University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM
INSTRUCTION: LESSONS FROM HIGH PERFORMING, HIGH POVERTY URBAN
SCHOOLS

by

Aissa Yvette Riley

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Aissa Yvette Riley
ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables………………………………………………………….…………………..v

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….vi

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..vii

Chapter 1-Introduction to the Study ................................................................................... 1
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
African-Americans...................................................................................................... 3
Hispanics..................................................................................................................... 5
The Legal System ....................................................................................................... 5
Current Situation......................................................................................................... 6
Systems and Structures that Support academic Performance ................................... 11
Leadership and Accountability ............................................................................. 12
Leadership............................................................................................................. 12
Instructional Practices........................................................................................... 14
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................. 16
Purpose.......................................................................................................................... 17
Research Questions....................................................................................................... 18
Significance of the Study.............................................................................................. 19
Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 19
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 20
Delimitations................................................................................................................. 21
Definitions..................................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 2- Literature Review............................................................................................ 23
History........................................................................................................................... 23
African-Americans.................................................................................................... 24
Hispanics................................................................................................................... 27
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Immigrants...................................................................... 29
Socioeconomic Status ............................................................................................... 31
School-Wide Systems and Structures ........................................................................... 32
Leadership Team....................................................................................................... 34
Systems of Change.................................................................................................... 35
Accountability........................................................................................................... 38
Goals ......................................................................................................................... 39
Data Analysis............................................................................................................ 40
Professional Development ........................................................................................ 42
Parent and Community Involvement ........................................................................ 42
Impact on Instruction .................................................................................................... 44
Teacher Focus on Academics ................................................................................... 44
iii

Teacher-Student Relationships ................................................................................. 46
Collaboration............................................................................................................. 48
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 3- Research Methodology ................................................................................... 50
Overview of the Study .................................................................................................. 50
Research Questions....................................................................................................... 51
Research Design............................................................................................................ 52
Selection Process ...................................................................................................... 53
Selected School......................................................................................................... 54
Participants................................................................................................................ 56
Instrumentation and Data Collection Process............................................................... 57
Artifacts..................................................................................................................... 57
Interviews.................................................................................................................. 58
Observations ............................................................................................................. 59
Data Analysis................................................................................................................ 60
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 62

Chapter 4 – Findings......................................................................................................... 63
Introduction................................................................................................................... 63
Research Questions....................................................................................................... 63
Trends and Patterns of Student Behavior...................................................................... 65
Structures and Systems ................................................................................................. 74
Leadership Team....................................................................................................... 74
Accountability/Data Analysis ................................................................................... 81
Student Accountability.......................................................................................... 81
Professional Development ........................................................................................ 82
Parent and Community Involvement ........................................................................ 84
Instruction ..................................................................................................................... 86
Academically Rich School Environment.............................................................. 92
Constructs of Race ........................................................................................................ 96
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 101

Chapter 5 – Summary, Implications, and Recommendations......................................... 102
Summary..................................................................................................................... 102
Literature Review........................................................................................................ 102
Purpose........................................................................................................................ 103
Major Findings............................................................................................................ 104
Systems and Structures ........................................................................................... 105
Leadership........................................................................................................... 105
Accountability and Data Analysis ...................................................................... 105
Goals. .................................................................................................................. 106
Parent and Community Involvement. ................................................................. 106
Instruction ............................................................................................................... 108
iv

Standards-Based Instruction. .............................................................................. 108
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. ........................................................................... 108
Collaboration....................................................................................................... 110
Issues Still To Be Addressed ...................................................................................... 110
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 113
Implications for Future Research............................................................................ 114
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 115

References…………………………………………………………………….………...117

Appendices
A. Administrator Protocol……………………………………………….……..123
B. Administrator Interview Questions………………….……………………...124
C. Teacher Protocol ………………………………….………………..………126
D. Teacher Interview Questions...……………….…….…………….………...127
E. Classified Protocol ……………………………………………….………...128
F. Classified Interview Questions……………………………...……………...129
G. Parental Protocol ………………………………………….………………..131
H. Parental Interview Questions...…………………………………………….132
I. Leadership Team Meeting Questions for Reflections……………………..134
J. Classroom Observation Guide……………………………………………..135
K. Professional Development Observation Guiding Questions……………….136
L. California Magnet High School College Acceptances and Scholarship
List………………………………………………………………………….137

v

List of Tables

Table 1.1 OUSD Enrollments by Ethnicity K – 12 Population of 2002 – 2003................. 7

Table 1.2 Dropout Rate by Year and Ethnicity OUSD High Schools, Grades 7 – 12,
1999-2000 to 2001-2002............................................................................................. 7

Table 1.3 Dropouts by Ethnicity Los Angeles Unified School District, 2005-06 .............. 8

Table1.4 Graduates with UC/CSU Required Courses by Ethnicity Los Angeles
Unified School District, 2005-06................................................................................ 9

Table 1.5 Year End/ Latest Suspension Incidences by Reason & Ethnicity .................... 10

Table 1.6 Comparison of California School Districts’: Enrollment, Beginning
Teachers, Credentialed Teachers, and Students on Free or Reduced Lunch ............ 15

Table 3.1 Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions........................................ 52

Table 4.1 Student Enrollment .......................................................................................... 66

Table 4.2 Student Performance - California Standards Tests.......................................... 70
vi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Teacher Turnover Rates per Year, National vs. Chicago................................ 15

Figure 3.1 Theoretical Framework for High Poverty High Performing Schools Study ... 51

Figure 3.2 California Magnet High School's API............................................................. 55

Figure 3.3 California Magnet High School API Compared County and State-wide........ 56

Figure 3.4 Artifacts Collected from California Magnet High School (Continued) .......... 57

Figure 3.5 Process of Data Analysis (Continued)............................................................. 60

Figure 3.6 Creswell’s Process of Data Analysis Graph.................................................... 61

Figure 4.1 Student Enrollments by Gender....................................................................... 65

Figure 4.2 California Magnet High School's API............................................................. 68

Figure 4.3 Highest Performing Magnet School’s API...................................................... 68

Figure 4.4 California Magnet High School API Compared County and State-wide........ 68

Figure 4.5 API Scores for Magnet Schools in AUSD ...................................................... 69

Figure 4.6 California Standards Test Comparison (Continued) ....................................... 71

Figure 4.7 CMHS vs. AUSD’s Graduation Rate and A-G Completion ........................... 73

Figure 4.8 CMHS vs. Other Magnet’s Graduation Rate and A-G Completion................ 73

Figure 4.9 CMHS Regular Bell Schedule......................................................................... 91

Figure 5.1 Theoretical Framework for High Poverty High Performing Schools Study . 103

vii

Abstract

The history of the United States has been fraught with social injustices, whether
intentional or ingrained into societal ways of life that have negatively impacted the
education of high poverty students of color. Despite a historical trend of educational
inequality there have been multiple examples of schools that have been able to break the
mold of underachievement for students of color. This paper addresses the systems and
structures in place at these high performing urban schools, with large concentrations high
poverty students of color. It is through the exploration of the effective systems and
structures that it is hoped other schools can use the data to reproduce similar results for
their student body.

1

Chapter 1-Introduction to the Study

Introduction

The effects of a history in which false constructs of race exist have produced
systems and structures in nearly every American institution that perpetuate racism and
classism (Lee, 2005). Education is one of the primary institutions in which these systems
are still present. These institutions have created a hostile and destructive sociocultural
context of schooling for students of color and low economic status (Anyon, 1997);
however, some schools, through effective leadership, have developed systems that lessen
the ills of racism and create a sociocultural setting in schools that enable students of color
to learn (Conchas, 2006). The culture in these schools recognize and build on the assets
that students of color bring from their home and community cultures, rather than treat
their assets as deficits (McQuillan, 1998).
In the United States today there is a persistent problem of overrepresentation of
high poverty students of color performing well below their middle to upper class White
counterparts on academic achievement tests, high school graduation rates, and acceptance
rates into institutions of higher learning (Conchas, 2006). The same students also have
higher suspension rates and school disciplinary actions related to behavioral issues. (See
Tables 1.1 - 1.5) The factors that contribute to this lower performance can be understood
to a large degree through an examination of race and poverty.
The phenomenon of lower achievement permeates Black, Hispanic, immigrant,
and poverty stricken communities across the United States (Anyon, 1997; Conchas, 2006;
Lee, 2005; McQuillan, 1998). The root of the problem stems as far back as the conquest
2

of the Americas from the Indigenous peoples. Many of the original European settlers and
explorers were enveloped by the notion of Social Darwinism, in which Europeans were
considered far superior to other races by nature of their inventiveness, their ability to
conquer others, and the drive to civilize the “savage” people of color around the world
(De Gobineau, 1885). The notion, while originating centuries ago, still permeates
American culture; however it manifests in a much different manner in contemporary
society. One of the places where it is most evident is in K-12 education. By looking at
achievement data it seems as though many, if not most, students of color do not reach the
same academic heights as White students despite reform efforts such as No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) that have yet to show effectiveness in getting “all” students to proficient
levels and above (See Tables 1.1-1.5). The data is so common that many people in the
United States have come to accept it as the norm when a student of color is not successful
in academia. The notion of “less than” tends to be acceptable for high poverty students
of color, and a change must occur to change its historical stronghold in the United States
(Stephan, 1980).
Historically education has been fervently debated as to what should be taught,
how it should be taught and to whom. Georgia Earnest Garcia, a professor of Curriculum
and Instruction at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (2002) traces as far
back as the early Hebrews to look at the differences that status groups have in the social
structure. Garcia discusses a debate between Plato and Aristotle on the issue of “us versus
them,” raising the question of whether society should be homogenous or diversified. The
outcome of their debate left many unanswered questions. The main question persists in
3

the American context: Is it better to have a society, or schooling environment, where
there is little diversity and conforms to a Eurocentric beliefs system or does diversity
create more ingenuity? Although the United States is a diverse society, not all residents
embrace the diversity; many would rather opt for a homogenous lifestyle. In many
neighborhoods throughout the U.S. families have created de facto segregation by moving
into racially or economically homogenous/segregated areas, thereby eliminating the
possibility of their children attending schools with children from different backgrounds.
This pattern has created homogenous environments for children to continue to grow up
in. According to Holme (2002), these environments are not beneficial to society. The
drive for a homogenous society among Americans of European descent has excluded
groups of people based on color and therefore created gross inequities within the society.
It has also robbed children of European ancestry of realistic perceptions of themselves in
relation to others. They have missed opportunities to experience the richly diverse
society that American represents.
African-Americans
The plight of the Black person in American society has been fraught with struggle
and despair. Although there is some evidence that Africans explored the Americas even
before the Mayflower, most Africans did not begin to enter the United States voluntarily
in 1619 (Stephan, 1980). White land owning aristocrats used their monetary superiority,
gained through their historical exploitation of indigenous populations around the world,
to maintain the status quo by denying Blacks equal opportunities and creating a system of
“us vs. them” in society (Garcia, 2002). Emphasizing differences led to stereotypes of
4

those differences which were not positive in effect. Because slaves were treated like
machines, only basic maintenance was provided to ensure their survival. They lacked
healthy and sanitary living conditions. They fought the slave owner through passive
means of working less; however negative stereotypes emerged calling slaves “dirty” and
“lazy” (Stephan, 1980). That portrayal of Blacks has been perpetuated throughout
America’s history. In that same regard, education was not considered a tool necessary to
the role of the slave. Rather it was seen as something that should be denied so that the
heritage from which the slave came could be distorted by the values and constructs of
race created by the slave owners (Nunan, 2002).
Throughout the 1800s education for Blacks continued to be illegal. For centuries
people of color were discouraged from learning and prohibited from doing so according
to law (Weinberg, 1977). Segregation was legally supported. New laws today such as No
Child Left Behind and Goals 2000, however, say that students of color must be educated
to the same extent as all other children, but these new laws do not compensate for a
history of unequal opportunities.
In the years following the Brown vs. the Board of Education case, much has been
written about segregation in the schools of the United States. As Willie (2005) discusses,
subsequent to the Brown case educational inequities were solely limited to Black vs.
White, however in our society today, there are many different races and they all play
different roles in different settings. For example, Hamm (2005), Miller (2005), Faircloth
(2005), Guzman (2005), Goldsmith (2004), and Ogbu (2003) all point to Whites as being
5

the dominant culture to which many other educational researchers have compared all
other groups. This observation will continue to be a common thread in this discussion.
Hispanics
Black students were not the only group to face adverse situations in relation to
schooling. While Blacks were struggling through all of the aforementioned experiences
with segregation, Hispanics in the Southwest had similar histories in regard to
segregation from White society. In the Treaty of Hidalgo of 1848, the U.S. gained much
of the Southwest from Mexico. Even though the Mexicans were defeated in the war and
the United States took Mexican territory, the U.S. was also obligated to allow residents of
Mexican descent to remain on acquired land. With the addition of these residents came
the need to also educate the children. Just as in the South, the Southwest built schools to
accommodate the rise in student population, but separate schools were built for
Hispanics, so that they would not attend the same schools as the White residents’
children. It has been estimated that 85% of schools in the Southwest were segregated in
1931 (Valencia, Menchaca, Donato, 2002).
The Legal System
It wasn’t until 1945, in the Mendez v. Westminster case that segregation of
Hispanic school children in Orange County, California ended. Despite this court case
educational discrepancies still existed. Additional court cases were won including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was intended to prohibit discrimination in
federally funded programs; Then there was the Bilingual Education Act, which first
passed in 1968 and provided funding for school districts to establish programs that meet
6

the "special education needs" of students with limited English proficiency; In addition the
Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 provided definitions of what was constituted
as the denial of equal educational opportunity, "…the failure by an educational agency to
take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by
students in an instructional program.”, as well as in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in Lau v. Nichols that basic English skills are at the core of what public schools
teach.(aft.org)
The legal system in the United States has put forth effort to make the educational
system equal; however all of the aforementioned court cases have not yet achieved
equality for all students. If a student of color or low social status does manage to achieve
educational success, society sees it as a feat rather than a norm. It is necessary to look at
why this level of disparity has been allowed to persist and how it can be changed (Nunan,
1999).
Current Situation
In spite of these court cases there is still a phenomenon of lower achievement for
high poverty students of color. This history persists and we see it in modern day school
districts. To gain greater insight into the current educational system statistical data has
been analyzed in 3 major urban areas throughout the United States, Los Angeles,
Oakland, and Chicago. It is important to note that issues that plague one urban district
can also be seen in other similar settings. Table 1.1, compiled by the API Youth Violence
Prevention Center: National Council on Youth Crime and Delinquency, Oakland CA,
(2003), shows the proportion of students, by ethnicity, who attend Oakland Unified
7

School District. Of those students 43% are Black and 32% are Hispanic. In Table 1.2
disproportionate rates of students of color in comparison to Caucasians are dropping out
of school in the Oakland Unified School District. Oakland services a large number of
African-American students. Their dropout rate of 3.2% far exceeds Caucasians who have
a 2.2% dropout rate per year. These findings are similar to findings in large urban
districts across California and the United States.
Table 1.1 OUSD Enrollments by Ethnicity K – 12 Population of 2002 – 2003

Table 1.2 Dropout Rate by Year and Ethnicity OUSD High Schools, Grades 7 – 12,
1999-2000 to 2001-2002

Table 1.3, from ED-Data for California, shows similar dropout rates for students
in Los Angeles Unified. African-Americans have a 33% dropout rate and over 28% of
Hispanics students are dropping out. On the other end of the spectrum, Asian-American
students* are three and one half times less likely to dropout and Whites are two and one
8

half times less likely to do so as well. Though these districts are hundreds of miles apart
they suffer from similar issues and results.
*(this study does not include Asian Americans as part of the definition for “students of
color” due to historical and societal differences of their ethnic inclusion into American
society)
Table 1.3 Dropouts by Ethnicity Los Angeles Unified School District, 2005-06
1-Year Dropout
Rate
1
4-Year Dropout Rate
2

Ethnicity
Dropouts
Grades
9-12
Enrollment
Grades
9-12
District County District County
American
Indian
25 612 4.1% 4.3% 19.8% 19.2%
Asian 201 8,728 2.3% 1.2% 9.3% 4.8%
Pacific
Islander
44 731 6.0% 5.5% 27.6% 22.3%
Filipino 151 5,226 2.9% 2.1% 12.9% 8.4%
Hispanic 7,791 146,701 5.3% 4.9% 28.2% 21.7%
African
American
1,799 26,793 6.7% 6.3% 33.0% 25.6%
White 577 20,231 2.9% 2.1% 12.6% 8.4%
Multiple/No
Response
0 37 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 19.7%
Total 10,588 209,059 5.1% 4.2% 25.5% 17.5%
1
The 1-year dropout rate is dropouts divided by enrollment for grades 9-12.
2
The 4-year derived dropout rate is an estimate of the percent of students who would drop out
in a four year period based on data collected for a single year. Asterisks in the 4-year column
indicate the rate could not be calculated because one or more grade levels had zero
enrollments.

Consider the data in Table 1.4. Students of color in Los Angeles are far less likely
to graduate from high school with the necessary requirements to attend a state university
than their Asian and White counterparts. Only 39% of African-American students across
the district graduate with the requirements to attend state universities. If these findings
9

are compared to Table 1.5, which displays the suspension rates of students in Oakland,
there are higher numbers of African-American and Hispanic students who seem to
represent the majority of incidents precipitating suspensions. African-American students
in Oakland receive 75% of all suspensions. Students of color throughout California
represent the subset of students who are least likely to be prepared for college and spend
the least amount of time in school due to suspensions.
Table1.4 Graduates with UC/CSU Required Courses by Ethnicity Los Angeles Unified
School District, 2005-06

As % of Graduates in Each
Ethnic Group
Ethnicity
Graduates with UC/CSU
Required Courses District County
American Indian 28 36.4% 32.4%
Asian 1,348 73.3% 65.0%
Pacific Islander 44 43.1% 37.7%
Filipino 715 68.4% 54.3%
Hispanic 6,939 39.0% 30.8%
African
American
1,446 39.3% 30.5%
White 2,284 60.4% 43.5%
Multiple/No
Response
72 72.7% 37.9%
Total 12,876 45.3% 38.9%

10

Table 1.5 Year End/ Latest Suspension Incidences by Reason & Ethnicity
OUSD, 2001-2002, K – 12

According to API scores across California in 1999, the top 10 schools are all
predominantly White and Asian while the bottom 10 are African-American and Hispanic
dominated. All of the students in these schools live near the same geographic area
11

separated by just a few miles, whether in Los Angeles or Oakland, suggesting a theme of
unequal education woven with segregation throughout the school system in California.
For example, Whitney High School in ABC Unified received an API of 966 and is 84%
Asian, while Dominguez High School in Compton Unified received a score of 383 and is
71% Hispanic. Lowell High School in San Francisco received 925 on their API and is
comprised of 75% Asians, while McClymonds in Alameda County received 386 and is
dominated by 80% African-American students. Whitney and Dominguez are in
neighboring districts as are Lowell and McClymonds; yet glaring discrepancies in student
achievement are evident. These data reflect a consistency between segregation of African
American students and student achievement.
Systems and Structures that Support academic Performance
Despite these disparities in students’ performance based on community location
and segregation, some schools are able to promote high academic achievement among
students of color in low-income communities. Every school, regardless of location and
ethnic background, has certain unalterable structures that they are required to implement.
Examples of structures include but are not limited to: expenditure of funds according to
federal, state or district policy; administrative roles prescribed by the district; mandated
number of instructional minutes per year; professional development for teachers; and
courses that follow standards-based curriculum set by the state. These structures are
imposed by the district, state, and federal government, but they are by no means the limit
of what schools can carry out. Schools have the ability to set-up systems within these
prescribed structures to create optimal learning environments for students. The role of
12

leader is pivotal in ensuring these structures are implemented at the school site using
systems that guide instruction.
Leadership and Accountability. According to Marzano (2003), leadership that permeates
every aspect of the school is a necessary ingredient for success in a school. Marzano
suggests that is not enough to enact legislation that forces schools to comply with
mandates that propose by 2014 “ALL” students will be performing at proficient levels or
higher (No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law No. 107-110, 2002). Actual changes in
accountability and leadership need to take place at the school site level. Previous
literature in the educational field once asserted that students’ economic and familial
factors prevented low-income students from achieving the same levels of academic
success as those from higher income backgrounds because those conditions of poverty
rendered students living in poverty mentally incapable of achieving. Most notably these
statements are found in the 1966 Coleman Report. Evidence from research indicates that
poverty is not the predominant reason students of color are not thriving in the school
setting, but rather their lack of educational equality due African-American students
achieving lower than their White counterparts at all economic levels (Ogbu, 2003).
The role of leader at the school site is pivotal in ensuring the shared vision and
mission of the organization are being followed. The vision needs to represent what all
students are expected to attain; it should permeate every aspect of the school’s culture
(Bolman and Deal, 2002). It is the duty of the leadership team, which is a cohort of
various stakeholders at the school site, not just the administrators, to put in place systems
and structures which fulfill the vision and reinforce the schools’ goals for achievement by
13

ensuring all students the opportunity to learn (Bensimon and Neumann, 1993). The goals
should be few in number but part of everyday operations at the school site (Reeves, 2000;
Patterson, 2001; Pardini, 2001). Patterson (2001) lists five aspects of leadership to
strengthen: stay positive, stay focused, be flexible, be action oriented, and do not waste
time. Effective leaders also push for culturally relevant curriculum (Lipka, 1991; Lee,
1995).
Research also focuses on accountability as a top priority in the school settings that
are promoting high academic achievement. In the 90/90/90 study by Reeves (2000)
found that the most important aspect of a school’s culture was the drive for accountability
at all levels. Leadership teams ensure the mission of the school is being carried out in an
integrated system of professional development, classroom visits, and in-depth
observation of the school and school data. Leadership teams make themselves
accountable to the community by communicating the successes and failures of the school
(Goldberg, 2003).
According to O’Day (2002) students need to have clear evidence of their
achievement and the knowledge of any areas where they may need to improve. Under
NCLB guidelines consistent and ongoing testing is required for all public school students
to show improvements (No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law No. 107-110, 2002). The
mark of improvement is the schools’ Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or yearly progress
that a school achieves. If each ethnic, language, and economic subgroup of a school does
not achieve to the level specified for adequate growth at every criterion point, a school
becomes a Program Improvement School (California Department of Education, 2005).
14

Having a high standard of accountability must be supported by strong instructional
practices, professional development, and parental/community support (Marzano, 2003).
Students’ home culture is an essential element in ensuring effective classroom
instructional practices that embrace all students regardless of home and community
culture (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti, 2005).
Instructional Practices Systems to support instruction to meet accountability are
imperative to achievement and need to be set in place by the leadership team, but
instruction is equally as important and pivotal in the education of students. Urban schools
are plagued with high teacher turnover rates due to the lack of adequate preparation
teachers have when entering the classroom, as well as a high burnout rate because the
teachers are ill-prepared to handle the needs that must be met in urban schools
(Rosenholz, 1989). Many teachers are also unprepared to present more than a Eurocentric
value system in urban schools that require a higher level of culturally relevant pedagogy
geared toward the cultures of the students present in the school (Bennett, 2001; Valencia
et al., 2002; Pang and Sablan, 1998). Urban schools tend to have a greater number of
openings; they are not able to keep and maintain the best teaching staffs and many
teachers are lost to higher performing schools (Weiner, 2003). The absence of a stable,
well prepared teaching staff has major effects on students’ opportunities to learn.
Figure 1.1 shows the disparity in teacher turnover rates. The most telling of the
statistics is the turnover rate for high poverty schools, which is 7.1 percent higher than in
low poverty schools. LAUSD claims to have a 67% teacher retention rate in the first 5
years of teaching at the district, but it does not indicate which schools these teachers are
15

leaving. National data in Figure 1.1, show that teachers are leaving high poverty schools
at higher rates. Table 1.6 shows which districts in California are impacted by high teacher
turnover rates. The data regarding teacher turnover rates correlates directly with the
districts with higher student enrollment, the number of new teachers and un-credentialed
teachers, and the number of students on free of reduced lunch.
Figure 1.1 Teacher Turnover Rates per Year, National vs. Chicago
Source: ACORN.org
Table 1.6 Comparison of California School Districts’: Enrollment, Beginning Teachers,
Credentialed Teachers, and Students on Free or Reduced Lunch

16

It is necessary for urban schools to maintain a teaching staff and it is also
important to ensure that what is going on in the classroom is beneficial to the students
(Moll, 2002). The practice of informed pedagogy is necessary in all schools, but
especially in urban schools. A teacher’s focus on academics, positive student-teacher
relationships and an environment that fosters collaboration have been shown to provide
students with the best opportunities to achieve at higher levels according to Hoy et al.
(2006). Cummins (1986) along with Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) suggest
personalization with students will foster the best results, specifically by incorporating
students’ home language and cultural relevance to bring legitimacy of the home culture
into the school setting. Bennett (2001), Katz (1999), as well as Pang and Sablan (1998)
agree with Cummins’ findings by stating students who perceive racial bias from their
teachers will be less likely to engage in classroom activities and feel negatively
stereotyped regardless of the students previous educational achievements. Teachers must
use the capital that students bring to school as building blocks for further learning as
Vygotsky, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), and Stanton-Salazar (1997) suggest as
pivotal in valuing the student and collaborating with their home culture rather than
degrading the culture. The factors named in this chapter (and others to be discussed in
Chapter 2) need to function in an integrated systemic manner to produce the desired
results of high achievement for students of color attending urban schools.

Statement of the Problem

A major issue within the public schools in the United States is their apparent
inability to enable all students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background, to meet
17

or exceed high academic standards. Historically, students in high poverty urban schools
have been associated with low student achievement. This problem persists today with
little change in academic achievement test scores and other metrics that are used to assess
student achievement. For decades, research has suggested that this problem is a systemic
issue. Other research has suggested it is a matter of race. They assert that race of a
student is more of a determining factor than the systems and structures of schools. These
two explanations should not be seen as conflicting views. Both contribute to an
understanding of the persistent problem of low academic achievement among students of
color and students from low-income families. There is some notable research on schools
that have attained the status of high performing with a student body comprised of mostly
low socioeconomic students of color. The real problem is that even though a few schools
have produced impressive results, little is known about how to replicate these outcomes;
therefore these schools remain the exception and not the norm.

Purpose
The purpose of this research is to bring to light the organizational structures and
systems that allow urban schools with high concentrations of low income students of
color to succeed in a manner that can translate into effective practices for other schools
with the same classification. What are these schools doing that can be replicated in
similar settings to produce high achievement? It is not enough that some schools are
having success. This study can contribute to the body of knowledge needed to make
18

changes in high poverty schools with high concentrations of students of color by
providing a knowledge base for schools seeking to improve themselves.
Researched and applied methods have proven successful in helping urban schools
with high poverty students of color achieve or exceed educational markers of high
achievement. The ultimate goal is to get more schools to adopt these methods and
replicate them when appropriate at similar school sites that seem to be lacking in the
ability to facilitate all students’ achievement.

Research Questions
To fulfill the purpose of the study the dissertation cohort has designed research
questions. The following research questions will be used to guide in the process of
examining how organizational systems and structures can help students in high school
achieve at higher levels throughout their high school career and reduce under-
performance and drop-out rates of high poverty students of color. The focus of these
questions is to understand how high poverty schools work to improve the academic
achievement of students of color in urban environments.
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
19

4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?

Significance of the Study

When this study is completed it is hoped there will be a greater understanding of
the significant problem that students of color in urban environments face in pursing an
education. If the nation does not solve the problem of this achievement gap between
higher achieving White and Asian students versus lower performing students of color, the
global implications of an undereducated workforce can be detrimental to the economic
prosperity of the United States. At the national level the status of people of color will be
undermined as non-essential to the functioning of the country due to an unemployable
workforce that cannot compete with other nations. On personal levels these students
could be prevented from attaining a higher quality of life attained through the means of a
college education, which will continue to destroy communities and create more crime.

Assumptions
This study assumes that the school chosen for this study is reflective of the
sampling criteria put forth through the case study guide and research procedures
developed during a summer research design course at the University of Southern
California. The guidelines for selection criteria can be found in the Limitations section of
the study. It is also assumed that the data were collected accurately through the use of
high-quality instruments and truthful answers on the part of the interviewees. Another
assumption is that the indicators for selections were appropriate.
20

Limitations
Due to using a case study method several limitations are evident. The data
collection period was a limitation due to its short time frame, as was the lack of a formal
budget to conduct large-scale investigations. Other limitations include possible
participant biases in responses as well as researcher bias in interpretation of the data.
Participant biases were possible due to the voluntary nature of participant selection that
limited the number of responses to those who agreed to be interviewed and observed.
Researcher bias may also exist since the information gathered and analyzed was used to
fit into specific frameworks of the study selected by the researcher. The selection criteria
for the school were as follows in order to limit the pool of schools to be observed:
- high poverty school
o 70% or more of students receiving free or reduced lunch from the school
o qualifying for Title I status
- high performing school
o measured by API and AYP scores on the CST
o scores had to show a consistent trajectory of growth for a minimum of
three years and be consistent among all subgroups of students
- urban school
o 60% or higher concentration of students of color, specifically African-
American, Hispanic, and/or indigenous peoples
o proximity to Los Angeles
21

Delimitations
The selection process was completed by a thematic cohort of students working
toward obtaining their educational doctorates at the University of Southern California
The study gave close attention to selection criteria. Using a case study method allowed
for studying only one school, causing a small sample size which limits the degree of
generalization of results that can be transferred into practice at other school sites. To
attempt to create external validity extensive amounts of qualitative data were gathered
from the school site studied. These data contributed to a process of triangulation that
strengthened the validity of the data.

Definitions
Cultural Frame of Reference - Reference that guides people’s behavior from the point
of view of the given people (Ogbu, 1995).
Disproportionate numbers - Having greater representation within a subgroup compared
to the number of students in the population as a whole. Some researchers use plus or
minus 10% to determine proportionality (Harry & Anderson, 1994).
High Performing -
- School wide trajectory of API (if in California) and AYP growth over three
years (including all subgroups)
- Minimal movement of 2 deciles within 3-5 years
High Poverty – Schools with a high percentage of students on free or reduced lunch.
22

Structures - Institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by federal
state or district policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official structure of
schools; not subject to change at the local school site; examples include:
- Funding mechanisms (federal, state, district)
- Personnel policies (hiring, evaluation, credentialing, etc.)
- Instructional time requirements
- Class size
- Program regulations, i.e., special education, bilingual education.
Students of Color – Students not of the dominant Caucasian ethnicity, especially
students of African-American, Hispanic, and/or Native American ancestry. For this
particular study, Asian American students are excluded from this definition.
Systems - Coordinated and coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students, parents,
funds, facilities, etc.) at the school site to ensure that school vision, mission, and goals are
met. Examples include:
- Professional development
- Teacher collaboration
- Parent involvement
- Use of time
- School budgets
Urban - High population density and high concentration of students of color
Tracking - A way to organize or segregate students based on ability level

23

Chapter 2- Literature Review

History

There is no doubt that the historical pattern of education for culturally diverse
populations in the United States is one of underachievement. This need not be the case in
the future.
- Garcia, G.E. (2002)

Historically there has been a huge stratification between the have and have-nots
when it comes to public education in the United States. Those who could afford an
education received the best they could pay for and the rest of society received what was
locally offered to them whether it was academically rigorous or not. Failure to guarantee
all students equal educational opportunities produced a system that has allowed the
failure of some while others fair better. For economically advantaged White children, this
two-tiered system meant the likelihood of a rigorous education preparing them for higher
education; however for lower income children of color education was a means to separate
and train them for manual labor or menial jobs. The first chapter began the discussion of
why students of color received and continue to receive an unequal education in
comparison to their White counterparts. Continuing the discussion in Chapter 2, provides
insights about why a stratification of this magnitude was allowed to exist. It reviews a
range of research literature offering insights about the segregation of schools, in which
some students received what was called a “separate but equal” education through the
Plessey vs. Ferguson case (1896), which legally exists in a society where all citizens are
considered equal under the law. Most of all, this background explains how the legacy of
segregation and racism still contribute to the huge disparities in the academic
performance of students based largely on color.
24

African-Americans
A people who had little choice in how they would initially imprint American
society were the slave populations forced into the Americas beginning in 1619. Stephan
(1980) has chronicled the plight of slaves to illustrate why there has been such
stratification among races and also to provide a deeper understanding into why this
stratification has been allowed to persist. According to Stephan (1980) the perceptions
about people of color were manufactured to justify the slave system. The perception
created a divide much like Plato and Aristotle’s debate over “us vs. them” in regard to
whether society should be diverse and include all peoples, or whether society should be
homogenous and not fully accept others that were different from the ruling class majority
(Garcia, 2002). Much like the Ancient Greeks, the general public in the U.S. during the
time of slavery saw slaves as a subordinated labor force that were considered “less than”
and therefore not part of the “us.” Slaves were also deliberately portrayed as “lazy” and
“dirty.” The stereotypes continued without acknowledgement of the effects of inhumane
living conditions forced upon slaves. The constructs of race caused Whites to
misinterpret the slaves’ practice of doing less work as a form of protest against their
enslavement (Stephan, 1980). The negative stereotypes manufactured during slavery and
sustained through Jim Crow laws still exist today and in many ways have perpetuated the
system of “less than” as acceptable toward people of color. The effects of these
stereotypes are evident in the structures and systems of American schooling. Critical race
theory has emerged in resistance to these erroneous constructs of race perpetuated by the
White dominated culture (Nunan, 1999).
25

Education was not included in the American slave’s life; rather it was denied
unless it was to teach basic agricultural skills. In fact, in the early 1800s formal education
of Blacks became illegal (Bell, 1993). The only state to provide some sort of education
was Massachusetts in 1827. Despite this positive development in the North, fewer than 7
percent of Blacks took advantage of this opportunity to be educated, raising questions of
whether access to education was actually feasible and easily available to Blacks at that
time (Stephan, 1980). According to Bell (1993), Whites only promoted racial advances
for Blacks when it also promoted White self-interest. Potentially there is a correlation
between why Blacks did not seemingly take advantage of the educational opportunities
then, and why there persists an achievement gap among students of color today if
students perceive a racial and social bias in their school.
In spite of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which stated deprivation of equality to any citizen was unlawful, the
disenfranchisement of African-Americans persisted through the Plessey vs. Ferguson
case (1896). Plessey established “separate but equal.” This ruling allowed for the legality
of segregation to continue, but it also allowed for a personal interpretation of what equal
meant (Nunan, 1999).
The disparity in the per capita spending per student in the South caused deep
divisions among the races. In Mississippi, for example, the education of a White student
cost nine times more than that of a Black counterpart (Stephan, 1980). The disparity
motivated action by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) to find new legal precedents to eventually nullify the Plessey case (Nunan,
26

1999). The issue of segregation sparked much debate and was eventually addressed in
the Brown vs. The Board of Education case (1954) as the reason students of color did not
have equal access to education. The landmark case ended the legality of “separate but
equal.” The case’s argument went further to say that Black students in schools that are
not integrated do not have equal access to education; therefore they achieved lower than
their White counterparts (Stephan, 1980). The de facto segregation that exists today,
through segregated housing patterns, makes integrating schools difficult and negates the
efforts of the Brown case to end “separate but equal” (Holme, 2002). The conditions
legalized by the Plessey Case are still prevalent in most cities of the U.S. despite the
intent of Brown v. the Board of Education.
Despite landmark decisions by the Supreme Court of the nation, the attitude of the
American public have not necessarily changed. Discrimination based on stereotypes of
erroneous constructs of race, have not disappeared simply because a court case deemed
such behavior unconstitutional (Stephan, 1980). Enacting physical desegregation in the
period following the ruling proved to be less challenging than changing people’s
attitudes. The resistance to attitude change continues to be at the heart of the issue
(Nunan, 1999).
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) point out that since the Brown case the level of
educational attainment for students of color has risen in some aspects, but there is still a
persistent overrepresentation of African American students with low academic
achievement. In addition these students are under represented in higher levels of
achievement with regard to scores on achievement tests, as well as high school and
27

college graduation rates. The academic gains of people of color in the 1970s were
reversed in the 1990s (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). While some gains have been
made, many policies are actually reversing the progress that had been made. One
example is the action taken by the University of California Regents, through California’s
1996 Proposition 209. This action disallowed the use of race as a basis for admitting
students of color to UC universities even though, in this case, race was being used to
create a greater racial balance in the university. At UCLA this ruling has produced a
recent low of 96 African-American students admitted to the 2006-2007 freshmen class
equating to 2 percent of total admission. There are similar findings at other public
Californian universities (LA Times, 2006, NPR, 2006, UCLA Black Alumni Association,
2006).
Hispanics
Other racial groups faced comparable challenges in education and were also
subject to discrimination based on color. The Southwest of the United States faced
similar challenges to the South. Following the Treaty of Hidalgo in 1848, when the U.S.
was given much of the Southwest as compensation for winning the U.S.-Mexican War,
segregation of Hispanics from Whites became normative (Valencia, Menchaca, Donato,
2002). School facilities and quality of education for Hispanic children in the West were
often as inferior as they were for Black students going to school in the South. It has been
suggested that the only reason schools were built for the Hispanic school children was to
ensure farm workers’ children would not attend the same schools as the White land
owning aristocrats’ offspring (Valencia, Menchaca, Donato, 2002). While not all schools
28

were segregated in the Southwest, it is estimated that by 1931, 85 percent of Hispanic
students attended schools or classrooms solely identified for the use of non-White
students (Valencia, Menchaca, Donato, 2002). A decade previous to the Brown case,
Mendez v. Westminister (1946) called for an end to de jure segregation, which is forced
segregation.
Despite early court cases that had not allowed segregation of Hispanic children
from White children, Bettie (2003) observed a form of this segregation in her research of
the farming communities in California’s Central Valley in recent years. The realities of
the turn of the century in the 1900s still persist today, but with a different slant on the
type of segregation. Bettie (2003) compares the modern tracking system to segregation
as it was 100 years ago. Students are put on track systems that typically prepare some
students for college and others for manual or menial labor. The students on the college
track were usually White middle to upper class, while the students taking the lower tracks
are more often lower income Hispanics. While laws have been passed and history has
witnessed the detriment of this unequal system, there is still a persistence of keeping the
status quo by reframing the issue into differentiated educational tracks.
Hispanics deal with negative stereotypes directed toward them as do African-
Americans. Many Hispanics are seen as illegal, non-English speaking, and non-
conforming to the Americanization movement. Despite the fact that millions of Hispanics
are legal residents of United States, perceptions characterize all of them as illegally
crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and therefore going against American values (Valencia,
Menchaca, Donato, 2002). Because of the negative view of the way in which Hispanics
29

are perceived to have arrived into the United States, there is a contingency who do not
feel educating these particular students of color is a duty of the U.S. citizen. In response
to these negative stereotypes the American public in states like California has required an
English-only curriculum in schools and thereby dismissed Hispanics home culture and
prior knowledge. Hispanics must deal with unequal educational practices in schools,
based on surname, color, and language differences (Valencia, Menchaca, Donato, 2002).
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Immigrants
Some researchers have linked the origin of discrimination to the origin of specific
groups’ entrance into the United States. Lasting stigmas are associated with how an
individual’s ancestry first arrived to the country. Slaves, brought to America
involuntarily, were seen as property to be bought and sold, not to be educated and
supported. The same could be said for the Hispanic, either having crossed the U.S. border
legally or illegally, or having once lived in Mexico until their land was lost in the Treaty
of Hidalgo. These two groups are, for the most part seen as non-desirable or unpreferred
immigrants for reasons associated with their actual or perceived entrance into the country
(Ogbu and Simons, 1998).
Native-Americans, while not immigrants, have historically been treated as such
since the arrival of European conquerors, due in part to their lack of a Eurocentric ideal
of education and culture. Explorers and original settlers saw them as “savages” or in
recent decades as “silent Indians.” Their history of oppression has been plagued with
killings and inadequate resources for centuries as they have been relegated to relatively
small parcels of barren land to live out their existence. They are subjected to educational
30

practices that are not consistent with their patterns of learning that vary greatly from the
Eurocentric ideals of education (Lipka, 1991).
To clarify the argument further, the issue of skin color is related to the negative
treatment of involuntary immigrants. These groups are not able to assimilate into
American culture as easily as some voluntary immigrants solely due to skin color. These
immigrants or natives are all considered involuntary or “unpreferred” immigrants. There
are usually negative stereotypes associated with these groups; however, more significant
than mere stereotypes, is how the American society has continued to deny the learning
opportunities to the descendents of these groups, thus ensuring that these groups will
continue to underachieve and remain in low paying jobs and poverty. By not providing
students of color a culturally relevant education and equitable educational resources, the
achievement gap among ethnic groups continues to exist and the stereotypes remain in
tact (Ogbu and Simons, 1998).
Voluntary immigrants, on the other side of the spectrum, have been given much
more respect and opportunities by the American public. These immigrants have found it
much easier to assimilate into the Americanization movement of immigrants and tend to
be more valued (Ogbu and Simons, 1998). For example, Irish and Italian immigrants
were discriminated against because of their ethnicity and economic status during their
original immigration to the U.S., but by today’s measures, these groups have been
assimilated and are accepted as part of “White” society. New immigrants from these
groups are treated as more desirable than involuntary immigrants. Although stereotypes
mark their presences, the stereotypes of the voluntary immigrant tend to be more positive
31

than those of the involuntary immigrant. Voluntary immigrants tend to be of European
descent, but more importantly they are much more likely to have come from or have been
able to move up to a middle or upper class background. The income level of immigrants
is a substantial determinate of how American society will perceive and treat the
immigrant and their forthcoming descendents (Ogbu and Simons, 1998).
Socioeconomic Status
Wealth status, along with race, is a common marker in American society for how
people will be treated and the opportunities they will receive. Extensive research has
explored the relationship between poverty and low academic achievement. Children of
poverty feel the effects of society’s prejudgment. A child is born into a family without
choice of parental status, yet he/she must deal with the serious issues that accompany an
economically disadvantaged status. Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) did extensive
research into the effects of living in poverty on the lives of children. Their findings
pointed to important effects of poverty in regard to the educational opportunities (Brooks-
Gunn and Duncan, 1997).
Children of poverty are more susceptible to major physical ailments; they are
more likely to die at a young age; they have higher rates of learning disabilities and
emotional problems, as well as lower academic achievement outcomes than non-poor
children. Beyond those particular issues, they are more likely to have children at a
younger age and be economically inactive by age 24, meaning they will not have a job.
Research such as the Coleman Report (1966) has suggested that students’ economic and
familial factors prevented low-income students from achieving the same levels of
32

academic success as those from higher income backgrounds because those factors made
those students mentally unable to achieve. The Coleman Report suggested that schools
could do little to mitigate these circumstances. Similar research, as a result of the
Coleman Report, has permeated the public’s reluctant response to the state of educational
opportunities for poor minority students.
Brooks-Gunn’s and Duncan’s (1997) strong statistical case about the negative
effects of poverty versus the more positive effects of not being poor, leads to question
whether the elimination of poverty would result in all children having the same
opportunities or would discrimination persist solely in racial terms? While this question is
beyond the scope of this study, it is an interesting quandary that deserves further analysis.
Ogbu (2003), however, does provide evidence that “Black students perform less well than
White and immigrant students at every social class level.” That finding provides
evidence that poverty is not the sole cause of low performance.

School-Wide Systems and Structures
Despite all the aforementioned historical trends, and the status of students of color
in the majority of high poverty schools, research has identified structural and systemic
practices that are perceived to contribute to high student performance in some high
poverty urban schools. The research suggests that discrepancies in the academic
performance of high poverty students can be reduced by effective systems and structures
that address the needs of the students at the school site (Marzano, 2003). Systems and
structures in most schools today are still based in constructs of race that benefit primarily
33

White middle class students (Bennett, 2001; Cummins, 1986; Katz, 1999; Lee, 1995;
Lipka, 1991). Teachers, schools, and students have been trained to believe in a certain
way that schools should function, but research shows that there is not one solution for all
children. Schools typically are based on White middle class mainstream culture to the
exclusion of other cultures, but students come from diverse backgrounds that must be
embraced and cultivated in order for all students regardless of income and/or race to
succeed (Bennett, 2001; Cummins, 1986; Katz, 1999; Lee, 1995; Lipka, 1991).
Marzano, (2003) has conducted a meta-analysis of the different factors that lead
to high student achievement. He suggests that there are school-level, teacher-level,
student-level, and implementation factors that contribute to the success of an
organization. However the theme throughout his book is the role of the leadership team
in facilitating all of these factors in integrated coherent systems. The school-level factors
he suggests are the most important are:
- students’ opportunities to learn
- time allocated for learning
- monitoring what is being learned
- pressure to achieve
- parental involvement
- the school’s climate
- cooperation
All factors should be guided by leadership. While all issues are important, the leadership
team must implement and ensure that there is a high level of accountability for all
34

stakeholders to overcome the historical racism and segregation that still affects schools
(Marzano, 2003).
Leadership Team
Bolman and Deal (2003) use what they have labeled the four frames of an
organization. For the organization to perform at its highest level all four of these frames
must work together in cohesion for the purpose of improving and stabilizing school
cultures and classroom instruction to benefit of all students. The four frames are
structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The application of these frames can
aid in addressing how the organization operates. Schools in urban environments tend to
focus more on political issues; so the school leadership must be highly trained in handling
those issues. Use of the symbolic frame along with the political frame can be highly
effective in such an environment (Bolman and Deal, 2003).
The structural frame work Bolman and Deal (2003) discuss, deals with how to get
results out of groups through organization and structures such as rules, regulations and
goals. Without functional structures and regulations, an organization may be plagued
with simple flaws that can taint the hard work the rest of the school has put in. The
human resource frame helps to promote positive group interaction and build interpersonal
relationships among all stakeholders. This frame is pivotal when dealing with urban
schools which may have ethnic rivalries that can hinder the learning opportunities of
students. The third frame, political, helps in understanding how to deal with power
conflicts that may arise at a school site as well as power struggles that may hinder
leadership from organizing the school site and making needed changes. The fourth frame,
35

which will aid in the ethnic management of the school site, is symbolic. This frame is
understood to be the power behind the words. This frame brings the ceremonies and
rituals that a school site needs to create an environment rich with learning and positivity.
The symbolic frame shapes a vision and adheres to it through multiple means (Bolman
and Deal, 2003).
Systems of Change
Because schools’ structures and systems have not served students of color well,
schools need successful models or systems correlating to Bolman and Deal’s structural
frame. In order for an urban school to begin to change and improve the academic
standing of its students of color, who are also from low-income backgrounds, many
change elements need to be in effect. Patterson (2001) lists five leadership strengths that
need to be adhered to when a school is going through radical change or adversity. First he
says to understand that there will be difficulties but to stay positive in spite of those
negativities. Second he points to staying focused and not creating too many goals, which
may become unattainable in the attempt to implement them all. Then he stresses
flexibility because there are many ways to tackle problems, not just one. Fourth, he
explains that action is better than reaction. Being pro-active and causing change by taking
risks and inventing new approaches will get a school further than just allowing daily
activities to take their course. Last, he says to use resilience-conserving strategies so that
time is not wasted in trying every good idea. Focus on a few areas that will make more
people satisfied and create more desired results rather than changing many things that
make selected groups of people content. Creating and actively focusing on a small set of
36

goals is critical in changing a school site of high poverty students of color that have
become entrenched in mediocrity and underachievement (Patterson, 2001). These are
exemplary of both the structural and human resource frames.
Pardini (2001) supports Patterson’s assertions with her four keys to leadership as
being flexible, focused, organized, and pro-active. Beyond these elements, addressing
racial issues is also needed in schools with students of color, particularly those in high
poverty schools (Lipka, 1991 and Lee, 1995). By addressing racial issues, the human
resource frame is being utilized (Bolman and Deal, 2003). It includes an emphasis on
culturally relevant based curriculum and pedagogy to guide the focus of the school
(Lipka, 1991 and Lee, 1995).
Part of the change process is to distribute leadership to address the political frame
of Bolman and Deal (2003). Bensimon and Neumann (1993) discuss the concept that
leadership at a school site should be a shared responsibly rather than performed by a
single person. Sharing responsibility forces collaboration in decision-making and causes
more buy-in from all stakeholders as well as increased accountability. Pavan and Reid
(1994) found similar results when they studied five elementary schools in Philadelphia.
The schools they studied were all low socioeconomic and no more than 4 percent White.
In their study they found that the most successful schools had leadership teams that
actively engaged, not only with the students, but most importantly with the faculty
employing both the human resource and political frames of Bolman and Deal (2003).
They also found that being a symbolic leader was of benefit to the school as well. By
37

building school traditions and rituals, the leadership team created a sense of belonging
and empowerment to teachers, parents, and students.
Pavan and Reid (1994) noted the powerful presence women have on a staff. They
note that women tend to hold high standards for faculty and students as well as from
themselves. The women in the study tended to focus on instruction and support which
led to a higher functioning school. Despite the findings that showed women as a positive
force as leaders, Pavan and Reid noted only a slight increases of women principals in
Philadelphia, but no notable change in other major cities (Pavan and Reid, 1994).
Kezar (2000) observed similar findings about the role of women as school
leaders. She found that women and people of color seemed to have a nonhierarchical
view of leadership, meaning they valued and relied on group relations, whereas White
males tended to be hierarchical, a leadership style that resulted in a negative impact in the
school setting. Strategies that seemed to work in her case study were learning
environments where everyone learned from other. There are valuable lessons to be
learned from peers, whether in a leadership role or as a student. Kezar also suggests being
inclusive of all sub-groups and ensuring ways to modify practices when need be. Kezar
encompasses the four leadership frames for successful leaders as stated by Bolman and
Deal (2003).
Kezar (2000) also points to clearly articulated goals at all levels if desired results
are to ensue. By creating a goal oriented site (Patterson, 2001) that is focused on
academics and culturally relevant pedagogy (Pardini, 2001; Lipka, 1991 and Lee, 1995)
an atmosphere of distributed leadership (Pavan and Reid, 1994) guided by all four frames
38

of leadership styles (Bolman and Deal, 2003) will work to create the most beneficial
learning environment for high poverty students of color (Kezar, 2000).
Accountability
Hill (2003) suggests a successful school has its focus on accountability. As stated
previously with leadership roles, schools whose leader focuses on sharing roles and
responsibilities have higher standards of accountability based in both distributed
leadership and the political framework. Hill makes a case that for schools to be more
successful, they must stop focusing on money issues and focus on the school’s
performance. The only way tangible change will occur is if schools create systems for
paying close attention to the performance of students and ways to improve it (Hill, 2003).
Leaders who implement high accountability have systems at every level of the
organization. This practice requires the human resources frame in order to put the right
people in the right places to carry out their roles effectively (Bolman and Deal, 2003).
In recent years the most pivotal and thought provoking research to be done in the
field of education has been the 90/90/90 study (Reeves, 2000). The study looked at
schools that were 90 percent students of color, 90 percent free and reduced lunch and in
the 90 percentile or above in achievement. These schools show that through certain
educational practices, schools such as those mentioned, can achieve at the highest levels.
The core theme these schools shared was a high level of accountability in all aspects of
the school. The schools focused on achievement; therefore they had highly structured
and clear curriculum choices. The schools frequently assessed students’ knowledge,
provided opportunities for improvement, emphasized writing, created ceremonies to
39

reward student achievement, and the schools did not rely on internal scoring of
assignments to attain the highest level of assurance that students’ achievement was
comparable to achievement at other school sites (Reeves, 2000). These factors worked
together in interwoven systems in schools that were highly structured.
Goals
According to Reeves (2000) “90/90/90 Schools,” one means by which these
schools implemented accountability was through an easily observable focus on goals for
educational success. The schools were rich in data that showed not only leadership teams
and teachers the outcomes of tests, but most importantly the students and any observer to
the schools, how well students were doing. The schools made education the top priority
and with that made all students accountable for maintaining and achieving that high level
of educational attainment. Reeves (2000) asserts high performing schools choose an
educational focus and make it the responsibility of all stakeholders at the school site to
work on attaining the goal. As stated earlier, it is important for schools to only tackle a
few goals at a time in order to provide the highest level of focus on those goals rather
than trying to achieve several at one time, which will lead to a blurred distinction of what
is important (Patterson, 2001; Pardini, 2001). The “90/90/90 Schools” have been able to
keep their focus on a few important issues, namely concentrating on writing and ensuring
consistent and constant growth on assessments (Reeves, 2000). Keeping the goals simple
allows for more focus and attention to those priorities, which will lead to a higher ability
to ensure accountability for the goals. These goals are used to raise teachers’ expectations
for students of color in high poverty schools. In urban schools it becomes difficult to only
40

focus on a few areas when it seems as though so much needs to reformed (Patterson,
2001; Pardini, 2001).
By only focusing on a few goals, schools and individuals can be more accountable
for outcomes (Patterson, 2001; Pardini, 2001). O’Day (2002) for example, points out
schools are responsible for making goals but it is individuals that must achieve these
goals. This political frame of shared leadership and accountability takes on the nature of
a systemic approach to change. When an organization in general is blamed, very few
people in the organization may make changes, but when identification of where the gap is
occurring can be stated, the individuals themselves can assess where their gap existed and
try to make changes (O’Day, 2002). By the “90/90/90 Schools” proudly displaying
student achievement throughout the school, they showed all members of the schools what
was important and identified how each person was making improvements, and every
individual making improvements was the target (Reeves, 2000). Maintaining this focus
required structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames of leadership.
Data Analysis
In an educational system that measures change and holds everyone accountable
for their roles, leaders need to implement systematic ways of collecting and analyzing
data as proof of goal attainment (Patterson, 2001). This is the behavior of a leader
operating in the structural frame (Bolman and Deal, 2002). Testing is a school structure
in place from the government to hold the leadership of a school accountable for student
growth and learning. Testing is not the only form of assessing students, but according to
NCLB, schools and students are held accountable through their test scores on state
41

standards tests. State standards tests, however, usually occur at the end of the school year
and results are given the following year, making follow up difficult. Johnson (2002)
looks at the importance of data analysis and states that far too often students are given
assessments and after the assessment is given, all is forgotten with no mention of the test
taking place or discussion of its importance. More important than just taking tests is what
happens with the data once it is collected. Johnson (2002) writes about the harm of this
negligence. She states that a strong leadership team is important to ensure that schools
institute more accountability in disseminating information regarding testing and that data
should be used to guide instruction.
Leaders, however, do not necessarily need to rely on test data solely to ensure
student learning. As also stated by Marzano (2003), the importance of data collection and
assessment is stressed to create an environment and culture that asks questions about
where students are and how they can move to the next level. Having or creating a vision
that focuses on the importance of planning and building toward the future, as well as
being accountable by monitoring progress throughout the year rather than only at state
test time, according to Johnson (2002), infuses a strong sense of importance in regard to
testing and accountability. To ensure student learning and progress is being made
teachers must analyze student progress in the classroom in day-to-day tasks such as
writing samples and in-class evaluations that assess whether a student is making progress
toward stated learning goals and objectives. Far too often schools do not adhere to strict
goal-attainment strategies as put forth by Patterson (2001) and Pardini (2001), and
schools become derailed in their efforts for reform.
42

Professional Development
Professional development is essential in helping teachers understand the value of
assessment and understanding the need to follow up lessons and other assessments.
Professional development is important for ensuring that all teachers are implementing a
fair and viable curriculum grounded in standards based instruction as mandated by state
regulations. Professional development in schools with students of color must also
include an emphasis on culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy (Weiner, 2003).
Instruction must be grounded in culturally relevant pedagogy for students to make
connections. Professional development is the most viable way to get all staff to recognize
and learn to implement this culturally relevant pedagogy. Analyzing data is the next step
for ensuring that curriculum and instruction have been implemented appropriately. It is
through constructive professional development that teachers learn how to use data and
understand its importance in framing the lessons that guide their ability to instruct
students of color, but as Johnson (2002) states, it is difficult to measure and assure that
teachers are fully invested in the professional development.
Parent and Community Involvement
Continual reinforcement of the importance of assessments and the use of data to
improve instruction will aid in the advancement of student achievement (Johnson, 2002).
It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure student growth therefore leadership
teams, teachers, and even students should be held accountable for their actions. With a
clearly defined system, all stakeholders will see how they fit into the organization and be
accountable to that system. Parental and community involvement have a major impact on
43

student learning as well as school culture. Marzano (2003) states three ways community
and parents contribute to the achievement of students, which are communication,
participation, and governance. When schools communicate with parents and the
community about the instruction and curriculum their children are receiving, it shows the
community that culturally relevant pedagogy is in use. It demonstrates that parents and
the community are valuable to the school. Not only do parents see this, but they are part
of making it happen. The symbolic frame from Bolman and Deal (2003) describes how it
is important to share successes and or failures. By getting outside stakeholders involved,
or “participating” through communication, a school can garner much support. It is also
important to have these stakeholders involved in the governance of the school. By
allowing community and parents to have a say at the school site, Marzano (2003)
suggests they will support the school further.
Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti (2005) support Marzano (2003) with regard to parent
engagement, but they delve deeper into understanding students’ funds of knowledge.
They suggest that by understanding what the students and familial values are, schools can
garner more home support from families and the community. In families of color, if a
child expresses an interest in some aspect of the household, the child will be allowed to
participate in the activity, but if no interest is shown the child will not be taught that task,
so children are learning implicit rules rather than explicit which is different from the
Eurocentric based educational system where all students are expected to learn everything
taught (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti, 2005). For schools, this kind of home activity
translates into needing parents and community members to be part of the school system
44

and share their funds of knowledge or experiences with the students. Not only does this
engagement with parents get the community involved in the school site, but it also shows
students that the knowledge their parents and community have is valued at the school site
and that there is transferability between what is learned at home and what is necessary for
success at school (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti, 2005).

Impact on Instruction
Specific school organizational structures and systems have a positive impact on
classroom instruction in high performing urban schools with a large concentration of low
socioeconomic students of color. To ensure all students have the opportunity to achieve,
teaching needs to:
- be standards-based, which is learned from professional development and is based
on preparing teachers to be effective in the classroom
- have teacher-student relationships based in culturally relevant pedagogy
- be collaborative
These three areas are explored through the lens of the impact on the school, students, and
instruction. The three foci were chosen based on Hoy et al.’s (2006) three similar findings
in their study of high performing schools. Their indicators include academic emphasis,
collective efficacy, and faculty trust.
Teacher Focus on Academics
Bennett (2001) calls for curriculum reform to counter the effect of over a century
of Eurocentric curriculum in schools and to eliminate cultural hegemony that critical race
45

theory was created to resist. It is important to link a diverse range of perspectives that are
culturally relevant to high poverty students of color to create a more inclusive curriculum
when teaching to the state standards required for all students. Valencia et al. (2002)
supports this notion and in addition calls for pre-service teachers to be taught and helped
to understand the bias permeating student textbooks. The goal is to expose students to
varying perspectives that call for social justice and social change making the text and
materials culturally relevant.
Overwhelmingly students of color have higher drop-out rates, suspension rates,
and expulsion rates when they also come from a low socio-economic background (See
Tables 1.1-1.5 and Figure 1.1). In spite of their low income, many families have rich
cultural backgrounds and attributes that have enabled them to survive dire circumstances.
Thus teachers need to transform classroom climate to reflect students’ backgrounds to
create academic equality according to Bennett (2001). To accomplish this Cummins
(1986) suggests incorporating students’ home language into the classroom to legitimize
the students’ home life and enable students to be more motivated to learn. It would also
give teachers more access to students’ thinking structures and past experiences that are
encoded in their home languages. By integrating students’ home culture the human
resource framework of leadership is woven into the classroom culture.
Cummins (1986) also discusses pedagogy and its effects on students. Cummins
discovered that teachers who overly correct students will produce a negative classroom
environment in which students will not try for fear of getting something wrong. Rather
than focusing on students overall understanding of the subject matter, negative
46

repercussions can prevail when correcting every mistake rather than looking at the big
picture (Cummins, 1986). By overcorrecting teachers can create too many goals for
students to try and achieve. Patterson (2001) discussed while goals are an integral part of
the school, focusing on too many goals can be counterproductive as evidenced in the
classroom when some students stop trying to actively learn. Another aspect for concern is
that by focusing on smaller issues rather than the bigger picture, many students of color
are then falsely identified as learning disabled due to behavioral issues. Once the student
is “labeled” there is a dependency that grows on the term which creates a “learned
helplessness” that is not beneficial to the academic achievement of the student
(Cummins, 1986).
Teacher-Student Relationships
“Positive teacher-student (as well as student-student) relationships based on
caring, respect, and trust, facilitate learning.” (Bennett, 2001) Students who perceive
racial bias from teachers are less likely to engage in classroom activities and in some
cases may deteriorate in their academic abilities. Katz (1999) examined teacher attitudes
toward a diverse group of students in the classroom. What she found was a student
perception of favoritism toward Asians and perceived negative stereotypes of Hispanics.
She particularly studied Hispanic students and found that while they had been
academically high achieving students in lower grades, as they transitioned into middle
school, they felt racially stereotyped by negative perceptions and began to become
alienated from school (Katz, 1999). In high performing schools teachers ensure that
students are not racially marginalized, and as stated previously, teachers who are
47

effective with students of color do not make reference to or present the Eurocentric
curriculum as the only version of reality. This approach by teachers helps historically
disadvantaged students of color understand that while racial prejudgments and societal
bias may exist, they do not exist in their classroom setting (Katz, 1999).
Pang and Sablan (1998) studied the attitudes of pre-service and in-service
teachers toward different ethnic groups. What they discovered is a stereotypical bias that
many of these teachers carried, and to further illuminate this bias, they discovered a
major prejudice toward African-American students that caused African-American
students to experience a lower quality education than the other students. To alleviate this
cultural bias, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) suggest that one of the most important
ways to get students to improve their abilities is by creating an atmosphere of relevant
cultural models and settings that can be applied to the students’ previous knowledge.
Like Vygotsky (Moll, 1992), Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) imply that giving
students a frame of reference with which they are familiar will make them more apt in
understanding new material. Vygotsky theorized learning as the “I + 1,” or zone of
proximal development. This means students come school with their “I” or personal frame
of reference, it is the duty of the school to give the student the “+ 1” or new information.
The more knowledge that can be added to the student through the guidance of another
person, the more students will internalize and learn. The learning however, has to be one
level above what the student already understands rather than cultural worlds apart. It is
the duty of the teacher to distinguish these levels.
48

Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) suggest that a lot of classroom material may
not be culturally relevant and therefore the student has no frame of reference to
understand the material. They suggest, as does Stanton-Salazar (1997), for teachers to
build on what students (regardless of background) deem as important and then build new
knowledge from that point. Students from all backgrounds have their own life
experiences. It is the responsibility of the instructor to understand the cultural models in
order to structure compatible and respectful cultural settings within the school.
Collaboration
One of the four elements Cummins (1986) suggests as pivotal in the education of
low-income students of color is to have a home collaboration program with the school.
By gaining “buy-in” from parents and the community, students gain a sense of
importance for the work and it can reduce behavior problems teachers suggest as one of
the reasons for failing students. Blasé and Blasé (2004) also note that collaboration is
important in ensuring culturally relevant pedagogy is in use inside the classroom.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) also describe the importance of parent teacher
relationships. In their study they looked at the home environment of students to try and
understand the value of reading in the home. The discoveries they made found literacy
important, but not in a same manner comparable to White households. They observed
Bible reading and attempts of parents who have had exposure to White family home life
reading to children, but in a limited manner. However, when the teacher reached out to
parents and made it the parents responsibility to read and work with their children,
parents were very willing to do so, but again the more culturally relevant the assignment,
49

the more buy-in was found (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). Pang and Sablan (1998)
found that teachers blamed the family for poor efficacy on the part of African-American
students, but in reality the poor efficacy came from the bias the teacher held. Positive
teacher-student relationships will lead to higher student efficacy, which is the ultimate
goal for high poverty students of color. Collaboration is not only necessary between the
home and school but amongst and between all stakeholders to ensure a viable curriculum
for students and teacher (Hawkins, 2007).

Conclusion
Historical data shows the presence and persistence of racial and economic
inequalities throughout the United States. However, through the implementation and
dedication of school-wide systems and structures inside and outside of the classroom,
schools can go beyond what has historically been a low bar for low-income students of
color. Extensive research finds that implementing a system of personalized accountability
that permeates the schools’ culture and instituting proven methods of culturally relevant
pedagogy implemented by a strong symbolic leadership team in a collaborative manner,
will increase the performance of schools who do not want to continually achieve below
state and national requirements.
50

Chapter 3- Research Methodology
Overview of the Study

As a cohort of students from the University of Southern California, a study was
conducted to understand how structures at a school site could be systematically
implemented for the instructional benefit of students of color in low income urban areas.
The research was designed to illuminate the most beneficial systems that aid schools in
overcoming the historical achievement gap. The purpose of this chapter is to describe and
articulate the design methodology for the study, which includes a discussion about:
- the school that has been studied and how it was chosen
- research questions and design, including limitations and delimitations to the study
- the data collection instruments as well as the processes and procedures for the
observations and interviews that have been conducted
The purpose of this study is to understand how the sociocultural theories of
learning, applied through systems and structures in a high performing school with high
concentrations of low income students of color, can contribute to high academic
achievement. The study attempted to fulfill this purpose by exploring a high school that is
comparably higher achieving than similar schools, through interviews and observations
of stakeholders along with the collection of artifacts. The following graphic (Figure 3.1)
shows the sociocultural theoretical framework on which the study was based. There is a
flow from historical trends to contemporary societal influences that have impacted
instruction. In spite of those influences, there are schools who adopt appropriate systems
51

and structures that produce high academic achievement with low income students of
color as indicated by the literature review and findings from the case study.
Figure 3.1 Theoretical Framework for High Poverty High Performing Schools Study

Research Questions
The research questions have been designed by a cohort of doctoral students at the
University of Southern California as a means to gather data regarding the systems and
structures that are shown to improve student performance. The aim of the questions is to
bring to light structures and systems that work to foster high academic achievement in
urban schools with high concentrations of low income students of color. It is the goal of
the research questions to find out what systems and structures are at work in the school
52

studied. To ensure all research questions are addressed equally Table 3.1 shows the
correlation between interview questions and their relation to the research questions. All
interview questions overlap to complement one another and help to create a
comprehensive response to the research questions. The research questions are as follows:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?

Table 3.1 Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions
Interview
Questions
Research
Question #1
Research
Question #2
Research
Question #3
Research
Question #4
Question #1 X X
Question #2 X X
Question #3 X X
Question #4 X
Question #5 X
Question #6 X X X X
Question #7 X X X

Research Design
The research design has been set up in a case study format to fully engage with
and understand a single complex case of a high school (Patton, 2000). As part of the
design a qualitative method was used through observations, collected artifacts, and
53

interviews. Patton (2000) articulates that all three are necessary for sufficient analysis of
the case to fully capture the nature of the environment to be studied and promote
triangulation of the data. The observations, collected artifacts, and interviews were
gathered from school site personnel and parents and then analyzed by this researcher.
This researcher also went through a rigorous IRB process that certified researcher
discretion and ethics were to be followed.
The main focus of the research design was to analyze the systems and structures
at the school site which enable the school to outperform other high schools with similar
demographics and location, as well as to delve into the school’s shared understanding and
implementation of sociocultural theories of learning which enable high poverty students
of color to succeed during their high school tenure.
Selection Process
To complete this research a case study on a school that fit pre-selected criteria was
conducted. The selection criteria for the school were as follows:
- high poverty school -
o 70% or more of students receiving free or reduced lunch from the school
o qualifying for Title I status
- high performing school -
o measured by API and AYP scores on the CST
o scores show a consistent trajectory of growth for a minimum of three years
and be consistent among all subgroups of students
- urban school -
54

o 60% or higher concentration of students of color, specifically African-
American, Hispanic, and/or indigenous peoples
o proximity to Los Angeles

Selected School
Based on the above listed criteria California Magnet High School (CMHS) was
chosen for the study because it fits the aforementioned objectives. According to the
school’s vision, it “cultivates life-long learners who communicate effectively, think
critically, and see themselves as citizens of a world community.” The school’s
commitment to the vision is observable through the school’s consistent ability to meet all
yearly AYP and API criterions. CMHS is a comprehensive high school that is comprised
of roughly 1642 students from historically racially disadvantaged “minority” groups.
Sixty-three percent of students are African-American, 35% are of Hispanic decent, and
1% are Asian students, along with 5 White students. These percentages exceed the 60%
or higher concentration of students of color requirement for participation. The gender
make-up of the school is highly skewed. Of the over 1600 pupil student body, slightly
over 500 of the students are male.
CMHS is considered an urban school because of its ethnic make-up and its
location in a major metropolitan area of California. In addition, the school qualifies for
Title 1 funding and participation in this study because 70% of students do qualify for free
or reduced lunch from the county.
55

CMHS is considered higher performing than the average high school in its district
as well as the state of California. In 2006 CMHS’s base API score was 689. The next
year, 2007, the school received a score of 707 which exceeded their growth target of 6
points (See Figure 3.2). All subgroups met their growth target with significant gains. All
major subgroups (African-American, Hispanic, and socio-economically disadvantaged
students) achieved over 700 points in API. Hispanic students made the largest gain of 30
points from the previous year. When compared to similar schools with the same
demographics, CMHS outscored those schools by nearly 70 points. When compared
state-wide, CMHS has a ranking of 6 which places the school above the state average,
however when compared to similar magnet schools in California it is ranked 9. The
following figure shows the school’s steady trajectory of growth that in recent years has
dropped slightly but is still well above state and county averages. In Figure 3.3 CMHS
performance is compared county and state-wide.
Figure 3.2 California Magnet High School's API

56

Figure 3.3 California Magnet High School API Compared County and State-wide

Participants
Participants for the study were chosen based on their voluntary willingness to
participate. By participation in the study being voluntary, a limitation was created in the
validity of the information gathered (Patton, 2000). The study focused upon four groups
of stakeholders at the school site, the first being administrators. They are the leaders of
the school site and create the systems under which the school operates. Teachers were
also interviewed and observed to identify the school wide instructional practices and the
teachers’ perceptions about the systems and structures in the school that support these
practices. The classified staff was also interviewed to gain a better understanding of how
the culture of the school permeates every level of the school site. Finally, parents were
surveyed so their opinions could be utilized for the purpose of identifying how effective
communication patterns between the home and the school impacted student learning.
Parents’ perceptions of the systems and structures at work on behalf of students will
provide important information.
57

Instrumentation and Data Collection Process
The conceptual framework the cohort decided to use was a sociocultural theory of
learning. According to Moll (1992), visa vie Vygotsky, students learn in a collaborative
learning environment that taps into their funds of knowledge. By including and valuing
community and parental knowledge, students of color have more opportunities to succeed
in school. It is important to consider students’ background as part of the teaching
practice. The theoretical framework also places an emphasis on systems and structures as
a means of promoting high academic achievement in high poverty, high performing
schools. The research questions guided the interview protocols that were developed to see
if the research matched what was found at the school site.
Artifacts
Figure 3.4 is a compiled list of artifacts the dissertation cohort compiled for the
identification of school wide practices and dissemination of information routines that
occurred at the school site that would allow for a greater understanding of the inner
working of the school. The purpose of these artifacts was to assess how information was
gathered and used at the school site and for what purpose. The artifact collection was
conducted throughout all visits to the school.
Figure 3.4 Artifacts Collected from California Magnet High School (Continued)
School Site Staff Materials
Attained From
Materials Attained
Office Support Staff
• Meeting Agendas
• Meeting Evaluations
• Master Calendar
• Classroom Configuration
• School-Wide Discipline Plan
58

• School-Wide Schedule
• Attendance Records for Staff/Students
• Ethnicity of Staff
• Mission/Vision Statement
Site Administrator
• Data Protocol
• School Site Plan
• Parental Involvement Plan
• Service Logs
• Professional Development
• School Site Council Agendas/Minutes
• Records/Data Placement of Students
• Classroom Configuration
• Symbols/Traditions
• School-Wide Discipline Plan
• CST Reports
• Assessments
• Referrals
• School Incentives
• Allocation of Resources
• Communication Plan
• Parental Involvement Plan
• Grading Procedures
Teachers
• Assessments
• Curriculum
• Grading Rubric
• Grading Procedures
• Classroom Discipline Plan
• Volunteer Schedule
• Parental Involvement Plan

Interviews
Interviews were conducted on an individual voluntary basis. All four groups of
stakeholders were interviewed using different interview protocols. Included in
Appendices A-H are the administrator, teacher, classified staff, and parent interview
protocols respectively. The semi-structured interview protocols were generated in the
dissertation cohort by four groups of students, and then revised to reflect the entire
59

cohorts’ judgment of the most effective questions for the interviews. Interviews were
conducted and lasted in varying lengths depending on respondents’ depth of answers, but
an attempt was made to not exceed 30 minutes. According to Merriam (1998) and
Creswell (2002) the use of interviews is important in garnering sufficient information
about the subject matter without trying to guide participant responses. Each question is
accompanied by a set of possible probing questions to ensure that the research question is
answered as fully as possible. Interviews given to all stakeholders were used to probe into
what were the effective systems and structures in place at the school site, how an
engaging and culturally diverse setting was in place, expectations of all stakeholders, how
the needs of students of color were addressed, and how the use of data and discipline
affected students.
Observations
Observations were conducted to gather unbiased data of the school’s stakeholders.
The dissertation cohort developed observation guides to delineate a theoretical
framework of a systemic approach to implementing sociocultural theories of learning to
guide the observations (See Appendix I, J, and K). The observation guides were used to
observe the constructs of race demonstrated at the school site. Observations were not
limited to the guide and included scripting of what had been observed, in accordance with
Patton (2000). Observations were completed on a volunteer basis so participants could
have the option of being observed or not. The observations were conducted with all four
participant groups. Observations occurred in teachers’ classrooms, in professional
development, parent meetings, walk-throughs on campus and leadership meetings. The
60

purpose of the observations was to assess and identify practices that supported the
sociocultural theory of learning and the best practices at use in and outside of the
classroom.

Data Analysis
The lengthy detailed qualitative responses garnered from the artifacts, interviews,
and observations were analyzed to gain a comprehensive perspective on the practices in
use by California Magnet High School that has allowed for high poverty students of color
to achieve higher than most students at similar schools. Data was analyzed using
Creswell’s (2002) steps for data analysis. As interpreted in Figure 3.5 and 3.6, the steps
include:
Figure 3.5 Process of Data Analysis (Continued)
Step One:
Organize and Prepare
• Sorting and arranging the data
• Transcribing interviews
Step Two:
General Sense
• Read through all data
• Reflect on the overall meaning
• Record general thoughts about data
Step Three:
Coding
• Create and label categories
• Organizing the material into
“chunks”/categories
Step Four:
Description
• Generate a description of the
setting/people/categories/themes
• Detail rendering of information
• Generate small number of
themes/categories
• Display multiple perspectives
Step Five:
Represented
• Narrative passage to convey the findings
of the analysis
• Detail discussion of themes
• Discussion with interconnecting themes
• Present a process model (grounded in
theory)
61

Step Six:
Interpretations
• Meaning of the data
• Lessons learned
• Researcher’s personal interpretation
• Meaning derived from comparison of the
findings to literature/theories
Source: Creswell (2002)

Figure 3.6 Creswell’s Process of Data Analysis Graph

To ensure validity Creswell’s (2002) recommendations were practiced in the following
ways:
- triangulation of data was used to ensure the validity of the information gathered at
the school site
- detailed descriptions were used
- identifying and limiting that fact that I as the researcher bring bias into the
research
- negative and positive aspects of the research are described
- presence of external auditor, the dissertation review board, that has reviewed the
entire process as well as the IRB process to ensure ethical behavior
62

A limitation to the study that Creswell (2002) suggests as necessary for a case study is the
amount of time allotted to spend at the school. Attempts to overcome the issue of limited
time was attempted to be compensated for through the use of qualitative research design
to elicit elaborate responses.

Conclusion
The research methodology for this study is important in understanding how data
were gathered, from whom, and for what purpose. In order to conduct this research it
was necessary to complete the IRB process. The process validated the ethical practices of
the study and allowed this researcher to ask for access to the California Magnet High
School site from An Urban School District. Access included allowing for interviews and
observations of the stakeholders at the school site to be conducted after AUSD consented
to the study. The sociocultural theory of learning has also been discussed in relation to its
importance in decoding its presence at the school site. The dissertation cohort created
comprehensive interview protocols along with observation protocols that allowed for
triangulation with gathered artifacts from the school site. By triangulating the gathered
data reliability and validity were increased. The purpose of the case study was to answer
the research questions. Based on the data gathered from the site visits each research
question is addressed in the proceeding chapter.
63

Chapter 4 – Findings
Introduction
The American educational system is plagued with vast disparities among the
achievement of high poverty students of color in urban schools. The intent of studying a
school that has broken the academic barriers that prevent many students of color in high
poverty urban areas from succeeding educationally is to shed more light onto the subject
and expand on the body of knowledge already in circulation. The focus of this study is
on a high school with high concentrations of students of color living in a high poverty
urban area that has surpassed similar schools academically. The Southern Californian
school, California Magnet High School, is typical of schools in its area in regard to
demographics, but not academic standing. The administration of the school and its district
agreed to be studied to assist in providing a better understanding of the school’s
administration, teaching staff, classified staff and parents, for the purpose of providing
useful information to other schools interested in improving their efforts toward higher
academic achievement. Contact was made with representatives of all major stakeholder
groups to gain greater insight into the systems and structures at the school that are
perceived to contribute to high student performance.

Research Questions
To guide the collection of information obtained from the school, research
questions were constructed to focus the intent of the study. The research questions are as
follows:
64

1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?
The preceding questions were answered by the school through interviews with the
leadership team, teaching staff, operational staff, and parents. (For more details on the
correlation of research questions with interview questions, please see Table 3.1 in
Chapter 3.) Responses were also garnered through observations of each of those groups
as well as physical data that permeated the campus. Six days were spent following the
dean of students and the principal of the school to gain more insight into their roles in the
day-to-day functioning of the school. Parent meetings and the parent center were also
large sources of data in addition to classroom observations and observation of students at
lunch and passing periods. The school newsletters, leaflets and handouts, as well as other
various printed materials found throughout the school, were other sources of information
for responding to each of the research questions.
The following sections are organized by each research question. The purpose is to
discuss what was found at the school site through the lens of each research question and
gain a greater understanding of how California Magnet High School functions.

65

Trends and Patterns of Student Behavior
Research question 1 asks: What are the trends and patterns of performance among
students of color? California Magnet is a comprehensive urban high school that serves a
major metropolitan area. The school is comprised overwhelmingly of female students
(See Figure 4.1). Of the over 1600 student population, only 511 are male. Some
administrators and teachers attribute the low number of males to the lack of a football
team; however other factors that are unknown, may also contribute to the low number.
Figure 4.1 Student Enrollments by Gender
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Females Males

Table 4.1, provides a profile of the student enrollment at CMHS. The table depicts
an urban school with a high concentration of students of color. Despite the high
percentage of students of color, who typically under perform in relation their White and
Asian American peers, the school is outperforming other schools with similar
demographics across the state, as will be discussed in Figure 4.4 on page 68. CMHS
attendance data has steadily increased in the past 5 years from 92.52 percent to 94.73
percent showing a pattern of growth. In the past 5 years the number of suspensions has
also decreased from 259 suspensions down to 174 suspensions despite a small increase in
the 2006-2007 school year. On average the school expels or opportunity transfers one
student a year. Despite being a magnet, CMHS does have an increasing population of
66

non-native speakers. In the last 5 years reclassification of these students has drastically
increased from none to 23.61 percent of English learners.
Table 4.1 Student Enrollment

Group
2005-06
Enrollment
Number of Students 1642
African American 67.6%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.2%
Asian 0.5%
Filipino 0.2%
Hispanic or Latino 30.9%
Pacific Islander 0.0%
White (not Hispanic) 0.5%

Figure 4.2 shows the school’s API scores over the course of 9 years. In this
history of testing, the lowest API the school received was 601, but they have managed to
raise the score to a current score of 707. The score has improved over 100 points.
Compared to the district in Figure 4.4, the average score of all high schools has not
managed to break the 100 point improvement mark as of yet. However, if CMHS is
compared to the Highest Performing Magnet (HPM) in AUSD (Figure 4.3), CMHS’
score is a full 100 points lower. This disparity could be based on CMHS’ inability to
choose any of its students because acceptance is done completely on a lottery system
based on students who applied, whereas HPM has the ability to pick half of its students
from the applicants and then the remaining students are selected from the same lottery
67

system as the one used for CMHS. The ability to pick half the students skews the
comparable data. CMHS’ students are a cross section of students of their surrounding
area. It is plausible that HPM may have chosen the top tier of students from its
surrounding neighborhood.
A noteworthy discussion about student performance at CMHS in comparison to
HPM is regarding the data for sub-groups at each school. CMHS may have a lower API
than HPM but unlike HPM, CMHS’ socio-economically disadvantaged students are
outperforming most of the students at the school with a score of 716. There is only a 17
point difference between Hispanics at CMHS, who received a score of 717, and African-
American students, who received a score of 700. This depicts a school where all sub-
groups are achieving at similar levels. On the other hand, HPM has glaring discrepancies
among sub-groups. The API for all students in 2006-2007, was 807, but Asian-American
students received an API of 910, Hispanics received a score of 792, and socio-
economically disadvantaged students received a score of 799. Analyzing only socio-
economically disadvantaged students from both schools, the API score difference was 83
points and the Hispanic score difference was 75 points. These differences are significant
but could be due to selection criteria for each school. The data also indicate that the
White students receiving an API of 774 points are actually the lowest scoring students at
HPM. Unlike CMHS, there are large disparities in subgroups’ performance, and their
higher average API is largely determined by one their Asian American students. CMHS
does not have Asian students who are creating this outlier performance to skew the data.

68

Figure 4.2 California Magnet High School's API

Figure 4.3 Highest Performing Magnet School’s API

Figure 4.4 California Magnet High School API Compared County and State-wide

69

These figures show how much higher CMHS performs than most schools in its
local district and its higher rate of growth than HPM. The trajectory of growth is also
important to address. Although CMHS is not performing as high as HPM, the growth
from 2000 for CMHS was 106 points, while HPM’s growth is only 65 points. A slight
setback is the dip in scores among both magnets in 2005. Neither magnet has surpassed
their 2005 API scores as of yet. The causes for such a downturn are unknown to the
researcher, but it is interesting to note that 2005 was a peak year for both schools. The
API in both schools dropped in 2006. Only CMHS regained in 2007 most of the points
lost in 2006. HPM did not improve its score between 2006 and 2007. While CMHS
scored slightly higher on their standardized tests in 2005, maintaining such a high API or
improvement reflects significant structures and systems at work to produce academic
achievement. This study focuses on the systems and structures perceived to have
contributed to this progress. Figure 4.5 shows a comparison of API scores from four
magnets in the district, CMHS is included. School “a” is An Urban Magnet High School
(AUMHS). School “b” is Highest Performing Magnet (HPM). School “d” is a Different
Magnet High School (DMHS). Some data for AUMHS and DMHS were unlocatable.
Figure 4.5 API Scores for Magnet Schools in AUSD
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1999 2005 2006 2007
a
b
CMHS
d

70

Table 4.2 Student Performance - California Standards Tests

2006-07 Percent Proficient and Above
English-Language Arts 48.0%
Mathematics 7.0%
Science 22.0%
History-Social Science 27.0%

Table 4.2 shows the break down of student performance on the California
Standards Test. If CMHS is compared to these three other magnets in the district, CMHS
is performing comparable to two magnet schools. Figure 4.6 shows the break down of
each subject and the percent proficient or above at each school site. AUMHS and DMHS
are performing at comparable levels to CMHS; however school HPM has well surpassed
the other magnet schools. As stated before, CMHS is the only magnet in this comparison
group whose student population is constituted purely on a lottery system; therefore, they
do not choose their students. That alone makes the school different from the other magnet
schools chosen for comparison.
Other notable differences in populations among the schools are the demographics.
CMHS has the highest percent of African-American students. Across the district,
African-American students tend to score lower on the CST’s than Hispanic students and
other sub-groups. CMHS is breaking a district trend. When comparing the other magnets
to CMHS is important to note none of the other schools in this study have predominantly
African-American students. Another reason comparisons cannot be generalized across the
magnet schools is also related to demographics. HPM has the highest percentage of
71

Caucasian and Asian-American students and the lowest number of African-American and
Hispanic students among the four magnets being compared in this study. Over 30% of
HPM’s population is not students of color, which may account for the discrepancy in
scores in comparison to CMHS if district wide trends among these subgroups are applied
for comparison.
Figure 4.6 California Standards Test Comparison (Continued)
English-Language Arts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
a b CMHS d
Proficient and
Above

Mathematics
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
a b CMHS d
Proficient and
Above

Science
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
a b CMHS d
Proficient and
Above

72

History-Social Studies
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
a b CMHS d
Proficient and
Above

Further evidence of CMHS’s achievement, is a graduation rate of 90.4% and a
completion rate of courses required for UC and CSU admission (A-G requirements) of
70.7% according to AUSD’s SARC summary for the school. Tables 1.3 and 1.4 in
Chapter 1 illuminate the divergence of CMHS high graduation and A-G completion rate
from the overwhelming drop-out rate many urban schools endure. Throughout the
district students have a 63% graduation rate, according to AUSD records. The course
completion totals are even more dismal for the district as a whole with only 39.3% of
African-American and 39% of Hispanics actually taking the necessary classes for college
enrollment according to ED-Data for California. Figure 4.7 shows the dramatic difference
between CMHS and AUSD graduation rates and A-G requirement completion. As a more
fair comparison Figure 4.8 shows the graduation rate and A-G- requirement completion
rate of CMHS as comparable to that of the other magnet schools. AUMHS’ graduation
rate is 97.8, but no A-G requirement data were available at the time of this study. HPM’s
graduation rate is 91% and 72.1% for A-G requirement completion. DMHS completion
rates are 83.2% and 59.2% respectively. CMHS’ graduation and A - G completion rates
are comparable to HPM and higher than DMHS.
73

Figure 4.7 CMHS vs. AUSD’s Graduation Rate and A-G Completion
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Graduation
Rate
A-G
Completion
CMHS
AUSD

Figure 4.8 CMHS vs. Other Magnet’s Graduation Rate and A-G Completion
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Graduation Rates A-G Requirements
a
b
CMHS
d

Due to CMHS’ high completion rates many of its graduates have been accepted to
universities across the United States and received over 7.5 million dollars in merit-based
scholarships. Appendix L shows the list of colleges and scholarships the class of 2007
received. The list, along with the break down of each college and the names of each
student admitted to the particular school, is located in a nine page document that is given
to parents and students and can also be easily and proudly found in the front office. The
list shows that prestigious universities across the United States recognize the students of
CMHS for being able to compete and succeed along side students from around the world.
CMHS has been known to send the largest number of African American students to UC’s
in the district and state.
74

Structures and Systems
Research question 2 asks: What are the organizational structures and systems that are
perceived to contribute to high student performance in high poverty urban schools with
large concentrations of students of color? The structures and systems at CMHS are
highly organized and integrated for optimal student performance. To obtain high student
success rates the school focuses on four aspects of the theoretical framework established
in Chapter 2. As in most urban school districts some of what schools do on a daily basis
is foundational based on district mandated structures. Schools then use the structures to
guide the systems of the school site. In response to district mandated structures, the
systems in place at CMHS include the leadership team, accountability, professional
development, as well as parent and community involvement.
Leadership Team
Leadership is a key factor in regard to how well the school’s systems and
structures are implemented to create a school culture that supports students’ high
academic performance. Leadership at CMHS is a comprehensive and flexible body of
representatives from all major stakeholder groups depending upon the situation at hand.
Leadership stakeholder groups include administrators, the dean, teachers, parents, support
staff, and students depending on circumstances as well as the fluidity of representatives
from each group contributing to distributed leadership which Bensimon and Neumann
(1993) cite is an important aspect of leadership.
Independent of the stakeholders involved in decision-making, all stakeholder
groups agree that an important element in their systems that continually guides their work
75

is goal setting. A major goal of the school is high academic performance. The district
measures academic performance on standardized testing results. CMHS addresses the
need for high academic achievement through goal setting, informational meetings,
professional development, and highly publicized scores. A science teacher commented
“that the administration reminds the teachers to communicate to the students what the
history and legacy [of the school] is, and I think that has a big impact.” The school has
turned a structure such as standardized testing, created by the state, is enforced through
NCLB, and turned it into something positive for the students. Students are clearly
notified of the importance of such tests and are then honored for the hard-work they put
in to improve their performance on the tests. The tests are not forgotten after test day
(Patterson, 2001; Pardini, 2001). The mission of CMHS is:
[California Magnet High School’s] college preparatory program emphasizes
scientific inquiry, critical thinking, and effective communication. We extend our
classrooms into a larger world by offering experience-based learning in hospitals,
research laboratories, and community clinic settings, while at the same time
introducing our students to the rigors of math, social studies, and science project
competitions. These experiences nurture our students to become life-long learners
and responsible citizens.

The mission expresses the unified voice of the school and its focus on education, but also
the parts of education that they focus upon more specifically are scientific inquiry, critical
thinking, and effective communication. By limiting the number of goals, or instructional
foci the school is trying to attain, it unifies and raises the importance of the goals they
have selected as noted by Patterson (2001), Reeves (2000), and Pardini (2001).
Along with limited goal setting, Patterson (2001) addresses four other keys to
success for a leadership team: positivity, flexibility, action orientation rather than
76

reactionary behavior, and focusing on areas that the largest number of people agree upon
or can concede to rather than trying to do everything. The principal at CMHS embodies
these principles, and leads by example. The leadership of the school understands the
importance of creating a shared culture of student success via the aforementioned areas.
On campus there is a general culture of positive attitudes among all stakeholders
that has been fostered by the leadership team. The students and staff greeted the
researcher cordially with a willingness to help. In the classrooms, students were willing
to show work and explain their work. Even in the staff meetings, problems were
approached as a way to improve everyone rather than punish for underachieved goals.
For example, during the professional development regarding student test data, the data
were not as high as hoped, but rather than giving up or blaming the students, the teachers
and administrators worked together to find ways to integrate ideas for higher student
success for the next round of testing.
In addition to positive outlooks on their future testing data, the leadership also
understands the importance of recognition for the accomplishments of the students and
teachers. These symbols of success could be found throughout the school (Bolman and
Deal, 2003). In one hallway there was a wall where the different homerooms compete for
highest GPA’s. The goal is to try and win privileges, but also increase student
performance. The college admission listing is also enlarged in another hallway. Student
work and descriptions of the projects were found throughout the school in display cases.
Student trophies are also proudly displayed. Even in the dean’s office posters of support
and inspiration were visible. When any adult walked through the hallways, students
77

smiled and said “hello” and even answered questions. In addition, the principal knew
most of the students and was able to have conversations with the students about their
futures. In fact, the principal was out for just one day and students and staff alike came
up to her the next day to make sure she was okay. This is an example of human resource
leadership.
Flexibility, action orientation, and creating a positive tone are other traits the
leadership team embodies. Like most high schools, problems are encountered on a daily
basis that the leadership team must work together to address. On one particular day the
principal was walking the lunch yard and found a paper that the students were reading.
The list contained personal information about some of the students. The principal, other
administrators, the dean, the librarian, and students all worked as a team until the issue
was resolved and the culprits were identified by the end of the school day. This is an
example of distributed leadership in which the administrators worked together to identify
which grade level of students were being targeted as well as which students had copies of
the list. The dean worked with the librarian to assess whether the list had been typed in
the library by looking through student log-ins for the day. The dean also worked with
students named in the list to assure they were not too upset by it as well as to garner
information about possible suspects. By all of the groups working together to fix this
problem and reduce the stress of such a situation, the team exhibited coordinated
structural leadership and an emphasis on a positive sociocultural setting and created a
positive tone on campus. This kind of unified action shows the leadership team does not
78

allow negativity to be perpetuated and distract from the emphasis on scholarship (Bolman
and Deal, 2003).
Another example of the systems the school’s leadership used to create a
scholarly and safe school culture is in regard to tagging. The boys’ restroom was being
used as a place to write gang-affiliated words on the walls. To remedy the situation, the
leadership team came up with a temporary solution. Students had to sign and take a
clipboard from their teacher’s room which included time and date of departure as well as
time back into the classroom, to keep a running log of who was in and out of the
classrooms per day and at what time of day to try and pinpoint which students were doing
these things. In addition they had a security guard stationed in front of every bathroom
checking the pass for validity. During a parent meeting, the principal explained the issue
to the parents and the parents’ immediate response was to express the need for additional
video cameras on campus to observe inappropriate behaviors displayed by the students.
The principal explained the difficulties she had dealing with the district to fix the cameras
they already had, so the parents decided that they would look into what they could do to
help the school get the cameras fixed. The school had an issue, and to alleviate the issue
the leadership fostered an environment where administrators, parents, and support staff
worked together to fix the problem. This incident provided an example of distributed
leadership and the human resource frame at work (Bolman and Deal, 2003) to solve a
problem and depicts parents as leaders of the school as well (Bensimon and Neumann,
1993).
79

The last of the traits to be addressed, that the leadership team embodied, was the
ability to make decisions in the best interest of the whole school. This requires leadership
in the political frame, which negotiates the different desires or opinions within the school
(Bolman and Deal, 2003). The principal commented about this issue when she was
describing how she implements new systems at the school. She said it is much easier to
have people on board with her rather than being the “lone ranger” on issues. At a
professional development devised by the principal and literacy coach, they created an
experience for the teachers to come to the understanding that they need to implement
literacy across the curriculum to gain higher test scores rather than merely telling the
teachers that is what they needed to do. She presented the test data showing the type of
problems on which students were having difficulty. The problems shown were all related
to word-problems and not based on students’ ability to merely regurgitate learned
concepts. The teachers recognized this pattern and realized the value of using literacy
across the curriculum. The principal merely presented the data and facilitated a
discussion that enabled teachers to identify the problem.
Exemplifying the political and human resource frame of Bolman and Deal (2003),
the principal also said she likes to involve as many stakeholders as possible in decision
making so that there is more buy-in to programs. Teachers agreed in interviews and
applauded her with being very instrumental with addressing parent and teacher needs, all
for the shared benefits of the school (Pavan and Reid, 1994). An example teachers gave
of the school’s commitment to students and a shared culture were the hours of after
school help teachers give to students on a purely voluntary basis, yet all teachers
80

participate in it. While not mandatory, teachers choose to spend their time after school
helping students for free because it is beneficial for the students and the school. This plan
was devised by the principal and some teachers of the school for the benefit of the
students, but buy-in to the program was evident from the participation by the entire
teaching staff.
The shared leadership at a school is clearly responsible for the systems and
structures. Pavan and Reid (1994) and Kezar (2000) found that women and people of
color tended to be more successful as leaders of a school. They found that these women
were less hierarchical than White males to allow for a better learning environment due to
the multiple facets of input from all stakeholders. Having a principal that is a female of
color, as well as most other stakeholders who participate in decision making at the school
site who are either people of color, women, or both, may enhance the student
achievement levels for a school whose enrollment is largely students of color. Examples
of this principal’s commitment to shared decision making can be seen in several facets of
the school already discussed. For example, professional development was driven by
student needs that teachers deemed as important. The discipline policy requires students
to participate in the process of writing out their side of the story as a way to help them
reflect on their behavior, rather than just being punished. Teachers are encouraged to
participate in after-school activities but not forced, yet most teachers still participated;
and parents are continually on campus helping to make decisions about the well-being of
the school and its’ students.

81

Accountability/Data Analysis
Accountability and data analysis, according to Hill (2003) and Johnson (2002),
are other systems in the school that have been shown to be an important integral part of
the school’s functioning. As stated previously, student test data were examined closely to
see where improvements need to be made. Teachers are also held accountable for
ensuring that, if their students are falling behind in certain areas, they actively search out
ways to improve their teaching practice.
Student Accountability. The school is also a model for respect among its stakeholders.
Students are held accountable for their actions that demonstrate disrespect for one another
and adults. Students are expected to be active participants in a respectful learning
environment. They are expected to follow school rules such as uniform policy, tardy
policies, and other rules that contribute to a learning environment. As part of the school’s
discipline policy, a student may receive detention during the school day either at break or
lunch for certain infractions. Whether the dean was in her office or not when break or
lunch began, the students were waiting for her outside her door. The willingness to accept
their consequences had a lot to do with CMHS’ discipline policy. While they do have a
“zero” tolerance policy for fighting and more serious offenses, smaller infractions are
treated with equal gravity. Whenever a student is sent to the dean’s office, the student
must fill out an incident report form. This requirement, while not explored in the
literature review, seems to allow the student to recount their version of the story, but it
also requires the student to write and think out what they are saying about their actions.
This policy prevents the incident from become an issue of arguing over what each side
82

said because it is now all written. It also gives students the opportunity to list witnesses
that may corroborate their story. Depending on the severity of the incident students may
receive detention, suspension, or expulsion. All possible outcomes are accompanied with
parent advisement from the school. This discipline policy allows for all sides to be heard
and represented in support of the school’s model of respect.
Professional Development
It is difficult to assess how much investment teachers have in the professional
development, but when interviewed, teachers commented on how important and useful
the professional development is for their everyday practices (Johnson, 2002). Staff
meetings and professional development almost solely deal with student performance. The
principal along with support staff, such as the literacy coach, plan ahead to ensure the
needs of the staff and students are met through useful professional development. The
local district provides the school with guest lecturers that provide support for teachers in
their respective fields of expertise. Professional development is not only about being
lectured at; the teachers must participate and complete activities that would be required of
the students to do in the classroom. An example of a strategy used in the professional
development was a chart listing various ailments and then numbers alongside the words.
As a group the teachers were confused but when they started asking questions about the
information received, some assumptions were made. After assumptions were made,
teachers were given more information to start to make meaning. This exercise was an
attempt to have teachers experience what the students go through when given text with
which they are not familiar, but it also provided ways for the staff to see how literacy is
83

embedded in science and math. By actually completing the assignments themselves,
teachers are able to ask the guest speakers or they themselves come up with ideas about
tweaking the assignment, assessing its effectiveness, and gain from the experience of
doing it themselves.
Professional development is not only designed for the purpose of learning new
concepts, but to expose teachers to different ways of solving a particular issue they are
having with their classes, and then take that information to their department meeting for
the department to discuss for use with their students. This collaboration is an example of
creating an environment and culture that asks questions about how to get students to the
next level of learning (Marzano, 2003).
In one particular professional development teachers were shown student test data
with the low proficiency rates in certain areas (see Figure 4.6 for proficiency levels given
to teachers at the meeting). The teachers themselves discussed the patterns they saw and
came to the conclusion that students had issues with questions requiring reading skills in
subjects other than English. To combat the issue of lower performance in subjects other
than English, the professional development focused on literacy across the curriculum.
The teachers were given the tutorial and actually tried out the problem given to them. The
teachers were involved and actively discussing what could be done in the classroom to
support what had just been learned. Then teachers were disbursed into departments with
their actual test data. Each department discussed their strengths and weaknesses by class
and question type. This allowed the whole department to see which teachers were able to
teach certain concepts well so these teachers could share their techniques on teaching that
84

topic to the others in their department. It was a very collaborative process that allowed
teachers to openly discuss teaching practices, but it was all centered on student data and
increasing student performance, which can be a difficult task toward getting teachers
fully invested in the professional development (Johnson, 2002). The school exemplified
sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning for adults in the professional
development setting.
Parent and Community Involvement
Another system at CMHS in place on a daily basis is parent and community
involvement. Everyday parents are seen on campus for various reasons. Marzano (2003)
suggests that there are three ways in which parents and community must be involved:
communication, participation, and governance. Parents at CMHS are involved in all
three areas. The morning of the first Tuesday of every month is called “Coffee with the
Principal.” The purpose of this meeting is to have parents come to the school site for an
intimate meeting with the principal where teachers and others at the school, along with
the principal, disclose important information. It also allows parents to talk about issues
they may be having and provide suggestions for a variety of concerns. While attendance
at the meetings are normally low in number they provide a beneficial way of
communicating with parents who may not be available to go to meetings that occur after
school due to work schedules and so forth. By attending this meeting the parents are able
to meet other parents and build a sense of community within the school site. For example,
they found out the family of one of the students at the school was going through a
difficult financial period; so the parents devised a way to help bring meals and candles to
85

the family to try and support them in their time of need. Creating a sense of connection
between the school and home is a powerful indicator of the school valuing the home and
its culture. This setting with parents also demonstrates sociocultural and constructivist
theories of learning in working with adults.
According to the parents interviewed, the school does even more than help
families in need to provide a valuable experience for their children (Marzano, 2003). The
school also helps the parents to help their children. One parent, during her interview,
discussed how accessible all of her child’s teachers are. She had e-mail addresses for all
of them. The teachers were willing to have conferences throughout the year to discuss her
child’s progress. She was also able to attend the numerous parent nights and various other
informational meetings to discuss college and other issues vital to her child’s success.
Parents are also invited to observe potential new teachers. At one “Coffee with the
Principal” parents were welcomed to drop by a particular classroom that had a substitute
teacher who was being considered for full-time employment. One parent did go observe
the class and to her dismay she did not like what she saw. While the school has had many
successes, not everything is perfect. CMHS has similar problems to many schools. This
particular class was overcrowded and not on task. The principal brought this to the
attention of the teacher. While the teacher had no control over the class size, he did have
all students on task by the time this researcher passed by the class a second time during
the class period. This kind of involvement is an example of how parents are welcome on
campus at any time and are asked for their input on the daily functioning of the school.
86

Parents are seen as an integral part of their child’s high school experience and are wanted
on campus to support the learning experience.
Using distributed leadership to include parents has allowed for an inclusive
relationship between all major stakeholders at and beyond the school site (Bensimon and
Neumann, 1993). Parents are seen as viable sources of information, help, and tools for
student success. Teachers are valued as integral parts of students’ education during and
after school as well as their input being valued. Administrators are not the lone rangers at
the school. They make decisions in concert with the needs of the students and the buy-in
of teachers and the community. In including all stakeholders, the principal is exhibiting
the human resources frame (Bolman and Deal 2003).

Instruction
Research question 3 asks: How are the organizational systems and structures
implemented to support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes
student learning? In addition to creating a school culture that supports high academic
achievement, the systems and structures at CMHS support school wide effective
instruction at the school. As discussed in the Trends and Patterns section, student
performance is at the center of the effort put forth by all stakeholders at CMHS. Teachers
discuss student performance to ensure that all students are learning. They enlist the help
of fellow teachers for advice on better teaching strategies.
There are three important areas of focus for instruction according to Hoy et al.
(2006). They include a focus on academics, collaboration, and school relationships based
87

in trust. Collaboration at CMHS has already been discussed in regard to parent and
school involvement, teacher collaboration among themselves, as well as collaboration
between the leadership team and the staff in regard to decision making, an example of
which is the use of data to guide instruction. Collaboration between the home and school
is necessary for a high functioning school (Cummins, 1986). CMHS appears to have built
a strong foundation, and this perception is supported by parent comments and parent
visibility on campus.
Beyond work in the classroom and collaboration with fellow teachers regarding
optimal teaching practices, teachers are also asked to sponsor at least one after school
activity for the students each week. As stated before, this requirement is not contractual,
but all teachers participate. This policy brings to the students more than just a focus on
classroom time, but it also allows students to make contact with their teachers outside of
the classroom in various activities (Marzano, 2003). Examples of after-school activities
that teachers sponsor include tutoring, counseling, sports, and other various clubs.
Counseling is an example of the school’s efforts to help students in need. The counseling
clubs target certain issues students may be dealing with and include students who are
facing the problem currently as well as in the past. A club that was being initiated was a
support group for students who had lost loved ones such as their primary caregivers. This
shows how instruction neither begins nor ends in the classroom at CMHS. Care for
students and opportunities to learn permeate the entire school culture.
CMHS’ focus on academics has also been highlighted by the amount of data
analysis that takes place at the site. In addition to data analysis teachers must teach state
88

standards which can be found in the classrooms. CMHS’ goal is to have students be
taught rigorous standards based curriculum. As in most schools and classrooms,
evaluating rigor can be difficult to quantify, as well as for the purpose of this research.
In a math class the students were able to explain out loud to the class, how they
were solving exponential equations using log. Despite the fact it was a math class, the
students were also required to use Cornell notes and read. When the teachers asked
questions about the lesson, the students all wanted to answer the teacher’s questions, and
when they discovered some of the class calculators were out of batteries multiple students
offered to bring batteries from home. When students were asked to regroup, they did so
with minimal conversation and appeared eager to begin working. The students were so
engaged in the lesson that they stayed in class after the bell rang to ask what they had for
homework. Not a single student stood up and left before homework was assigned.
In another class 10
th
grade students were reading Antigone. The students were
required to buy their own books and have it with them every day. To enter class the
students had to show their margin notes in the assigned chapters. As a class assignment
for engagement purposes the students were required to turn the name Antigone into an
acronym that described the text. They were to also develop questions relating to the text.
The questions incorporated three levels of questioning. Level 1 questions were surface
questions that asked basic information regarding the text; Level 2 required contextual
questions which required understanding of the text; and Level 3 were global questions
that needed to incorporate words from their word wall and implications of the book in
89

relationship to the outside world. In this class students were required to read a higher
level text and be able to create meaning beyond surface level questioning.
A rigorous standards-based curriculum was also evident through the parent
comments on the amount and rigor of student homework. One parent stated that her
daughter spends hours every night doing homework and was even assigned books to read
over the summer to be tested upon at the start of the next school year. The amount of
homework alone does not distinguish it as rigorous, but the parents did say that the
assignments were too difficult for them to help their children. By teachers having tutoring
hours after school, however, their children were able to get extra help. Teachers also
commented on the rigor of assignments and how they need to connect to the students. A
science teacher said, “The faculty I’ve talked to agree that these are not students you can
just lecture, lecture, lecture, so we’re trying to get them to experience what you’re
teaching more than just receiving the information. It helps them to connect.”
To triangulate the rigor of instruction, a comparison of parent antidotal evidence
and a like-school API rating of 9 indicates CMHS students are able to academically
outscore most demographically similar schools. As discussed earlier in regard to
professional development, student data drives instruction. By looking at standardized test
data teachers were able to pinpoint the areas of strengths and weaknesses for their
students, so they could focus on those areas needing improvement more heavily.
Teachers themselves discussed how important the use of data was in supporting the
student academically in the classroom.
90

Classrooms and bell scheduling were maintained for optimal student learning and
effective school wide instruction. For example, high GPA upper grade students had the
opportunity to apply and be placed into internships. To ensure the students had a
sufficient time at their internship, as well as complete all necessary courses for
graduation, CMHS developed a rotating bell schedule, in which no two days were alike
(See Figure 4.9). The schedule allows students who have internships to leave school for a
significant amount of time, but still get the instructional minutes in other classes. By
changing the bell schedule for optimal student engagement time, not only for the special
internships, but also for instruction in the other core classes, CMHS demonstrates the
importance of student learning not only on campus grounds but also from outside
sources. The school is linking the knowledge students have learned in their classes to the
outside world to prepare them for the future. The internships the students participated in
were in the medical field. By linking real world experiences to the curriculum, these
students of color are able to have tangible positive interactions in a field that is
underrepresented with people of color. This kind of effort is an example of culturally
relevant pedagogy that the school put forth in instruction.

91

Figure 4.9 CMHS Regular Bell Schedule
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Period 1 7:56 -
9:02
Period 1 7:56 -
9:26 Block
Period 2 7:56 -
9:26 Block
Period 1 7:56
- 9:20
Period 1 7:56 -
8:50
Homeroom 9:08
- 9:26
Nutrition 9:26 -
9:46
Nutrition 9:26 -
9:46
Homeroom
9:08 - 9:26
Homeroom
8:56 - 9:14
Nutrition 9:26 -
9:46
Homeroom
9:52 - 10:10
Homeroom 9:52
- 10:10
Nutrition 9:26
- 9:46
Period 2 9:20 -
10:14
Period 3 9:52 -
10:58
Period 2 10:16
- 11:22
Period 3 10:16 -
11:22
Period 2 9:52
- 10:58
Nutrition 10:14
- 10:34
Period 4 11:04 -
12:10
Period 3 11:28
- 12:58 Block
Period 4 11:28 -
12:58 Block
Period 4
11:04 - 12:10
Period 3 10:40
- 11:34
Period 4 11:40
- 12:34
Lunch 12:10 -
12:45
Lunch 12:58 -
1:33
Lunch 12:58 -
1:33
Lunch 12:10 -
12:45
Lunch 12:34 -
1:09
Period 5 12:51 -
1:57
Period 5
12:51 - 1:57
Period 5 1:15 -
2:09
Period 6 2:03 -
3:08
Period 5 1:39 -
3:08 Block
Period 6 1:39 -
3:08 Block
Period 6 2:03
- 3:08
Period 6 2:15 -
3:08

Teacher-student relationships are helped by the access students have to their
teachers in and out of the classroom and after school as discussed previously. In the
classroom students and teachers appeared to respect and value each other. In one class
this researcher observed the teacher did not like the way the students entered the class
and didn’t take their assignments out right away, so she had them do it again. Rather than
getting upset and or angry with her, the students followed her directions and went outside
the room, lined-up, and had their homework in their hands to prove to her that they did
their assignment. Another teacher said, “[when assignments weren’t] up to expectations
[she would] give it back saying ‘ok this is what happened, this is what I expect, lets redo
92

it’ , so that they can learn how to reach those expectations as opposed to you just don’t
need to know it.”
Another teacher discussed how he uses contemporary television to relate to
students. By using references to popular television shows he is connecting to the
students’ prior knowledge and building upon it for constructing new knowledge which is
pivotal in valuing student knowledge and home cultures as Vygotsky (1929), Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2001), and Stanton-Salazar (1997) suggest.
Academically Rich School Environment. As a symbolic leader, the principal of California
Magnet High School was very conscious of the need to publicize the trends and patterns
of student performance and the school is permeated with student data (Bolman and Deal,
2003). As the science teacher had commented, the school’s legacy is continually pointed
out to the students and they are praised for carrying on the tradition of academic success.
Posted on the wall of the main hallway of the school was an oversized list of all colleges
each student from the previous year was accepted to and scholarships students received
(as seen in a modified version in appendix L). Throughout the hallways student work was
posted for all to see what a quality assignment looks like as well as to praise students for
their hard-work. In classrooms, student work that meets or exceeds the standards was also
posted. An atmosphere of learning and progress was communicated throughout the
school with the aid of all of these visuals. In addition, contests are held to see which
classes can outperform the others for the purpose of increasing student performance, but
also giving students more incentives to do well in school.
93

The school newspaper, put out by and for the students, was also saturated with
student data. In the October edition student performance data radiated from the front
page. The headline story was about Senator Hillary Clinton. She was visiting the school
because students received over 7.5 million dollars in merit based scholarships in the
previous year and she wanted to celebrate their academic successes. Not only was
Senator Clinton a guest, but former NBA player Magic Johnson also congratulated the
students for their hard work and achievement.
To further illuminate CMHS’s academic achievements, the secondary front page
story was entitled “API Sky High!” In the article the student writes that the “API score
has skyrocketed up 18 points due to the great success [CMHS] students achieved on the
2006-2007 CST, leaving [CMHS] ranking #1 in [their] local district.” The student writer
also points out that the previous year they missed their API goal by three points, but this
year they achieved a score of 707 points which surpasses the state average of 638 and the
districts average of 621 for high schools (see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2).
The data are rich with explanations of what the API means for the school, as well
as the students in the school to be so highly ranked. Students taking ownership of their
academic successes and goal attainment closely relates to Reeves’ (2000) ideal of the
“90/90/90 Schools” and their ability to have all stakeholders assume responsibility for
attaining the goal of high student achievement, but to also celebrate those successes.
Other evidence of the teacher-student relationships at work in a positive manner
was observable in the way in which students treated adults at the school. Regardless of
which adult was walking by, students would always say hello or smile and move out of
94

the way or help them. Even the security personnel commented on the culture of the
school by saying students do not behave or misbehave as in other schools where she has
worked. In the classroom this is evident as well in the level of respect and active
participatory learning the students are engaged in. In a math class the teacher walked
around the room and asked students how they felt about the new concept they were
learning. In a life skills class, the teacher engaged the students in a conversation about
their future and what they need to do to accomplish their goals. Seniors also take a
positive role in the classroom too. During homeroom seniors mentor freshman students in
regard to school culture and study skills. It makes homeroom a place where learning
continues to occur, but guided by older peers who hope to pass along their knowledge to
keep traditions and success a vital part of the school. These examples work together to
create positive teacher-student relationships. The positive teacher-student relationships in
the school contribute to positive classroom environments. Positive student-teacher
relationships facilitate learning (Bennett, 2001).
Teachers use a varied approach to instruction as well as innovative approaches to
education. One example of an innovative approach is the implementation of all-male
classes. One area of research that was not discussed in the literature review in Chapter 2
was the concept of all-male classrooms to support instruction. Although all-male
classrooms were not mentioned specifically, the socio-cultural theory of learning is being
implemented, in that students of a similar background (males) were being placed into
learning environments to support their educational needs. California Magnet began
employing the use of all-male classrooms 3 years ago. According to research the school
95

had done, male students accounted for a majority of suspensions, and to alleviate the
situation the principal spoke to the male students about why they felt they were
succeeding in certain areas and not in others. The school felt it would be a benefit for the
males to be in an environment that would fully support their learning strengths. The all-
male classes reflected the sociocultural theory of learning by providing a supportive,
student-centered environment that promotes the expectation for high student achievement
for all students. CMHS is overwhelmingly female; so the leadership team felt the voice of
the male needed to be valued and nurtured. They felt the males needed support despite
certain behaviors that in some classrooms may get them in trouble. The principal believes
that the program is probably one of the most successful that she has implemented at the
school site.
Putting many of the males in a class of their own allowed for more structure, and
last year there were no male fights on campus. The dean of students who also teaches one
of these classes of all boys also agreed that the all-male classes were a benefit to the
students. According to the dean this arrangement allows for more structure or rules, but
it also forces the boys to rely on themselves for understanding. When she was asked to
describe effective teaching, her response resonated with differentiated instruction and
culturally relevant pedagogy, which is necessary for students according to Moll (1992),
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), and Stanton-Salazar (1997). She gave the example of
her all-male class from last year who were not classified as gifted or honors according to
their previous achievement levels, but by the end of the year they performed at higher
levels than expected. She said it required a lot of scaffolding and encouragement, but by
96

the end of the year the boys were reading Shakespearian plays within standards-based
instruction. The class became an honors class, with which she has now looped so she can
teach them 10
th
grade English. While no statistical data were gathered on these students
and the cause for the label of “honors”, anecdotal evidence suggests a basis for assumed
student academic improvement. Further analysis would need to be done to prove
effectiveness. It is beyond the scope of this paper, but could be a question for further
research.

Constructs of Race
Research question 4 asks: How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s
structures and systems? In table 4.1, the student enrollment paints a picture of an urban
school with a high concentration of students of color. Despite the location of the school
and the students’ ethnic origins, Figure 4.4 shows CMHS is outperforming most schools
across California. By examining the student testing data all subgroups at CMHS perform
comparable to each other. There is only a 17 point difference among the highest and
lowest performing sub-groups. This indicates the school has systems in place that address
students equitably.
When stakeholders at CMHS were asked to evaluate the constructs of race at the
school, most of them displayed a look of confusion. The idea of treating students
differently based on race was not something they were able to articulate because of the
school’s demographics being nearly all students of color; however when asked to
distinguish between the two dominant ethnic groups, stakeholders addressed some
97

aspects of culturally relevant pedagogy for each ethnic group. While not all students of
color share the same historical and social experiences, the teachers in general felt they
were able to address student cultural differences. The teachers appeared to be in tune with
cultural differences. They were not aware, perhaps, how much they were refuting or
rejecting constructs of race that portray people of color as lacking in ability to perform at
high academic levels due to their high expectations for all students regardless of race.
Pang and Sablan (1998) did a study where they found that many teachers had a
stereotypical bias against students of color that caused those students to receive a lower
quality education. The interviews with stakeholders, test scores, and observations
conducted by this researcher indicate that the teachers work against giving students at
CMHS a “lower quality education.” The teachers try to provide a rigorous and
personalized education as revealed in the following comments. One teacher said “This is
a different place and the kids know it...from the first day they walk in here…we are going
to treat you as if you are college bound.” Another teacher said, “I talk to my students at a
certain personal level…I really like to get to know them, what makes them unique and
what makes them who they are.”
While not always explicitly stated by the interviewees expressions of culturally
relevant pedagogy could be observed. In classrooms, teachers used examples of
contemporary models to relate to what they were teaching. Interviewees commented
about the visual representation of role models that are people of color. The school is
permeated with pictures and tributes to pivotal people in both African-American and
Hispanic cultures.
98

In one classroom students were discussing a government test. The teacher allowed
for questions outside the realm of the test in order to make culturally relevant connections
to their lives. For example, when studying gerrymandering they discussed how it has
affected Maxine Waters, an African American Congresswoman representing that area.
Thus making a connection with the students’ home and community culture, which are
important instructional tools (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti, 2005). By discussing the
Congresswoman’s role the students had contextual knowledge that was then linked to the
standards that were the actual focus of the test they were preparing for. The students also
asked questions about the Black Congressional Caucus and the civil rights movement in
relation to the test review. Students need teachers to contextualize instruction to bring
legitimacy from students’ home culture to the school setting (Cummins, 1986; Gallimore
and Goldenberg, 2001).
Teachers were seen giving equal levels of attention, whether negative or positive
to all students regardless of ethnicity. Student pairing was diverse in classrooms so
groups were multi-ethnic and multi-gender, when applicable. One teacher even said she
tells students, “it’s not about you, it’s about your team and you’re only as good as your
weakest person there.” She relied on collaborative learning as a means to ensure all
students are working toward the standards regardless of who they are or what background
they come from. One teacher did, however, say that he felt he geared more of his
culturally relevant teaching toward African-American students since there tended to be
more of them in the classroom. Katz (1999) warns against teachers allowing for
perceived favoritism toward one race or another so as not to marginalize the ethnic sub-
99

groups present in the classroom because those students could feel marginalized and
perceive racism. The teacher said he knows he does this; so he tries to interject more
Hispanic references to make the material more culturally relevant to those students as
well.
Why are African-American and Hispanic students thriving at CMHS? Beyond the
systems and structures already discussed, parents and staff commented on the level of
equality all students and parents receive at the school. When a parent was asked how the
school meets the needs of all ethnic sub-groups, she immediately said that everyone was
treated equitably, but to remove any differences that may arise among parents every
department has at least one Spanish speaker to reach out to the parents who do not speak
English. The principal also made a similar comment, but elaborated with an example.
She has two community representatives. Both are related to students at the school. One is
African-American and the other is Hispanic. It is the responsibility of the community
representatives go to community meetings, talk to other parents and stakeholders, and
then bring the information back to the school site. The community representative
position is designed to be a liaison between the school and the community so the school
can be aware of what is happening outside the school and so the outside is aware of the
accomplishments of the school. It is their responsibility to help create a relationship
between the school and community. Having representatives of different ethnic groups,
allows for both dominant ethnic groups to be represented in the community. Since it is a
magnet school, the “community” is a much expanded area for which the representatives
must reach out to.
100

Other comments stakeholders gave in relation to the constructs of race at the
school site all dealt with the equal representation of student resources and opportunities.
The most common responses alluded to the assemblies held for each and all racial groups
on campus to promote their histories. For example, the school has a campus culture day,
where students do not go to class but rather go on scavenger hunts to find more out about
their teachers, community members, and the culture of the school. Before the culture day
takes place, numerous town hall meetings are conducted in the community to discuss the
theme and find participants for the event. This again brings the students home culture into
the school setting and shows the students that their cultural background is important to
the school and every student is valued.
Some interviewees discussed efforts beyond assemblies. They discussed the
importance of special classes for the English Learners and how the EL’s scores have been
improving due to their new classes, just as the males who are involved in all male
classrooms are also improving. One teacher even noted that, as a means to promote more
cultural diversity at the school, recruitment of Korean immigrant students was being
conducted. Teachers also commented on the principal and her commitment to a culturally
responsive and relevant education for the students at CMHS. During buy-back days a
large topic of discussion is the implementation of culturally responsive and relevant
teaching strategies that are expected to be used throughout the year for the purpose of
benefiting the students. Generally the school tries to use culturally relevant pedagogy and
a multicultural education foundation for their instructional focus.

101

Conclusion
Overall California Magnet High School embodies much of what the literature
suggests as ways to create a school environment that promotes effective instruction,
leadership, and student performance. CMHS is outperforming non-magnet schools with
similar demographics and competing at comparable levels to two magnets. While CMHS
has not surpassed the Highest Performing Magnet, CMHS’ trajectory of growth is much
higher and students from all backgrounds are achieving similarly despite selection
processes for each school being different. Although CMHS is a magnet school and has
the ability to enforce stricter regulations than non-magnet schools, many of its systems
and structures can be adopted in typical urban high schools. Leadership qualities,
instructional practices, parent involvement, and community support are all practices or
systems urban schools can create and maintain that may help student achievement.

102

Chapter 5 – Summary, Implications, and Recommendations
Summary
In compliance with the University of Southern California’s guidelines for
completion of the doctoral program in education, I, along with a cohort of students,
chaired by Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, researched the systems and structures in high performing
urban schools that had high concentrations of students of color whose families were of
low socioeconomic status. The purpose of this focus was to identify the systems and
structures in some urban schools challenged with multiple problems that are
outperforming the preponderance of low performing urban schools. Through a review of
the literature on the subject and then actual observations of an urban school that is
defying the current trends, conclusions and recommendations have been made to add to
the body of research already available regarding high performing urban schools with high
concentrations of students of color that are of low socioeconomic status.

Literature Review
Despite the history of an inferior education for students of color which still
permeates the American society today, some urban schools with high concentrations of
low socioeconomic students of color have been able to defy negative trends and patterns
and outperform their counterparts from all segments of society. Reeves (2000) completed
a study on “90/90/90” schools in which 90% of the students fell into the categories of
students of color, students with low socioeconomic status, and they were assessed at the
90
th
percentile in academic performance.
103

Figure 5.1 shows an application of the sociocultural theory of learning in this
study. While historical societal influences that shaped education have been a hindrance to
a quality education for many students of color and low socioeconomic status, there have
been contemporary societal and educational influences that have enabled students in
similar situations to outperform their counterparts. A body of research provides
significant evidence that specific systems and structures implemented at the school site
are the most significant factors in determining a school’s academic performance.
Figure 5.1 Theoretical Framework for High Poverty High Performing Schools Study

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to identify schools that had high percentages of
students of color and students of low socioeconomic status, but despite what has
104

historically been the trend, the schools were able to outperform most schools with similar
demographics. This study focused on school wide structures and systems that have been
created or implemented to help students of color perform at high academic levels. Using
the following research questions, research has been conducted and findings have been
analyzed to learn about a particular school that is outperforming its similar counterparts:
1. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?

Major Findings
In accordance with the literature review in chapter 2, major finding from
California Magnet High School will be discussed in this chapter. Areas to be addressed
are systems and structures at the school site such as leadership characteristics,
accountability, goals, data analysis and parent and community involvement. The chapter
also focuses on an analysis of school wide instruction, teacher-student relationships, and
collaboration. The major findings weave together to illustrate all of the interlocking
systems at work in the urban school in this study.

105

Systems and Structures
Leadership. At CMHS the principal was not the only person responsible for every aspect
of the school. She encouraged distributing leadership to create more shared responsibility
and buy-in from stakeholders. Distributed leadership was found in her ability to include
parents in decision making about school issues and functioning. It was found in teachers
analyzing and coming to decisions about the content of professional development.
Students’ ability to assess their abilities and help other students through peer mentorship
during homeroom was another source of leadership.
The principal and her team working together at CMHS tended to embody all four
frames of leaderships described by Bolman and Deal (2003). Structurally the school was
organized around multiple systems to achieve the goal of student success. The emphasis
on this goal was also expressed symbolically through the recognitions of student success
posted throughout the school. The human resource frame could be found through the
personal relationships students had with teachers, administrators and various others on
campus as well as among themselves. The emphasis on parent engagement with the
school demonstrated the human resources frame at work. The political frame and
structural frame was evident when the school implemented district required professional
development, but adapted it to accommodate school needs such as literacy across the
curriculum.
Accountability and Data Analysis CMHS’ professional development was grounded in
using student data as a way for the whole the faculty to improve instruction. Each
teacher’s data were available so strengths and weaknesses of each teacher’s student
106

performance could be analyzed. Teachers used these data to discover ways for teachers to
help one another. Comparing scores prompted collaborative efforts among all
stakeholders to work together for a common goal of student achievement, rather than
singling teachers out for poor student performance. The data were used solely for the
promotion of student outcomes, not to place blame on teachers or students.
Goals. CMHS demonstrates goal setting and attainment just as the “90/90/90” schools
did (Reeves, 2000). The school proudly displayed student achievement data throughout
the school. These displays showed all members of the school what was important and
identified the quality of work required for academic achievement. These symbolic
representations of achievement celebrated student success and provided motivation for
further success.
Parent and Community Involvement. At CMHS many parents took advantage of
opportunities to participate in their child’s education. The school’s website was
maintained and updated regularly in addition to calendars of special events that were
regularly sent home to parents. All items sent home were written in both English and
Spanish, the dominant languages spoken at the school. Sending messages in both
languages reinforced the importance of all parents regardless of their language
background. This is a district structure that requires translated parent materials. Breaking
down the initial barriers of language differences aid in gaining more access to student
home culture to allow for the school to respect the funds of knowledge students are
coming to school with it.
107

The staff at CMHS also commented on the amount of parental support they
received. When a child begins at CMHS, the school requests a parent meeting for the
school to become familiar with the student, their parents, their goals, and the school.
According to the administrator in charge of counseling roughly over 50 percent of parents
participate. While 50 percent is not perfect, it does show that when given the opportunity
to participate many parents will take advantage. The same could be said for the monthly
“Coffee with the Principal”. While attendance is low at the meeting, these parents
represent many of the concerns and contributions of other parents, and the school gets to
hear the voice of the parents through those in attendance. The meetings are conducted in
a collaborative process where parents can also share successes, as well as help other
families in need through the parent center.
In addition to meetings in the mornings parents are also asked to come to college
nights throughout the year. The meetings are held in both English and Spanish through
the use of headphones so that all parents can participate and understand the details of the
meetings. Beyond parent participation, the school also has two community liaisons. Their
responsibility is to garner support from the surrounding community. These roles for the
community liaisons allow the school to find out about opportunities for the school and for
the school to understand how to better help the community. Marzano (2003) suggests that
allowing the community and parents to contribute and have a say at the school site,
increases the level of parent support.

108

Instruction
Standards-Based Instruction. At CMHS a standards-based curriculum was evident in
many classrooms through the standards being posted in the classrooms. In the instances
when the standards may not have been specifically identified to the researcher, it was
evident in the content being taught in the classroom that lessons throughout the school
were rigorous. In math students were expected to explain the problems, take Cornell
notes, and read. In English classes students were expected to read higher level texts and
construct meaning. In history students were expected to make connections from their
community and it affects in congress. Parents commented on the level of rigor students
were exposed to, such as the types of novels students were reading, the quality of essays
their children were writing, and their preparation for college. In many classes students
were given reading lists and homework assignments before the start of the school year to
be completed before the first day of school. Teachers also had hours every week they
were expected to stay after school and help tutor any struggling student. Additionally
parents commented on the hours of homework their children were required to do, much
of which they were unable to help their children with, so the tutoring hours that teachers
held were very helpful for their children. All of these things combine to show a focus on
rigorous academic pursuits.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Through observation, CMHS was seen providing
culturally relevant curriculum. When discussing larger political ideas in government
class, local politicians were used as a guide for learning and understanding the various
roles people have in government. The achievement levels of African-American students
109

at CMHS also indicate that teachers are connecting with students and helping them to do
well. The school uses the assets of African-American students as part of daily instruction
rather than seeing the students as deficit-laden.
At CMHS teachers understood that they receive students from varying
backgrounds. It is quite possible that a teacher will get a student with a third grade
reading level in the same class as someone who is at grade level or above. In
understanding this challenge students must be dealt with in varying ways. For example,
the school acted on the data that showed boys tended to have a more significant
suspension problem than females. They realized boys’ social and societal experiences
often differ from girls’ experiences, especially in communities where African American
and Hispanic boys are under siege. To combat the issue, the school implemented all-male
classes. The intent was to give the boys a different structure so their behavior could be
channeled into a more positive path. The boys were not given a lesser education but a
different path to the same educational goals of success.
A history teacher at CMHS said he may not know or understand how to connect
to every aspect of his students’ lives because of his different background, but he uses
contemporary connections such as television to make critical connections with the
students. He is doing what Stanton-Salazar (1997) suggests is necessary to build on what
students deem as important, regardless of their background. CMHS is a school that
expands the students’ social capital in a value added approach to education. The
background of the students is not what limits students; it is the approach educators take in
valuing and addressing the background from which a student enters the school setting.
110

Collaboration. CMHS was able to incorporate collaboration through distributed
leadership and allowing all stakeholders voices to be heard and utilized. Collaboration
can be seen through teacher-to-teacher discussion of student progress and what works in
one another’s classrooms. It can be seen between teachers and students through open
discussions in the classroom that allow for differing points of view and extensive
culturally relevant pedagogy. Collaboration could also be seen between students through
group work and cooperative learning, both of which were observed at CMHS. In addition
to all of these channels of collaboration the school made efforts to collaborate with the
home. Parental and community buy-in, as stated previously was an important aspect of
the learning environment. The school practiced sociocultural and constructivist theories
of learning among adults.

Issues Still To Be Addressed
CMHS does exemplify many of the aspects of successful schools, and their test
data prove that they are doing better than most schools. However there is a need to
explore in more depth the data that were found or not found. The first is the idea of all-
male classrooms. The program is too new at the school site to determine its effectiveness
Questions still exist as to whether all males should participate in the program and whether
certain ethnic groups receive more benefits than others. However, the anecdotal data
seem to be promising.
Another area for further exploration is the possibility that CMHS’s data may be
skewed because of the magnet school status of CMHS. The data may be somewhat
111

skewed by the way students are selected to attend CMHS. Only certain kinds of parents
and students engage in the effort to apply to magnet schools; therefore many of the
students from that area do not attend CMHS. On the other hand, CMHS does not have
permission to select the students who are admitted. Admission is done purely on the
basis of a lottery system among a pool of applicants; therefore CMHS may not receive
students with comparable academic achievements to magnet schools that are allowed to
select some of their students. Regardless of this limited ability to select its students, the
CMHS staff works with their students to help them achieve at high levels. As one teacher
stated, they receive some students who have a third grade reading level, but they still
accept accountability for teaching these students and getting them to higher levels.
CMHS has the freedom to be much stricter with rule enforcement than
surrounding schools. Their uniform policy, for example, cannot be signed away like the
rest of AUSD schools. If a student does not wear their uniform appropriately, the student
receives detention and upon multiple infractions, could be suspended or removed from
the school. Other AUSD schools do not have that option because parents can sign a
waiver to allow their child not to wear a uniform. Along with the uniform policy and
ability to enforce the policy is the issue of expulsion from the school. Due to CMHS’
“zero” tolerance policy, any student found to be in an altercation can be and should be
released from the school. Comparable schools in AUSD do not have that option. While
it would be interesting to see how many students leave the school from 9
th
to 12
th
grade,
those data was not available to the researcher. These are two large advantages that a
112

typical urban school does not have. These kinds of differences may diminish the ability to
adopt some of the systems and structures of CMHS.
In an attempt to evaluate CMHS in a more equitable way, extensive research was
done to compare CMHS to 3 other typical magnets. All the other magnets were located in
the same district, yet glaring differences abound. First, as discussed previously, CMHS is
the only school who does not choose any of its students. Second, of the selected magnets
CMHS has the highest African-American population. A population, by district standards,
is performing well below other racial groups. CMHS has a like school rating of 9,
illustrating its academic achievements. Despite CMHS’ API being a full 100 points lower
than the Highest Performing Magnet, CMHS does not have glaring discrepancies in
student performance data. HPM only has a population of 66 percent students of color,
whereas CMHS has nearly 100 percent. HPM’s Asian-American population is scoring
well over 100 points better than Hispanic students. When like sub-groups were compared
socio-economically disadvantaged students from both schools had a point difference of
83 points and the Hispanic gap was 75 points. Analyzing CMHS alone, the disparity in
API among sub-groups was only 17 points, indicating an equitable education for all
students. However the API is increasing at a rather slow rate. If math scores increased
more significantly, more gains would be seen in the API. CMHS needs to address this
issue.

113

Recommendations
Throughout the researcher’s time at CMHS multiple examples were seen as
evidence of a high functioning environment for a school; however by looking at testing
data, more could be done at the school site. Students are performing at higher levels than
the district average, but since it is a magnet it is expected to do so. There are also
significant gains that could be made in the subject level proficiency tests that students
take as part of the California Standards Test. By 2012 “all students” must be at the
proficient level or higher according to NCLB. With the scores CMHS currently has, it is
unknown whether that goal can be attained. CMHS is far from reaching that goal. It is
important to reiterate that all students regardless of race and socioeconomic background
are doing similarly well considering the lower achievement of African American and
socio-economically disadvantaged students across the district. The math performance is
the key to CMHS raising their API and AYP. As a school solutions to raising math scores
need to addressed in the same manner as literacy across the curriculum was targeted.
It is also recommended for more research to be done in the all-male classrooms. It
is necessary to chart out the testing and behavioral data of these students to see if
significant gains are being made with these boys rather than relying on anecdotal data. At
this point in the institution of all-male classrooms the school can begin to compare the
males in these classes with the males in non all-male classrooms. These data will provide
valuable information not only for the students at CMHS but also for other researchers or
schools trying to adopt similar programs.

114

Implications for Future Research
Having read the literature on elements of high performing schools and having
observed an urban school with a large concentration of students of color that stands in
contrast to the low performance of demographically similar schools creates many
possibilities for further research. While the aim of this study was to put into perspective
all the areas in which schools can produce high academic achievement among students of
color, a missing link to this research is the question of why are there so many schools that
have not implemented the research? Although NCLB penalizes schools for not making
certain gains on state tests, only a few exemplary schools seem to be able to implement
the practices suggested in the literature. It appears that this difficult work requires
several factors all working together in a systemic way in a varied approach that suits each
individual school.
Other possible research could stem from the assertions of Pavan and Reid (1994)
and Kezar (2000) about the pivotal roles women and people of color play in bringing
effective leadership to schools. The principal at CMHS is a woman of color. According to
both Pavan and Reid (1994) and Kezar (2000) her presence may be one of the biggest
advantages the school has. Further investigation into these assertions would be interesting
for further research. Their research could be explored in more depth to analyze which
student sub-groups do better under this leadership and to explore whether this type of
leadership benefits schools that do not have high poverty students of color.
As stated previously an aspect of the study that deserves further research is the
effectiveness of all-male classrooms. Through observations and antidotal conversations,
115

all-male classrooms at CMHS seemed to be quite successful, but are they in reality and
how effective are these classes in dealing with all boys? What are the metrics schools are
using to assess this approach to instructing male students? Do all male students need this
all-male cultural context to perform at a high academic level? If a school does use all-
male classrooms, how does it affect the females?

Conclusion
The body of work gathered through research has explored a multitude of historical
implications that have in many ways hindered the ability of low income students of color
to attain equal status in the American school system. Even though much research abounds
on this subject, there is still a great divide among schools in the implementation of
effective practices. CMHS may not have picked the structures of state testing, funding, or
their students, but they developed the ability to create systems that turn these structures
into assets. The systems implemented at CMHS appear to help their students succeed
academically. The data collected as a part of this study indicate that the cultivation of
distributed leadership throughout the school is necessary to put into place the multiple
systems operating simultaneously in an integrated manner that are necessary to support
high academic achievement in the kinds of schools identified for this study. Further this
study points to the kinds of attributes the key leader (principal) needs to possess in order
to get multiple levels of leadership in place. This principal embodied the four frames of a
leader according to Bolman and Deal (2003). The staff and principal had a shared goal of
student success and recognition of the success, which is also evident in the “90/90/90”
116

study of Reeves (2000) as important for student achievement. She was also able to gain
teacher input for professional development to gain buy-in, as well as, parent and
community input, which Marzano (2003) says is also necessary for school success.
Although CMHS has much room for further growth, its distributed leadership for
implementing multiple systems on behalf of students appears to have contributed to
students’ academic achievement. The school has created a learning environment that
takes the cultural capital students come to school with and builds on it to give them
access to the social and academic capital they need to aid in closing the achievement gap
in high poverty students of color are faced with in most urban schools.

117

References
www.acorn.org

www.aft.org

Anderson, Amy R, Christenson, Sandra L., Sinclair, Mary F., Lehr, Camilla A. (2004).
Check and Connect: The Importance of Relationships for Promoting Engagement with
School. Journal of School Psychology. 42(2).

Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform.
NY: Columbia University’s Teachers College Press.

API Youth Violence Prevention Center: National Council on Youth Crime and
Delinquency, Oakland CA, (2003). Under the Microscope: Asian and Pacific Islander
Youth in Oakland Needs – Issues – Solutions. http://www.api-center.org/.

Bell, D.A. (1993) Remembrance of Racism Past: The Civil Rights Decline. In Hill & J. E
Jones (Eds.) Race in America: The Struggle for Equality (pp. 73-82). Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Bensimon, E., and Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning Collegiate Leadership. Baltimore,
Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bettie, J. (2003) Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. University of California
Press.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2003). Third edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice
and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future
of Children, 7, 55-71.

www.cde.ca.gov

Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Conchas, Gilberto Q. The Color of Success: Race and High-Achieving Urban Youth. New
York: Teachers College Press, 2006.
118

Creswell, John, W. (2002) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Second Edition. Sage Publications, Inc.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.

De Gobineau, Arthur (1816-1882). The Inequality of Human Races. Translated by Adrian
Collins. Preface by George L. Mosse. The George L. Mosse Revokable Trust, 1999. New
York, NY: Howard Fertig, Inc. [Originally published: New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915.]

Delpit, Lisa (1996). Other People's Children; Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New
Press, New York.

www.ed-data.k12.ca.us

Faircloth, B. S., Hamm, J. S. (2005) Sense of belonging among high school students
representing 4 ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

Garcia, G.E. (2002). Student Cultural Diversity: Understanding and Meeting the
Challenge (3
rd
Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist.

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership Lessons from Comprehensive
School Reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Goldsmith, P.A. (2004) Schools’ Role in Shaping Race Relations: Evidence on
Friendliness and Conflict. Social Problems. 51.

Gonzalez, Norma, Moll, Luis C., Amanti, Cathy (2005). Funds of Knowledge:
Theorizing Practices in Households and Classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guzmán, M. R., Santiago-Rivera, A. L., Haase, R.F. (2005) Understanding Academic
Attitudes and Achievement in Mexican-Origin Youths: Ethnic Identity, Other-Group
Orientation, and Fatalism. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 11.

Hamm, J. V, Brown, B. B., Heck. D.J. (2005). Bridging the Ethnic Divide: Student and
School Characteristics in African American, Asian-Descent, Latino, and White
Adolescents’ Cross-Ethnic Friend Nominations. Journal of Research on Adolescence.

119

Harry, B. & Anderson, M. G. (1994) The Disproportionate placement of African
American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. The Journal of
Negro Education, Vol. 63, No. 4, Pedagogical and Contextual Issues Affecting African
American Males in School and Society. pp.602-619.

Hawkins, V. (2007) Narrowing the gap for special needs students. Educational
Leadership. 64(5).

Hayward, G. C., Brandes, B. G., Kirst, M. H., Mazzeo, C. (1997) Higher Education
Outreach Programs: A Synthesis of Evaluations. A Policy Analysis for California
Education Report, for the University of California Board of Regents.

Hill, P. (2003). School Boards – Focus on School Performance, Not Money and
Patronage. Progressive Policy Institute – 21
st
Century Schools Project.

Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social
construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-205.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006).Academic Optimism of Schools: A
Force for Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal. 43(3).

Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity in
our schools. California: Corwin Press.

Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers and the
structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100 (4). 809-840.

Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic Leadership: Bringing Diverse Voice to the Table. About
Campus, 6-11.

www.latimes.com

www.lausd.net

Lee, C.D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African
American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30(4), 608-630.
Lee, S. (2005). Up Against Whiteness: Race, School, and Immigrant Youth. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Lipka, J. (1991). Toward a culturally based pedagogy: A case study of one Yup’ik
Eskimo teacher. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22(3), 203-223.

120

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into Action. ASCD:
Alexandria, VA.

McQuillan, P.J. (1998). Reform that reproduced: The 1992 Committee. In Educational
opportunity in an urban American high school: A cultural analysis. Albany:
SUNY Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education San
Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Miller, K. E., Farrell, M. E., Barnes, G. M., Melnick, J. M., Sabo, D.
(2005) Gender/racial differences in jock identity, dating, and adolescent sexual
risk. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

Moll, Luis C. (1992) Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and
Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Moll, Luis C., Díaz, E., Estrada, E., & López, L. M., (1992). Making context: The social
construction of lessons in two languages. In M. Savaria-Shore & S.F. Arizu (Eds.),
Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnographies of communication in multiethnic classrooms. (pp.
339-363). New York: New Garland.

No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law No. 107-110 (2002).

www.npr.org
Nunan, Richard. (1999) Critical Race Theory: An Overview. APA Newsletters, 98 (2).
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3).

Ogbu, J. (1995) Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and
consequences-Part 1. The Urban Review. 27(3).

Ogbu, J. U., Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-
Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly. Vol. 29 No. 2.

Ogbu, J. U. (2003) Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic
disengagement. Sociocultural, political, and historical studies in education. 320.

121

Pang, V. O., Sablan, V. (1998). "Teacher Efficacy: How Do Teachers Feel About Their
Ability to Teach African American Students." In M. Dilworth (Ed.), Considerations of
Culture in Teacher Education: An Anthology on Practice, Washington, D.C.: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, pp. 39-58.

Patterson, J. (2001). Resilience in the Face of Adversity. The School Administrator, 18-
21.

Patton, Michael Q. (2000). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage
Publications. Thousand Oaks.

Pardini, P. (2001) 4 Profiles of Administrative Leadership. The School Administrator,
22-24.

Pavan, B. & Reid, N. (1994). Effective urban Elementary Schools and Their Women
Administrators. Urban Education, 28 (4), 425-438.

Payne, R. K. (1996) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Aha! Process, Inc.

www.psk12.com

Rosenholz, Susan (1989) Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and
commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School
Journal. v89, 4.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1–
40.

Stephan, W. G. (1980). "A Brief Overview of School Desegregation." In W. G. Stephan,
and J. R. Feagin. (Eds.), School Desegregation. New York: Pleum Press.

www.uclablackalumni.org

Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., and Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, Desegregation, and
Integration of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities. In R. Valencia, Chicano School
Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future (Second Edition).

Vygotsky, L.S. (1929) The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 36, 415-434.

Willie, C. V., Willie, S. S. (2005). Black, White, and Brown: The Transformation of
Public Education in America. Teachers College Record. Special Issue: Brown Plus Fift.

122

Weiner, L. (2003) Why is the classroom management so vexing to urban teachers?
Theory Into Practice. 42(2).

Weinberg, M. (1977) A chance to learn. Cambridge University Press.

123

Appendices
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 with students of
color. 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?

124

Appendix B: Administrator Interview Questions

1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe contribute
to your high student performance.
a. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these systems
and structures (practices)? If so, how did the school overcome them or
maintain them?
b. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last 3-5
years to improve student performance?

2. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all students
and respects cultural diversity?

3. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made
clear for teachers/students/parents?
a. How do you monitor student progress
b. What assessment tools do you use?

4. How are the needs of students of color addressed in the School-Wide Plan?

5. 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?

6. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
125

a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores that
demonstrate high student performance?
7. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how does it impact students of
color?
126

Appendix C: 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 with students of
color. 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?

127

Appendix D: Teacher Interview Questions

1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe contribute
to your high student performance.
• (Probe) Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining
these systems and structures (practices)? If so, how did the school
overcome them or maintain them?
• Which are the three most effective things you have done over the
last 3-5 years to improve student performance

2. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all students
and respects cultural diversity?

3. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made
clear for teachers.
a. For students?
b. Parents
i. How do you monitor student progress?
ii. What assessment tools do you use?

4. How familiar are you with the School Plan?
a. How are the needs of students of color addressed in the School-Wide
Plan?
b. How have you modified your instructional practices to reflect the school-
wide plan for students of color?

5. 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?

6. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores that
demonstrate high student performance?

7. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how does it impact students?

128

Appendix E: 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 with students of
color. 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?

129

Appendix F: Classified Interview Questions

1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe contribute
to your high student performance.
• Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these
systems and structures (practices)? If so, how did the school
overcome them or maintain them?
• Which are the three most effective things you have done over the
last 3-5 years to improve student performance?

2. How would you describe the school climate here?
a. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students and respect
cultural diversity.
b. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school climate?

3. What are the expectations for meeting academic achievement goals here?
a. Do you know how the students here are doing academically?
b. What indicators let you know how they are doing?

4. How are the needs of students of color being met at your school?
a. What is in place to support these students?
b. What is in place to support the staff?

5. How would you describe an effective teacher at your site?
130

6. How do you know when a teacher is doing a good job?

7. How do you see teachers and administrators using data?
a. Do you know when testing will occur, how do the students react to it,
how do teachers react?
b. Is it known throughout the school what is done with the data? How so?

8. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how it impact students?
a. What happens when a student breaks a rule or makes a bad choice?
131

Appendix G: Parent Protocol

PARENT 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 with students of
color. 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?

132

Appendix H: Parent Interview Questions

1. What is the school doing to help all students succeed?

2. How would you describe the atmosphere at the school?

3. How do you know what your child needs to learn?
a. How does the school communicate that?

4. How does the school address the needs of (ethnic sub-group) students?

5. How do you describe a good teacher?

6. What are some of the ways the school lets you know how your child is doing?

133

7. Describe the school’s discipline policy.
a. How does it support the learning of all students?

134

Appendix I: Leadership Team Meeting
Questions for Reflections

To what extent was the meeting focused on the implementation of the school plan?

Does the leadership team analyze student achievement data in order to take informed
actions?

Did (or does) the leadership team discuss and plan for diversity-sensitive (culturally
relevant and responsive) learning environments?

How are the roles/work distributed among members of the leadership team?

Structure: Is the meeting for information or systems planning?

Is the meeting operational or instructional-focused?

135

Appendix J: Classroom Observation Guide

Research Question # 1, 2, 3, and 4: Is there a range or variety of instructional practices
/strategies used? Are they appropriate for the content and students?
Examples of instructional practices/strategies?
• Cooperative grouping
• Use of time
• Differentiated instruction
• Feedback to students
• Culturally relevant and responsive

Research Question #2: What visuals, symbols and other items are posted in the
classroom?
Examples of items:
• School wide discipline policy
• Images of people of color
• Classroom library
• School vision

Research Question # 2: Physical Class Environment
Example of things to observe:
• Seating arrangement
• Teacher student interaction student
o Discipline
• Student work posted
o Feedback/rubric
o Standard based
• Student Engagement

136

Appendix K:
Professional Development Observation Guiding Questions

• Does collaboration occur during and after professional development?

• Is there engagement among the staff?

• What types of data are being used? How is data used?

• Is professional development is aligned to the vision?

• How are students discussed among teachers and other staff?

• Is the professional development geared toward teaching to standards mastery or
performance?

• Is the professional development practical and adaptable?

• Are the expectations clear for implementation of the professional development?

• How are teachers held accountable for the professional development provided?

• Is an evaluation tool used for the professional development?

137

Appendix L:
California Magnet High School College Acceptances and Scholarship List

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The history of the United States has been fraught with social injustices, whether intentional or ingrained into societal ways of life that have negatively impacted the education of high poverty students of color. Despite a historical trend of educational inequality there have been multiple examples of schools that have been able to break the mold of underachievement for students of color. This paper addresses the systems and structures in place at these high performing urban schools, with large concentrations high poverty students of color. It is through the exploration of the effective systems and structures that it is hoped other schools can use the data to reproduce similar results for their student body.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

Organizational systems school leaders implement to facilitate effective classroom instruction in urban schools: a case study

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Riley, Aissa Yvette (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/04/2008

Defense Date 05/12/2008

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

Tag education,high poverty,OAI-PMH Harvest,students of color,systems and structures,urban schools

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair), Marsh, David D. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email aissayriley@gmail.com,ariley@alumni.usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1532

Unique identifier UC166895

Identifier etd-Riley-2324 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-115404 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1532 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Riley-2324-0.pdf

Dmrecord 115404

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Riley, Aissa Yvette

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