scale, with 78.4%
assessing Vicksburg Warren School District quality as a B or C. Percent matching state score
column indicates alignment of the respondent-reported scores with their reported state score,
regardless of whether their knowledge of the state score was accurate. In other words, 82.9% of
those who rated the local school district as offering a quality level of B also thought this was the
rating of the state model; 26.1% who rated the local school district as offering a quality level of
C also thought that the state model assessment model produced a grade of C for local schools.
This means that 35 respondents, less than half of the total, felt their summary of school quality
matched that of state evaluators.

32
Table 4
Local Assessment of School Quality for Vicksburg Warren School District
Respondent-reported score % n
% matching
state score
A 9.46 7 0
B 47.30 35 82.9
C 31.08 23 26.1
D 10.81 8 0
F 1.35 1 NA
Note. The survey question read: On an A–F scale, what rating would YOU currently give the
Vicksburg Warren School District?
Direct satisfaction with the state model was measured as a way of potentially contrasting
any lack of criteria and outcome alignment as evidenced by Tables 3 and 4 with overall stated
perception of quality of the state accountability model. Survey response, shown in Table 5,
indicated varied satisfaction responses, with 29.7% indicating some or very high levels of
satisfaction, 24.3% indicating some level of dissatisfaction, 40.5% either ambivalent or
uncertain, and 5.4% unfamiliar with the state rating system. A correlational analysis considered
any relationship with the key variable of satisfaction and demographic variables of parental
status or employment status. Findings produced no statistically significant relationship between
satisfaction and having a child enrolled in local schools (=p<.616), ever having a child enrolled
in local schools (=p<.282), or employment within the school district (=p<.236).
An additional descriptive analysis was done to assess whether status as a parent of
students currently enrolled in the school system impacted satisfaction, showing slightly more
ambivalence than dissatisfaction in this group. Also analyzed was satisfaction of school district

33
employees, with these respondents reporting middle tier satisfaction with the state model, having
more than half neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Table 5
Satisfaction with Mississippi School Rating System
Self-reported % n
satisfaction General
sample
Parents Staff General
sample
Parents Staff
Very satisfied 4.05 0 0 3 0 0
Somewhat satisfied 25.7 28 33.3 19 7 3
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
28.4 40 55.6 21 10 5
Somewhat
dissatisfied
24.3 16 11.1 18 4 1
Unfamiliar with the
state’s annual
rating system for
schools
5.4 4 0 4 1 0
Unsure/ No opinion 12.2 12 0 9 3 0
Note. The survey question read: Rate your satisfaction with the state’s annual rating system for
schools, which rates each school and district on a single A–F scale.

34
Additional filtering of variables assessed how satisfaction with the Mississippi school
assessment model aligned with self-reported assessment of school quality from survey question
12. After aggregating respondent assessment scores that were higher, the same, or less than the
state assessment score, evaluating these subsets indicated whether satisfaction with the model
was driven by an aligned assessment by individuals with the state’s summative rating. Response
data, exhibited in Table 6, showed that whether business leaders believed the current state
assessment model is overrating or underrating the quality of local schools compared with their
own personal assessment, their satisfaction level with the state model varied, with a combination
of some levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction or ambivalence or uncertainty.
Table 6
Satisfaction with Mississippi School Rating System Based on Self-Assessed Scores
Self-reported % n
satisfaction Higher
scores
Same
scores
Lower
scores
Higher
scores
Same
scores
Lower
scores
Very satisfied 14.3 5.7 0 1 2 0
Somewhat satisfied 28.6 31.4 18.8 2 11 6
Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
14.3 20 40.6 1 7 13
Somewhat
dissatisfied
28.6 31.4 15.6 2 11 5
Unfamiliar with the
state’s annual
rating system for
schools
0 0 12.5 0 0 4
Unsure/ No opinion 14.3 11.4 12.5 1 4 4
Note. The survey question read: Rate your satisfaction with the state’s annual rating system for
schools, which rates each school and district on a single A–F scale.

35
Results for Research Question 2
In assessing what potential bounded rationality factors might act as barriers to the local
business community engaging in assessments and communication of school quality, a second
research question was explored to assess respondents’ degree of awareness of potential impact
on a local community of state defined measures of school quality. This served to eliminate any
lack of priority for this problem of practice as rationale for lack of public engagement, with
motivation to achieve a goal being one necessary driver of action or performance (Clark & Estes,
2008). Because respondents could choose none, one, two, or three impacts on a local community
from state summative ratings, the total number citing a particular impact was assessed in addition
to average frequency and weighting of response, with 1 having the highest degree of impact and
3 having the lowest.
Data, shown in Table 7, indicated a clear understanding by the convenience sample of the
potential impact of state defined measures of school quality on a local community, with only one
respondent indicating an opinion of no impact. Three of the impacts can be considered economic
impacts such as decisions by potential employers to locate or expand in the area, decisions by
their employees to live in the community where the business is located versus living in a nearby
school district, and ability of a business to attract and retain quality employees. Three additional
impacts can be considered factors hindering school recruitment and retention efforts of quality
administrators, quality teachers, or student population, which also impacts school funding
formulas (Skinner, 2019). While funding formulas vary from state to state, student population is
a key factor in the majority of states, such that decreased state and local funding due to reduced
headcount in lower rated schools is seen either through residential home selection in order to

36
send children to schools in higher rated school districts or through decisions to homeschool
students or to enroll them in private schools (Skinner, 2019).
Table 7
Means, Standard Deviations, and Variance of Local Impacts of School Quality Ratings
Impact M SD Variance n
Decision by businesses to locate or expand
presence in an area
1.72 0.85 0.72 39
Decision by employees of businesses to live in an
area
1.95 0.85 0.73 44
Decision by employees of businesses in an area
where to send their children to school
2.03 0.75 0.57 37
Ability of businesses to recruit or retain high
caliber employees
2.03 0.74 0.55 31
Decision by teachers to work at certain schools 2.03 0.74 0.55 14
Ability to recruit or retain high caliber school
administrators in an area
2.38 0.74 0.54 13
A school district rating does not impact a
community in any of these ways
3.00 0 0 1
Note. The survey question read: What impact do you believe a school district rating has on a
local community? (choose your top 1, 2, and 3, or choose no impact)

37
Additionally, the three economic impacts were averaged for mean impact score of 1.9,
with a total of 114 citations of these impacts combined. School recruitment and retention impacts
were averaged for mean impact score of 2.15, with a total of 64 citations of impact. One school
recruitment impact, decisions by employees of businesses in an area where to send their children
to school, was cited by 37 respondents, the third highest rated impact and one also having
economic implications for schools themselves (Skinner, 2019).
Results for Research Question 3
Given the relative misalignment of school quality criteria and a lack of majority
satisfaction with the Mississippi accountability model demonstrated by research question one
and given the almost universal understanding by survey participants of the potential impact of
such accountability models on a community’s economy and on its school recruitment and
retention efforts demonstrated by research question two, research question three was then
assessed. Through several survey prompts, the question of barriers preventing expanded, local
definitions of school success beyond state and federal mandates was considered. In addition to
seeking insights regarding respondents valuing more time, more information, and more
knowledge about state assessment models, the research sought response to credibility of potential
assessment authorities and preferred sources of information regarding school quality
assessments. A basic knowledge test of the current state assessment rating for the Vicksburg
Warren School District also served as a check of adequacy of information by respondents.
Response data, provided in Table 8, indicated that having more information about school
performance and state accountability measurements was the most desired resource, at 46.7%, in
contributing to respondents’ ability to share the success of local schools in meeting expectations
of school quality. More expertise or ability to evaluate the state accountability model was desired

38
by more than one third of respondents, 35.6%. Only about one in six, 17.8%, felt that spending
more time evaluating school performance results was a necessary resource.
Table 8
Resources Desired for Better Communicating School Quality
Impact % n
More information about school performance and state
accountability measurements
46.67 42
More expertise or ability to evaluate the Mississippi Department
of Education accountability model
35.56 32
More time to evaluate school performance results 17.78 16
Note. The survey question read: Which of the following resources would help you to better share
the success of local schools in meeting your expectations of school quality? (choose all that
apply)
Examining the data regarding each of these binding resources individually, a basic
knowledge test of the current state assessment rating for the Vicksburg Warren School District
served as a check of adequacy of information by respondents. Response data, provided in Table
9, showed that those having inaccurate information about Mississippi’s current rating of
Vicksburg Warren School District, where B is the correct rating and all others are inaccurate,
was 28.37%. Note that it is unknown how many providing the correct answer of B possessed
accurate information or whether they simply guessed correctly. Virtually all members of
Vicksburg Warren School District staff were accurate in their choice of current state school
rating, while status as a parent of current students did not appear to increase respondents’
accurate information.

39
Table 9
Most Recent Mississippi School Rating for Vicksburg Warren School District
Respondent-reported % n
score General
sample
Parents Staff General
sample
Parents Staff
A 2.7 4 0 2 1 0
B 71.62 64 88.9 53 16 8
C 22.97 32 11.1 17 8 1
D 2.7 0 0 2 0 0
F 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note. The survey question read: The Mississippi Department of Education rates school districts
on an A-F scale. On this scale, what do you think is the most recent rating the Mississippi
Department of Education has given to the Vicksburg Warren School District? (If you are not
certain, take a guess.)
A correlational analysis also considered any relationship between the key variable of
satisfaction with the state model and accurate knowledge of the school rating. A chi-square test
run in Qualtrics showed a strong statistical relationship between these variables, with p<.0351
and an effect size of r=0.344 using Cramér’s V effect size coefficient (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Data providing insights regarding existing sources of information related to Mississippi’s
annual assessment of schools, shown in Table 10, indicated that local sources of information
exceed official state information sources in all cases. They include a variety of print and
broadcast media, online and social media, and in-person communication media. A strong
reliance on word of mouth for information suggests that accuracy of information is a lower
priority for respondents.

40
Table 10
Sources of Information Regarding Mississippi School Ratings
Information source % n
Local news media 26.59 50
Fellow community members via word of mouth 18.62 35
Vicksburg Warren School District website 14.36 27
Fellow community members via social media 12.23 23
School representative presentations 11.17 21
Teachers in my community 10.11 19
Mississippi Department of Education website 6.91 13
Note. The survey question read: What are your sources of information regarding the state’s
annual assessment of schools? (Check all that apply.)
The second most desired resource, expertise or ability to evaluate the Mississippi
Department of Education accountability model, was explored further by examining authorities
believed to be credible in terms of their assessment of school quality. Results, shown in Table
11, indicated a willingness to rely on current and former students for input on school quality as
having the highest average credibility score, followed by parents of students, local school
administrators, and local community members and business leaders. Many of these categories
were also captured in the open-ended question related to other groups or individuals, with local
teachers being cited as a trusted authority on school quality. State representatives from the
Mississippi Department of Education were rated lower than local authorities but still within the
3.0–3.9 range, indicating a moderate extent of credibility in school quality determinations.

41
Table 11
Means, Standard Deviations, and Variance of Credible Authorities on School Ratings
Authority M SD Variance
Current or former students 3.92 1.00 1.01
Parents of students 3.77 1.09 1.18
Vicksburg Warren School District administrators 3.77 1.10 1.21
Local community members 3.67 0.94 0.89
Local business leaders 3.52 1.12 1.25
Mississippi Department of Education representatives 3.22 1.24 1.54
Other groups or individuals 2.93 1.62 2.64
Note. The survey question read: There are many people or organizations who could provide a
rating of the quality of local schools. To what extent would you trust the judgment of each of the
following individuals or groups to determine the quality of local schools or districts? (1 = not at
all, 2 = to a small extent, 3 = to a moderate extent, 4 = to a major extent, 5 = completely).
A final resource constraint in the bounded rationality framework, sufficient time to make
optimum decisions, was analyzed both as a desired feature by 17% of respondents (see Table 8)
and by asking respondents for estimates of time currently spent in understanding the state
assessment of Vicksburg Warren County schools. Table 12 shows a broad range of time reported
as being invested. While the survey sought responses in two-hour intervals, responses were
converted to a five-factor analysis, with 0–2 hours representing very minimal investment of time
(29.5%); 2–8 hours representing somewhat minimal investment of time (42.6%); 8–14 hours
representing moderate investment of time (9.8%); 14–20 hours representing somewhat generous
investment of time (8.2%); and more than 20 hours representing very generous investment of
time (9.8%). A proportion of those within each time investment group was then correlated with
survey question 46 to determine any association of time invested by respondents with their desire

42
for additional time. Responses showed a moderate interest, approximately one in three or four of
each of the five groups seeking additional time as a resource.
Table 12
Time Spent and Sought in Understanding Mississippi School Ratings
Estimated hours Time invested Seeking time
% n % within
group
n
0–2 29.5 18 27.8 5
2–8 42.6 26 26.9 7
8–14 9.8 6 33.3 2
14–20 8.2 5 60.0 3
More than 20 9.8 6 16.7 1
Note. The survey question read: How many hours in the past year would you say you spent
trying to better understand the annual rating that the Mississippi Department of Education gives
to schools?

43
Limitations and Delimitations
This study had few limitations from circumstances such as information sensitivity or need
for exacting detail or substantial qualitative information (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Despite
absence in sensitivity of the topic or opinions expressed, a delimitation step was an opt-in choice
early in the survey instrument, which then provided additional insights for analysis as some
participants opted in but did not engage in further responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). One
potential limitation of the study was lack of familiarity of the topic by the study sample;
however, this lack of awareness was one aspect of bounded rationality theory that was being
assessed (Simon, 1955).
Application of the study is limited by its case study nature in examining the problem of
practice, such that the basis of the problem of practice is use of a state summative rating system,
making it moot for states that do not use summative ratings (Sunderman, 2022). This poses a
threat to external validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Another limitation was the inability to
compare convenience sample demographics against population demographics, making
generalizability of results to the study population difficult, as the total number of business
representatives was not broken down by the various demographic variables (Central Mississippi
Planning & Development District, n.d.).
Finally, it is difficult to confine causes of lack of public engagement in the problem space
only to barriers outlined in bounded rationality theory (Simon, 1955). Exploring the problem
through additional conceptual frameworks is necessary to fully explore the challenge of public
narrative about school quality. Some examples of potential frameworks are described in the
section outlining recommendations for future research.

44
Summary
The findings of this study indicated that members of a local business community have
general awareness of annual results of the state’s summative rating for their school district, even
though they get their information from a variety of sources. Lack of satisfaction with the
Mississippi accreditation methodology or criteria does not appear to stem from disagreement
with what rating is given, as the majority of respondents gave local schools the same letter grade
assessment as what they believed the most recent state score was. Those whose letter grade
assessment was misaligned with state scores actually provided a lower assessment of local
schools than that found in the state’s most recent school district letter grade of B.
Conversely, lack of alignment of local criteria for school quality with the state model,
explored in research question one, appeared to deal more with holding schools to standards of
excellence that are more holistic than metrics derived from criteria such as standardized test
scores or graduation rates. Respondent ratings of criteria not contained in the Mississippi school
accountability model indicated a much broader expectation of outcomes as factors of school and
school district quality. Study participants also generally ranked criteria not contained in the
Mississippi school accountability model higher on their scale than criteria contained in the state
model, with the majority of state criteria falling near the bottom of the local rating scale (see
Table 3).
Survey respondents showed understanding of the potential significant economic impact
on a community from state assessment ratings, examined in research question two. This removed
lack of motivation for engaging in narratives of school district quality as a cause so as to more
closely examine bounded rationality constraints of lack of time, information, or cognitive ability
(Simon, 1955). Although there may be other unexplored rationale correlating with the study

45
population’s failure to engage in this problem space, the strong awareness of potential impacts
from state ratings assessed via research question two along with reported dissatisfaction with the
state accountability model examined in research question one validated the need to explore
barriers to expanded, local definitions of school success beyond state and federal mandates,
supported by research question three.
The study considered each of the three elements of bounded rationality theory
individually. Interest in receiving more information about school performance and state
accountability measurements was reported by fewer than half of the respondents (see Table 8).
More expertise or ability to evaluate the Mississippi Department of Education accountability
model was reported by approximately one third of the respondents (see Table 8). An interest in
having more time to evaluate school performance results was reported by only about one in six
(see Table 8). So despite lack of alignment and awareness of potential economic impact, business
community members are not necessarily willing to overcome barriers suggested by bounded
rationality theory (Simon, 1955) in order to actively engage in narratives of local school and
school district quality.
Reframing each of the bounded rationality barriers based on survey responses shows the
barrier of time playing out as apathy or ambivalence by business community members. Lack of
information manifests in responses related to inaccurate awareness of results of the Mississippi
accountability model. Deference to authorities other than business community members reflects
cognitive limitations, resulting in the decision by local business representatives to allow the
state’s summative rating to satisfice as a measure of school quality (Simon, 1956).
Overall, study results indicate that engaging the business community as a voice of
authority in school quality would be difficult when opinions vary so broadly in terms of what to

46
measure and who best serves as authorities on school quality (see Tables 3 and 11). Even the
minimally expressed level of interest in removing barriers of lack of information or ability to
better understand state rating systems offers an encouraging preliminary step to community
engagement in school quality assessment and communication. But consensus regarding the
mechanisms for achieving these outcomes is neither simple nor straightforward and likely would
require a custom approach that depends on key individuals leading local conversations that
change as community circumstances evolve.
The goal of this study was greater understanding of the phenomenon of business
community involvement in the public narrative of school quality, not simply the collection of
data to prove a thesis. Input from study participants offered a greater sense of how complex this
problem of practice is. Yet based on insights collected, the study ultimately found that the
research hypotheses is correct that bounded rationality factors act as barriers to expanded, local
definitions of school success in the narrative of school quality. The null hypotheses that these
barriers play no role is incorrect.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1: Focus on Who
In considering potential interventions that overcome bounded rationality limitations
hindering optimal outcomes for school assessments by members of the local business
community, one strategy to be considered is to cultivate voices valued by the business
community as sources of information. Relying on credible authorities increases likelihood of
attention to and uptake of that information (Cialdini, 2001, 2021). One finding of this study
suggested the voice of students themselves as a credible source of authority on school quality.

47
As Saito and Sullivan (2011) pointed out, various forms of youth engagement are
beneficial not only for youth but also for the programs and communities. In a report of
characteristics of today’s youth, Kharbach (2024) summarized a number of traits including
collaborative, creative, and critical thinkers. These characteristics pair well with a role of
students in leading the narrative of school quality.
In their Rings of Youth Engagement conceptual framework, Saito and Sullivan (2011)
noted that youth, particularly those in families and communities having limited resources, thrive
when several specific dimensions of youth engagement are found. Among these features are
voice, where young people are provided opportunity to give input on decision making, and
collective action, sharing power and decision making authority with adults (Saito and Sullivan,
2011). Benefits from voice and collective action include collaborative planning and
implementation, a sense of civic identity and belonging, and creative social and political change
(Saito and Sullivan, 2011), all drawing on the characteristics of today’s youth outlined by
Kharbach (2024).
A deliberate program within this problem of school quality narrative might include the
school district broadening the role of the existing local Youth Advisory Council to offer their
own systematic assessments of school quality criteria not found in the state accountability model
yet rated as important factors. For example, council members could regularly highlight for
community members as well as for their peers various programmatic successes at supporting
student personal and social development. Youth should be empowered to speak with an authentic
voice, including the reality of their school experience, both good and bad.
Students could also take part in helping shape new school policies to be more effective in
addressing school assessment criteria, improving the odds of positive outcomes. For instance,

48
student insights could offer ideas for encouraging school attendance. Then through official and
informal communication channels, students can share information about causes of truancy and
the outcomes of proposed interventions.
Similarly, another authoritative voice that the study found to be important is that of
teachers. Faculty representatives on the Vicksburg Warren College and Career Academy
Executive Advisory Board could be more active in creating and regularly highlighting programs
that encourage greater faculty accessibility to students, to parents, and to the community. Faculty
skills related to other highly rated school quality criteria (see Table 3) could be addressed as part
of ongoing professional development that is then demonstrated to the business community.
In the case of both groups, students and teachers, highly visible public forums for sharing
information should be multi-faceted, supporting study findings related to diverse sources of
information (see Table 10). Traditional media, social media, and civic presentations are a few of
the many forums where reports by credible local authorities on features of school quality could
highlight criteria deemed important by the business community. Use of diverse communication
channels could elevate the amount of time, information, and ability by members the business
community to understand the problem space of assessing school success at preparing students for
adulthood.
Recommendation 2: Focus on What
A second strategy for overcoming bounded rationality limitations in decisions about
school quality is to consider the product, an accountability narrative, in a unique way. As noted
by Harris & Liu (2021), summative ratings are succinct, handy accountability tools distilling the
varied criteria for school quality into a single score that is easy to share. But an additional

49
product, a community narrative, could tap into the power of storytelling to overcome the barriers
of time, information, and understanding of the issue of school quality (Alexander et al., 2014).
A creative approach to the story of school excellence not only might better engage the
population in the problem space, but also might draw in the reported credible authorities to tell
the story more effectively. To illustrate, students in the local high school Communication, Arts
and Business academy might storyboard a documentary series focused on the various criteria
deemed important by participants in this study (see Table 3). This approach is especially suitable
for issues as complex as school quality assessments (Sunderman, 2022), as information and
deeper knowledge of individual criteria or common factors can be the focus of each documentary
episode.
Breaking up the many elements of school accountability into smaller units of information
shared in a creative way over a longer period of time than an annual news cycle could also
reduce the dilution effect of too many areas of focus at once (Nisbett et al., 1981). In their study
of information sharing, Nisbett et al. (1981) found that messages containing information both
relevant and irrelevant to a judgement or decision are less effective in producing an optimal
decision because the additional information dilutes the impact of key, or diagnostic, information.
A documentary series approach supporting improved knowledge by decision makers could be
superior to a summative rating approach in addressing the premise behind school accountability
models that public awareness of schools meeting or falling short of desired goals will drive
school improvement (Figlio & Loeb, 2011).
The documentary concept is just one example of improving time devoted, information
absorption, and understanding of the phenomenon of school quality assessment by telling the
story in a more innovative way. But it illustrates a practical means of combining research

50
findings related to sources of information (see Table 10) and those groups considered to be
credible authorities regarding evaluations of school success (see Table 11). New storytelling
tools would define new roles for authorities such as students, parents, and teachers in the creation
of a new narrative.
Recommendation 3: Focus on Why
Study findings related to research question two were clear that the business community
understands the notion of potential local economic impact of state summative ratings that fail to
capture completely the various factors contributing to school quality (see Table 7). Yet Jones
(2002) stressed the need to raise both attention and emotion to a problem in order to prompt a
search for solutions, noting that an organization must consider existing processes or solutions to
be inadequate for the process of seeking new processes or solutions to be activated. Emphasizing
a connection between school excellence criteria and overall community economic health would
serve to address both the cognitive and motivational limits on optimal decision making (Selten,
1990).
Thus, the narrative of school success at addressing criteria for excellence should regularly
reinforce why school assessments matter, not only in the realm of K–12 public education but also
to the community as a whole. Specific examples of overcoming these potential negative impacts
should be highlighted as a reminder of why attention to the problem of practice is so vital to the
community. For example, stories of business leaders taking advantage of innovative academic
programs to build a future workforce such as through the local maritime and HVAC academies
could be regularly shared with decision makers, including parents making school choices,
business leaders and employees making job choices, and teachers making employment location
choices (see Table 7).

51
School officials should be diligent in communicating and tying trends in school outcomes
to improved local economic outlook. One example of raising attention to the problem by
providing a deliberate linkage between school quality outcomes and community economics
includes increased school funding tied to larger student population and improved student
attendance rates. Another example is tying improved graduation rates or increased student
enlistment in workforce preparation and certification programs sponsored by the school system
to assurances of a qualified employee pool for employers.
Recommendations for Future Research
External validity of this study would be addressed by replicating it with a parallel form of
study to assess if results are transferable and generalizable to other school district communities
or to other forms of state rating systems (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Research question three
regarding barriers that prevent expanded, local definitions of school success beyond state and
federal mandates was a nondirectional research hypothesis specific to bounded rationality
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). Attempts toward a directional hypothesis could be pursued by testing
respondents who take more time or who have more information in terms of the degree to which
they engage in crafting or disseminating narratives of school quality as opposed to passively
accepting the state summative rating as a complete reflection of community satisfaction with
their schools.
Considering further recommendation one, amplifying the voice of students regarding
school quality criteria, this research could be repeated with a convenience sample of students
representing a student study population. Focusing on this category of participants would allow
for descriptive analysis of what students value in a quality school or school district.
Alternatively, rather than repeating this quantitative study, qualitative assessment via focus

52
groups or interviews could serve to adapt business community criteria to a student perspective as
a potential means of achieving high quality outcomes for and by students (Gibbs, 2018). In
recommendation two, the example of a documentary series serving as an innovative product to
tell the story of school quality could itself serve as additional qualitative research material
(Gibbs, 2018), indicating criteria deemed by students to be important aspects of quality
schooling, either in or out of alignment with state models.
Finally, federal policy implemented in states that quantify and aggregate student
outcomes as a summative measure of school quality could be examined through a number of
conceptual lenses in addition to bounded rationality theory. For example, Cialdini and Trost
(1998) offered research that suggests application of social norm theory to this problem of
practice, exploring whether expectations of groups such as students or parents outweigh existing
formal mechanisms such as state accountability ratings in driving behaviors that lead to school
outcomes. Narrative psychology at a community level (Kirkman, 2002) could be explored by
applying this theory to the topic of school quality, examining the impact of language used in
school assessment criteria to alter behavior and drive outcomes.
The heavy reliance on summative scores in many state assessment models also offers
potential for evaluation of numeracy bias in this problem of practice (Jerez-Fernandez et al.,
2014), whereby a decision maker assigns precision to information because of their confidence in
the use of numbers as a cue to accuracy. Various theories of public policy engagement (Moran et
al., 2008) could similarly use evaluation of public school quality as a problem to explore in terms
of prioritization of the issue and implementation of alternative models. Perhaps these varied
fields of research would reveal common dynamics otherwise not seen in the application of
individual conceptual frameworks such as bounded rationality theory.

53
Conclusion
Although holding school faculty and staff accountable for producing desired outcomes
with their students seems reasonable, a challenge lies in finding uniform expectations of those
outcomes and how to measure success within the highly complex systems of accountability
developed by each state (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Furthermore, most outcomes, whether academic,
social, behavioral, or physical, cannot be attributed solely to what is taught in a school
environment (Adams et al., 2016). But one step to ensuring that public K–12 schools play a
strong role in student outcomes is for a community to participate in decisions regarding what
features stakeholders hold schools accountable for.
This study examined potential barriers to community and business leader understanding
of the criteria, perceptions, and impacts of school quality assessments under the Every Student
Succeeds Act (2015), which are implemented via custom, state-specific approaches. Awareness
of the content of state assessment models, particularly knowledge of metrics that go into
summative rating results that are communicated annually to the public, should underlie local
reliance on those state models as an evaluation tool of school quality. Robust measurement
systems are particularly vital in their impact on those making decisions about property
investment or business and job expansion (Black & Machin, 2011). Input from this research also
informs the work of local educators as they strive to prepare primary and secondary students for
adulthood by providing instructors with feedback from community stakeholders about their
expectations for school accountabilities in addition to those measured and reported by the state.
Findings from the study suggested barriers to expanded definitions and narratives of local
school quality as predicted by bounded rationality theory (Simon, 1955, 1956). Reporting a lack
of information or cognitive ability to understand such information, business representatives may

54
be abdicating assessment of school quality to outside experts or allowing the criteria within those
systems to satisfice as definitions of school quality. In doing so, existing systems may fail to
provide an accurate picture of public K–12 schools responding to unique requirements of a local
community. A report to participants summarizing research input along with implementation of
various strategies outlined in study recommendations may serve as an important motivator to
their overcoming barriers of time, adequate information, or understanding of information in
articulating what ways the community holds schools and school districts accountable for
providing quality programs and services to students.

55
References
Adams, C. M., Forsyth, P. B., Mwavita, M., Barnes, L. L., & Khojasteh, J. (2016). An empirical
test of Oklahoma’s A-F school grades. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(4).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v24.2127
Alexander, K., Salmon, R. G., & Alexander, F. K. (2014). Financing public schools: Theory,
policy, and practice. Routledge.
Andrews, D. H. , Hull, T. D. , & Donahue, J. A. (2009). Storytelling as an instructional method:
Definitions and research questions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1063
Augier, M. (2001). Simon says: Bounded rationality matters: Introduction and interview. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 10(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492601103010
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2001). Remembering Herbert A. Simon (1916–2001). Public
Administration Review, 61(4), 396–402. https://doi-org/10.1111/0033-3352.00043
Bae, S. (2018). Redesigning systems of school accountability: A multiple measures approach to
accountability and support. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(8).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2920
Behrooz, K. (2010). Herbert A. Simon on making decisions: Enduring insights and bounded
rationality. Journal of Management History, 16(4), 509–520.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17511341011073988
Black, S. E., & Machin, S. (2011). Housing valuations of school performance. In E. A.
Hanushek, S. Machin, & L Woessmann (Eds.), Handbooks in economics: Economics of
education (Vol. 3, pp. 485–519). North-Holland.

56
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley and Sons.
Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert data. The Journal of Extension, 50(2),
1–5. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.02.48
Borman, G. & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s
Equality of Educational Opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1201-1246.
https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/016146811011200507
Brasington, D. M., & Haurin, D. R. (2006). Educational outcomes and house values: A test of the
value-added approach. Journal of Regional Science, 46(2), 245–268.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00440.x
Camerer, C., and Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modelling preferences: Uncertainty
and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325–370.
https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/BF00122575
Central Mississippi Planning & Development District. (n.d.). Warren County business and
demographic summary. https://cmpdd.org/images/counties/warren/warren-countydemographic-and-business-summary-2020.pdf
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9),
72–79. https://hbr.org/2001/10/harnessing-the-science-of-persuasion
Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and
compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology (4th ed., pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.

57
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 669–700.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approaches. SAGE Publications.
Dequech, D. (2001). Bounded rationality, institutions, and uncertainty. Journal of Economic
Issues, 35(4), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2001.11506420
Dills, A. (2004). Do parents value changes in test scores? High stakes testing in Texas.
Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy, 3(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-
0645.1230
Erwin, B., Cassidy, F., Pechota, D., & McCann, M. (2021). 50-state comparison: States’ school
accountability systems. Education Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.org/50-
state-comparison-states-school-accountability-systems/
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/senate-bill/1177
Figlio, D. N., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, and L.
Woessmann (Eds.), Handbooks in economics: Economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 383–
421). North-Holland.
Figlio, D. N., & Lucas, M. E. (2004). What's in a grade? School report cards and the housing
market. American Economic Review, 94(3), 591–604.
https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041464489
Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public
Administration Review, 44(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/975658

58
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Friedmann, J., Nisbet, R., & Gans, H. G. (1973). The public interest and community
participation: Toward a reconstruction of public philosophy. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 39(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367308977649
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American
education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 385–404.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134711
Harris, D. N. & Liu, L. (2021). What get measured gets done: Principles for performance
measurement in school accountability systems and how states can meet them. Tulane
University: Education Research Alliance NOLA.
https://educationresearchalliancenola.org/files/publications/061221-Harris-Liu-WhatGets-Measured-Gets-Done-Technical-Paper.pdf
Hershfield, H. E. (2023, June 16) Future you [Radio broadcast]. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/16/1182387784/how-do-our-brains-perceive-our-futureselves-one-psychologist-wanted-to-know
Hershfield, H. E., & Bartels, D. M. (2018). The future self. In G. Oettingen, A. T. Sevincer, & P.
Gollwitzer (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 89–109). The
Guilford Press.
Jerez-Fernandez, A., Angulo, A. N., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). Show me the numbers:
Precision as a cue to others’ confidence. Psychological Science. 25(2), 633–635.
doi:10.1177/0956797613504301

59
Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and
public policy. University of Chicago Press.
Jones, B. D. (2002). Bounded rationality and public policy: Herbert A. Simon and the decisional
foundation of collective choice. Policy Sciences, 35(3), 269–284.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021341309418
Kahneman. D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The
American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.
https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
Kara, H. (2023). Research and evaluation for busy students and practitioners: A survival guide (3rd
ed.). Policy Press.
Kharbach, M. (2024, January 4). 10 characteristics of 21st century learners. Educators
Technology. https://www.educatorstechnology.com/2023/12/characteristics-of-21stcentury-learners.html
Kirkman, M. (2002). What's the plot? Applying narrative theory to research in psychology.
Australian Psychologist, 37(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060210001706646
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual
differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more
than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 803–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.82.5.803
Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., & Shand, R. (2018). Economic
evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis. SAGE Publications.

60
Lindhout, A. (2022). The power of conscious accountability. In David, D. H., Pantalon, M. S., &
Tate, D. C., Conscious accountability: Deepen connections, elevate results (pp. 33–49).
ATD Press.
Louch, P. (2014). Workforce planning is essential to high-performing organizations. Society for
Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hrtopics/technology/pages/louch-workforce-planning.aspx
Manna, P. (2011). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. CQ
Press.
March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell
Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587–608. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://wwwproquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/bounded-rationality-ambiguityengineering-choice/docview/236497676/se-2
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. The Free Press.
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley–Blackwell.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Mississippi Department of Education. (2023, September 28). MDE releases school and district
accountability grades for 2022-23 [Press release].
https://www.mdek12.org/news/2023/09/28/MDE-releases-school-and-districtaccountability-grades-for-2022-23
Mississippi Office of the Chief of Accountability. (2023). Mississippi public school
accountability standards. Mississippi Department of Education Office of Accreditation.
https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/mississippi_public_school_accountability_sta
ndards_2023.pdf

61
Moran, M., Rein, M., & Goodin, R. E. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of public policy.
Oxford University Press.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press.
Nguyen-Hoang, P., & Yinger, J. (2011). The capitalization of school quality into house values: A
review. Journal of Housing Economics, 20(1), 30–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2011.02.001
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic
information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology,
13(2), 248-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90010-4
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425 (2002).
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ110/PLAW107publ110.pdf
Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Scott, Foresman.
Robbins, S. P. (1984). Essentials of organizational behavior (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Saito, R. N. & Sullivan, T. K. (2011). The many faces, features and outcomes of youth
engagement. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3).
file:///Users/kellebarfield/Downloads/admin,+0603FA007_TheManyFacesFeatOutcome
%20(1).pdf
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Saultz, A., Schneider, J., & McGovern, K. (2019). Why ESSA has been reform without
repair. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(2), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719879149

62
Schneider, J., & Gottlieb, D. (2021). In praise of ordinary measures: The present limits and
future possibilities of educational accountability. Educational Theory, 71(4), 455–473.
https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12488
Schwarz, G., Christensen, T., & Zhu, X. (2022). Bounded rationality, satisficing, artificial
intelligence, and decision-making in public organizations: The contributions of Herbert
Simon. Public Administration Review, 82, 902–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13540
Selten, R. (1990). Bounded rationality. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics,
146(4), 649–658.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in
administrative organizations. Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological
Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, 106(6), 467–482.
Simon, H. A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality. In T. J Kastelein, S. K. Kuipers,
W. A. Nijenhuis, & G. R. Wagenaar (Eds.), 25 years of economic theory. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4367-7_6
Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford University Press.
Simon, H. A. (1988). The science of design: Creating the artificial author(s). Design
Issues, 4(1/2), 67–82. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.2307/1511391

63
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science,
2(1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
Skinner, R. R. (2019). State and local financing of public schools. Congressional Research
Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45827/5
Sunderman, G. L. (2022.) State accountability rating systems: A review of school report cards as
indicators of school quality. National Education Policy Center.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/report-cards
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). QuickFacts: Warren County, Mississippi. Retrieved April 28, 2023,
from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/warrencountymississippi
U.S. Department of Education. (2019, December 10). Accreditation in the U.S.
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accredus.html
Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of Commerce. (2023). [Unpublished raw data on monthly
membership attendance].
Wei, X. (2012). Are more stringent NCLB state accountability systems associated with better
student outcomes?: An analysis of NAEP results across states. Educational Policy (Los
Altos, Calif.), 26(2), 268–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810386588
Williamson, O. E. (1986). Economic organization: Firms, markets and policy controls.
Wheatsheaf.

64
Appendix A: Definition of Terms
The following provides consistent understanding of various terms used in this paper that
are central to understanding the problem of practice or the theoretical framework applied to the
study.
Accreditation is a federal framework implemented by states to ensure that the education
provided by public institutions meets acceptable standards of quality, as determined by
accrediting agencies or authorities (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). In Mississippi, home
of the sample population for this study, the Mississippi Office of the Chief of Accountability
(2023) within the Office of Accreditation is charged with the primary regulation and
administration of Mississippi’s performance-based accreditation system for public schools as
well as for non-public schools seeking accreditation from Mississippi’s State Board of
Education.
Ambiguity was defined by Camerer and Weber (1992) as uncertainty about probable
outcomes, which stems from the absence of relevant information that could be known.
Bounded rationality is generally used to designate the process of making decisions that
people, individually or as a part of organizations, resort to when circumstances are too complex
relative to their limited mental abilities. Simon (1955), pointed out that people or organizations
often pursue multiple, sometimes conflicting objectives, and that complexity of the decision
environment prevents decision makers from fully considering all the potential outcomes of a
decision.
Complexity was defined by Simon (1962) as a system or process consisting of an
extensive number of parts that have many interactions and that impact other parts in a
“nonsimple” (p. 468) way.

65
Conscious accountability was defined by Lindhout (2022) as individuals taking
responsibility for the impact of decisions by broadening their awareness of a situation in order to
trigger more deliberate intentions that lead to informed actions.
Consequential accountability was described by Figlio and Loeb (2011) as being
demonstrated in accountability systems or models that feature rewards for performance that
exceeds standards or impose sanctions when measured performance fails to meet expectations.
Organization was suggested by Robbins (1984) as describing coordination by two or
more people in order to achieve a common and expressed goal or objective, which is consistent
with Simon’s (1976) description of intent to achieve goals through decisions made within
organizations, but with members accepting tradeoffs rather than achieving their goals.
Satisfice was coined by Simon (1956, p. 129) to describe decision makers choosing
options that satisfy or suffice rather than selecting options that maximize or optimize outcomes.
Standardized tests were referenced by Grodsky et al. (2008) as not only being uniform in
the content presented and scored but also being administered in a uniform way so as to minimize
impact on results that might stem from variation in test environments and test administrators.
Summative rating systems were described by Sunderman (2022) as state reports of school
performance that combine or collapse multiple and varied performance metrics into a single
rating result or score.
Uncertainty as related to the decision-making process refers to assessment of probable
outcomes represented by alternative choices in a decision, whereby lack of complete
understanding of a question or problem creates uncertainty about choices that might optimize
outcomes (Jones, 2002).

66
Appendix B: Study Participant Demographics
Baseline characteristic n %
Age
29 or younger
30–39
40–49
50–59
60 and older
Gender
Male
Female
Prefer not to answer
Ethnic background
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
White
Other
Prefer not to answer
Highest educational level
Some high school
High school graduate
Associate’s degree or professional certification
Bachelor’s degree
Graduate degree
Residential status
Within area served by local public schools
Outside area served by local public schools
Business type represented
Local, state, or federal government entity
For-profit company with more than 100 employees
For-profit company with 10–99 employees
For-profit company with fewer than 10 employees
Non-profit organization
Retired
Other
Vicksburg Warren School District employee
No
Yes
Parental status
Does not have a child currently enrolled as a K–12 student
Does have a child currently enrolled as a K–12 student
Never had a child enrolled as a K–12 student
At any time had a child enrolled as a K–12 student
8
10
18
22
21
26
53
0
0
1
14
2
60
1
3
0
11
21
19
28
71
8
21
14
14
21
8
3
2
70
9
53
26
24
55
10.1
12.7
22.8
27.8
26.6
32.9
67.1
0
0
1.2
17.3
2.5
74.1
1.2
3.7
0
13.9
26.6
24.1
35.4
89.9
10.1
25.3
16.9
16.9
25.3
9.6
3.6
2.4
88.6
11.4
67.1
32.9
30.4
69.6

67
Note. N = 79. Participants were diverse in all aspects of demographic background, including age
ranges from 20 to 90, male and female gender, education completion, ethnic diversity,
representation of various forms of business, and a range of parental status related to having
children in the K–12 system, one factor that could potentially impact awareness of and opinions
on the problem of practice.

68
Appendix C: Study Protocol
Beginning of Survey block
The purpose of this study is to understand characteristics you believe are important for high
quality K–12 schools and options for assessing those characteristics. Results of the survey will
be part of a report on recommendations for greater public understanding of school strength. No
individual responses will be identified in the report. The survey will take approximately 5
minutes to complete.
1. Please choose: Proceed to the survey. (single response required to proceed)
2. What is your age? (multiple choice single response)
– 29 or younger
– 30 to 39
– 40 to 49
– 50 to 59
– 60 or older
3. What is your gender? (multiple choice single response)
– Male
– Female
– Prefer not to answer
4. What is your ethnic background? (multiple choice all-that-apply response)
– American Indian or Alaska Native
– Asian
– Black or African American
– Hispanic or Latino

69
– White
– Other
– Prefer not to answer
5. What is your highest level of educational completion? (multiple choice single response)
– Some high school
– High school graduate
– Associate’s degree or professional certification
– Bachelor’s degree
– Graduate degree
6. What is the ZIP code of your current primary residence? (open-ended response)
7. What type of business do you represent? (multiple choice all-that-apply response)
– Local, state, or federal government entity
– For-profit company with more than 100 employees
– For-profit company with 10-99 employees
– For-profit company with fewer than 10 employees
– Non-profit organization
– Other (open-ended response)
8. Are you currently an employee of the Vicksburg Warren School District? (multiple choice
dichotomous response)
– No
– Yes
9. Do you currently have a child enrolled as a K through 12 student? (multiple choice
dichotomous response)

70
– No
– Yes
10. Have you ever had a child enrolled as a K through 12 student? (multiple choice dichotomous
response)
– No
– Yes
11. The Mississippi Department of Education rates school districts on an A-F scale. On this
scale, what do you think is the most recent rating the Mississippi Department of Education
has given to the Vicksburg Warren School District? If you are not certain, take a guess.
(multiple choice single response)
– A
– B
– C
– D
– F
12. On an A-F scale, what rating would YOU currently give the Vicksburg Warren School
District? (multiple choice single response)
– A
– B
– C
– D
– F

71
13. What are your sources of information regarding the state’s annual assessment of schools?
(multiple choice all-that-apply response)
– Local news media
– Vicksburg Warren School District website
– Mississippi Department of Education website
– School representative presentations
– Fellow community members via word of mouth
– Fellow community members via social media
– Teachers in my community
– Other (please describe) (open-ended response)
14. Rate your satisfaction with the state’s annual rating system for schools, which rates each
school and district on a single A–F scale. (multiple choice single response)
– Very satisfied
– Somewhat satisfied
– Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
– Somewhat dissatisfied
– I am not familiar with the state’s annual rating system for schools
– Unsure/ no opinion
There are many qualities or features that people might think are important in determining the
quality of schools. Rate each of the following in terms of their importance to you (1 = least
important, 5 = average importance, 10 = most important).
15. The principal is responsive to parents and the community. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
16. The principal is responsive to teachers, staff, and students. (1–10 unipolar scale response)

72
17. There is an ideal ratio of teachers to students. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
18. Teachers are accessible to students. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
19. Teachers are accessible to parents and the community. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
20. Teachers involve parents and the community in presenting lessons and creating projects for
students. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
21. Teachers receive ongoing professional development. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
22. Teacher retention is above state average. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
23. School leaders regularly communicate with parents. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
24. School leaders regularly communicate with the community. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
25. School policies regarding student discipline are effective. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
26. School programs support student personal and social development. (1–10 unipolar scale
response)
27. School curriculum addresses the workforce needs of the community. (1–10 unipolar scale
response)
28. School curriculum offers innovative academic programs to students. (1–10 unipolar scale
response)
29. Students demonstrate adequate proficiency on annual state-mandated academic tests. (1–10
unipolar scale response)
30. Students demonstrate adequate growth in reading and math test scores compared to previous
year. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
31. The lowest performing 25% of students demonstrate adequate growth in test scores compared
to previous year. (1–10 unipolar scale response)

73
32. Students achieve an adequate 4-year graduation rate from high school. (1–10 unipolar scale
response)
33. An adequate number of students meet the ACT College Readiness Benchmark (ACT math
score 50%/ English score 50%). (1–10 unipolar scale response)
34. The school has effective physical safety measures in place. (1–10 unipolar scale response)
35. School policies are effective in encouraging school attendance. (1–10 unipolar scale
response)
36. Name any other features or qualities you would expect to see in top rated schools. (openended response)
There are many people or organizations who could provide a rating of the quality of local
schools. To what extent would you trust the judgment of each of the following individuals or
groups to determine the quality of local schools or districts? (1 = not at all, 2 = to a small extent,
3 = to a moderate extent, 4 = to a major extent, 5 = completely).
37. Mississippi Dept of Education representatives (1–5 unipolar scale response)
38. Vicksburg Warren School District school administrators (1–5 unipolar scale response)
39. Local business leaders (1–5 unipolar scale response)
40. Local community members (1–5 unipolar scale response)
41. Parents of students (1–5 unipolar scale response)
42. Current or former students (1–5 unipolar scale response)
43. Other groups or individuals (please describe) (1–5 unipolar scale response plus open-ended
response)

74
44. How many hours in the past year would you say you spent trying to better understand the
annual rating that the Mississippi Department of Education gives to schools? (0–20 hours
unipolar scale response)
45. What impact do you believe a school district rating has on a local community? Choose the
top three or choose no impact. (order ranking response)
– Decision by businesses to locate or expand presence in an area
– Ability of businesses to recruit or retain high caliber employees
– Decision by employees of businesses to live in an area
– Decision by employees of businesses in an area where to send their children to school
– Ability to recruit or retain high caliber school administrators in an area
– Decision by teachers to work at certain schools
– A school district rating does not affect a community in any of these ways
46. Which of the following resources would help you to better share the success of local schools
in meeting your expectations of school quality? (multiple choice all-that-apply response)
– More time to evaluate school performance results
– More information about school performance and state accountability measurements
– More expertise or ability to evaluate the Mississippi Department of Education
accountability model
End of Survey block
We thank you for your time spent taking this survey.
Your response has been recorded.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied bounded rationality theory of economics to public policy decision making in the realm of K–12 public school quality assessment. The purpose of the study was to determine how local measures of school quality align with metrics found in the Mississippi accountability model then to examine what barriers exist to applying locally defined measurements of school quality in parallel with federal mandates for school accountability, which are customized and applied by states for annual reporting of school quality. The research considered a study population of 1,800 business leaders in one Mississippi county by surveying a study segment of approximately 450 business members of the Vicksburg-Warren County Chamber of Commerce. Using a quantitative survey and analysis of various demographic variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, type of business, and parental status related to having children in the K–12 system, the study enabled a descriptive analysis of awareness of state assessment of school quality, alignment of state criteria with local expectations of schools, awareness of the local economic impact of one state assessment model, and barriers to creating location-specific criteria for assessment of public school quality. Findings showed a much broader set of criteria for school quality from business leaders than factors contained in the state model and greater reliance on local representatives than on state authorities for credible assessments. But despite lack of alignment or satisfaction with state criteria and strong awareness of potential local economic impact, study participants were not necessarily willing to overcome barriers suggested by bounded rationality theory (Simon, 1955) in order to actively engage in narratives of school quality to optimize school outcomes. This study opens the potential of fresh voices of authority, creative approaches to telling the story, and deliberate linkage between school quality perceptions and economic impacts in driving narratives of school quality in systems of public school accountability.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of psychological safety in medical device quality

PDF

Foundational practices of structural change: the relationship of psychological safety and organizational equity

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

Wicked problems for high poverty schools: an improvement study in Texas

PDF

Quiet leading from the depths of pharmaceutical organizations: quality IT leader strategies for nurturing diverse project teams

PDF

Understand how leaders use data to measure the effectiveness of leadership development programs

PDF

Rural school equity in California: a leadership perspective

PDF

Beyond the game: optimizing stakeholder value in the evolving landscape of the Football Bowl Subdivision

PDF

Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

PDF

More than a game: understanding the value of funding that corporate partnership decision-makers can offer clubs within the National Women’s Soccer League

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

The importance of mentoring in leadership self-efficacy for women in supply chain: a qualitative study

PDF

The effects of math anxiety and low self-efficacy on students’ attitudes and interest in STEM

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation

PDF

The spouse factor: how a partner’s career impacts U.S. Navy officer retention

PDF

Impact of performance appraisals on double-hatting employees

PDF

The impact of workplace incivility on the retention of nurses in hospitals

Asset Metadata

Creator Barfield, Kelle Jo (author)

Core Title Making the grade: augmenting Mississippi measures of school quality with local values

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/10/2024

Defense Date 04/09/2024

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

Tag accountability,accreditation,bounded rationality,K-12 public education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick W. (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email kbarfiel@usc.edu,kellebarfield@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113871304

Unique identifier UC113871304

Identifier etd-BarfieldKe-12791.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-BarfieldKe-12791

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Barfield, Kelle Jo

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240409-usctheses-batch-1138 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu