University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school

(USC Thesis Other)

School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
SCHOOL CULTURE, LEADERSHIP, PROFESSIONAL LEARNING, AND
TEACHER PRACTICE AND BELIEFS: A CASE STUDY OF
SCHOOLWIDE STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS AT A
HIGH-PERFORMING HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOL
by
Vishodana Thamotharan
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Vishodana Thamotharan

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the many people who have contributed to the successful completion of my
dissertation. I thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Kathy Stowe, for her continual support,
guidance, and encouragement throughout the process. Her dedication to excellence
pushed me to think critically as I synthesized the literature and analyzed data. I thank my
committee members, Dr. Stuart E. Gothold and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, for their time and
thoughtful feedback. I thank my thematic group members for their collaborative spirit
and knowledge. I thank the entire faculty and staff of Golden High School (pseudonym)
for welcoming me into their community and supporting my study with their honesty,
thoughtful responses, and openness. I thank my friends, family members and fiancé for
their insight, words of encouragement, love, and support. Finally, I especially thank my
parents for their unrelenting efforts and support to ensure that their children had every
opportunity to pursue their dreams.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 6
Limitations of the Study 7
Delimitations of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 8
Organization of the Dissertation 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
Historical Background 12
School Structures 15
No Child Left Behind 16
Financial Adequacy 16
School Systems 17
School Culture 18
School Collective Efficacy 19
School Leadership 21
Transformational leadership 22
Learning-centered leadership 23
Theoretical Framework 26
Sociocultural Learning and Constructivist Theory 28
Effective Elements of Professional Learning 29
Effective Elements of Professional Learning 32
Effective Elements of Professional Learning 33
Teacher Expectations 35
Teacher Self-Efficacy 39
Habitual Belief 41
Professional Learning Community 42
Chapter Summary 44
Chapter 3: Methodology 45
Research Design 46
Sample and Population 47
Overview of the School 48
Conceptual Framework 50

iv
Data Collection 52
Participants 52
Interviews 53
Observations 54
Documents 56
Data Analysis 56
Ethical Considerations 56
Chapter 4: Findings, Analysis, and Discussion 59
Research Questions 59
Findings for Research Question 1: Perceived Systems and Structures 60
Standards-Driven Curriculum 61
Focus on academic achievement 62
Schoolwide writing 64
Common assessments and data analysis 65
Goal setting 67
Prevention and Intervention 69
Directed support 69
Communication 70
Bell schedule and embedded support 71
Analysis of the Results for Research Question 1 74
Summary for Research Question 1 76
Findings for Research Question 2: Implementation and Sustainability
of Systems 77
High Expectations 77
Common Language and Beliefs 79
Collaboration 80
Positive School Culture 81
Collective Efficacy and Teacher Efficacy 82
Identity 83
Analysis of the Results for Research Question 2 84
Summary for Research Question 2 87
Findings for Research Question 3: Leadership, Professional Learning, and
Teacher Beliefs 88
Shared Leadership 88
Supportive Culture of Trust 91
Analysis of the Results for Research Question 3 93
Summary for Research Question 3 94
Chapter Summary 94
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 96
Summary of the Study 96
Conclusions 98
Implications for Policy and Practice 99
Implications for Teacher Education 100
Implications for Hiring 100
Implications for Leadership 101

v
Recommendations for Further Research 101
References 104
Appendices
Appendix A: Administrator Protocol 111
Appendix B: Teacher Protocol 113
Appendix C: Classified Protocol 115
Appendix D: Classified Protocol 117
Appendix E: Professional Development/Leadership Observation Protocol 119
Appendix F: General Site Observations 121

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Data for Students at Golden High School (GHS)
and California State Averages 49
Table 2: Golden High School (GHS) Academic Performance Index (API),
Academic Yearly Progress (AYP) and School Ranking History 49
Table 3: Interview Respondents’ Credential and Experience 53
Table 4: Relationship of Interview Protocol Questions to Research Questions
(RQ) for Each Type of Respondent 55
Table 5: Relationship of Reviewed Documents to the Research Questions (RQ) 57

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Subgroup Academic Progress Index (API) trajectory for Golden High
School, academic years 2007-2009 50
Figure 2: Conceptual framework for the current study based on the McDavid
and Hawthorne logic model 51
Figure 3: Adaptation of Creswell’s model for qualitative data analysis 58
Figure 4: Golden High School Preventions and Interventions program 70
Figure 5: Summary of the structures and systems at Golden High School to
support student achievement to close the achievement gap 73
Figure 6: The elements of the structures and systems at Golden High School 87
Figure 7: Leadership structure at Golden High School 90

viii
ABSTRACT
The achievement gap has been well documented to show the growing disparity
between the academic performance of underrepresented minorities and their White
counterparts, even in this age of accountability set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB). In addition to low-performing high-poverty schools, there is a small population
of high-performing high-poverty schools that research has shown to have implemented
structures and systems to improve student achievement. Despite this knowledge, there
remains a lack of consistency in implementing these systems to improve student
achievement. One possible source of inconsistency may be found in teacher learning.
While professional learning is closely tied to school reform, research has identified that
changing teacher beliefs is difficult.
The purpose of this study was to identify what structures and systems are
implemented schoolwide in high-performing high-poverty schools. Specifically, within
the accountability system of NCLB, how are the school culture, school leadership, and
professional learning associated with positive teacher beliefs? To address this question a
qualitative case study of a high-performing high-poverty school was completed. Data
from interviews, observations, and documents were use to triangulate findings.
The case study was observed to have two structures. Standards-driven curriculum
was supported by the following systems: focus on academic achievement, schoolwide
writing, common assessments with data analysis, and goal setting. Prevention and
intervention was supported by the following systems: directed support, open
communication, and the bell schedule. To implement and sustain the structures and
systems, the case study school was found to have high expectations, common language

ix
and beliefs, collaboration, positive school culture, collective efficacy, teacher efficacy
and a strong sense of identity. Tiers of leadership and a culture of trust supported
professional learning by teachers.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Historically, high-poverty schools have been associated with low academic
achievement (Anyon, 1997; Graham, 2005; Tyack, 1974). There have been numerous
reports over time to document the correlation between poverty levels and academic
achievement. One of the most influential reports on the inequities of schooling, Equity of
Educational Opportunity (or The Coleman Report; Coleman, 1966), was issued by
President Johnson’s administration during the Civil Right Movements to assess the state
of the educational system. Researchers of The Coleman Report found that schooling had
very little impact on student achievement. Specifically, the report stated that 90% of
variance in a student’s achievement could be attributed to background factors, such as
family, socioeconomic status (SES) and culture, and 10% of the variance could be attri-
buted to schooling. The Coleman Report led many to believe that student achievement
was primarily influenced by student background factors and that schooling had very little
influence in overcoming those background factors.
Echoing the concerns raised by The Coleman Report was A Nation at Risk:
The Imperative for Educational Reform by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education (NCEE; 1983). A Nation at Risk was seen by many as evidence that the
educational system was in need of drastic reform. The report had both national and
international concerns for education, specifically local inequitable education leading to a
lack of globally competitive students (NCEE, 1983). Despite the report’s proclamation
of the urgency for reform, very few federal and state actions were taken to alter the
education system. A follow-up report, A Nation Still at Risk (Hoover Institution, 1998),

2
restated concerns that had been addressed a decade prior, stating that the achievement gap
was widening and that U.S.-educated students were still not globally competitive,
especially in mathematics and science.
Based on the findings above and an array of similar studies, No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB) evolved from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
and was initiated as a bipartisan effort for reform to close the achievement gap. The goal
of NCLB was to have all schools, including high-poverty schools, to perform at high
levels. To close the achievement gap, this reform movement required all teachers to be
“highly qualified.” That is, all teachers are required to hold a Bachelor’s degree and a
credential in the subject area that they are teaching. NCLB also requires that all students
create a plan and grow each year so that all students are proficient by 2014. To hold
schools accountable to the tenets of the reform, all schools are given a Academic
Performance Index (API) score between 200 and 1,000 based on student performance on
various stated-mandated examinations. A score of 800 is considered to be proficient.
Every year, schools are required to meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) as a school and
for each subpopulation within the school. Schools that do not meet AYP may be on put
on a program improvement plan. In spite of reform efforts, the achievement gap persists
and is the current focus of reform efforts by the U.S. Department of Education (Duncan,
2010).
Despite longstanding achievement trends, many high-poverty schools have had
success in attaining high academic achievement. Although small in numbers, there is a
small pocket of high-poverty schools that are high performing. Marzano (2003) found
that highly effective schools can almost completely overcome what Coleman referred to

3
as “student background.” Further, Marzano found that highly effective schools provided
schoolwide interventions that overcame background characteristics that interfered with
student achievement.
Findings from the 90/90/90 Study (Reeves, 1999, 2003) supported Marzano’s
claim that highly effective schools implement various qualities schoolwide to positively
impact student achievement. Reeves looked at a large number of high-poverty (90% free
or reduced-price lunch, 90% minority), high-performing (90% meeting standards)
schools to determine what this small pocket of schools was doing to get positive student
achievement results. The findings revealed the positive impact that education can have
on a child, which had been neglected in the previously described reports. Specifically,
although there is an achievement gap, there is evidence that, with the appropriate school-
wide structures and systems, the achievement gap can be closed.
Research has demonstrated that there are organizational structures and systems
that promote high academic achievement in high-poverty schools. The 90/90/90 Study
examined high-performing high-poverty schools to identify schoolwide implementations
that positively impacted student achievement. Five schoolwide characteristics were
identified across all case studies: (a) schoolwide focus on academic achievement;
(b) reading, writing, and mathematics across all curricula; (c) frequent assessments;
(d) schoolwide emphasis on writing; and (e) standardization of grading. The 90/90/90
Study found that high-poverty schools with these characteristics had high performance.
In a similar study, Marzano (2003) synthesized the literature of several authors to
identify school-level, teacher-level, and student-level factors that were common in
schools that were effective in closing the achievement gap. At the school level, Marzano

4
found that teaching and learning were at the heart of all curricula. He found that all
teachers gave frequent feedback and had high expectations for all students. He found that
a safe school culture that involved parents and the community. Finally, leadership played
a key role in developing a culture of professionalism and collegiality.
Statement of the Problem
The achievement gap is well documented to show the discrepancy between the
performances of suburban and urban schools where there is a disproportionate number of
underrepresented minorities (Darling-Hammond, 2004, 2010; Jencks & Phillips, 1998;
Ladson-Billings, 1997). The concern for inequity in education was highlighted in A
Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983), which insisted on equity of education for diverse popula-
tions. The move to create equitable schools for all students was furthered by NCLB,
which required highly qualified teachers and all students reaching proficiency by 2014.
Despite these efforts, neither reform movement has had significant impact on closing the
achievement gap. Urban schools with a high population of minority students make up a
large percentage of Program Improvement schools because they have not met required
AYP. Follow-up studies such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science
(TIMSS) and A Nation Still at Risk show that the achievement gap between minorities
and their White counterparts is widening (Hoover Institution, 1998).
Among the low-performing high-poverty schools with large groups of minority
students, there stands a small set of high-achieving high-poverty schools. Despite the
research available on high-achieving high-poverty schools, such as the 90/90/90 Study
(Reeves, 1999, 2003), there are far too few examples of high-achieving high-poverty
schools. The research has shown that high-achieving high-poverty schools have

5
implemented structures and systems schoolwide to improve the achievement of historic-
ally underachieving populations. Structures such as resource allocation and systems such
as type of leadership, school culture, school efficacy collaboration, teacher beliefs, and
teacher expectations have been documented to show increased student achievement in
high-performing high-poverty schools (Delpit, 1995; Gaziel, 1997; Goddard & Goddard,
2001; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Marzano, 2003; Picus, 2004; Weinstein, 2002). While
the findings report that the implementation of the above structures and systems leads
to higher achievement by students, there is a lack of consistency in implementing the
systems and structures to improve students’ achievement. Research has not documented
how systems can be implemented consistently in high-achieving high-poverty schools to
increase student achievement.
One possible cause of a lack of consistency may be found in teacher learning. For
schools to reach high performance, they must implement systems that require teachers to
learn new things. Researchers such as Putnam and Borko (2000) have demonstrated that
professional learning in the school itself is an important factor in achieving school
reform. At the same time, research has shown that changing teacher practice can be diffi-
cult (Fullan, 2002). As a result, research is currently focused on how to improve teacher
learning and connecting reform to teacher practice. Studies show that professional
learning is impacted by school culture, leadership, internalization of school goals, and
teachers’ self-perceptions (Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Kruger, 2009). Although studies
have addressed organizational and school influences on teacher learning and teacher per-
ceptions on teacher learning, the research is limited concerning the interrelationship of
school change and professional learning at the school and teacher levels.

6
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to identify what was being implemented
schoolwide in a high-performing high-poverty schools. Specifically, the study was
designed to identify the structures and systems that the case study school used to increase
achievement by its students to close the achievement gap. That is, within the accounta-
bility structures of NCLB, what systems, such as school culture, leadership and pro-
fessional learning experiences, correlated with positive teacher practice and beliefs, thus
positively impacting student achievement? Once the structures and systems were, this
studied was designed to identify how professional learning can be replicated in other
high-poverty schools.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to identify the structures and systems
promoting high performance in high-poverty schools:
1. What are perceived schoolwide systems and structures that contribute to high
achievement in high-poverty schools?
2. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support higher
levels of student achievement?
3. How do school leaders/instructional leaders support professional learning in
cultivating effective classroom instruction
Significance of the Study
This study was designed to add to the body of literature addressing the factors
associated with high-performing high-poverty schools. Beyond adding to the literature,
this study was designed to address how these effective structures and systems can be
implemented consistently in low-performing high-poverty schools. Specifically, the

7
study looked at how one high-performing high-poverty school implemented professional
learning, from the school and teacher perspectives, to achieve school change.
Currently, reform efforts are targeting low-performing schools by implementing
the systems and structures of high-performing schools. As stated earlier, professional
learning is closely linked to school change (Darling-Hammond, 2005). By identifying
the systems that lead professional learning to positively impact school change and student
achievement, low-performing schools can begin to implement these strategies as they
reform their schools. At the same time, policy makers interested in schoolwide increase
in student achievement can use the findings of this study to implement structures and
systems that have been associated with high achievement in high-poverty schools.
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations of the study are recognized.
1. Study sample size: The study was centered on one high school with a small
sample of faculty and staff; as a result, generalizability is limited to the population
studied.
2. Halo effect: Some variables were beyond the control of this study. For
instance, teachers may have been concerned with repercussions for what was stated
during interviews and may have made only favorable statements about the school.
3. Researcher bias: The researcher’s inherent biases were controlled as much as
possible; however, some bias may still be present.
4. Participant bias: For unknown reasons, participants may have been biased in
their responses and the study could not control for such bias.

8
Delimitations of the Study
The study was delimited in the following ways:
1. Criteria of high-performing high-poverty schools: The thematic dissertation
research group came to the consensus that a high-performing high-poverty school has an
API of higher than 750 and/or 3-year positive growth trajectory where more than 40% of
students receive free or reduced-priced lunches.
2. School selection: The school was selected by the researcher and the school
administrators and teachers participated in the study voluntarily. The selection of the
school and its population was made purposely, not randomly.
3. Instruments: The instruments used in this study were created by the thematic
group to address the research questions.
4. Time frame: The study was completed over a 3-month period, limiting the
opportunity to collect longitudinal data.
5. Participant sample size: The number of participants in the study was
determined by the thematic group.
6. Geographic region: The location of the study was decided by the researcher.
Definition of Terms
The following are operational definitions according to the EdSource online
glossary (EdSource, 2007).
Academic Performance Index (API): According to the 2008-2009 API Reports by
the California Department of Education, API measures the academic performance and
progress of schools. API is part of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. API
scores range from 200 to 1,000. The API target for all schools is 800.

9
Accountability: The notion that people (e.g., students or teachers) or an organiza-
tion (e.g., a school, school district, or state department of education) should be held
responsible for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for
success or lack of success in doing so.
Achievement gap: Consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between children in certain groups. Data document a strong association between poverty
and students’ lack of academic success as measured by scores on achievement tests.
While poverty is not unique to any ethnicity, it exists in disproportionate rates among
African Americans and Hispanics, and among English learners. The reasons for the
achievement gap are multifaceted. They stem to some degree from factors that children
bring with them to school; however, other factors that contribute to the gap stem from
students’ school experiences.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): According to the 2009 Annual Yearly Progress
Report Information Guide of the California Department of Education (CDE; 2009), AYP
is an accountability system mandated by NCLB to monitor annual academic performance
goals. It requires each state to ensure that all schools and local educational agencies
(LEAs) make AYP. AYP criteria encompass four areas: participation rate, percentage
proficient, API as an additional indicator for AYP, and graduation rate.
Equity: The belief that state governments have an obligation to equalize students’
access to educational opportunities and thus life chances. During the 1970s and 1980s,
many state courts found great disparities in base per-pupil spending between high- and
low- property wealth districts. They mandated that these funding disparities be

10
eradicated. In placing districts on a level playing field, the courts often invoked equal
protection clauses in state constitutions.
High-performing schools: A school that has an API of higher than 750 and/or
3-year positive growth trajectory.
High-poverty schools: Schools in which more than 40% of the students receive
free or reduced-priced lunches.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The ESEA of 1965 was reauthorized in 2001 as
NCLB. The focus of NCLB was to increase accountability, research-based practices,
quality education, and empowerment of parents.
Professional development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to
acquire knowledge and skills needed to perform their jobs successfully. Often, these
programs are aimed at veteran teachers to update their skills and knowledge. Researchers
have found that effective professional development focuses on academic content and
requires adequate time, resources, and working conditions.
Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade level. In California,
students take California Standards Tests (CSTs) and receive scores that range from far
below basic to advanced. The state goal is for all students to score at proficient or
advanced.
Structures: Institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures established by
federal, state, or district policy or legislation or widely accepted as the official formation
of the school, not subject to change at the local school site

11
Systems: Coordinated and coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students,
parents, funds, facilities, etc.) at the school site to ensure that a school’s mission, vision,
and goals are met.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study, including the history of reports mak-
ing the public aware of the achievement gap, efforts at reform education, and findings of
what effective high-performing high-poverty schools do to promote students achieve-
ment. Chapter 1 also provides insight into what still needs to be studied in respect to
professional learning. Chapter 2 reviews salient research on professional learning as it
pertains to teacher beliefs and practice and provides the theoretical framework for the
study. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology used in the study. Chapter 4
presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 presents conclusions based on the findings,
implications for practice, and recommendations for further research.

12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the age of accountability, schools are under pressure to ensure that students are
meeting proficiency. Several studies have worked to identify how schools are increasing
student proficiency rates in the hope of aiding other schools in their reform efforts
(Marzano, 2003; Waits et al., 2006). These studies point to structures and systems as the
foundation for successful high-poverty schools (Oakes, 2000). Missing from these
studies is how to consistently implement these schoolwide structures and systems in high-
poverty schools.
The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on schoolwide structures
and systems. This chapter is organized by salient themes that arose from the literature.
The first section contextualizes the struggle to meet proficiency by providing a historical
background of the achievement gap. The second section identifies the structures within a
school and the systems known to develop professional learning. The third section
addresses the target of professional learning: teacher beliefs and practice known to
impact student achievement.
Historical Background
Historically, high-poverty schools have been associated with low academic
achievement. One of the earliest documentations of the achievement gap between high-
poverty and low-poverty students was found in The Coleman Report ( Coleman, 1966).
Initiated by President Johnson’s administration, its purpose was to assess the state of the
educational system during the Civil Rights Movement. The researchers of The Coleman
Report, to the surprise of the nation, found that schools had very little impact on student

13
achievement. Specifically, the report stated that 90% of the variance in student achieve-
ment could be attributed to background factors such as family and culture and 10% of
student achievement could be accounted for by schooling. The report led the nation to
believe that schools had very little influence in overcoming the background factors of the
child.
Two and three decades later, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform (NCEE, 1983) documented that the achievement gap identified in The Coleman
Report was not closing but instead was widening between various SES groups. The
publication of A Nation at Risk served as evidence to many that the educational system,
as it was, should be reformed to meet the needs of all children. Furthering the need for
reform, the report also stated that the United States was not producing globally competi-
tive students, especially in mathematics and science (NCEE, 1983). Despite the urgency
for reform advocated by the report, the achievement gap continued to widen. A decade
later, A Nation Still at Risk (Hoover Institution, 1998) was published, restating the widen-
ing of the achievement gap and the lack of globally competitive students coming from the
United States.
Based on the urgency for reform and concern about the widening of the achieve-
ment gap, NCLB was initiated in 2001. NCLB aimed to have all schools reach profici-
ency by 2014, despite SES and background factors of students. This reform movement
targeted two levels: teachers and schools. To ensure high-quality instruction for all
students, NCLB required all teachers to be “highly qualified.” That is, all teachers were
required to hold a Bachelor’s degree and credential in the subject matter they taught. At
the school level, NCLB required schools to grow each year and assessed whether schools

14
met AYP. Each school was required to meet AYP for all subgroups and by 2014 have a
minimum API of 800, indicating proficiency. Schools not meeting AYP are labeled
Program Improvement schools and must develop a plan to meet AYP for the next year.
In spite of NCLB’s ongoing reform efforts, many high-poverty schools remain low
performing.
Despite longstanding achievement trends, a small group of high-poverty schools
have shown success in attaining high academic achievement. Marzano (2003) found that
the presence of organizational structures and systems promoted high academic achieve-
ment in high-poverty schools. Reeves (2003), in his 90/90/90 Study of high-performing
high-poverty schools, identified similar schoolwide structures and systems. The studies
by Marzano and Reeves demonstrated the possibility of closing the achievement gap by
identifying high-performing high-poverty schools.
Research has demonstrated that certain organizational structures and systems
promote high academic achievement in high-poverty schools (Marzano, 2003; Reeves,
2003). Reeves (2003) identified five schoolwide characteristics common in all high-
performing high-poverty schools: (a) focus on academic achievement, (b) focus on the
basics of mathematics and reading, (c) frequent assessment, (d) schoolwide writing, and
(e) standardized grading. Marzano (2003) identified five characteristics common to high-
performing schools: (a) focus on teaching and learning, (b) frequent feedback, (c) high
expectations, (d) positive school culture, and (e) strong leadership.
Despite evidence reported by Reeves (2003) and Marzano (2003), the presence of
high-performing high-poverty schools remains rare because of a lack of consistency in
implementation of these schoolwide structures and systems. One possible source of

15
inconsistency may be teacher learning. At the heart of the structures mentioned by
Reeves (2003) and Marzano (2003), and consistent throughout literature, is the impact of
the teacher in student achievement. Putnam and Borko (2000) found that school reform
and professional learning are closely tied. At the same time, Fullan (2002) found that
changing teacher beliefs and practice is difficult. To add to the complexity of teacher
learning, Geijsel et al. (2009) identified school culture as having a strong impact on
teacher practice through professional learning. The complex interrelationship between
school structures and system on teacher practice and beliefs has not been fully addressed
in the literature. The remainder of this chapter is a discussion of what is known about
school structures and systems as it relates to teacher beliefs and practice.
School Structures
In effecting change in teacher beliefs and knowledge, such that student achieve-
ment is positively impacted, it is essential to look at teacher practice in the context of the
school. Professional learning does not happen in isolation; instead, teacher learning
should be considered within the context of school. There is substantial research on
teacher learning but that research is limited in identifying the complex relationship
between teacher learning and the school context. Teacher learning is oversimplified
when the complex interactions between teacher, school, and political and organizational
context are ignored (Geijsel et al., 2009). The following sections address NCLB and
finance adequacy as driving structures within schools. Structures are defined as institu-
tional mechanisms, policies, and procedures established by federal, state, or district
policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official formation of the school, not
subject to change at the local school site.

16
No Child Left Behind
The most prominent policy, mandated by the federal government, is the NCLB
Act of 2001. NCLB holds both schools and teachers accountable. Schools are required
to ensure that all subgroups meet AYP and all students reach proficiency by 2014.
NCLB requires teachers to hold a Bachelor’s degree and be certified in the subject matter
being taught. The API score, used to assess the school, is determined by the school’s
performance on various standardized tests. As a result, schools and teachers are required
to teach specific content predetermined by the state. This structure cannot be changed at
the school site and thus must be integrated into the school policies and practice.
Financial Adequacy
The reform movement led by NCLB has led many to look at the cost of increased
student performance. School reform and school finance are closely linked; with the
increased accountability on schools to increase student performance comes an increase in
cost per student (Picus, 2004). Odden et al. (2008) asserted that with the implementation
of NCLB is the unspoken request to improve the cost effectiveness of the education
dollar. Given that schools have not shown significant steps to closing the achievement
gap with their current funding, how will schools close the achievement gap, given their
current financial state? Picus (2004) asserted, “If states are holding districts and schools
accountable for what students should know and should be able to do, then states must
provide the resources to enable schools and districts to meet the state-set standards”
(p. 5). Schools need adequate resources to help students to meet proficiency.
The inequities in school funding and resources have led to much litigation (Glenn,
Picus, Odden, & Aportela, 2009; Oakes, 2003; Odden et al., 2008; Picus, 2004).
Questions of quality of facilities and resources have not only spurred lawsuits but have

17
generated research studies to define equitable funding to ensure that all students are
meeting state proficiency. Initially, funding was based on local tax revenue; however,
this led schools in wealthier neighborhoods to have more funding than schools in low-
income neighborhoods (Glenn et al., 2009). To counteract the inequitable distribution of
funds, many states moved toward horizontal equity. That is, instead of funding being
based on local revenue, it was decided that districts would receive equal funding per
pupil. Unfortunately, such per-pupil funding still demonstrated differential spending by
schools (Odden et al., 2008).
The movement for vertical equity eschewed equal per-pupil funding, such as
horizontal equity, to provide additional funds for students (Glenn et al., 2009). Although
vertical equity was a step toward meeting the needs of students, it was not outcomes
focused. The NCLB accountability movement forced the focus to shift toward student
outcomes from equity to adequacy (Odden et al., 2008). Proponents of adequacy define
it as the amount of funding to ensure that all students can meet adequately proficiency
(Picus, 2000). Equity and adequacy differ in that the focus has shifted from equal funds
to equal opportunity to produce similar outcomes, which is student proficiency (Glenn et
al., 2009). The movement toward adequacy will have a great deal of impact in the ways
schools are managed and structured (Odden et al., 2008; Picus, 2004).
School Systems
School systems are defined as coordinated and coherent use of resources (time,
personnel, students, parents, funds, facilities, etc.) at the school site to ensure that a
school’s mission, vision, and goals are met. How a school manages its finances and
facilitates student learning according to state-mandated standards is determined by the

18
school’s systems. This sections addresses school culture and school leadership as the
primary systems in a school that affect professional learning and teacher practice and
beliefs.
School Culture
Servage (2008) argued that, in transforming schools, culture is the key to change.
Without a cultural shift, transformation will be unsuccessful. Attard (2007) suggested
that external factors such as culture “open up as well as limit possibilities for change”
(p. 151). Specifically, numerous research findings have identified a culture of collabora-
tion as an essential part of the school culture (Curry, 2008; Servage, 2008). Learning to
work together to examine and reexamine practice is integral to growth as a school and as
an individual (Curry, 2008).
Collaborative culture is based on a shared mission and vision for the school; all
individuals believe in the same mission and vision for the students (Curry, 2008). Within
the culture of school is the interaction between individuals. This relationship between
teachers and teachers, teachers and administrators, teachers and students, and teachers
and professional learning presenter is positive. Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and
Yoon (2001) stated that, for teachers to grow as educators, they benefit from being
around persons of the same mind. Although they may disagree, all of those involved in
the learning process approach learning as positive and necessary (Attard, 2007). All
persons involved in teacher learning have a desire to learn and hold similar end goals.
The culture of collaboration in unison with a shared vision and mission by teachers and
administrators opens the doors for school reform through professional learning.

19
Learning does not happen in isolation; thus, the context of the learning is central.
Much of how professional learning is delivered, received, and interpreted is based on the
culture of the school. Curry (2008) suggested that the person providing the professional
learning experience and the teacher as learner recognize the complex learning environ-
ment and assess how to make learning the most productive to enact change in the teacher.
Attard (2007) stated that the “tendency of not changing habitual practice is also promoted
by the working conditions of the teacher” (p. 151). Without exposure to alternate
methods of thinking, planning, and assessing, teachers continue to teach without the
necessary reflection that leads to growth. If teachers are surrounded by teachers who are
not reflective, their nonreflective practices are affirmed. Similarly, being surrounded by
persons who question and challenge teachers to improve practice can have a positive
influence on students’ achievement (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). In a school culture in
which people are resilient to change, it becomes increasingly challenging to effect
change. Teacher beliefs are influenced by school culture. A culture of learning and
collaboration positively impacts teacher beliefs, while a culture of status quo inhibits
teacher growth.
School Collective Efficacy
The school culture of growth or status quo has a cyclic relationship with the
collective efficacy of a school. “For schools, collective efficacy refers to the perceptions
of teachers in a school that the faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of
action required to have a positive effect on students” (Goddard & Goddard, 2001, p. 809).
That is, collective efficacy is the teachers’ belief that the school as a whole can have a
positive impact on student achievement (Ross & Gray, 2006). Researchers have found

20
that collective efficacy is dependent on SES. Schools with higher SES have been found
to have higher collective efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). Research has also
found that prior achievement was related to collective efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006).
Collective efficacy has an impact on teacher efficacy, thereby impacting student
achievement (Bandura, as cited in Goddard et al., 2000). “When considered together
with the effects of school contextual features such as mean SES and mean prior achieve-
ment, collective efficacy was the only significant predictor of teacher efficacy differences
among schools” (Goddard & Goddard, 2001, p. 815). That is, when SES and prior
achievement are accounted for, collective efficacy accounts for the variation in teacher
efficacy at the school level. The effect of collective efficacy has been found to be strong-
est for novice teachers (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Since novice teachers
are being acculturated into the new school setting, school culture and its effect on collec-
tive efficacy will impact a teacher’s belief in personal efficacy. Since teacher efficacy is
strongly related to student achievement, collective efficacy can be a key target in chang-
ing teacher beliefs.
A possible source of support for all teachers may be in raising the collective
efficacy of a school, especially among novice teachers, who are sometime deflated as
they enter the classrooms (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teachers in schools with high
collective efficacy are more likely to work hard in face of obstacles (Goddard &
Goddard, 2001). Teachers in schools that have low collective efficacy may not have a
culture that pushes them to overcome and to work in face of obstacles because they do
not feel efficacious.

21
Much as teacher efficacy is connected to student achievement, positive collective
efficacy has also been shown to have a strong positive impact on schoolwide achieve-
ment (Bandura, as cited in Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Some researchers have con-
nected collective efficacy levels to the variation in student achievement in different
schools (Goddard et al., 2000). The difference in student achievement between schools
can be predicted through collective efficacy rating. Belief in the school’s mission and the
school’s ability to meet the mission is an important aspect of school culture that affects
collective efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006). The following subsection addresses how
leadership is instrumental in fostering collective efficacy and school culture.
School Leadership
A leader fosters a positive school culture and collective efficacy. The leader of
the school has the ability to impact several factors that affect student achievement
(Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) argued that
leadership is central to the functioning of successful organizations. For instance, the
leadership of the school can instill a culture of efficacy within the school, thereby
increasing the efficacy of the teachers. Bandura (1997) argued that, for organizational
improvement to occur, a strong leader must be present (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). In
light of the accountability movement, schools are held accountable for student achieve-
ment. Although teachers have a direct impact on student achievement, the role that
school leadership plays mediates the relationship between teacher and student. Marzano
et al. (2005) claimed that school leadership has a substantial role in student achievement.
When teachers believed that the principal had influence over their superiors, efficacy was
higher among teachers (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Goddard and Goddard (2001) found

22
that principals impacted student achievement indirectly by influencing teacher beliefs,
commitment, and collective efficacy. In the following subsections, two theories of
leadership are addressed: (a) transformational leadership, and (b) learning-centered
leadership. These two forms of leadership were chosen from the many leadership styles
for their influence in creating change in the school and the qualities of teacher beliefs
discussed earlier.
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is of particular
interest to this study as it impacts many of the teacher beliefs that this study was designed
to address. Transformational leadership is a form of leadership aimed at teacher
empowerment (Ross & Gray, 2006). Teacher empowerment and growth are enabled by
the opportunities to learn that are created by the leader (Printy, 2008). Further, these
factors have been found to have a strong relationship with teacher belief and practices
(Ross & Gray, 2006). Transformational leadership has three parts: creating and
sustaining a vision, intellectual challenge, and personal attention (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
These three characteristics support the growth of the organization and the individuals
within the organization. Mullin and Keedy (1998) found that transformational leaders
who had a key role in school reform focused on clearly expressing the mission and
beliefs to all stakeholders. The vision articulation and creation within a teacher promotes
teacher commitment and capacity (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1993)
Transformational leadership’s dual focus on the teacher and school allows for the
growth of both. The strong focus on teacher commitment is indirectly affected by its role
in increasing collective efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006). This form of leadership promotes
individuals to go beyond the job description to find means to improve the organization as

23
a whole. The collaborative culture created by a transformational leader positively
impacts teacher behavior (Mullin & Keedy, 1998). The leader is able to do this by rais-
ing the values of teachers, motivating them, helping them to embrace the mission and
vision of the school, and aligning needs of the teacher with those of the organization
(Bass & Avolio, 1994). An effective leader communicates high expectations of both
teachers and students (Marzano et al., 2005).
Transformational leadership is closely tied to school culture and efficacy. By
focusing on teacher accomplishments, giving frequent feedback, and creating culture
focused on student achievement, transformational leadership has been shown to have an
impact on teacher efficacy (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). The
transformational leader helps teachers to “set feasible goals, clarifying standards, and
linking actions of teachers to student outcomes”. Further, a transformational leader
builds confidence in teachers, providing opportunities for teachers to learn from one
another (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). By providing meaning and guidance to a teacher’s
work, the leader builds teacher capacity (Leithwood, et al., 1993). In addition, Marzano
et al. (2005) found that transformational leaders build trust in individuals by knowing and
meeting the needs of team members. Transformational leaders focus on learning by hav-
ing an impact on teacher efficacy by connecting teacher practice to student achievement,
focusing feedback on goals, and providing opportunities to participate in leadership
decision making.
Learning-centered leadership. Learning-centered leadership focuses on improv-
ing schools through learning (Southworth, 2004). In a study focused on developing
school leaders to practice learning-centered leadership, Timperley (2006) found three

24
challenges: (a) Leaders did not see themselves as the focus of this leadership, (b) leaders
were more focused on teacher collaboration and not collaboration’s effects on student
learning, and (c) there was a lack of organizational structure to support evidenced-based
professional learning. These challenges are common in current leadership practices and
thus the tenets in learning-centered leadership that developed these leaders, as well as the
teacher population that they serve, provide insight into this study on professional learning
to improve student achievement. Collaborative school culture, focused on professional
learning, has been the cornerstone of school reform (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990).
To better align leadership to become learning centered, three tenets are taught to
leaders. First, learning centered leadership focuses on shared leadership by developing
teacher leaders at all levels (Southworth, 2004). Not to be confused with delegation of
tasks or separating duties of management and leadership, shared leadership describes
interdependence among leaders (Timperley, 2006). Each leader provides a unique skill
or knowledge set that provides an integral part of completing a set of tasks. The sharing
of power and responsibility was found to increase teacher empowerment and collabora-
tive school culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990). In the context of a school, the goal of
learning-centered leadership is improved student achievement by improving teacher
practice through professional learning. Focus on instruction has been related to increase
in organizational performance (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). Through
collaboration and shared leadership, learning-centered leadership aims to increase student
achievement. In a study of successful schools, learning-centered leadership was identi-
fied as the predominant school philosophy (Moller et al., 2005).

25
The second and third tenets of learning-centered leadership focus on evidence to
measure effectiveness of leadership. The first set of evidence is based on the influence of
professional learning as evidenced by teacher practice. Here, Timperley (2006) stated
that there should be not only a general focus on school values and mission, but evidence
of the school’s vision and values in teacher practice. The collaborative culture of the
school in conjunction with focus on student learning fosters improved student perform-
ance (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Second, continuous monitoring of student achievement
should be present in analyzing the school’s policy choice and progression toward a
targeted goal. Using data, a focus on low-performing schools as priority by placing
curriculum and student learning first has been recommended as the first step to increasing
student performance (Fry, Bottoms, O’Neill, & Walker, 2007). The presence of evidence
in both cases shows a progression of accountability from leadership’s influence on
teacher practice and teacher practice on student achievement. The data-based reflection
is central in learning-centered leadership.
According to Southworth (2004), on-site school professional learning experiences
are most effective because of their integration with the school’s organizational structures.
According to the study, successful schools had a structure that integrated learning by
teachers. These schools were not only worksites for teachers but a learning space for
teachers (Southworth, 2004). Integration of professional learning within the school
cultures develops a culture of learning within the school.
Timperley (2006) asserted that linking student learning to teaching practices is
crucial to a learning culture. Further, basing teacher learning on the needs of the students
most effectively improves student achievement (Timperley, 2006). The focus on data as

26
a means to measure effectiveness of professional learning experience should be inte-
grated in a learning culture. Data to inform instruction and instructional learning drive a
learning culture (Southworth, 2004). Targeted teacher learning, based on data, instead of
general collaboration, has shown effective results in student achievement. That is, focus
on teacher practice as it related to student needs, not solely on theory, has most positively
impacted student achievement.
Learning-centered leadership creates a culture of learning within the school site.
To foster a culture of learning, site-based professional learning has been shown to be
most effective. Organizational structures support the development of teachers, as
teachers see learning as integrated with their professional experience. Southworth (2004)
stated that leaders should rely on student achievement data to drive professional learning
topics and be flexible as they struggle to mediate what they know with what they are
learning in their professional learning experience. As the needs of teachers change, so
should the role of the leader. Shared leadership allows for the needs of individuals to be
met. The collaborative culture instilled by the learning-centered leadership builds the
school’s capacity for increased academic achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). The
collaboration of teacher leaders with a focus on the relationship between teacher practice
and student achievement defines learning-centered leadership.
Theoretical Framework
Professional learning and professional development have been substantially
researched from multiple perspectives. This section synthesizes the research such that
the essential elements of professional learning, as they relate to changing teacher beliefs,
are identified and described. Based on the research (Curry, 2008; Garet et al., 2001; King

27
& Newmann, 2001; Porter, Garet, Desimone, Yoon, & Birman, 2000; Servage, 2008),
four essential elements were identified: collaboration, dialogue, reflection, and inquiry.
Each of these elements is herein supported using Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural
learning theory. Finally, the relationship between these elements and teacher knowledge
and beliefs is discussed.
Learning cannot occur in isolation of a learner’s culture. “From a neo-Vygotskian
perspective, intellectual development is socially and culturally based” (Trueba, 1988,
p. 279). To help a teacher to understand how a child learns is not only to understand the
child in a social and cultural context but to understand the teacher in a social and cultural
context. “What happens in the home, school, and local community (which most likely
mirrors the characteristics of the larger society) is crucial to understanding the learning
processes and academic achievement of all children, including minority children”
(Trueba, 1988, p. 279). As a result, when considering how a child learns and in teaching
a child, the cultural context of the student and lesson is necessary to consider. “Culture
affects the entire process of knowledge acquisition and information” (Trueba, 1988,
p. 279); therefore, a sociocultural learning perspective permeates professional learning
experiences in helping navigating the cultural differences between student and teacher.
Further, the co-construction of knowledge by teacher and student is driven by the con-
structivist learning theory, which is often linked with sociocultural learning experiences.
The following subsections describe sociocultural learning theory and the professional
learning activities driven by sociocultural learning theory.

28
Sociocultural Learning and Constructivist Theory
Sociocultural theory affects human cognition because “cognition is culturally
mediated by material and semantic artifacts . . ., founded on purposive activity . . ., and it
develops historically as changes at the sociocultural level impact psychological organiza-
tion” (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000, p. 229). That is, learning depends on the sociocul-
tural context. Further, the constructivist theory argues that “the active learner [interacts]
with the environment either singly or with others; learning is the resulting construction
and qualitative reorganization of knowledge structures” (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000,
p. 229). When considering both theories, learning occurs in a sociocultural context
through interaction in a given environment. Professional learning experiences should be
contextually taught by considering the social and cultural context. Sociocultural and
constructivist theory indicates that, if learning is to be constructed, then the sociocultural
context should be considered. Thus, the school culture, collective efficacy, and school
leadership impact the context of the professional learning experience whereby teacher
practice is addressed.
Sociocultural and constructivist learning is not solely epistemological but onto-
logical as well. “Epistemology is the systematic consideration . . . of knowing . . . [and]
ontology is the consideration of being: what is, what exists” (Packer & Goicoechea,
2000, p. 227). Although learning is often perceived to be epistemological, a problem
seen in current teaching, it is necessary to recognize the ontological aspects. That is,
through a sociocultural and constructivist learning approach not only are there changes in
knowing but there are also changes in “being.” Current pedagogy should change to
reflect not only changes in knowing but changes in being as well. Therefore, professional
learning, led by the professional learning leader in the context of the school culture,

29
should change current teaching by focusing on the epistemological and ontological
aspects of sociocultural and constructivist learning.
Effective Elements of Professional Learning
For internalization of learning such that there is an impact on teacher practice,
teachers should engage in a social activity whereby knowledge is contested and con-
structed. Vygotsky stated that “any function in the [learner’s] cultural development
appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on the
psychological plane” (as cited in Durkin, 1995, p. 369). In professional learning experi-
ences the social plane often occurs through collaboration. Collaboration is not simply
individuals getting together; it is an activity in which knowledge is contested and
constructed such that there is an impact on teacher practice. Moreillon (2007) defined
collaboration as a discussion of theory and motivation, planning, teaching, and assessing
of lessons, followed by continual and purposeful reflection. The process results in a
reflective teacher who is competent in pedagogy, as well as lesson design and
implementation. Collaboration benefits also include transfer of knowledge, more
involvement, and higher job satisfaction (Corcoran & Silander, 2009). The ability to
transfer learning into practice, through sharing of resources and reflection, leads to the
professional development of the teacher.
“What teachers know and can do is crucial to what students learn” (Darling-
Hammond, 1997, p. D-1). This is the goal of professional learning experiences, as well
as collaboration. Through collaboration, teachers can connect what they know (theory)
to what they do (teacher practice). Collaboration is the vehicle whereby sociocultural
constructivistic learning occurs. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) stated that

30
constructivism activates prior knowledge and triggers the cognitive processes to operate
that knowledge. Collaboration, driven by constructivism, allows teachers to construct
knowledge and then implement it in their teacher practice.
Collaboration is also a vehicle by which cognitive apprenticeship, derived from
Vygotsky’s work, can occur. According to Mayer (2008), cognitive apprenticeship
occurs through the collaboration between experts and novices to master an authentic task.
The goal of cognitive apprenticeship is to learn the cognitive processes necessary to
master difficult tasks (Mayer, 2008). Collaboration with cognitive apprenticeship is often
called cooperative learning. Cooperative learning groups are defined as heterogeneous
groups of individuals with varied ability levels work together on a task (Mayer, 2008).
In professional learning experiences, these groups can be grade-level teams, department
teams, or any other community of practice focused on a learning task. As individuals
immerse in a cognitive apprenticeship task, they develop the skills necessary to master
the task, thereby impacting their practice.
The support and network gained through collaboration can also provide social
capital ( Coleman, 1994; Noguera, 2003; Putnam, 2000). Stanton-Salazar (1997) defined
social capital as the relationships with institutional agents and the networks that connect
these relationships. Teaching can be an isolating profession in the absence of collabora-
tion. Collaboration allows teachers to build networks that help them to improve practice.
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997), there are five benefits from gaining social capital.
First, social capital can be gained in the form of funds of knowledge (Moll, 2004). When
individuals of varying knowledge bases come together and engage in constructivist
dialogue, funds of knowledge can be shared and gained. Second, collaboration breaks

31
down the barriers of isolation so relationships can build. Third, advocacy allows people
to bring with them a support group to assist in the construction of knowledge. Fourth,
role modeling by teacher leaders can allow teachers to see how knowledge can be trans-
lated to practice. Fifth, evaluative feedback on behalf of the teacher and teacher leader
allows for a meaningful learning experience. The social capital gained through collabor-
ation is another means by which individuals are supported as they construct knowledge
that impacts teacher practice.
Dialogue is often a key component of professional learning activities, including
collaboration. Oakes, Franke, Quartz, and Rogers (2002) contended that “learning as a
process whereby novices and more expert peers work together” can occur through com-
munities of practice (p. 229). Contrary to traditional professional development programs
that are more behaviorist in nature, teachers engaged in communities of practice will be
involved in a “social, dynamic, and generative quality of learning that can support the
development of competencies needed in urban schools” (Oakes et al., 2002, p. 229). The
social nature of these communities is centralized around the concept of dialogue whereby
participants learn and reconstruct knowledge through their interactions with one another.
Dialogue is not simply a discussion; rather it is a social interaction between two or
more people that is focused on “tools and artifacts connected with practice” (Oakes et al.,
2002, p. 229). It is through dialogue, a social practice, that teachers can become more
knowledgeable about their practice. Lave (1996) stated that identity development
through knowledge attainment is a social practice whereby “who you are becoming
shapes crucially and fundamentally what you ‘know’” (p. 57). By questioning one
another’s beliefs, teacher participants deconstruct and reconstruct knowledge and

32
“mak[e] sense of existing practice” (Oakes et al., 2002, p. 229). Taking from Vygotsky,
Billings and Fitzgerald (2002) stated that the “reciprocal flow of ideas involving actions
and reactions of group members may lead to new understandings not held by any group
member in advance of the discussion” (p. 909). As a result, all members benefit from
interacting in dialogic discussions.
When talking with other professionals in the field, teachers’ knowledge is con-
tested and constructed. When knowledge is constructed, teachers are “more able to
access and alter the subjective substratum—a substratum that has been modeled variously
as beliefs, emotions, personal theories, identity and personal practical knowledge—that
underpins and shapes her practice” (Penlington, 2008, p. 1305). By accessing the
subjective lens, teachers can re-internalize the theories that they have learned and then
they can conceptualize how the theories can be applied. Following Vygotsky’s two
planes concept, dialogic discussion enables participating teachers to “mediate between
more than one perspective: a self-perspective and an other-perspective” (Penlington,
2008, p. 1305). By engaging in dialogic discussion, teacher participants are forced to
first reach a level that Jean Piaget referred to as disequilibrium, and then to continue to
develop understanding through assimilation and accommodation of new ideas (London,
1988).
Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs
The structures and systems in a school set the context for either sustaining or
changing teacher beliefs that ultimately impact student achievement. The standards-
based reform movement requires teachers to develop student comprehension at the basic
memorization level, as well as higher-order thinking skills such as problem solving and

33
critical thinking, while at the same time helping students to become socially conscious
(Porter et al., 2000). Although teachers are well intentioned in teaching students and may
have the necessary knowledge, research has shown that they have difficulty in translating
their knowledge into practice (Attard, 2007). Ultimately, to improve student achieve-
ment, teachers must be able to change their practice to reflect their knowledge or develop
the knowledge and then transfer it into practice. At the same time, research has shown
that changing teacher belief is difficult (Attard, 2007; Fullan, 2002; Garcia & Guerra,
2004). The following subsections address the types of teachers’ beliefs and how they are
impacted by the structures and systems discussed earlier, as well as how they impact
student achievement.
Deficit Thinking
Deficit thinking can be seen as a belief that students are missing a key element
and place blame on the student (Garcia & Guerra, 2004). For instance, some believe that
it is students’ fault that they enter schooling without the necessary prior knowledge and
skills. Others believe that parents of high-poverty students do not care about their child’s
education (Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, & Foley, 2001). In both instances, the fault is
placed on the student and the family rather than the educational system. Further, there is
a negative perception of the student or family because of SES and race (Rubie-Davies,
Hattie, & Hamilton, 2006). Without acknowledgement of the teachers and school role in
students performance, very little can be done to improve student achievement (Garcia &
Guerra, 2004). Teachers and administrators’ estimates of their impact on student
achievement significantly affects student achievement.

34
In addressing the issue of low performance, student background factors such as
culture and family are often overlooked. Schools should take responsibility for student
achievement instead of blaming students for their low achievement (Garcia & Guerra,
2004). Berman and Chambliss (2000) found that school reform efforts to improve
student achievement were unsuccessful or hindered because of a lack of ownership by the
school or district. Instead of looking at the relationship of school and teacher practice to
student performance, fault is consistently paced on the student or family. Deficit thinking
by behalf of teachers and administrators has been well documented to negatively impact
student achievement (Delpit, 1995; Valencia et al., 2001). At the same time, research has
also documented the negative impact of deficit thinking on school reform as teachers and
schools fail to take responsibility for student performance (Garcia & Guerra, 2004).
Some schools, in an effort to improve student achievement, implement programs
that have shown success in other schools, without looking at the context in which the
programs were implemented. The demographics in which the programs were successful
are often overlooked by those who seek to implement the program. In choosing a pro-
gram for implementation, it is important to identify the context in which the program is
successful. When the program is unsuccessful in improving student achievement,
schools blame the student and the family, and deficit thinking is reinforced (Garcia &
Guerra, 2004). In actuality, the failure of the program could be connected to its incom-
patibility with the demographics of the student population.
Student culture and background, viewed as an asset, is addressed through
culturally relevant pedagogy. Although there is substantial research on multicultural
education and culturally responsive pedagogy, the research on implementation of such

35
additive practices is limited (Banks, 1996; Sleeter, 2000). This is due to the limited
research on what types of professional learning schoolwide practices allow schools and
whether teachers are allowed deconstruct and reconstruct their views of student culture
such that they view diversity as an asset.
Garcia and Guerra (2004) made five assumption in a study that challenged the
deficit thinking of teachers and administrators: (a) Teachers and school are only
reflecting the deficit thinking that is present in society; (b) teachers of all cultures can
benefit from professional learning on diversity; (c) culture is present in all aspects of
learning; (d) superficial attempts to be culturally sensitive, such as bilingual teaching,
does not mean that deficit teaching has been addressed and rectified; and (e) professional
development should explicitly link the theory of multicultural education to classroom
practices. In using these five assumptions in their study, Garcia and Guerra found that
teachers should believe in equity practices for successful implementation. Second, many
teachers have the knowledge of equity practices but do not know how to view student
behavior in terms of student culture. Third, teachers need a place to question, recognize,
and develop the skills necessary to be culturally responsive. That is, schools do not have
the necessary structures in place to support the professional learning of teachers.
Teacher Expectations
Teacher beliefs are strongly connected to teacher expectations. Research shows
that teachers’ expectations, in the classroom setting, can have both positive and negative
influence on student achievement (Weinstein, 2002). Learning to mediate teacher
expectations to focus on positive influences on student achievement requires knowledge
of the basis of teacher expectations. Some of the qualities are gender, social class,

36
language, age, name, and ethnicity (Rubie-Davies et al., 2006). Although there are
numerous other qualities, ethnicity and social class are discussed in this section as
primary bases of teacher expectations in high-poverty schools.
Ethnicity is of importance for many researchers and for this study, as ethnic
minority students overall have a much lower academic performance than their White
counterparts (Bainbridge & Lasley, 2002). In many countries, including the United
States, there is a strong correlation between ethnicity and social class, with a large
population of Latino and African Americans comprising a large part of the lower-SES
group and thus attending high-poverty schools (Bainbridge & Lasley, 2002; Rubie-
Davies et al., 2006; Weinstein, 2002). As a result, it is difficult to separate the effects of
social class/ ethnicity and teacher expectations; however, several studies have indicated a
relationship between ethnicity and teacher expectations (Rubie-Davies et al., 2006).
McKown and Weinstein (2008) suggested that teacher expectations are among the
factors leading to the achievement gap. This is caused by a difference in teacher expecta-
tions for students of color and for their White counterparts. Teachers have been found to
have higher expectations for White and Asian students and lower expectations for
African American and Latino students. Negative stereotypes of intellectual promise
permeate the beliefs and expectations of some teacher, negatively impacting student
achievement (McKown & Weinstein, 2008). In contrast, White and Asian students’
academic achievement is positively influenced by the positive stereotypes, and thus
positive expectations, held by teachers.
Teachers’ expectations have been found to affect student achievement, specific-
ally to have a greater impact on African American students than on White students.

37
Further, White students are less vulnerable to negative expectations than African
American students at the elementary level (Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996). This may
be caused by what students perceive as differential treatment through teacher expecta-
tions (McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ expectations
have been found to be strongly related to student achievement (Weinstein, 2002).
McKown and Weinstein (2008) found that, in classes that were ethnically mixed, teachers
viewed students less as individuals and more as having similar group characteristics. As
a result, expectation based on stereotypes is more likely to be applied to individual
students through group association (McKown & Weinstein, 2008). The more a child sees
the teacher as providing differential treatment and expectations for various groups of
students, the stronger the relationship between expectation and student achievement
(Weinstein, 2002).
The manner in which expectations manifest “can be categorized as sustaining
expectations effect or the self fulfilling prophecy effect” (Rubie-Davies et al., 2006,
p. 430). In the sustaining expectation effect, the teacher continues to expect the same
performance from the child despite evidence that the child’s performance is changing
(Rubie-Davies et al., 2006). As a result, the student’s performance is sustained because
of the teacher’s inability to change expectations. This self-fulfilling prophecy occurs
when the teacher’s incorrect beliefs are incorrectly validated because students change
behavior to fulfill expectations (Weinstein, 2002). In both cases, minority student
achievement can be negatively influenced by negative teacher expectations.
Steele (1997) discussed stereotype threat as another limit on student achievement.
When teacher expectations, based on ethnic stereotypes, are perceived by students,

38
students may feel limited in their level of achievement. As a result, minority students are
more vulnerable to low teacher expectations than are their White counterparts. The
achievement gap is a gap in achievement between underrepresented minorities and their
White counterparts. This gap in achievement widens as students accept and fulfill the
negative expectations of their teachers (Steele, 1997).
Teachers’ expectations have a negative impact on achievement by underrepre-
sented minorities such as African Americans and Latino students. Research has identi-
fied three means by which teacher expectations can impact student achievement. First,
teachers may “provide higher quality instruction to students for whom the expect more”
(McKown & Weinstein, 2008, p. 236). Second, students internalize teacher expectations
and thus perform at the level at which the teacher expects them to perform (McKown &
Weinstein, 2008). Third, students feel the stereotype threat and fear being judged, and
thus do poorly (McKown & Weinstein, 2008; Steele, 1997). White students and Asian
American students, who have a positive stereotype associated with them and thus higher
teacher expectations, benefit from high teacher expectations, while African American and
Latino students achievement is negatively impacted. Studies have shown that teachers,
even those who believe that they are unbiased, are unaware and thus do not have control
over their preconceived notions of students (McKown & Weinstein, 2008). This inad-
vertently impacts their expectations and negatively impacts student achievement. As a
result, teacher belief related to teacher expectations should become a key target in
professional learning.

39
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute
the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). That
is, self-efficacy, as it relates to teachers, is their self-assessment of their ability to teach
children and increase student achievement, which can affect teachers’ agency. Whether
teachers feel capable of supporting the instructional needs of their students is determined
by their teacher self-efficacy (Shidler, 2009).
Research has shown a correlation between teacher self-efficacy and student
achievement (Goddard et al., 2000), including a strong relationship between teacher
efficacy levels and student reading achievement levels, as well as between student
achievement on secondary mathematics assessments and teacher self-efficacy. That is,
teachers’ perceived notions of their ability affect student achievement.
The impact of self-efficacy on student achievement is connected to how self-
efficacy can affect a teacher’s behavior. For instance, Bandura found that self-efficacy
“affects behaviors directly by impacting goals, outcome expectations, affective states,
and perceptions of socio-structural impediments and opportunities” (Bandura, 2000, as
cited in Ross & Gray, 2006, p. 801). Teachers who have higher self-efficacy have more
rigorous goals, “try harder to achieve them, persists despite setbacks, and develop a
coping mechanism for managing emotional states” (Ross & Gray, 2006, p. 801).
Research has also shown that highly efficacious teachers spend more time in teaching
content.
Teacher self-efficacy levels are manifested in the curriculum that the teacher
designs, as well as instructional practices (Shidler, 2009). Gibson and Dembo (1984)
found that teacher efficacy affected certain behaviors related to student achievement,

40
such as teacher expectations, persistence, trust, and a learning-centered environment.
Each of these behaviors impacts student achievement. Shidler (2009) found that teachers
who had a high self-efficacy level were more likely to believe fully in the ability of
students and dedicated more time and efficacy to teaching.
Since self-efficacy is tied to many other factors that affect student achievement,
it has been a target of professional development. Current research has shown that an
increased use of a coach to support teachers in building self-efficacy was strongly
correlated to increased student achievement (Shidler, 2009). The more exposure the
teacher had to modeling, the higher the level of self-efficacy. Since higher efficacy led
teachers to have greater confidence in content teaching, support for content teaching was
seen to increase confidence and efficacy in teachers (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
Several general aspects of professional development have also been identified as
means to increase teacher efficacy levels. For instance, Resnick (1987) found that
providing specific professional development that helps teachers to apply knowledge, as
opposed to general knowledge that cannot be directly applied, supported efficacy.
Strickland and Riley-Ayers (2007) found that professional development was most sup-
portive when done at school or near school so that teachers can support in implementing
in classrooms. This supports Shidler’s (2009) claim that increased modeling and
coaching increase efficacy.
Teachers should be given leeway to make their newly found knowledge their
own. If teachers are provided ample time to process information such that they can
unlearn old behaviors and learn new behaviors, then they will be more successful in
applying their new knowledge within the classroom, thereby feeling efficacious in

41
making knowledge their own. Coaches have been found to be helpful in moving teachers
through the knowledge unlearning/ relearning process. As many studies have indicated,
reflection is always necessary in continued growth, understanding, and development as
teachers change and adapt old ways of thinking to new thinking (Ross & Gray, 2006;
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
Habitual Belief
Another aspect of teaching practice that permeates schools and leads to resistance
is the habitual practice of the teacher. Habitual practice can occur during the first year of
a teacher’s career or later in the teacher’s career. Habitual practice is a result of one or all
of the following: (a) the teacher’s need to survive the day or year of teaching, (b) the
teacher’s achievement of a comfort zone, and (c) the teacher’s tacit or unquestioning
learning (Attard, 2007). That is, for various reasons, some teachers may continue a
practice without questioning the practice or reflecting on the reason for the practice.
This is the case for many of the teacher’s in low-performing schools. New
teachers may not believe that they have time to view the big picture or to measure the
impact of their practice on student achievement because they are attempting to survive
the day. Dewey noted that, for experienced teachers, experience leads to automated
thinking in one direction, which only narrows the teachers’ thinking, limiting their chance
of opportunities for new learning (Attard, 2007). In both cases, the shallow thinking,
caused by a desire to stay within the comfort zone requires “little cognitive effort on the
part of the teacher and little questioning of deeply held beliefs about teaching and learn-
ing” (Grant, 2001, p. 238). This type of tacit learning limits growth. With no place to
question and reflect on practice, such as professional development, the teacher’s habitual

42
practices continue. In reform efforts, the needs of all teachers are the focus of pro-
fessional learning. Just as some teachers may have deficit thinking that affects their
ability to be successful in teaching, some teachers will be at the point of habitual practice.
Professional Learning Community
The professional learning community (PLC) model has been found to have a posi-
tive impact on teachers’ beliefs (Hellner, 2008; Hipp, Huffman, Pankake, & Olivier,
2008; Padwad & Dixit, 2008); as a result, many schools have moved to implement a PLC
model. However, DuFour (2007) argued that not all schools are implementing the model
correctly. A PLC is not simply a structure that is placed within the school; it is rather a
practice that is embedded in the culture of the school According to DuFour, many
schools claim to have a PLC model but only few implement the model with fidelity,
making research difficult and inconsistent in identifying the effectiveness of the PLC.
Based on a review of the literature, effective PLCs have in common a shared leadership
style, a common vision or focus, structured collaboration centered around student work as
it relates to teaching and learning, and an open culture.
Shared leadership focuses on supporting the development of teachers by distribut-
ing roles. Leadership is important in PLC because it frames the direction of the culture of
the school (Hipp et al., 2008). Nelson, LeBard, and Water (2010) listed strong leadership
that includes teachers and administrators as one of the central characteristics of a PLC.
This includes school-level leadership, department-level leadership, and classroom-level
leadership. Hellner (2008) added that leadership should be distributed in terms of
“power, authority and decision making” (p. 50) while being supportive. The leadership
should be student-centered while focusing on teaching and learning (Hipp et al., 2008).

43
A focus on teaching and learning based on student work is characterized as
central to the PLC collaborative model. Nelson et al. (2010) stated that the purpose of
looking and student work is to understand student thinking and inform teaching practice.
Student work should be viewed in the context of previous assignments and as it relates to
objectives and standards. The focus on students should not be superficial but embedded
within the culture of the school (Hellner, 2008). Leadership has a central role in
incorporating a culture of teaching and learning within the school (Hipp et al., 2008).
A genuine focus on student work allows for authentic questions to arise (Nelson et al.,
2010). Further, the focus on student work allows for in-depth conversation on teaching
and learning without focusing on the teacher but focusing on the practice and the product.
The collaborative practice that improves teaching and learning should be a norm
that is embedded in the culture of the school. Although there are many forms of collabor-
ation, Nelson et al. (2010) described the inquiry cycle approach as effective. Key charac-
teristics, as identified by Nelson et al., are a common focus, implementation, and analysis
involving deep conversations and an improving approach. The focus is not only on
students but specifically on student learning; the implementation focuses on the teaching
and learning aspect while the analysis is based on student work. The authentic conversa-
tion can be difficult to have; however, by maintaining a culture of improvement, the
conversation generates a co-construction of knowledge (Hellner, 2008). New knowledge
is constructed through sharing practices and analyzing current practice, driven by a real
problem.
Schools or programs implementing the PLC model have been shown to have a
positive impact on teachers’ beliefs and practices. Padwad and Dixit (2008) found that

44
teachers participating in a PLC developed a higher sense of self-agency and focused on
the process of learning rather than the product of learning. That is, teachers approached
classroom problems with a belief that that they could address the problems. Further,
teachers were more willing to try different activities in the classroom to improve student
learning. Hord, Meehan, Orletsky, and Sattes (1999) found that participation in a PLC
led teachers to take ownership of student success and failure and better understanding of
teaching and learning. Carver (2004) found that teachers felt more “empowered as
professionals and responsible for their own learning” (p. 60). Jackson and Street (2005)
found that teachers participating in a collaborative inquiry process had a greater sense of
self-efficacy. Participation in a PLC that includes the cited characteristics has been
shown to have a positive impact on teachers’ practices and beliefs.
Chapter Summary
Historical trend reveals that the achievement gap is widening between various
SES groups, yet some schools are demonstrating that the achievement gap can be closed.
Studies of the success of these schools all point to schoolwide implementations. Despite
the cited research, high-performing high-poverty schools are rare. Research has identi-
fied systems such as school culture, collective efficacy, and school leadership to have an
impact on student achievement. Connected to poor performance and high performance
are teachers’ beliefs, such as expectations, self-efficacy, and deficit thinking. Pro-
fessional learning experiences such as collaboration and dialogue have been tied to
teacher practice and student achievement. The complex relationship between the struc-
tures and systems to effect change in teacher practice to improve student achievement has
been insufficiently researched.

45
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Underperformance by high-poverty schools, as compared to low-poverty schools,
has been coined the achievement gap (Coleman, 1966; NCEE, 1983). This condition
translates to a gap in achievement between underrepresented minorities and their White
counterparts, as race and SES are closely linked (Bainbridge & Lasley, 2002). Despite
findings that show that over the past few decades the achievement gap is widening
(NCEE, 1983), there has been several studies that show that high-poverty schools can be
high performing. Studies such as those by Reeves (2003) and Marzano (2003) have con-
sistently identified qualities in high-performing high-poverty schools, such as leadership,
positive expectations, and strong academic focus. Nevertheless, high-performing high-
poverty schools remain the exception rather than the norm.
The purpose of this study was to add to the growing body of literature on struc-
tures and systems in high-performing high-poverty schools to aid in consistency of
implementation. Specifically, this study addresses the structures and systems associated
with changing teacher beliefs through professional learning. This study identifies current
teacher belief and the structures and systems within the professional learning of teachers
to address teacher beliefs. The aim of the study was to identify what structures and
systems associated with professional learning most effectively impacted student
achievement.
To identify the most effective structures and systems, three research questions
were addressed:

46
1. What are perceived schoolwide systems and structures that contribute to high
achievement in high-poverty schools?
2. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support higher
levels of student achievement?
3. How do school leaders/instructional leaders support professional learning in
cultivating effective classroom instruction
Research Design
To address the research questions, a qualitative case study approach was used.
Merriam (2009) noted that the purpose of a qualitative study is to “understand how
people make sense . . . of their lives and experiences” (p. 23). This study was designed to
understand what systems and structures contributed to high achievement in high-poverty
schools. Further, the study was designed to understand teacher beliefs and their relation-
ship to professional learning experiences. Patton (2002) noted that “qualitative data
describes . . . the time and place of the observation. [Qualitative data] capture and
communicate someone else’s experience . . . in his or her own words. Qualitative data
tell a story” (p. 47). This study was designed to identify the most effective structures and
systems of professional learning by capturing and observing teacher beliefs and compar-
ing them to documents and data.
The case study approach was chosen as the best option to address the research
questions. Merriam (2009) defined a case study as an “in-depth description and analysis
of a bounded system” (p. 40). A bounded system is defined as a single unit, which in this
study was the school site. A qualitative study allows the researcher to analyze the effect-
ive practices in a naturalistic setting where observations and findings are contextualized.

47
Although there is a misconception that “general knowledge is more valuable than context
specific knowledge” (Merriam, 2009, p. 53), Merriam stated that context knowledge is
more valuable and underestimated. An in-depth analysis, through the case study
approach, allowed this researcher to analyze the complex relationship between the
structures and systems of the school to identify effective professional learning practices
to change teacher beliefs.
Sample and Population
Patton (2003) suggested that case studies use purposeful sampling or “informa-
tion-rich cases . . . [by] which one can learn a great deal about issues of central import-
ance to the purpose of the study” (p. 46). Purposeful sampling was used to choose the
case study school site and the sample within the school. The focus on high-performing
high-poverty schools led the researcher to define high-performing high-poverty before
identifying a school for the study. A thematic dissertation group of six doctoral candi-
dates defined a high-performing high school as meeting the following three criteria:
(a) similar school rank of 8 or higher; (b) an API of 750 or higher, with evidence of
consistent growth; (c) meeting AYP for all subgroups over the previous few years. The
group also defined a high-poverty high school as having Title I status based on 40% of its
students receiving free or reduced-price lunches. Race, represented by underrepresented
minorities, was suggested as a proxy to Title I status because of the strong correlation
between race and SES. The need to have a proxy arose as students were not accurately
reporting their parents’ financial state for fear of stigma associated with the label.
Given the definition of high-performing high-poverty school determined by the
thematic group, the purposeful sampling process began in two places: the CDE and the

48
greater school website. The study school was chosen based on meeting the stated criteria,
information provided from the websites, and insight provided by a contact within the
district confirming that the study school had strong leadership focused on professional
learning. The purposeful sampling led the researcher to identify a school that would
provide rich insight into the systems and structures within the school to support the
professional learning and, ultimately, teacher practice.
Overview of the School
Golden High School (GHS; pseudonym) was selected for its consistent gains in
API, given the demographics of the school. Information from the district identified GHS
as having a strong leader known for developing teacher leaders. GHS is a large urban
comprehensive high school with 2,930 students, located in southern California. Based on
2009 demographics data, 83% of the students were identified as Hispanic or Latino, 13%
as White, and 1% Asian (Table 1).
The GHS 2009 base API was 768, with a growth of 59 points over the previous
3 years. The 2009 API data revealed that GHS met AYP for all subgroups in the 2008-
2009 school year and had earned a similar school ranking of 10 for the previous 2 years
(Table 2, Figure 1). Although GHS did not qualify for Title I (by a margin of less than
2%), the school qualified for the study by using race as a proxy (83% Hispanic/Latino).
In 2009 GHS Hispanic/Latino population earned an API of 759 and its low-SES students
earned an API of 760. GHS exceeded its AYP by 11 points. GHS’s exceptional per-
formance without the additional Title I funds, especially related to SES disadvantage and
Hispanic/Latino population, as well as its leadership’s focus on professional learning,

49

Table 1

Demographic Data for Students at Golden High School (GHS) and California State
Averages

Data variable and category GHS (%) State average (%)

Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 83 49
White 13 28
Asian 1 8

Student status
Title I 43 51
English language learner 7 24

Table 2

Golden High School (GHS) Academic Performance Index (API), Academic Yearly Pro-
gress (AYP) and School Ranking History

Similar
Actual Statewide school
School year Base API AYP API growth growth rank rank

2006-2007 709 5 714 5 6 9
2007-2008 714 5 752 38 7 10
2008-2009 752 5 768 16 7 10

50
Subgroup API
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
School Year
API
Hispanic 703 742 759
White 763 796 820
Soc Dis 673 714 760
EL 654 702 717
SPED 451 504 567
2007 2008 2009

Figure 1. Subgroup Academic Progress Index (API) trajectory for Golden High School,
academic years 2007-2009.

provided insight into what structures and systems are necessary for high achievement in
high-poverty schools.
Conceptual Framework
A theoretical framework is the “body of literature, the disciplinary orientation that
you draw upon to situate your study” (Merriam, 2009, p. 68). The conceptual framework
was designed by the thematic group based on McDavid and Hawthorne’s (2006) logic
model. McDavid and Hawthorne designed the logic model to assess the effectiveness of
a program, in this case a school (Figure 2).

51

Figure 2. Conceptual framework for the current study based on the McDavid and
Hawthorne logic model.

The McDavid/Hawthorne (2006) model has six parts: (a) needs, (b) objectives,
(c) input, (d) activities, (e) output, and (f) actual outcomes. The model was chosen
because it accurately describes “the underlying structure, the scaffolding, or frame”
(p. 66) of the study (p. 66). The need was based on the target population, which in the
case of the study, was to close the achievement gap between high-poverty and low-
poverty schools. The objective was based on the needs of the population; thus, the
objective for this study was to realize a high-performing high-poverty school. The input
in the case of this study was the structure system of the school: NCLB and state standards

52
and structures with the school, such as a master calendar. The systems in this study were
sociocultural learning activities within professional learning experiences. The focus, or
output, of this study was a change in teacher beliefs. The actual outcomes are the impact
that the structures and systems have on the output. The goal in assessing the program
was to confirm that the outcomes met the objective of the program. If the outcomes have
met the objective, the program is labeled effective. In the case of this study, the school
was defined as highly effective because the outcomes of the school (the API) showed that
the school had met its objective (high performing). This study focused on the structures
and systems of the study school to identify the essential structures and systems leading to
the outcome of high performance.
Data Collection
Data collection was initiated by written request to the administrator of GHS.
During a personal meeting, research methods, procedures, and time frame were discussed
and approved. The study spanned 3 months, and data were collected via semistructured
interviews, observations, and document analysis. Multiple methods of data collection
were utilized for triangulation purposes. Merriam (2009) stated that triangulation
increases internal validity. That is, through the use of multiple sources of data, collected
information can be confirmed or disconfirmed. Patton (2002) noted that the “point [of
triangulation] is really to test for such consistency” (p. 248). The consistencies and
inconsistencies found in the data through multiple methods allow for a richer analysis.
Participants
This study involved the following participants: one principal, one instructional
assistant principal, one college counselor, one office manager, three lead teachers, and

53
two classroom teachers. Table 3 shows each respondent’s position, credential status,
years of experience, and years at the current school.

Table 3

Interview Respondents’ Credential and Experience

Fully Years Years
Position credentialed at site in education

Principal Y 3.5 Unknown
Assistant Principal Y 3.5 18
Counselor Y 8 8
Office Staff N/A <1 <1
Teacher A Y 6 6
[Lead] Teacher B Y 12 12
[Lead] Teacher C Y 15 15
[Lead] Teacher D Y 6 6
Teacher E Y 7 15

Interviews
Interviews allow the researcher to identify things that cannot be directly observed
and to triangulate data (Patton, 2002). Interviews range from structured to open-ended;
semistructured interviews were chosen by the thematic dissertation group. This form of
interview allows for flexibility for both researcher and respondent (Merriam, 2009). It is

54
open ended so that the researcher can understand the perspective of the respondent while
still getting the specific information needed. Interviews in this study were 45 minutes
long and data were collected through transcription of digitally recorded interviews.
Contextualized direct quotes from the respondents gave the researcher insight into the
respondents’ “feelings, thoughts and intentions” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). Digital recording
allowed the interviews to be conversational and free flowing while getting the informa-
tion needed.
Interview protocols and questions were designed by the thematic dissertation
group. The three protocols, designed for administrators, teachers, and classified staff
(Appendices A, B, C) clearly indicated to the respondents that the interviews were not
evaluative. Interview questions were written to correlate with research questions. Table
4 shows what research question was addressed by each interview question in each of the
three interview protocols.
Observations
Observations differ from interview in two ways: (a) “Observations take place in
the setting where the phenomenon naturally occurs,” and (b) “observational data repre-
sent a firsthand encounter with the phenomenon of interest” (Merriam, 2009, p. 117).
Through observation, triangulation of data was possible. The observations provided the
researcher with firsthand experience. The thematic group designed an observation guide.
Observation data were scripted at the time of observation. The purpose of the observa-
tions was to capture the participants in a natural context. The thematic group decided that
observation would include one district meeting, one staff meeting, two department meet-
ings, two subject-alike meetings, five classroom sessions, and general site observations.

55

Table 4

Relationship of Interview Protocol Questions to Research Questions (RQ) for Each Type
of Respondent

Interview
Respondent group question RQ 1 RQ 2 RQ 3

Administrators
1
2 X
3 X
4 X
5 X
6 X
7 X X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X X
11 X X

Teachers
1
2 X
3 X
4 X X
5 X
6 X X
7 X X

1
2 X
3 X
4 X
5 X X
6 X X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X X

Classified staff

56
The observation protocols (Appendices D, E, F) were designed by the thematic group to
address the research questions.
Documents
Documents and artifacts provided the last piece for triangulating data. Documents
and artifacts produce “a particularly rich source of information about many organiza-
tions” that cannot be seen through observations (Patton, 2002, p. 293). They provide
information on what has happened in the past, as well as goals and decisions that have
been made. The thematic group chose documents to be analyzed. Table 5 indicates the
relationship between the documents and the research questions.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was completed according to Creswell’s (2003) model for data
analysis (Figure 3). Data were first recorded through scripting or digital recording. All
digital recordings were transcribed. Data were coded and analyzed for emerging themes.
Finally, based on the emergent themes, meaning was made from the data.
Ethical Considerations
The proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the
University of Southern California (USC) to confirm that the protocol for human research
was correctly followed. Written consent was attained from all participants prior to the
research being conducted to ensure voluntary participation. All collected data (observa-
tions, interview data, and reviewed documents) were treated as confidential. Pseudonyms
were used to maintain anonymity for all involved.

57

Table 5

Relationship of Reviewed Documents to the Research Questions (RQ)

Document group and document RQ 1 RQ 2 RQ 3

School background and profile
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) X
List of teachers and support staff X
Professional Development Plan X
Daily and Instructional Schedule/Bell Schedule X
English Learner’s master, technology,
and safe schools plan X
Agendas and minutes X
Lesson plans X

Achievement results
California Standards Tests scores and
Local Assessments Data for a 3-year period X X
Local benchmarks X X

Parent/community involvement
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) X
School/Parent Handbook X
School website
Single School Plan X X

Fiscal information
Single School Plan X X
Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) Report X

Other information
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Action Plan/Self-Study/Visiting Team Report X X
California Distinguished School Application X
Schoolwide Behavior Plan X

58

Step 6: Interpret or make meaning of the data.
Step 5: Decide how the description and themes will be represented
in the study narrative.
Step 4: Use coding process to develop a description of the
participants and/or setting. Use coding to develop themes
or categories. Themes are analyzed for each interview and
across interviews.
Step 3: Begin detail analysis with a coding process
(organizing the material into chunks before
bringing meaning to the data).
Step 2: Read through all the data (first
obtaining a general sense)
Step 1: Organize and prepare the
data for analysis.

Figure 3. Adaptation of Creswell’s model for qualitative data analysis. From Research
Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.), by J. W.
Creswell, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

59
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings from this case study of a high-performing high-
poverty school and the structures and systems within the school that contribute to high
performance by the underrepresented minority students. Specifically, the study focused
on the structures and systems of the professional learning experiences at the school while
simultaneously examining teacher beliefs.
For the purposes of this case study, one high-performing high-poverty high school
was selected. GHS, located in southern California, missed qualifying as a Title I school
by 2%. Despite the lack of Title I status, the school was selected based on race as a
proxy, since a majority of its students were underrepresented minorities (83% Hispanic or
Latino). The school was identified as high performing based on its consistent growth in
API over the previous 3 years, specifically related to socioeconomically disadvantaged
students, who earned an API score of 760. The findings reported in this chapter are based
on interviews, observations, and artifact analysis. Nine interviews were conducted with
administrators, teachers, and classified staff. Observations were made of five classroom
session, two subject-alike meetings, two department meetings, one schoolwide meeting,
and one district meeting. The chapter is organized to present the qualitative data in
response to each research question.
Research Questions
The reported findings are directly related to the following three research
questions:

60
1. What are perceived schoolwide systems and structures that contribute to high
achievement in high-poverty schools?
2. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support higher
levels of student achievement?
3. How do school leaders/instructional leaders support professional learning in
cultivating effective classroom instruction?
The data were triangulated and analyzed using interviews, observations, and
review of artifacts. Triangulation was used to increase the reliability and validity of the
study findings. The findings are presented as they relate to each research question.
Following each set of findings is a detailed analysis and summary of the findings for that
research question.
Findings for Research Question 1: Perceived
Systems and Structures
Research question 1 asked, “What are perceived schoolwide systems and struc-
tures that contribute to high achievement in high-poverty schools?” Structures can be
understood as institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures established by federal,
state, or district policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official formation of the
school, not subject to change at the local school site. Systems are coordinated and
coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students, parents, funds, facilities, etc.) at the
school site to ensure that a school’s mission, vision, and goals are met. This section is
organized by two structures—standards-driven curriculum and preventions and interven-
tions—and the systems that support each structure. The analysis focuses on the overall
impact of these structures and systems on student achievement.

61
Standards-Driven Curriculum
Based on the observation of classroom instruction and interviews, GHS has a
strong focus on teaching and learning by having a standards-driven curriculum. During
an observation of a subject-alike meeting on a benchmark examination (common assess-
ment), the struggle to identify the essential material became the topic of discussion. As
the teachers focused on each question they discussed the following: (a) Is the question
addressing the standard? (b) What are possible reasons students could answer the ques-
tion incorrectly? (c) What percentage of students answered the question correctly in
previous years? Consistently, the teachers chose to focus questions on state standards but
left teaching beyond the standard to the discretion of each teacher. The influence that
state standards have on the teacher’s choice of material taught and assessed was observed
during the subject-alike meeting.
In “Steps to Realizing the Vision” the district (not listed in references for reasons
of confidentiality) states that “each subject area has approved State Content Standards
that include more standards than can be thoroughly and effectively taught in a school
year. The District will continue to utilize Essential Standards to focus instruction the
most important areas.” The document clarifies Essential Standards as “those content
standards that appear most frequently in common high-stakes assessments . . . and are
necessary for students to know as they progress to the next level course in sequence.”
Despite the difficulty of teaching all of the standards, Teacher D stated, “We decided as a
team that we want to cover all the standards before the test in May as opposed to leaving
a few after the test. So, we set up a pacing guide.” The observed group followed the
“Guide to Instructional Direction” as it explicitly states that the “essential standards be
reflected prominently in all site based interim assessments” and common assessments.

62
Following the assessment, Teacher D stated that reflection on student performance
discussions began by the group saying, “Here’s the standards that [the question] hit. Most
of our students missed this question. We should address the standards.” The meetings
often focused on student performance as it related to the standards.
Focus on academic achievement. GHS was observed to have a strong focus on
academic achievement at the district, school, and classroom levels. At the district level, a
focus on improving student achievement is echoed by the superintendent in a districtwide
meeting, as well as in the district pamphlet. In a districtwide school opening meeting, the
superintendent echoed the district’s mission to “provide all students with an engaging,
quality, standards-driven instructional program . . . resulting in improved student achieve-
ment” (GHS mission statement, not listed in references for reasons of confidentiality).
She continued by announcing the teacher of the year and by recognizing his efforts to
improve student achievement. She acknowledged the academic achievement strengths of
various schools. In the district’s “Guide to Instructional Direction” the superintendent is
quoted as stating, “We must use all of our energies and resources to focus on a common
priority-improved student achievement.” The message to focus on academic achieve-
ment resonates from the highest authority in the district. Also present in the superinten-
dent’s speech was the close link between improved student achievement caused by a
standards-driven curriculum.
The focus on academic achievement was present not only in the superintendent’s
speech but also in the “Guide to Instructional Direction.” As teachers entered the district
meeting, they were greeted by a video documenting the academic and social accomplish-
ments of the students at each school. Each school shouted in excitement and pride as

63
their school’s academic accomplishments were shown. The focus on academic achieve-
ment also extends into the case study school, GHS. Student work and scores were seen in
the principal’s office and multiple schoolwide awards are given such as Principal’s Honor
Roll. When asked how the school acknowledges student achievement, Teacher A stated,
“We have the student of the month. . . . There’s always just positive encouragement from
administration with everything.” Current grades and student work were observed on the
walls of four of the five observed classrooms. Teacher D not only had a spreadsheet of
scores but also a list of students who had improved from previous test scores. The
Chemistry teacher (Teacher D) contended that student progress, no matter how small,
should be acknowledged.
If they go from atoms and nuclear as 50%, and then periodic table, they get a
52%, then it’s like, “Alright, hey, you did it! Okay, you’re still failing but you’re
improving.” And so I try to encourage them, “Just beat that score, just get a little
bit higher.” I’ll reward them.
Teacher A explained,
That’s one way that we can help students when we know like, “If you got an F
and you went to a C, heck, I’m happy!” I don’t expect everybody to get an A in
chemistry. I want them to do their personal best because that’s all you can do.
The Assistant Principal added,
Whatever we need to do to get students to be successful, that’s what we need to
do. That’s very much how our teachers feel. And I think our students can see
that.
Further, students are rewarded for academic achievement and meeting standards
by leaving class 20 minutes early to participate in a program the school calls “embedded
support.” Embedded support is an additional 20 minutes attached to every class.
Teachers may use this time in any way they choose. All five observed teachers used this
as remediation time for students who had not shown mastery of the standards. All

64
students who earned above 70% (showing proficiency in standards) were dismissed and
permitted to have an extended break.
Schoolwide writing. The second system, the schoolwide writing program, aims
to improve student test scores on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
GHS was observed to place a strong emphasis on improving the informative writing of
students. The school implements a writing program that requires students to have formal
writing assessments each month. According to a calendar provided by the school, each
department is assigned a month in which the department is required to provide a common
writing assessment. In a subject-alike meeting, the common writing assessment prompt
was designed with the feedback of all subject-alike group members and was based on the
content of the course. An interview with the course leader (Teacher C) led to the under-
standing that any teacher could suggest a prompt question and the group would decide
which prompt was the best and how it could be altered to meet student needs. According
to Teacher C, the teachers teach how to write while teaching content. On the assigned
week each teacher assigned the agreed common assessment.
According to Teacher C, the subject-alike group reconvenes the following week
and grades the assessment according to a common rubric. Next steps for improving
student understanding and writing skills are then discussed. This discussion was not
observed; information is based on the interview responses. Teacher B stated that the
writing program, although time intensive, has shown the greatest impact on the CAHSEE
scores. District data show that the CAHSEE English Language Arts (ELA) pass rate has
been increasing steadily over the past 3 years, from 79% to 84%. The teacher added that

65
she felt bad that the students were assessed so frequently, but that the data show that this
practice should continue.
Common assessments and data analysis. Common assessments are found
across the district quarterly and across the school based on length of units. District
common assessments are developed by course leaders and department chairs across the
district. Site-based interim assessments are designed by all teachers in the department.
In order to develop quality common assessments, the district has provided the following
guidelines in the “Guide to Instructional Direction”:
• Assessments must be closely aligned to pacing guide and what students were
“asked to learn.”
• Questions “must be individually analyzed to ensure that they are clear,
focused, agreed-upon, reliable and valid assessments that accurately measure
a specific curriculum standard.”
• “Each assessment must have a designated level of performance for determin-
ing proficiency.”
• “Assessment results must be able to identify students who are in need of
immediate intervention.”
• Analysis of data should provide insights as to how to improve instruction to
“improve the quality of student learning.”
• Data should be considered longitudinally by the department to “gauge the
level of student learning and instruction from year to year.”
These carefully crafted assessments become the source of data that provide teachers
insight into the student’s understanding of content standards.

66
The purpose of the data from common assessments ,according to the districts
“Guide to Instructional Direction” is to help teachers to (a) monitor learning over time to
provide necessary interventions for students, (b) identify effective practices that can be
developed further by group input, (c) identify content that should be re-taught, and
(d) provide timely interventions to increase number of students on track for graduation
and to meet the requirements of NCLB. Data are the focal point of analysis as the school
aims to provide interventions to ensure that all students improve understanding of the
standards and progress toward graduation.
Data are viewed as important not only by the district and school; teachers also
constantly refer to data as a primary source of insight into student learning and teaching
practices. During the interviews, teachers were asked how they decided that a certain
practice was effective. All teachers consistently referred to data as one factor that
indicated that students were learning the material. Teacher D stated, “It’s all data,”
referring to data as the driving force behind all collaborative efforts that “develop
[teachers] professionally.” At GHS data drove most collaborative efforts. All observed
meetings focused on data to identify which practices were effective.
The district and GHS utilize technology, called EADMS, to analyze data from
multiple perspectives. Each school site has an EADMS On Site Support Person to “train
teachers, department chairs, course leads teachers how to align questions to standards” as
well as other technical aspects of the technology. EADMS allows teachers, subject-alike
groups, departments, and the school to view data related to individual students, sub-
groups, individual standards, and so forth. Teacher C stated that Teacher D “divided
their data up by student subgroup, so they could look at how they did.” Through the use

67
of EADMS, teachers are able to see not only how their students did overall but how their
teaching practices are addressing the needs of individual students and subgroups.
Through the data analysis the school identified areas of growth. The data revealed that
the English Language Learner (ELL) students were not achieving proficiency on
standards as well as other groups; thus, this became an area of focus for all departments.
Goal setting. Another system supporting standards-driven curriculum is the use
of goal setting by the school, department chairs, course leaders, teachers, and students.
At the beginning of the school year, the school analyzed data and found that the school
had not met AYP for the ELL population. As a result, the primary goal of the school was
to focus on improving the performance of ELL students. The Assistant Principal, in
response to school goals, stated, “It’s the ELs that scored far below basic.” This new
goal was communicated to all department chairs in a meeting with the principal.
Through the leadership pipeline, the goal was communicated to course leaders and
teachers.
Prior to the opening of the school year, departments were observed to set goals
based on student performance on the CST for the previous 5 years. The data were
divided by proficiency levels, subjects, teachers, and periods. The observed departments
looked at 5 years of data and set department or course team goals for improvement by
stating a desired percentage increase in proficiency levels. Goal setting was followed by
a discussion of whether the team had met the previous year’s goal. While one department
had met its goal, the other had not. In both cases the departments reflected on best
practices and areas for improvement. In the case of both departments, goals were to be
shared with the administration team.

68
Within subject-alike meetings, course leaders looked at the CST data and student
grade data with teachers. Teachers looked at grades as compared to CST proficiency and
grades relative to students on target. Teachers discussed what worked, given the data,
and what they planned to do to improve. The two questions asked of the group on the
document were “2009-2010 plan? Did it work?” and “What do we plan to do 2010-
2011?” First, the group set measurable goals, then decided on best practices that all
would have in common. Based on the school goal, the group was also asked to consider
the ELL population. Again, the document was to be submitted to the administration
team.
Finally, teachers were asked to set individual goals. The document titled “Goals
to Reach Your Full Potential” asked six questions:
1. “What does check for understanding look like in your classroom?
2. How will you focus on increasing the number of students mastering the
content and receiving C’s or better?
3. How will you effectively use embedded support?
4. What instructional strategies/structures will you implement to guarantee 100%
student engagement for the entire period?
5. How do you ensure that the three areas of Rigor, Relevance, and Relationships
are rooted in your instruction and classroom environment?
6. How will you continue to implement specific strategies to improve critical
thinking through literacy?”
This document allowed sharing and implementation of best practices as a department and
the development of individual signature practices. This document was to be submitted to
course leaders and eventually to administration.

69
Prevention and Intervention
The second structure identified was that of Preventions and Interventions.
Although the focus on basic mathematics and reading skills was not observed in the
classrooms, the focus on basic mathematics and reading skills was found in the “Golden
High School Student Support Interventions and Preventions” brochure. An interview
with the school counselor reiterated the structures found at GHS to support student
comprehension and mastery of basic skills such as mathematics.
Looking at the Prevention and Intervention counseling department brochure,
many prevention programs are listed to support incoming freshman in mathematics and
reading. At the same time, GHS also has intervention programs for sophomores through
seniors. These classes range from standardized testing intervention courses to a year of
basic courses to build the necessary skills to be successful in the school. The counselor
added that the school does “whatever it takes” to meet the needs of the students. Aside
from the actual Preventions and Interventions to assist in student improvement, many
systems exist at GHS to identify students who are in need of help and to support students
to take ownership of their progress. Figure 4 summarizes the features of the Preventions
and Interventions program.
Directed support. Directed support is a system used by GHS to encourage
students to attend Preventions and Interventions classes and programs. Before a student
enters GHS, the counseling staff looks at the student’s academic and social history and
directs the student to certain prevention and intervention programs. At GHS students are
“directed” to go to the program instead of “invited” to attend. The counselor differenti-
ated the two:

70

Figure 4. Golden High School Preventions and Interventions program.

It’s the whole philosophy of directed rather than invited. I think the important
thing, when we’re looking at data or looking at the school, is identifying at-risk
students, whether academically or personally or socially or whatever it is, and
trying to direct them instead of invite them. Because we know that inviting a kid
to after-school tutoring is not going to work. So we say, “By the way, you’re
going to this guided study and it’s built in to your schedule.”
The counseling department, teachers and administration utilize multiple data-
driven checkpoints, including grades, CST scores, CAHSEE scores, and common assess-
ment scores, to identify at-risk students and direct them to the necessary support.
Communication. A system of communication among administrators, counselors,
teachers, parents, and students enables the school to provide a consistent message on

71
interventions and prevention to students regarding the steps they need to take to be on
target for graduation. The counselor commented,
We’re a lot more efficient in terms of communicating with parents . . . contacting
every single family, sending them a letter and then, of course, responding, follow-
ing up with the seniors. But we’re sending a letter to all seniors, juniors, and
sophomores that are off target, that are missing a course or more than that, and
spelling it out in that letter. Not only that, but also instructing them about their
options for making up that course.
Thus, parents and students are aware of the gaps in progress toward graduation.
Through the new block scheduling, counselors have more opportunities to
collaborate with teachers. The counselor stated that he can attend department and content
area meetings, where he can collaborate to help students. Further, technology allows for
immediate intervention response. The Counselor asserted,
Some type of immediate response, whether it’s teachers emailing me. We have
our own little internal blogs. “Hey! This kid hasn’t been doing well. Yeah, it’s
happened with me.” Because teachers have no problem not only emailing me, but
now that there are tools like Zangle, which enable them to see other things like
other teachers and attendance, it actually is kind of cool because it allows us all to
be a lot more responsive at a much faster rate. That’s also really critical: the
speed at which we respond.
Collaboration by teachers and counselors, along with technology, allows quick access
and quick response to students in need.
Bell schedule and embedded support. In the past year GHS decided to switch
to the block schedule based on a vote by the leadership team. According to administra-
tion research, the block schedule had shown increased student achievement, had allowed
for the embedded support program, and had a built-in time for daily meetings. According
to the principal, research is a common practice at GHS. Further, the school does not
choose to implement new programs every year; instead, they choose to revise existing
programs first.

72
The bell schedule sustains several of the systems addressed in research question 1,
such as focus on academic achievement, focus on the basics, and teaching and learning.
The embedded support program is built into the schedule so that teachers have the option
of holding class for an extra 20 minutes. Although it is the teacher’s choice as to use the
minutes, it was observed that most teachers used it as a remediation time to focus on the
basics. Teachers were observed to dismiss all students with a certain grade or higher and
hold students who needed help. During the 20 minutes, some teachers asked students to
turn in work, some taught, and some gave quizzes. One benefit was that students with
high academic achievement were rewarded and those who improved were recognized
because they were released from the program.
The counselor summarized,
The block schedule has really been tremendous for student achievement perform-
ance because it’s enabled teachers to have extra time with the students that need
more. So, they call it embedded support. Basically, the idea is for students that
need the most have that opportunity to spend more time with their teachers and
students that are getting that A, plus that are solid, to have that incentive to be
able to have an extended nutrition. That’s another piece there that I think has
been tremendous.
In comparing the block schedule to the former method of meetings, Teachers C stated,
When I first started working here, we had “houses.” So, like a freshman Social
Studies teacher was paired up with a freshman English teacher and we would
have our meetings and talk about our kids. I guess was a precursor to this. But
this just seems much more effective. We talked best practices all the time and
we’re constantly learning. It’s not just within our department, too.
Supporting the needs of the students through intervention and prevention programs, as
well as built-in scheduled support, was identified as a system within GHS to improve
student achievement.

73
The other aspect of the bell schedule that maintains the systems is the built-in
time for meetings. Every day there is a scheduled time for teachers to meet. During this
time, department meetings, subject-alike meetings, academy meetings, and school meet-
ings are held. During interviews, Teachers C and D noted that collaboration had been
difficult prior to the switch to the block schedule because there was no consistent time to
meet. During these meetings various groups of teachers looked at data, discussed what to
teach, shared best practices, and designed common assessments. Because of the block
schedule, teachers had multiple opportunities to collaborate within departments, within
subject-alike groups, and within the academy.
Figure 5 summarizes the structures and systems that are used at GHS to support
student achievement in an effort to close the achievement gap.

Figure 5. Summary of the structures and systems at Golden High School to support
student achievement to close the achievement gap.

74
Analysis of the Results for Research Question 1
GHS has shown significant success with a population of students that most
schools struggle to serve: socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In an attempt to
understand how the case study school was serving the needs of the students, the first
research question asked about the current structures and systems present at the school that
positively impacted student achievement. A common structure within which GHS was
working was the constraint of NCLB and meeting AYP.
First, a focus on academic achievement was a consistent message found not only
at GHS but in the district as well. Consistent action on behalf of administration and
teachers reinforced the message that the school’s focus was academic achievement.
Inherent in the focus on achievement was the focus on writing and standards. To support
the writing skills, as well as the thinking process, GHS has a monthly content-related
writing program that requires students to build informative writing and processing skills,
which was identified as a need in the research. Collaboration by teachers is required to
design and implement the program. Successful implementation of this program occurs
because the teachers believe that the program impacts students’ achievement. Further,
standardized grading allows for best practices to be shared by teachers.
In addition to the writing program, a general focus on teaching and learning is
present at GHS. The focus in each classroom is the essentials of each state standard.
Information beyond the standard was considered to be extraneous by most teachers; thus,
they focused only on the essentials. The delivery of content was different for each
teacher. It is important to note that one style of teaching was not viewed as better than
another style. Teachers and administration agreed that different teachers had different

75
strengths that should be emphasized. Teachers stated that they chose various teaching
practices based on the data and student needs. Further, common unit assessments
allowed for sharing of best practices, often the focus of weekly meetings. A general trust
in the teacher’s intention to best serve the students was present at GHS.
Next, to improve student achievement, the school focuses on the basics of mathe-
matics and reading. To support all students, the school has a system of preventions and
interventions to which students are directed. Many of the programs listed under the
preventions list are designed specifically to help incoming freshman students to improve
their mathematics and reading skills. GHS also has several interventions to support
student achievement on standardized tests, including standardized test preparation
programs. The GHS focus on preventions demonstrates the focus on the needs of every
student by preventing the student from failure by looking at performance even before
entrance into, especially in core skills such as mathematics and reading. A well-
researched set of interventions, along with the intervention specialist, demonstrated
GHS’s well-thought-out plan for students who need assistance.
Although GHS student demographics are very similar to those of Title I schools,
failure of students to complete eligibility forms for free/reduced-cost lunch caused GHS
to miss the Title I designation by 2%. As a result, GHS does not receive Title I funding.
Despite the lower budget, GHS still manages to develop teachers professionally. First,
GHS maximizes its own resources by creating multiple opportunities to collaborate
within departments, subject-alike groups, and academies. During all of these collabora-
tion opportunities, best practices are shared based on data and teacher requests. Second,
the administration chooses teachers who they believe can benefit from outside

76
professional learning opportunities and can bring back valuable information and insight
to share with others at the school. By maximizing collaborative learning opportunities
based on data and developing teacher leaders, GHS has sustained professional learning at
GHS.
The bell schedule at GHS allows for maximizing collaboration opportunities. The
bell schedule has built-in time for teachers to meet daily. This time is used to collaborate
with other teachers to design common assessment and review data to identify best
practices that sustain the professional learning of teachers. The bell schedule also allows
teachers to focus on academic problems of low-performing students. Through the
embedded support program, teachers focus their energy on a smaller group of students
and help them to meet their potential. The teachers strongly agreed that, with additional
support, like embedded support, all students can meet their academic potential. The
counselor stated that, by directing students to remain in class and receive support, GHS
has demonstrated success as a school with student attendance in intervention programs.
Summary for Research Question 1
GHS was observed to have 7 of the 10 characteristics identified by Reeves (2003)
and Marzano (2003) that contribute to high performance in high-poverty schools. The
remaining three traits may have been present at GHS but were not observed or mentioned
directly. Each of these traits was not only found at the level that Marzano and Reeves
stated; they penetrate the district, administration, teachers, and students. The modeling
and consistent presence of each system is present at GHS.

77
Findings for Research Question 2: Implementation
and Sustainability of Systems
The second research question asked, “How are organizational systems imple-
mented and sustained to support higher levels of student achievement?” The multifaceted
interrelationship between school structures and systems of teacher practice and beliefs
has not been addressed by the literature. GHS has several systems in place to implement
and sustain the systems addressed in research question 1. This section contains a dis-
cussion of the findings associated with sustaining and implementing the structures and
systems identified in research question 1.
High Expectations
High expectations for the student and the school are demonstrated through the
goals that written and assessed, as well as activities that are held at the school. Further,
high expectations for students, teachers, staff, and administrators were observed,
addressed in interviews, and found within the mission of the school.
High expectations were echoed throughout the school by its motto, “Whatever it
takes,” a motto taken on by the district. The “whatever it takes” attitude can be seen in
the numerous preventions and interventions offered to students. The belief that all
students can succeed is shown by the teachers’ initiatives to come to school on Saturday
because they believe that the students can succeed with additional help. Teacher A
credited Saturday school with having drastically decreased the number of students
earning a failing grade.
Goal is, if you don’t pass my test, if you get an F on my test, you’re going to go to
Saturday school. I’ve done that. This is my third year that I’ve done it. I’ve been
teaching chemistry for 4 years. My first year I saw a lot of kids fail. So, of
course, the first year they did challenge me, “Okay, I’m not going to study.” And
I said, “Guess what you’re going to do? You’re going to Saturday school.” I only

78
had two people get an F in chemistry on first semester and second semester.
Those kids were the ones who decided to ditch my Saturday school.
If teachers are not providing Saturday school, they are on campus early and leave campus
late. One teacher addresses the positive pressure felt in staff to have high expectations
and to provide students with “whatever it takes” to help them succeed. Teacher C noted,
One of the things that’s unique about the school is that the teachers are always
available. At least I feel like they are. My classrooms usually open at 7:15 to the
rest of the day. . . . If a student needs to stay for lunch, I stay for lunch. I think
most teachers are like that. A lot of our teachers are here until 5:30. . . . I’m here
in the morning. But, there is that pressure too. I drive in at 7:15 and there are
already a dozen cars and our school doesn’t start until almost 9:00. So, there is
that kind of a peer pressure to make sure you’re here and available. It’s a good
thing.
The counseling office has a calendar of events that occur throughout the year for
all students because they believe that all students can succeed. The counselor stated,
There is an expectation that all students will succeed and that we’re going to
pretty much make sure we place them in the most rigorous program that they can
manage. When there isn’t, there’s going to be some type of immediate response.
High expectations are seen not only between teachers and students but also
between teachers and administration. The administration has high expectations of the
staff and believes that the staff has the knowledge and ability to make decisions in the
best interests of the school. The principal stated that she has “respect [for] how brilliant
[the] staff is, and how exceptional [the] classified employees ideas are, and how import-
ant every person is . . . . I have high expectations; I’m here to serve other people.” For
instance, when the administration team comes to observe, teachers consider that they are
present to help and/or learn best practices to share with others. When teachers and
departments set goals, accountability is on the department. A culture of trust, discussed
later in this chapter, allows for high expectations to be communicated to students, staff,
and administration.

79
Common Language and Beliefs
A common language and beliefs system exists at GHS and in the district that
allows structures and systems to be implemented and sustained. Many of the systems and
structures in place are described using the phrases that are used by the district, school,
administration, teachers, counselors, classified staff, and students. For instance, the
superintendent mentioned the “3Rs: Rigor, Relevance and Relationships.” All inter-
viewees echoed the “3Rs” as one of the goals of the school. A clear communication
system focusing on goals has allowed everyone to be familiar with them across the
district. Other terminology consistent throughout the interview and observation pro-
cesses included goal setting, common assessments, embedded support, and directed
support. When these systems were referred to, each person knew what it was and
explained it in similar ways.
The common language allowed everyone involved to talk about systems without
confusion, but the common belief in the systems allowed fidelity in implementing the
systems. For instance, the “3Rs” was not only mentioned as one of the school goals but
was restated by most interviewees as a personal goal. Primarily, the relationship piece
was echoed as the goal beyond academics. All interviewees agreed that their goal as
teachers was to develop “good people.” Teachers asserted that they cared about the
students. They stated that one of the strengths of the school was the academies that
allowed students to focus on auto mechanics or engineering if they wanted. They agreed
that the school cared about what the student wanted and helped the student to achieve
personal goals. Teachers apparently believed in the systems as positive contributors to
success and so they sustained the systems. For instance, data were considered to be a
good tool for gaining insight into the student. One teacher contended that students were

80
overtested but still supported the schoolwide writing program because it provided results.
The counselor supported directed intervention because he saw an increase in the number
of students in attendance in various programs.
Collaboration
GHS’s culture promotes collaboration to sustain professional learning. The
schedule at GHS provides teachers with multiple opportunities to collaborate. During
these opportunities, teachers look at data and discuss best practices. In all observed
meetings, collaboration was evident. Based on observation, the culture created by
administrators and teacher leaders has led all teachers to feel comfortable in expressing
opinions. During these meetings teachers seemed comfortable in bringing up topics of
concern, asking for help, and providing help. Aside from moving the group along, the
leader did not appear to be the sole provider of knowledge and experience. The culture
of the school was one of respect and valuing everyone’s knowledge and experience. The
principal commented,
We’re at a point right now where I think our collaboration’s pretty good, and I
think our next point is, we have some—the majority of our teachers are pretty
amazing. We still have some gaps in good instruction. . . . the idea of collabora-
tion brings out the best instruction.
She added that outside professional learning experiences would be helpful but, due to
financial restrictions they, “use the collaborative process [to develop teachers], and then
our district does a really great job with staff development, too.” The primary purpose
of collaboration, as identified in the principal’s interview, is to share best practices to
improve teacher practice. This view was shared by a teacher who noted that the dis-
cussions had developed her professionally. “I like the best practices. I like the dis-
cussions. . . . I get more out of the discussion than I do out of the data.” Although the

81
data provide a starting point, to this teacher, the discussion and sharing of practices that
come from the data are more helpful in her professional development.
Positive School Culture
Teachers were observed socializing with one another, offering help to those in
need, and greeting one another with a smile. Discussions observed during staff meetings
(whole school, department, and subject-alike) were all based on data and how one could
improve. One discussion occurred between the department chair and a new teacher. The
department chair offered assistance and multiple resources for the new teacher. The
assistant principal stated that everyone is always looking to help the other person. She
stated that her job was to do whatever was necessary to support both new and veteran
teachers.
The professionalism at GHS can be found in the high levels of teacher efficacy.
Every person who was observed or interviewed stated that their input mattered. Several
echoed the assertion: If they did not like something at the school, they could change it.
They all commented that the leadership was open to feedback on the status of the school
and was very willing to heed the advice of the teachers. Further, one of the norms of staff
meetings is to support all decisions made by the leadership team despite varying personal
opinions. The staff demonstrates mutual respect for team decisions. Teacher C stated,
“We all state our opinions . . . but when the decision is made, we act as if that was our
opinion. We present it to our department as if that was what we wanted.” Personal
feelings are always withheld as decisions are communicated to staff as a whole, which
leads the staff, both leaders and others, to feel valued.

82
Collective Efficacy and Teacher Efficacy
Collective efficacy is the belief that the school as a whole can have a positive
impact on student achievement (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). GHS has a very strong
sense of collective efficacy, promoting teachers to effect change and sustain growth of
the systems currently in place. A teacher’s self-efficacy is defined as the “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). At GHS, teachers have a very high sense of self-
efficacy, as seen by unwavering desire to do “whatever it takes” to help their students to
succeed. At GHS teachers are present long before school starts and well after school
ends, preparing lessons, tutoring students, and running student organizations. In all
cases, teachers express the belief that students can succeed with the additional time spent
on lessons or by additional tutoring time. Further, many teachers have Saturday sessions
that students attend to retake tests, relearn content, or receive test preparation. The belief
that all students can achieve and can improve is present in all teachers who provide these
additional services for the students.
The teachers also have self-efficacy as it relates to changes within the school. All
teachers stated that, if a problem was identified, they would feel comfortable in research-
ing a solution. Teacher E commented, “I think I could go talk to any of the Assistant
Principals right now, and walk in their office, and if they’re there, they’ll listen.” When
asked who identifies problems and solutions, the principal stated that it is a collective
effort. “Our teachers also identify them. Sometimes they find them. Sometimes it’s us
saying, ‘You know what? This happens to be one of the gaps that we know.’” Further,
teachers were confident that the administration would listen to them as individuals or

83
collectively. All teachers reported that they had a voice and the power to effect change at
the school site.
The teachers at GHS expressed a strong belief that, as a school, they could effect
positive change in student achievement. When asked how the school faces obstacles, the
consistent response was “as a team.” Teachers strongly asserted during the interviews
that, if they wanted change, they could either work individually or as a team to research
methods to effect change. Whether teachers had an official leadership title, each stated
that any obstacle could be overcome through research and teamwork. They noted that the
administration was open to feedback from teachers. The collective efficacy of GHS
creates an environment where systems are carefully introduced to the school by both
teachers and administrators. Since teachers choose many of the systems and feel that
they can effect change, implementation of the systems becomes easier.
Identity
In the interviews with administrators, teachers, counselor, and classified staff, a
common theme emerged: a sense of identity. Present in the conversations was a sense of
belonging at the school; everyone seemed to feel that they were not only in the job that
they were “meant to be in” but that GHS was where they were “meant to be.” Not only is
their position at the school part of the identity; the school itself is part of their identity.
The classified staff member stated that she believed that the principal “truly
believes this is what she is supposed to be doing.” She added that “working with her has
made me realize that this is where I am supposed to be . . . not just this [position] but
working for her.” The staff member and principal are developing an identity through
social interaction. Similar to Vygotsky’s tenet that learning occurs on both the social and

84
individual planes, the staff member recreated an identity for herself through social
interaction.
Re-evaluation and change in identity were also present in interviews with teachers
and administrators. Teacher D commented,
One of the biggest changes was when I had a paradigm shift in my mind that
realizing that, okay, my students aren’t going to use chemistry for this year, in
their life usually, and that it’s a class that they have to survive. And that I am here
not only to teach them the subject but more the skills of how to survive in a diffi-
cult scenario. They’re going to have a boss that’s demanding. How do they take
care of that? They’re going to have to work in collaborative groups to solve a
project. We’ll do a lab. So, I realized that the things I’m imparting them with is
not necessarily the subject but it’s more of the life skills to survive life. So when I
did that little shift in paradigm, I didn’t lose the academics. I was still very tough
with them. I was still very rigorous, but at the same time trying to understand
them a little bit better.
This teacher had altered what she believed was her identity from simply imparting
chemistry knowledge to becoming a person who teaches life skills through the course.
Here, the social interactions with her students and fellow teachers helped her to recreate
an identity.
Analysis of the Results for Research Question 2
The second research question was posed to identify how systems were imple-
mented and sustained at the high-performing high-poverty case study school. The imple-
mentation and sustainability of successful structures and systems has been identified as
inconsistent in the research. One possible source of inconsistency can be found in
teacher learning. Teacher expectation and efficacy have been strongly linked to student
achievement. At the same time, research has found that changing teacher beliefs is very
difficult. The case study aimed to identify how Golden High School implemented and

85
sustained systems as it related to the professional learning of teachers, teacher beliefs,
and practice.
The primary system of implementation is voting. Golden High School leadership
team has set in place the norm that all decisions undergo a majority vote after in-depth
discussions. Once the decision has been made, the norm is to support the decision,
despite personal feelings. The norm was observed to be followed by the teachers. One
possible reason is the self-efficacy of the teachers. These teachers believe that they can
initiate change and that their input matters.
Second, the culture of the school is one of trust and respect for others. The school
culture, evident not only between faculty and staff but among all at the school, is positive
and focuses on building relationships to build a cohesive, resilient team. One of the three
“R’s” in the motto of the district and school is relationships. All interviews and observa-
tions reflected this focus on building relationships. Teachers had an interest in one
another personally and professionally. Teachers felt comfortable in asking for help and
providing one another with resources and ideas. The leadership team believed it was
their responsibility to support others. Likewise, teachers were interested in who the
students are and what they want. The teachers had an interest in helping students to
achieve the goals they had set for themselves and to help them grow as individuals. The
school culture promoted culture of growth and support.
The collective efficacy of the school is very strong. The strong belief in overcom-
ing obstacles as a team is associated with teachers feeling responsible for the success of
the school. Teachers share resources, form groups to solve problems, and approach

86
administration comfortably because they believe that they can effect change and
positively impact student achievement.
In addition to high expectations for teachers, there were also high expectations for
students. The district has a focus on 3Rs: Rigor, Relevance and Relationships. The
focus on rigor demonstrates the high expectations that the district promotes, which were
echoed in all interviews. Simultaneously, the district took on the GHS motto, “Whatever
it takes.” The school has high expectations for its students and strongly believes in the
students’ ability to do well; consequently, many teachers come to school early, leave late,
and even have Saturday school to help students improve their academic achievements.
At the school, department, subject-alike, teacher, and student levels is the presence of
goal setting. There is strong belief that every individual and team is capable of improv-
ing and meeting the high expectations of the school.
These high expectations are one aspect of the school’s positive culture. The third
“R,” relationships, is the primary culture building system. Consistent in every interview
was the importance of building relationships with students. Each teacher expressed that
not only was it his/her role to help students to reach their academic potential but their
social potential as well. Each teacher took the time to get to know the students before,
during, and after school. Each teacher and administrator strongly believed that it was
their responsibility to help the students to achieve the goals that they have set for
themselves. The culture of the school can be described as positive and caring for the
individual.
Similar to the relationship between teachers and student is the relationship
between teachers and teachers and teachers and the leadership team. There is a genuine

87
interest and concern for others among faculty and staff at GHS. In addition, there are
high expectations of one another and trust in the intentions of all teachers. The trust can
be see in the openness of the leadership to take input from all teachers and to propose
changes to the school based on the input of all teachers. The administration at GHS
models the expectations, culture, and leadership that they would like to see demonstrated
by all stakeholders of GHS. Figure 6 summarizes the structures and systems at GHS as
they applied to research question 2.

Figure 6. The elements of the structures and systems at Golden High School.

Summary for Research Question 2
At GHS the social interactions in the school community have allowed for the re-
evaluation and re-identification of the role of teacher for many teachers. Many teachers

88
found that their identity as a teacher had changed, causing them to approach teaching in a
different manner. A strong sense of belonging and connection in the school, the position,
and the individual exists at GHS. This connection between the school and the person’s
identity is associated with high expectations, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy in a
culture that supports the team and the individual.
Findings for Research Question 3: Leadership,
Professional Learning, and Teacher Beliefs
The third research question asked, “How do school leaders/instructional leaders
support professional learning in cultivating effective classroom instruction?” The leader-
ship at GHS is viewed as a team by staff, teachers, and administrators, not just the princi-
pal. A shared leadership style is present and supported by a culture of trust.
Shared Leadership
There are multiple levels of leadership, starting with the principal, assistant
principals, and counseling department. Further, there are department chairs, course
leaders, and academy leaders. Beyond that are the intervention specialist, technology
specialist, and multiple other leadership roles. Most of the leadership positions are held
by separate persons, but some carry multiple roles. Heading the leadership team is the
principal and supporting her are the assistant principals and the counseling department.
Beyond the administration team, the “Guide to Instructional Direction” has outlined the
roles that are necessary to “effectively support the implementation of the District’s
instructional plan”: Intervention Specialist, Department Chairs, Course Leaders,
EADMS/Inspect Site Support, and Teachers. By creating detailed differentiated duties
for each leadership member, leadership roles and decisions are shared by the staff. The
multiple tiers of leadership, clearly delineated by the “Guide to Instructional Direction,”

89
allows each leader to have a specific role as it relates to supporting teachers in developing
curriculum to support the needs of teachers. The Guide also provides detailed informa-
tion on how each leadership role supports other leadership roles to provide maximum
collaboration by all leaders.
Other forms of leadership are unofficial. An interview with one course leader
showed that the administration team encourages teachers to take on leadership opportuni-
ties, both formal and informal. For instance, one teacher was sent to a conference with
the thought that she would return and teach other teachers. During the interview with the
principal and assistant principal, both mentioned that they viewed their role as supporting
the teachers and teacher leaders on campus. Further, the assistant principal described the
leadership at GHS as a team, not solely the administration team. The principal’s role was
observed to be one of supporting the leadership team.
Through the observation and interviews, the leadership team demonstrated these
three characteristics. Optimism was the ability to see hope despite adversity. One of the
interview questions asked how the school overcomes obstacles. The consistent answer
from everyone was “as a team.” This is strongly related to GHS teachers having a strong
sense of self-efficacy in effecting change and improving the school. The second charac-
teristic, honesty, was defined as being truthful and consistent in what is said and done.
The principal stated that, in supporting teachers, sometimes it is necessary to be honest
about what teachers need to improve on. She followed up by stating that the intent is
always to help and that intent is what makes the collaboration positive. The third charac-
teristic was concern for people as individuals. This quality was observed in all staff, not
just the leadership team. Teachers were observed to express interest in other teachers,

90
staff members, and administrators. In a walking tour of the school with the principal,
there were multiple occasions in which she stopped to check in with teachers about their
professional and personal lives. It was apparent that she was in tune with the life events
of her teachers. Although this is the example of the principal, the interest in others’ lives
was present in all interactions with all members of the school. The study tiers of leader-
ship allowed for leadership roles and decision making to be shared. All leaders stated
clearly that their role was to support teachers. A culture of trust allowed for open con-
versations on instructional practice between leaders and teachers. This structure is
displayed in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Leadership structure at Golden High School.

91
Supportive Culture of Trust
Based on interviews and observations, the leadership team at GHS considered
their as support for teachers. When the Assistant Principal was asked to describe her role
as a leader, she simply stated, “The biggest thing I can say is to support my teachers and
to help them in whatever way they need.” The principal reiterated, “Our role is to sup-
port the teachers to support the students.” The principal brings the focus to supporting
the needs of students by supporting the needs of the teachers.
To support the teachers, the administration uses guiding questions to facilitate
reflection by the teachers. When asked how she supports the needs of the teachers, the
assistant principal stated,
Honestly, in whatever way they need. Sometimes it’s actually going in and help-
ing a teacher do something. Sometimes it’s providing opportunities for them to
learn or grow. Sometimes it’s asking questions of them so that they can kind of
grow themselves. A lot of times just asking the questions will lead them.
She added that part of supporting teachers is helping them to get to know their students.
Teachers were asked to identify students who were ELL, as well as their level of English
proficiency. The assistant principal added, “But ultimately I mean the getting to know
your students. I have a few teachers that were very upset with me. But the reality is that
the awareness needs to be there.” She emphasized that, despite teacher feelings, the goal
remained focused on how to support the students.
The administration at GHS creates a culture of trust that allows for struggling
teachers to overcome feelings of discontent, because the administration team is always
focused on the students. In response to supporting teachers who struggled, an assistant
principal stated, “Sometimes it’s actually going in and helping a teacher do something

92
that they needed. Sometimes it’s providing opportunities for them to learn or grow.”
She added that the struggle as a leader is
sometimes to give that feedback or to help support teachers because sometimes
they don’t want to hear what you need to say. You still need to say it because
you’re not helping the students and you’re not helping teachers and you’re not
helping the school if you don’t have the guts to say it.
When asked how she approaches the issue, she stated,
It’s a matter of saying this is why and being very transparent and saying, “You
know what? This is why and this is,” you know what I mean? And again it’s not
always the easiest thing to do, but sometimes it just has to get done.
She was transparent with teachers and continues to focus on the practice as it relates to
the students.
Much of the culture of GHS is created by the principal and her guiding principles.
My own personal guiding principles: kindness, collaboration, service, and high
expectations. That’s kind of how I run the school, that’s how I resolve dilemmas.
That’s how I lift up my staff. In fact, I introduced those guiding principles when I
first got here, and I told my staff, if they ever see me do anything different than
that, they should call me on it.
By openly stating her expectations and holding herself accountable to the same
expectations, she had gained the trust of her staff.
I’m not the type of leader who asks you for your ideas and recommendations, or
ask you for consensus, and then make it devalued by—I mean I’m flexible. If I’m
asking you a question and you’re giving me an answer and I don’t like it, and I’m
not going to go with it, then I shouldn’t have asked you the question. So I try to
honor and respect the opinion and voice of my leadership and of my teachers.
Because there’s a couple of things right now that I like definitely would love to be
doing a little bit differently, but it’s a process that needs the team to be buying
into it.
The support of her staff and continuous “buying in” of ideas allows everyone to
be on the same page.
I want to respect how brilliant my staff is, and how exceptional my classified
employees ideas are, and how important every person is. I get heat for this

93
sometimes, but I totally believe in people. . . . It just—it empowers people. I
know we can do great things as teachers, and I know my students can do great,
great things.
Her genuine trust and belief in her staff and their potential to effect positive change for
students is transparent in her everyday actions.
Analysis of the Results for Research Question 3
The leadership at GHS is shared by teachers and administrators. The primary role
of the administration team is to support the teachers and facilitate meetings. The role of
decision making is shared by administration and teacher leaders. By allowing everyone
to take part in effecting change and the leadership team in voting on decisions, the
administration has increased the collective efficacy of the school, as well the self-efficacy
of the teachers. Further, administrators demonstrate their high expectations for teachers
by allowing them to attend conferences and bring back practices to share with others.
The multiple tiers of leadership allow teachers to develop their own leadership skills.
The manner in which each leader facilitates a meeting determines the level of collabora-
tion by teachers. Since collaboration through meetings is the primary source of pro-
fessional learning, the facilitation of the leader, with the assistance of the protocol
provided by the district, allows for the growth of all teachers.
The multiple tiers of leadership, with clearly specified roles, creates specific paths
to supporting teacher learning. The Intervention Specialist allows teacher learning by
requiring teachers to focus on specific at-risk students. Department Chairs support
teacher learning by creating a collaborative atmosphere in which teachers use data to
share best practices across departments. Course leaders facilitate discussion around
alignment and specific common assessment data. Teachers learn about best practices as
they relate to specific standards. To support teacher growth, the administration team

94
remains transparent and focused on practice as it relates to student achievement. The
culture of trust, mutual respect, and accountability created by the principal fosters open-
ness and collaboration in support of student needs.
Summary for Research Question 3
The multitiered leadership at GHS allows for the leadership to be shared by many.
All leaders see their roles as facilitation and support. Professional learning occurs by
supporting and guiding teachers in a collaborative discussion around data and best prac-
tices. The joint responsibility in effecting change and the individual responsibility of
starting improvement and voting builds teacher self-efficacy and schoolwide collective
efficacy.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presents the findings of a case study of one high-performing high-
poverty school. The findings indicate that two structures were present: standards-driven
curriculum and prevention and interventions. Each structure was found to have its own
supporting systems. The standards-driven curriculum was supported by a focus on
academic achievement, schoolwide writing, common assessment, data analysis, and goal
setting. The prevention and intervention structure was supported by directed support,
communication, and the bell schedule.
The implementation and sustainability of these structures and systems was
realized by the interrelationships among school culture, school leadership, and teacher
beliefs. The school culture, which was positive and allowed teachers individual flexi-
bility of curriculum, created an atmosphere of support and trust in teachers. The
collaboration efforts were driven by common vision, language, and beliefs that reduced

95
confusion while working toward a common goal. The collaboration was effective
because the leadership built collective efficacy in its staff. The openness and trust in staff
opinions built individual teacher efficacy. Overall, each person incorporated his or her
role in the school as part of personal and professional identity.

96
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter presents an overview of a case study of one comprehensive high-
performing high-poverty school. The purpose of this study was to identify the structures
and systems of this high-performing high-poverty school in the context of professional
learning and teacher beliefs. The study identified how the structures and systems were
sustained and the role of leadership in implementing the structures and systems as they
related to professional learning and teacher beliefs. Triangulation of observations, docu-
ment analysis, and interviews led to the findings that informed the following implications
for policy and practice and recommendations for future studies.
Summary of the Study
Two structures, with supporting systems, were identified. The first structure,
standards-driven curriculum, was supported by a focus on academic achievement through
the presence of recognition across the school and within classrooms. Collaboration was
driven by the development and data analysis of schoolwide writing assessments and
common assessments. Data analysis provided teachers a common ground to share best
practices in teaching essential standards. Data were also the basis of goal setting by
administrators, departments, teachers, and students. Goals focused on standards and the
performance of individual subgroups on the standards. Students set goals for themselves
based on their performance on assessments.
The second structure was the presence of prevention and intervention programs.
The case study school had many prevention and intervention programs to prevent
students from failing. A system of directed support was implemented in which students

97
were not asked to attend these programs but were directed to the programs by teachers
and counselors. To identify students in need of prevention and intervention, several
communication systems were present. Parents, teachers, counselors, students, and
administrators frequently communicated with one another on student progress and
program effectiveness. Finally, the bell schedule allowed for opportunities for teacher
collaboration, as well as time for embedded support for struggling students.
High expectations, a common language and beliefs systems, collaboration, school
culture, high collective efficacy, high teacher self-efficacy, and a sense of identity as a
teacher contributed to the implementation and sustainability of the structures and systems
mentioned above. High expectations for students led all stakeholders to believe in the
“Whatever it takes” motto of the school and district. All stakeholders share the belief that
building relationships was an important part of being an educator. Teachers reported that
they developed as educators by sharing best practices. A strong sense of individual and
collective efficacy was seen as teachers agreed that they could effect positive change in
student achievement and that they had a voice in the school’s decision-making process.
The sense of efficacy supported the positive school culture, which was developed by a
focus on relationships. Further, teachers had flexibility in instruction that allowed them
to develop their own specialties of good practice. For instance, the school and depart-
ments as a whole did not prescribe one learning theory. While some teachers primarily
implemented the behaviorist learning model, others utilized constructivism. The
administrators and teachers did not view one style of teaching as better than another;
instead, they valued each and believed that each teacher had strengths that should be
leveraged. The reported conditions exist because teaching, or the role of the individual at

98
the school, was part of each person’s identity. Each person believed that this school and
his or her role in the school was part of their personal and professional identity.
The third research question addressed the role of leadership in professional
learning and teacher beliefs. Multiple tiers of leadership were observed. Each tier had a
specific description of the roles in collaboration. The multiple opportunities for leader-
ship, both official and unofficial, created a form of learning-centered shared leadership.
The tiers of leadership fostered a culture of trust. The leadership team’s opinions were
trusted and each person was valued for contributions as a leader.
Conclusions
Chapter 2 reviewed the relevant literature related to structures and systems that
impact student achievement through professional learning and teacher beliefs. The
findings from this study support the literature on high-performing high-poverty schools
reviewed in Chapter 2. Similar to the Marzano (2003) and Reeves (2003) studies on
high-performing high-poverty schools, this study found a focus on essential standards,
academic achievement and improvement, schoolwide writing, and strong leadership.
Beyond the studies by Marzano and Reeves, this study’s findings echo the insight
described in Chapter 2 and add to that body of literature by highlighting the role that
teacher beliefs play in sustaining and implementing structures and systems.
The structures and systems found in the case study school were primarily imple-
mented and sustained through school culture, leadership, and teacher beliefs. Of those
three, the driving force was teacher beliefs, specifically identity as an educator. Through
the experience at the school, most of the interviewees came to the understanding that
education is where their heart is, specifically at this school. The staff, administrators, and

99
teachers invest in the school, the curriculum, and the students. With the support of the
school culture fostered by the school leadership, the teachers believe in the students and
have high expectations for them. The unwavering belief in helping students to succeed is
present because teachers have a high sense of self-efficacy. They believe that they can
improve student achievement by dedicating more time to curriculum and tutoring, and so
they do.
Individual efforts alone cannot provide significant increases schoolwide if they
are not part of a collective effort in the same direction. The district’s yearly theme,
“whatever it takes” through the “3R’s,” harnessed all of the positive beliefs of the
teachers into one direction. The common language allowed teachers to collaborate and
work toward a single goal. The desire to collaborate not only spurred the teacher’s
efforts to improve student achievement but also to build collective efficacy. Specifically,
the administration made decisions as a team, which fostered a positive feeling about
collaboration. Collaboration also provided the primary source of professional learning.
The belief that collaboration led to the development of teachers professionally was
developed through leadership’s ability to build collective efficacy and the teachers’ desire
to improve.
Implications for Policy and Practice
With growing emphasis on accountability, schools are forced to close the achieve-
ment gap between minorities and their White counterparts. In an attempt to close the
achievement gap, schools are reevaluating what they are doing and turning to researched-
based best practices. Research has shown that only a small number of high-poverty
schools are also high-performing schools, due to a lack of fidelity in implementing best

100
practices while adapting the practice to the student population. The implications dis-
cussed here are based on the ability to implement best practices while considering the
student population and the teacher population.
Implications for Teacher Education
The case study found that the teachers at GHS already had a system of beliefs in
line with what research states are beliefs that positively impact student achievement. For
instance, the teachers had high expectations for themselves and for students, a strong
sense of efficacy, and a strong belief that all students can succeed. The teachers believed
that all students can achieve their goals with the necessary supports. Although leadership
and school culture fostered these beliefs, the teachers’ beliefs were a positive influence
on student achievement. This has implications for the admissions process for teacher
education, as well as for development of preservice teachers. The beliefs of applicants, in
respect to expectations and efficacy, may be a factor of consideration in admissions. The
study also has implications for the consideration of the culture of the school in which a
student teacher is placed.
Implications for Hiring
The case study found that the school maintained its culture by hiring teachers who
fit into the vision of the school. That is, through the hiring process, the administration
was assured that the new staff possessed the beliefs that were known to be a positive
influence on student achievement. Again, much as in the implications for teacher educa-
tion, it appears that schools have two points at which they must deliberately assess and
develop these beliefs: hiring and ongoing professional learning. Just as the case study
high school did, all high schools should have a clear vision of an effective teacher and the

101
important beliefs, such as a strong sense of self-efficacy and high expectations for
students. The school should assess for the presence of these beliefs during the hiring
phase. Research shows that the school culture can positively or negatively impact teacher
beliefs. As a result, once schools hire teachers, they must maintain a culture of learning
and development at the school by providing opportunities for collaboration.
Implications for Leadership
The leadership at GHS strongly contributed to the collective efficacy of the
teachers and staff as a whole and fostered a culture of collaboration and support. Many
teachers stated that one of the main improvements was the built-in time to collaborate on
a weekly basis. The leadership’s deliberate attempt to provide collaboration opportuni-
ties supported the leadership’s desire to help teachers to develop best practices. The
principal had a clear vision of what she felt were characteristics of a successful person,
leader, and school. She implemented these characteristic by adapting those ideas to those
of the staff. Current and future leaders should have a clear vision of the characteristics
they want to possess as individuals, as leaders, and as a school. It is important to note
that the principal’s characteristics of success were based on research and experience.
Likewise, future leaders should be well versed in what makes a good leader. The study
showed that future leaders should have a plan for how to make the vision of the school
culture become a reality. That is, leaders should have a solid grasp of current research
and methods to implement and sustain the research in the context of a specific school.
Recommendations for Further Research
This case study addressed the research questions posed in Chapter 1. During the
case study, several questions arose as material for future studies.

102
1. Longitudinal study of turnaround schools. Based on the criteria of a high-
performing high-poverty school, this case study school had been on a steady increase for
the previous 3 years. The goal of NCLB is to have all low-performing high-poverty
school move to the status of high-performing schools. A longitudinal study of turnaround
schools would provide understanding of the process of becoming a turnaround school.
The study would provide an in-depth perspective on how a turnaround school implements
and sustains structures and systems.
2. Comparative study of high-performing versus low-performing schools. The
study revealed that the high-performing high-poverty case study school showed evidence
of high expectations, teacher efficacy, and role at the school as part of their identity.
Many, having initially pursued an alternative career, “fell” into the position as a teacher
and stayed because they believed that the school was where they belonged. Further, the
case study identified school culture, leadership, and teacher beliefs as central to the high
performance of the case study school. A comparative study of high-performing high-
poverty schools and low-performing high-poverty schools might provide insight into the
interrelationship between structures and systems and school culture, leadership, and
teacher beliefs. The findings of the comparative study could illuminate the importance of
one of the factors or the dynamic interrelationships among all three factors.
3. Comparative study of professional learning opportunities. The case study
provided teachers with one means of developing professionally: weekly meetings in
departments and academies. The primary source of growth as an educator comes from
sharing best practices with colleagues. A comparative study on various professional
learning experiences and their impact on teacher effectiveness, beliefs, and practices

103
could provide insight into the relationship between various professional learning experi-
ences and teacher beliefs and practices. For instance, some forms of professional learn-
ing may meet the needs of some groups of teachers with certain beliefs. This study
would lead to implications for the choice of professional learning experiences.

104
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, L. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York,
NY: Longman.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press of Columbia University.
Attard, K. (2007). Habitual practice vs. the struggle for change: Can informal teacher
learning promote ongoing change to professional practice? International Studies
in Sociology of Education, 17(1), 147-162.
Bainbridge, W. L., & Lasley, T. J., II. (2002). Demographics, diversity, and K-12
accountability: The challenge of closing the achievement gap. Education and
Urban Society, 34, 422-437.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Banks, J. A. (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action:
Historical and contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Bass, B. M. E., & Avolio, B. J. E. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berman, P., & Chambliss, D. (2000). Readiness of low-performing school for compre-
hensive reform. Emeryville, CA: RPP International.
Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia Seminar.
American Educational Research Journal, 39, 907-941.
California Department of Education. (2009). 2009 Annual Yearly Progress report.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide09.pdf
Carver, C. L. (2004). A new lifeline for teachers. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 58-61.
Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in
urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233-257.
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (The Colman Report).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Social capital, human capital, and investment in youth. In A. C.
Petersen (Ed.), Youth unemployment and society (pp. 323). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Corcoran, T., & Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the
challenge. The Future of Children, 19(1), 157-183.

105
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curry, M. W. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations embedded
in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and
school reform. Teachers College Record, 110, 733-774.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified
teachers in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 1936-
1966.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Professional development schools: Schools for developing
a profession. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York,
NY: Norton.
Duncan, A. (2010). The quiet revolution: Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks at the
National Press Club. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/quiet-
revolution-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-national-press-club
Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth
considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal,
39(1), 4-8.
EdSource. (2007). Glossary. Retrieved from http:www.edsource.org/glo.cfm
Fry, B., Bottoms, G., O’Neill, K., & Walker, S. (2007). Schools need good leaders now:
State progress in creating a learning-centered school leadership system. Atlanta,
GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with
educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban
Society, 36(2), 150-168.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.

106
Gaziel, H. H. (1997). Impact of school culture on effectiveness of secondary schools with
disadvantaged students. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 310-318.
Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Kruger, M. L. (2009). The effect of
teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on
teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal, 109,
406-427.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher dfficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Glenn, W. J., Picus, L. O., Odden, A., & Aportela, A. (2009). The equity of school
facilities funding: Examples from Kentucky. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
17(14).
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship
between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17, 807-818.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37, 479-507.
Graham, P. A. (2005). Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation’s
changing needs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grant, P. A. (2001). The power of uncertainty: Reflections of pre-service literacy tutors.
Reflective Practice, 2, 237-248.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School
Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95-110.
Hellner, J. (2008). The professional learning community: A fulcrum of change.
Kairaranga, 9(1), 50-54.
Hipp, K., Huffman, J., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional
learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173-
195.
Hoover Institution. (1998). Policy review: A nation still at risk. Retrieved from
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3563967.html
Hord, S. M., Meehan, M. L., Orletsky, S., & Sattes, B. (1999). Assessing a school staff as
a community of professional learners. Issues About Change, 7(1), 1-9.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372.

107
Jackson, D., & Street, H. (2005). What does “collaborative enquiry” look like? In H.
Street & J. Temperly (Eds.), Improving schools through collaborative enquiry
(pp. 41-70). London, UK: Continuum.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Jussim, L., Eccles, J. S., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and
teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling
prophecy. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 28, pp. 281-388). New York, NY: Academic Press.
King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional
development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of
Educational Management, 15(2), 86-93.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 149-
164.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990, June). Transformational leadership: How principals
can help reform school cultures. Paper presented at annual meeting of the
Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The
contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 496-
528.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. (1993, April). Secondary school teachers’
commitment to change: The contributions of transformational leadership. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.
London, C. (1988). A Piagetian constructivist perspective on curriculum development.
Reading Improvement, 27, 82-95.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.

108
McDavid, J., & Hawthorne, L. (2006). Key concepts and issues in program evaluation
and performance measurement. In J. McDavid & L. Hawthorne (Eds.), Program
evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice (pp. 1-27).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and
the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 235-261.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school
reform. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moll, L. G. (2004). Engaging life: A funds-of-knowledge approach to multicultural
education. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural
education (pp.699-715). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moller, J., Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O. L., Langfeldt, G., Presthus, A.-M., Skrovset, S., . . .
Vedoy, G. (2005). Successful school leadership: The Norwegian case. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43, 584-594.
Moreillon, J. (2007, April). Two heads are better than one: The factors influencing
preservice classroom teachers’ understanding and practice of classroom-library
collaboration. Paper presented at the Treasure Mountain Research Retreat #13,
Reno, NV.
Mullin, A. G., & Keedy, J. L. (1998). Examining a superintendent’s transformational
leadership: From the model to successful practice. In P. M. Short & J. P. Scribner
(Eds.), Case studies on the superintendency (pp. 133-150). Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered
leadership: A conceptual foundation. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University,
Learning Sciences Institute.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113-130.
Nelson, T. H., LeBard, L., & Water, C. (2010). How to create a professional learning
community. Science and Children, 47(9), 36-40.
Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of
public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Oakes, J. (2000). Becoming good American schools: The struggle for civic virtue in
education reform (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

109
Oakes, J. (2003). Education inadequacy, inequality, and failed state policy: A synthesis of
expert reports prepared for Williams v. California. Santa Clara Law Review, 43,
1299-1398.
Oakes, J., Franke, M. L., Quartz, K. H., & Rogers, J. (2002). Research for high-quality
urban teaching: Defining it, developing it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53, 228-234.
Odden, A., Goertz, M., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., & Mangan, M. T.
(2008). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools
using comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice. Journal of
Education Finance, 33, 381-405.
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of
learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 34, 227-
241.
Padwad, A., & Dixit, K. K. (2008). Impact of professional learning community
participation on teachers’ thinking about classroom problems. TESL-EJ, 12(3), 1-
11.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual analysis.
Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and
Studies, 24, 1304-1316.
Picus, L. O. (2000). Student-level finance data: Wave of the future? Clearing House,
74(2), 75-80.
Picus, L. O. (2004). School finance adequacy: Implications for school principals. NASSP
Bulletin, 88, 3-11.
Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does
professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year
study. Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 187-226.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Reeves, D. B. (1999). The 90/90/90 schools: A case study. In D. B. Reeves (Ed.),
Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (pp. 185-208).
Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

110
Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high-poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.
Retrieved from http://www.sabine.k12.la.us/online/leadershipacademy/high%
20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%20beyond.pdf
Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Research, 16(9), 13-20.
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The
mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 798-822.
Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students:
Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 429-444.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning
communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77.
Shidler, L. (2009). The impact of time spent coaching for teacher efficacy on student
achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 453-460.
Sleeter, C. E. (2000). Creating an empowering multicultural curriculum. Race, Gender &
Class in Education, 7(3), 178-196.
Southworth, G. (2004). Primary school leadership in context. London, UK: Routledge
Falmer.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
Strickland, D., & Riley-Ayers, S. (2007). Literacy leadership in early childhood
education: The essential guide. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Timperley, H. S. (2006). Learning challenges involved in developing leading for
learning. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34, 546-563.
Trueba, H. T. (1988). Culturally based explanations of minority students’ academic
achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19, 270-287.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Valencia, R. R., Valenzuela, A., Sloan, K., & Foley, D. E. (2001). Let’s treat the cause,
not the symptoms: Equity and accountability in Texas revisited. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83, 318-321, 326.

111
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Waits, M. J., Campbell, H. E., Gau, R., Jacobs, E., Rex, T., & Hess, R. K. (2006). Beat
the odds: Why some schools with Latino children beat the odds and others don’t.
Tempe AZ: Arizona State University, Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

112
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATOR PROTOCOL

Administrator Interview Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________________

Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ____________

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the
nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The
purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to
inspire educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview Questions

1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a leader at the school.

113

2. Describe the practices and policies at your site that you believe contribute to your
students’ high student performance?
a. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last 3-5
years to improve student performance?
i. If this is your first or second year, what are some things that your
predecessor put in place?

3. How has your school adapted to policy and practices that have been
implemented?
a. How did the school overcome challenges, make changes, and / or maintain
status quo?

4. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all students?
a. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of _______?

5. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made
clear for teachers / students / parents?
a. How do you monitor student progress?
b. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
c. What assessment tools do you use?
d. How are the expectations for meeting those goals made clear?

6. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the school-
wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?

7. How are the needs of teachers met to facilitate high student achievement?

8. How would you describe effective teaching at your site?
a. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet the
needs of all students?
b. What is your role in helping teachers provide effective instruction?

9. Describe your level of confidence in teaching in facilitating student achievement?

10. How do you think your beliefs impact student achievement?

11. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, that
demonstrate high student performance?
b. What is your role as a school leader in guiding the use of data to improve
the school climate and classroom instruction?

114
APPENDIX B
TEACHER PROTOCOL

Teacher Interview Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________________

Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ____________

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the
nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The
purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to
inspire educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview Questions

1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a teacher and a leader at the
school.

115
2. Describe the policies and practices at your site that you believe contribute to the
school’s high student performance?
c. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these policies
and practices? If so, how did the school overcome them or maintain
them?
d. How has your school adapted to policy and practices that have been
implemented?

3. What role do teachers play in maintaining a climate in the school that engages all
students?
e. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of
___________?

4. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made
clear for teachers / students / parents?
f. How do you monitor student progress?
g. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
h. What assessment tools are used?
i. How are the expectations for meeting those goals made clear?

5. How familiar are you with the school-wide plan?
j. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the
school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?
k. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet the
needs of all students?

6. How are the needs of teachers met to facilitate high student achievement?

7. How would you describe effective teaching at your site?
l. What are the three most effective things teachers have done over the last
3-5 years to improve student performance?
m. What does professional development look like at your school?
n. What does collaboration look like at your school?
o. How does leadership support teachers?

8. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
p. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, that
demonstrate high student performance?
q. What is your role as a teacher leader in guiding the use of data to improve
the school climate and classroom instruction?

9. Describe your level of confidence in teaching in facilitating student achievement?

10. How do you think your beliefs impact student achievement?

116
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFIED PROTOCOL

Classified Interview Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Name of Person Interviewed: ________________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________________

Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ____________

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the
nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The
purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new
knowledge and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to
inspire educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview Questions

1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role at the school.

117

2. Describe the policies and practices at your site that you believe contribute to this
school’s high student performance?
r. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these policies
and practices? If so, how did the school overcome them or maintain
them?
s. How has your school adapted to policy and practices that have been
implemented?

3. How would you describe the school climate here?
t. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students?
u. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school climate?

4. What are the expectations for meeting academic achievement goals here?
v. Do you know how the students here are doing academically?
w. What indicators let you know how they are doing?

5. How are the needs of all students being met at this school?
x. What is in place to support these students?
y. What is in place to support the staff?

6. How would you describe an effective teacher at your site?
z. How do you know when a teacher is doing a good job?

7. How do you see teachers and administrators working together?
aa. How do you work with teachers and administrators at the school site?

118
APPENDIX D
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Classroom Observation Protocol

School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Classroom / Teacher Observed: ______________________________________________

Grade / Department: _______________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________________

Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ____________

119

120
APPENDIX E
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT/LEADERSHIP
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

121

122
APPENDIX F
GENERAL SITE OBSERVATIONS

123

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The achievement gap has been well documented to show the growing disparity between the academic performance of underrepresented minorities and their White counterparts, even in this age of accountability set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In addition to low-performing high-poverty schools, there is a small population of high-performing high-poverty schools that research has shown to have implemented structures and systems to improve student achievement. Despite this knowledge, there remains a lack of consistency in implementing these systems to improve student achievement. One possible source of inconsistency may be found in teacher learning. While professional learning is closely tied to school reform, research has identified that changing teacher beliefs is difficult.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership, school culture, collaborative practice, and teacher beliefs: A case-study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high performing high poverty school

PDF

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

PDF

Organizational structures and systems in high-performing, high-poverty urban schools: the construct of race and teacher expectations as mediating factors in student achievement

PDF

School-wide implementation of systems and structures that lead to increased achievement among students of color: a case study of a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lesson from a high performing high poverty urban elementary school

PDF

Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty ubran schools

PDF

Doubling student performance through the use of human capital at high-performing high-poverty schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Thamotharan, Vishodana (author)

Core Title School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/06/2011

Defense Date 03/21/2011

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

Tag bell schedule,collaboration,collective efficacy,common language and beliefs,distributed leadership,high expectations,high-performing,high-poverty,identity,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning,school culture,self efficacy,shared leadership,structures,systems,teacher beliefs,teacher practice

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart E. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email thamotha@usc.edu,vthamotharan@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3723

Unique identifier UC193560

Identifier etd-Thamotharan-4504 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-444608 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3723 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Thamotharan-4504.pdf

Dmrecord 444608

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Thamotharan, Vishodana

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu