Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A CASE STUDY OF FACTORS RELATED TO A HIGH PERFORMING URBAN
CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL: INVESTIGATING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
AND ITS IMPACT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
Kelley Jennifer Mayr
_________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Kelley Jennifer Mayr
ii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my mother and father, who have
always demonstrated a never-ending sense of pride for the accomplishments of our
collective family. To my mother Sherry Penix, who has taught me the lifelong
lesson of giving, loving and caring for others, while also finding the fun in life. To
my father, George Lewis Pennix, for whom I have learned the lessons of hard work
and commitment. I could never have gotten to this place in my education without the
patience and support you both have provided to me since my first day in
Kindergarten.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Jennifer Kliewer, for the
encouragement, support and belief in me, which provided me with the foundation to
begin this endeavor. Your gift of spirit and enthusiasm for learning has been a
guiding example and inspiration for me during the course of this journey, and
beyond.
I want to also thank my committee members: Chairperson, Dr. Stuart
Gothold, Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Dennis Hocevar, for your oversight, guidance and
commitment while providing meaningful and timely feedback. Dr. Gothold, I am
grateful to you for your continued encouragement and belief in me, and your
willingness to go above and beyond to ensure a successful and rewarding experience,
Fight On!
To my colleagues and fellow educators, I am appreciative to you for your
kindness, support and willingness to aid me with anything, any time, in an effort to
assist me in completing this process. To Joan and John Hall, I owe you many thanks
for your open hearts and dedication to students of all kinds, who have a dream. I
could never repay you for all you have done towards assisting me with reaching
mine.
To friends and family, especially Karen and my siblings Julie, Kyndel, Steve
and Julie Ann, thank you for all of your encouragement from the beginning through
the end of this process.
iv
I am also indebted to my “other family”, Marcia, Dave and Adam Barker,
whom I owe so much. Your belief in me, and support throughout the duration of this
process has been more than I could ever have hoped for.
Finally, I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to my husband Troy, who has
been my guiding light and source of inspiration from the first step of this endeavor,
and throughout the entire voyage. Your patience, assistance, humor and continued
belief in me, has pulled me through the toughest schedules, latest nights, and
seemingly overwhelming challenges. Without your unconditional support and
encouragement, I am unsure as to how I would have made this journey. It is with
you that I share the celebration of completing this degree and look forward to the
time we now have to experience all the joys that life has to offer.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ……………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………….. iii
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………… vii
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ……………………………… 1
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………. 19
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY …………… 66
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ……………………………………. 91
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS …………………………………………………… 153
REFERENCES …………………………………………………….. 164
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………… 169
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. California dropout statistics for ethnicity 2005 – 2006 ……….. 45
Table 2.2. 2005-2006 California STAR tests results for English
Language Arts and Algebra I ……………………………………………… 47
Table 2.3. Results from 2006 High School Survey of Student
Engagement Student Responses to Key Questions ……………………….. 62
Table 3.1. City of Middletown Development Department ……………….. 75
Table 3.2. Everest charter school enrollment by
ethnicity 2005 – 2006 ……………………………………………………… 76
Table 3.3. Everest Charter School student enrollments from
years 1993 – 2007 …………………………………………………………. 78
Table 3.4. Everest Charter API scores for 2005 – 2006 ………………….. 79
Table 4.1. Key responses from Teacher/Administrator Survey …………. 111
Table 4.2. HSSSE 2007 National Profile results compared to
Everest Charter School HSSSE 2007 results …………………………….. 137
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Populations of Charter and Noncharter Schools …………………. 39
Figure 3.1. Conceptual Model ……………………………………………….. 67
Figure 3.2. Enrollment Trends for Everest Charter School
1998 – 2007 …………………………………………………………………... 77
Figure 3.3. Everest Charter School API growth compared to
Local District and State scores ………………………………………………... 79
viii
ABSTRACT
Historically, students in urban high schools have underperformed
academically in comparison to their suburban counterparts. Nonetheless some urban
high schools have achieved significant gains. It is unclear what has contributed to
high academic performance in these schools. The literature is replete with studies of
student achievement in traditional suburban high schools, including the
implementation of several strategies, which have led to school effectiveness.
However, there remain questions regarding what factors have positively affected
student performance in urban high schools where increased academic achievement
has been realized.
The purpose of this case study was to understand the nature of and determine
the factors that affect academic achievement for students attending a high–
performing public high school. Such factors as school culture, school leadership,
instruction and curriculum and student engagement were used as the conceptual
model upon which the research was based. These factors were explored, through
observation, student and faculty surveys, interviews with school faculty and review
of school documents. This case study also considered formal and informal
procedures that were used by staff and students to increase student achievement.
Specifically, this study targeted students attending a large, high-performing charter
high school located in an area of southern California which has experienced rapid
population growth and subsequent urban issues. Additionally, results from the High
School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) 2007 created by the Center for
ix
Evaluation & Education Policy at the University of Indiana, were analyzed in order
to better understand the relationship that student engagement played in increasing
student achievement.
The results of this case study concluded that the aforementioned factors:
school culture, school leadership, instruction and curriculum and student engagement
did in fact lead to increased student academic performance in this high performing
urban charter high school. Additional themes including collaboration, senses of
purpose, focused goals and relationships also emerged from the research findings.
Finally, student engagement levels at the school studied revealed that the students in
the charter school had higher levels of Cognitive, Intellectual, Academic and
Emotional engagement than that of the national HSSSE profile, while indicators also
revealed slightly lower levels of Social/Behavioral/Participatory student engagement,
when compared to the national average.
1
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
In an era where obtaining a high school diploma is the critical first step for
American teens to establish themselves within a broader global economy, the fact
that only 67 percent of American ninth graders made it to graduation in 2006
(Darling-Hammond, 2007) should sound the alarm that our nation’s schools are
struggling to keep students enrolled, engaged and on track to graduate. Furthermore,
public schools located in ethnically diverse, densely populated and low-income
neighborhoods referred to as “urban” schools, encounter even more critical issues in
educating and retaining their students. This trend is reflected in the national dropout
rates for historically underserved minority students (Hispanics, African Americans,
American Indians) where they have slightly more than a fifty-fifty chance of
receiving a high school diploma (Swanson, C.B, 2004). Furthermore, studies
indicate that of the minority students who do receive a high school diploma, only 12
to 14 percent have met the minimum requirements to enter a state university
(Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2007). Accordingly, the statistics for students
attending urban schools are lower.
Increased dropout rates are often the result of the risk factors associated with
urban schools, which many students encounter on a daily basis. Such risk factors
include poverty, crime, limited English skills, and health issues related to a student’s
well-being (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Lippman, Burns & McCarther, 1996).
2
This crisis may be further perpetuated due to conditions in many urban high schools
such as lack of resources, overcrowding, under prepared teachers and inadequate
facilities, resulting in lower academic achievement or non-completion of a high
school.
The cycle of policy implementation and school reform leading to the
introduction of standards in schools during the past 100 years has greatly affected
California schools, specifically with regards to those schools located within the
urban areas of our state. Many urban schools are simply unable to meet the current
demands of high stakes testing and accountability, while serving the most diverse
and at-risk student population in educational history.
When the U.S. congress enacted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001, all public schools became accountable to provide high quality education, with
the goal of ensuring that all children will be proficient in English Language Arts and
Mathematics by the year 2014 (USDE, 2006). The implementation of this legislation
has generated national studies focusing on student achievement; in which the results
indicate that students in many urban high schools continue to perform below the
acceptable academic level required by NCLB and are therefore at risk for not
meeting the national standards. Despite the indicators of low student achievement in
many urban high schools, the news is not totally bleak. There are some shining stars
which have emerged as outperforming urban high schools. At first glance these
schools and the students who attend them appear to encounter the same risk factors
that other students face in similar urban school settings, however, further
3
investigation reveals that these schools have found ways to educate and
academically support student achievement (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2006).
Furthermore, it becomes increasingly important to determine specifically
what these high performing schools have done to increase student success. The way
in which these schools have created an environment for their students to flourish is
not completely understood, especially compared to the many other urban school
counterparts who do not seem to be meeting the diverse needs of their students.
However by systematically viewing today’s urban public school system thorough the
vast amount of educational literature, one may begin to better understand the many
contributing factors associated with student success, and how these factors are
utilized in urban schools which have positively impacted many students attending the
school.
The evolution of American public high schools can be traced back to an
establishment founded on democratic ideals, and followed to date reflecting an
institution, which has encountered numerous operational challenges and ever-
changing policies, especially for inner-city urban schools. Beginning in 1821 when
the English Classical School in Boston opened its doors as the first public high
school (Boyer, 1983), the United States has supported free and accessible education
for students in pursuit of a high school diploma. From the mid 1800s through the
early 1900s, legislation was implemented in order to provide quality education while
promoting high school programs that would support the economic growth of the
country (United State Department of Education (USDE), 2007). Subsequently during
4
the Industrial Revolution in the early twentieth century, the draw of possible
employment laid cause for the migration of minority and immigrant families into city
centers, where jobs were more readily available in factories (USDE, 2006). Between
1910 and 1940, public high schools in America saw significant increases in
enrollment (Goldin, 1998), and school programs focused on agriculture, industrial,
and home economic training for their graduates in order to prepare them for the labor
force (USDE, 2007).
In the past 60 years, policy makers reacting to political and global
circumstances have implemented several school reform measures to ensure that
students receiving a diploma were prepared to meet the demands of the workforce.
From World War II through the 1980s many landmark legislative measures shaped
American public education, focusing on equal access for all students. Such
initiatives included Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
and the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now known as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (USDE, 2007).
The most recent legislative effort has been the implementation of the federal
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which designates that all students in the nation
received an education that prepares them to be grade level proficient in English
Language Arts and Mathematics by the year 2014. Although this federally mandated
decree is intended to support student learning in all states, each state uses its own
accountability measures to determine student academic performance based on a
5
series of state standards in each core subject area of English, Social Science, Math
and Science. California measures student academic proficiency through a
combination of test results which include the Standardized Testing and Reporting
Program (STAR) and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), giving a
combined score to a school, which is called the Academic Performance Index (API)
score (California Department of Education (CDE), 2006). These scores are then
used to measure progress for each school from year to year. The federal NCLB
system inputs these scores, and determines how each state’s schools are making
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), towards a designated score as outlined in NCLB.
Schools receiving federal funding are required to continue making AYP each year
(USDE, 2006).
School reform has changed the way education is delivered in California.
Many alternative educational programs exist in California, including charter schools.
These are public schools which are usually managed by an individual group or
organization, outside of the control of the traditional school district, providing
greater flexibility for operating procedures, and program development (Charter
School Develop Center (CSDC), 2006). Although charter schools enjoy a degree of
autonomy and innovation, they do not exist without limitations. Charter schools are
organized under a renewable contract or “charter” with a sponsoring school district,
county office or state department for a length of one to five years (EdSource, 2007).
In order for the charter to be renewed, the school must meet expected student
academic outcomes outlined within the charter petition, which are aligned with state
6
and federal accountability measures. Charter schools may operate in a number of
different formats, ranging from seat-time to independent study. Charter schools
generally promote smaller learning communities, and offer school choice to parents
and students seeking an alternative to the often crowded urban school. Through
these venues, many “at-risk” students have been successful in meeting academic
expectations and achievement (Huebner & Corbett, 2004).
What does the term “at-risk” mean, and how does it affect student
achievement? At-risk students are those students who are at-risk for dropping out of
school due to a variety of reasons that are associated with risk factors linked to an
urban school setting. Many students within the urban schools may experience
poverty, crime, limited English skills, and/or low well being within their daily lives
(Brooks-Gunn, & Duncan, 1997). Additionally at-risk students may also relocate
many times during their high school years, which contributes to the risk factors
associated with dropping out (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Throughout the
literature review, a compelling story unfolds surrounding the fact that despite these
risk factors for students within the urban setting, combined with the limited resources
in urban schools students attending some urban schools in California are achieving
academically beyond expectations.
Statement of the Problem
Historically, students in urban high schools have underperformed
academically in comparison to their suburban counterparts. Nonetheless some urban
7
high schools have achieved significant gains. It is unclear what has contributed to
high academic performance in these schools.
The literature is replete with studies of student achievement in traditional
suburban high schools, including the implementation of several strategies, which
have led to school effectiveness. What remains unclear however is what factors have
positively affected students attending urban high schools, in which increased
academic achievement has been realized. However what is clear is that there does
not seem to be one “magic bullet”, or one solution for schools in which to implement
a specific procedure or strategy to produce successful student outcomes.
Robert Marzano, a leading researcher on the topic of successful schools,
outlines what he believes to be effective strategies for school improvement. In his
research, he has delineated three categories of what works in schools: school level
factors, teacher level factors and student level factors (Marzano, 2000). Marzano
argues that each of these categories outlines best practices which, when used
together, can be implemented by schools to gain the best results for student
performance. Additional research indicates that strong school leadership is a critical
factor for student success (Carter, 2000; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Other critical
factors found in the literature include the emphasis on well written curriculum and
instruction, as well as the element of school culture (Johnson, 1997; Carter, 2000;
Marzano, 2003). Although these all seem to indicate their effectiveness, they fall
short of specifically targeting schools and students who attend urban high school
settings.
8
Recent research on successful school models highlight such ideas of “school
culture”, “teacher/student relationships” and “student engagement”. In an article
presented by West Ed, five small alternative schools serving at-risk students
indicated that students in these school were “highly engaged in learning” (Huebner
& Corbett, 2004, pg 2). In another article which focused on the interpersonal and
individual influences of teacher-student relationship and the role it played in
achievement for a multiethnic sample of high school students, the authors concluded
that the student-teacher educational relationship had a significant impact on student
engagement, expectations and achievement for low-income Latino students (Hudley,
Daoud, Polanco, Wright-Castro & Hershberg, 2003).
Considering literature on student engagement that has been generated over
the past twenty years, it is important to understand the term “engagement” as it
relates to students in the school setting.
Although descriptors such as “school culture” and “student engagement” are
mentioned throughout the literature as possible contributing factors to student
achievement, there is still much to be learned regarding the specific role that they
play in academically affecting students. Engagement has also been studied in
affiliation with students in school settings, primarily because engagement in the
school setting is about relationships (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). The literature reflects
that the concept of school engagement is considered to be a multifaceted complex
structure, but consist of three general contexts: behavioral, emotional and cognitive
processes (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). Researchers from Indiana
9
University’s Center for Evaluation & Education Policy have developed further
criteria which defines student engagement as:
The student’s relationship with the school community, the people
(adults and peers), the structures (rules, facilities, schedules), the
curriculum and content, the pedagogy and the opportunities
(curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular). (2006, p. 1)
By utilizing results from the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE) created by the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy at the University
of Indiana, it may be possible to better understand the relationship that student
engagement plays in increasing student achievement. This survey provides valuable
clues to student perceptions of their school setting, culture and values. Listening to
these student voices may lend a great deal of insight as to how schools can improve
the learning environment and subsequently increase student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study is to understand the nature of and determine
the factors that directly affect academic achievement for students attending an
outperforming public high school in a city, where student risk factors associated with
traditional urban schools are prevalent. The school is considered to be
outperforming because it is exceeding expectations of like or similar schools when
ranked by an academic indicator such as the Academic Performance Index (API).
These factors will be explored, through observation, student and faculty surveys,
interviews with school faculty and review of school documents. This case study will
also study formal and informal procedures that are used by staff and students to
10
increase student achievement. Specifically, this study will target students attending a
large, high-performing charter high school located in an area of southern California
which is experiencing rapid population growth and subsequent urban issues.
Further, the purpose of this study is to develop and describe a thick and rich
understanding of one high performing charter school, by viewing several elements of
the school site through the lenses of Bolman and Deal’s “Four Frames” (2003),
which will include aspects of the schools cultural elements, political system,
symbolic protocols and human resource components. The researcher hopes to learn
what factors contribute to student achievement in this unique urban school setting.
Additionally the purpose of this study is to determine if student engagement plays a
role in affecting the academic achievement for the at-risk students who attend the
charter school.
Research Questions
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high-
performing urban high school?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
To answer these questions, research will be conducted in a case study and
mixed method format. The benefit of conducting a case study is that the researcher
has the advantage of observing the phenomenon being studied, within the natural
setting in which the phenomenon occurs (Patton, 2002). This in-depth process
permits the study of the students, teachers and school site, with a great deal of depth,
11
paying careful attention to details, context and nuances found within the school
setting (Patton, 2002). Direct and inferred information, which when triangulated
with other data such as a surveys, interviews and/or document reviews, will provide
a greater opportunity to fully understand the potential factors relating to student
achievement in the school site.
Specifically, this study will provide in-depth descriptions of a school that has
embraced the challenges of the urban setting, and yet has created ways in which
students and teachers work together to meet the academic goals of the school. The
researcher will conduct a case study of a high performing independent study charter
school, serving an exclusively at-risk student population. Through exploration of the
school environment, culture, themes, student and staff insights and administrative
roles, a comprehensive view of the school will lead to a deeper understanding of
what works in the school. Furthermore, the advantage of conducting a case study in
this high achieving urban school provides the unique opportunity for developing a
thick and rich description of a charter school, potentially leading to a better
understanding of the various factors associated with the school’s success, potentially
including the concept of student engagement.
Finally, as secondary data, the results of the HSSSE will be an additional and
valuable tool in which specific factors relating to student engagement in the school
environment may illuminate the question of how student engagement may or may
not contribute to high student academic outcomes.
12
Importance of the Study
The results of the findings in this study may have potential far-reaching
effects with regards to improving student achievement specifically in urban settings.
Through the process of investigating what factors contribute to student achievement
in one urban school setting; it may be possible to better understand what is currently
not known about how urban schools have had success with student achievement,
despite the research which predominantly points to the contrary.
An additional component of this study is that it allows for a unique
opportunity to investigate increased student achievement in a charter school serving
exclusively at-risk students. The format of the charter school is independent study,
which adds another layer to the investigative process. Furthermore examining how
“school choice” may factor into the likelihood that a school serving primarily at-risk
students is able to produce increased student achievement will also contribute to the
importance of this study.
The second research question looks at student achievement further in depth
by asking if a link exists between student engagement and student achievement. The
element of student engagement adds yet another dimension to the study because it
allows the researcher to focus on a specific non-tangible factor that may affect
student outcomes. As mentioned previously, the use of a student survey, specifically
the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) developed by Indiana
University will provide secondary data, which may lead to further insight of this
potential factor associated with increased student achievement.
13
As an example, of the impact from the data generated by the 2006 HSSSE,
one group of administrators from an urban school learned that many students felt that
the adults in the school did not know them our care about them. Subsequently, the
school administrators and teachers set up an “advisory” program in which students
and teachers met regularly to provide support for the students on an academic, social
and emotional level (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). This effort was made to ultimately
improve student connections to the school and increase student achievement through
these connections. This important concept is one that can be implemented with little
cost and a possible high return.
This study is one of ten case studies of schools being investigated by a cohort
of researchers seeking to better understand what high performing urban schools are
doing to support high student achievement. Therefore policy makers and urban
school administrators of struggling urban schools may glean insight into what has
worked with traditionally underserved students in other successful urban schools,
and implement similar protocols within their own school setting.
Through focusing on academic achievement, the gains for any urban school
using this type of approach, may very well be an important key in reconnecting even
the most disengaged students and potentially decreasing the overall drop-out rate,
initially on a school level but ultimately on a national level. Any opportunity to
decrease the national drop-out rate can only improve the American high school
student’s opportunity to gain a foothold in the global economy.
14
Limitation, Delimitations and Assumptions
In this study, the fieldwork consists of more than one technique or method for
gathering information in which to develop a thick and rich understanding of the
reasons why an urban school has achieved high academic results. This method
insures that no single source was depended upon to provide a comprehensive view of
the school (Patton, 2002). Observations, interviews, document reviews and surveys
were the multiple sources used to gather data. By using this combination the
researcher was able to validate the data through cross reference and triangulation.
However, the data found in this study may be interpreted in ways not intended by the
researcher, and therefore subject to other findings or implications beyond the scope
of this study.
Limitations of the observation process include the possibility that the
researcher may have unknowingly influenced the situation by affecting the actions of
students and/or staff who may have behaved in an atypical way, due to the presence
of the researcher (Patton, 2002). Another limitation of the observation may be that
the researcher was focusing on external behavior, and was unable to know what
thoughts were taking place in the minds of the subjects.
Limitations to the interview process may have consisted of varying responses
due to situations related to the emotional state of the subject at the time of the
interview, the ability of the subject to recall information or any unintended personal
bias that the researcher or the subject may have exhibited during the data collection
process.
15
Limitations of the document review may have been affected by
incompleteness or inaccuracy due to the variety of staff members who were
responsible for completing the documents in the first place. Furthermore, accuracy
of electronic documents may be limited by the format, quality and completeness of
the programs from which they originate, or by the ability of those who entered the
data into the database (Patton, 2002). The central theme of this study is to determine
what factors have contributed to high student achievement in an urban school setting,
as compared to other similar urban schools, a comparison mediated by the California
Academic Performance Index scores.
Final limitations to the study that should be considered are the resources of
time, money and personnel that could be dedicated to the study. In order for the
study to be carried out in a meaningful and efficient way, there were set boundaries
of expense and time, which would be applied to obtaining sufficient data.
Furthermore, the collection of data was limited to the sole researcher.
Delimitations of this study are based on the characteristics and behaviors of
“at risk” students. The purposive sampling of students in the charter school and the
urban-like situations from which the students emerge reinforces the generalizability
of the data, and how this information may be used when considering other at-risk
student populations attending other urban high schools.
Assumptions made during this study are that the charter school itself poses a
unique situation, due to the legal requirement that all students enrolled in the charter
school have done so voluntarily (no student may be required to enroll, as parents and
16
students may exercise their school choice prerogative under NCLB). Due to the
enrollment process and school choice that students and parents have made, an
additional assumption is that the student population likely reflects similar
populations from local comprehensive schools, since many of the students
transferred into the charter school from the local schools within the area.
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): A scale that measures student performance in
schools, based on mandated statewide tests. These results produce school wide
scores ranging from 200 to 1000, and rank the schools within the state against each
other (California Department of Education (CDE), 2006).
Accountability Progress Reporting (APR): A system, which provides information
on schools reaching benchmark student assessment targets, and creates an
opportunity of incentives for schools to increase performance (CDE, 2006).
Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM): A framework of academic
accountability measurement for alternative schools who serve a very high risk
student population (CDE, 2006).
Charter School: Public schools that are usually operated by persons outside of the
traditional school districts (Charter Schools Development Center (CSDS), 2006).
These schools are generally exempt from most laws pertaining to other public school
entities.
17
Four Frames: A structure of the various aspects of an organization. The four
frames of Symbolic, Human Resource, Political and Structural may be used as lenses
through which to view the organization (Bolman and Deal, 2003).
High Performing: schools which have received at least a 5 on their API ranking,
and are at least 2 deciles above that score in their similar schools ranking (CDE,
2006).
Independent Study: “Independent study/non-classroom-based instruction includes
home study, work-study, and distance and computer-based education, which are all
forms of independent study/non-classroom-based.” (CDE, 2007)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): A federal mandate holding all public schools
accountable for producing high student achievement in math and reading through
mandated testing (Kane & Staiger, 2002; USDE, 2006). Schools must report
achievement of several sub-groups including ethnicity, race, migrant status, English
Language proficiency, disability status, gender and low-income level (Scales &
Roehlkepartain, 2003).
Outperforming: Exceeding academic performance of like or similar schools, when
ranked by an academic indicator such as the Academic Performance Index (API).
Similar Schools Rank: A position in the California API statewide ranking, but in a
smaller scale, and compared only to 100 other schools of a similar “opportunities and
challenges” (CDE, 2007). Each school is given a deciles rank from 1 to 10, with 10
being the highest.
18
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR): Administered in the spring each
year to determine how well students in California public schools are achieving state
content standards. This test targets English-language arts and math in grades 2
nd
through 11
th
. In addition, tests in science and history-social science and are given in
specific grades (CDE, 2006).
Student Engagement: a relationship with the community, people, curriculum,
content, teaching practices and curricular or co curricular opportunities within a
school environment (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007).
Urban schools: Schools located in mid-city locations, with a diverse population and
where population density and crime levels are typically high, additionally the
poverty level is 40% or higher. (Lippman, Burnes and McCarther, 1996).
How the Remainder of the Study is Organized
CHAPTER TWO: an overview of the literature related to the American school
system and urban high schools.
CHAPTER THREE: discusses the overview of the methodology for the study.
CHAPTER FOUR: Addresses the findings of the study
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary, Conclusions and Implications of the Study
19
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
American students in urban high schools today, face a multitude of
challenges, which can easily derail them from academically achieving at the highest
levels. Historically students in these urban settings have performed below the
national average, and in many cases these students must weave their way through
numerous risk factors in order to obtain a high school diploma. This literature
review begins with looking at the historical progression of the American high school,
while highlighting key components such as school reform, accountability measures
and high stakes testing, focusing specifically on California schools. Many of these
features have contributed to the foundation upon which today’s urban California high
school must operate.
Following the descriptive of the California urban high school setting, the
spotlight will then be on the students attending these schools and the risk factors they
face in this environment. In spite of many challenging conditions however, there are
some schools in which students have demonstrated high academic achievement. The
potential reasons for their successes are not completely understood, but will be
explored by examining several perceived factors contributing to the success of
student achievement. One contributing factor to the success of students in urban
school settings may be supported by evidence of student engagement. Indiana
University’s Department of Education has developed the High School Survey of
20
Student Engagement (HSSSE), which may shed light on what role student
engagement has played in helping some students to achieve in these difficult settings.
By conducting a review of literature starting with American public high
schools history, and progressing through policy changes, school climate and student
performance we are better able to understand how the development of American
public schools has resulted in a complex educational system. Unfortunately within
this system, many students who attend urban schools are at risk for not receiving a
high school diploma. For those fortunate students who attend urban schools in
which students are demonstrating increased academic performance, answers to the
questions of how and why these schools are successful is yet to be determined.
A Historical Perspective
The evolution of today’s American public high school system can be traced
back through the nation’s historic educational roots, beginning with an institution
reserved only for the elite and privileged. The design and purpose of secondary
schools in 17
th
century America had far different expectations than today’s version of
high school. The focus of the early establishments was for male attendance only and
assumed that most students would not progress into post-secondary education;
therefore the need for rigorous academic preparation was unnecessary (United States
Department of Education (USDE), 2006). In 1821 the English Classical School in
Boston opened its doors as the first public high school in the U.S (USDE, 2006).
The primary drive for establishing public education can be attributed to two
main factors. First, Thomas Jefferson, a strong educational reformer, stressed that
21
the power of the people supported the foundation of a democracy (Stephan, 1980).
Therefore, the people must be well educated in order to form a strong government.
A second factor influencing education was the effect of the strong immigrant influx
into America (Stephan, 1980). Immigrants were coming to America to seek a new
life with higher opportunities. Through public education, immigrants could be
transformed into ideal American citizens (Stephan, 1980).
In 1827 Massachusetts put into law, the requirement that any town with a
population of over five hundred families must establish a high school (Stephan,
1980). By 1870, approximately five hundred public high schools were operating in
America (USDE, 2006). Four years later the Michigan State Supreme Court ruled
that local taxes could be used to support public high schools (USDE, 2006), which
was the birth of the modern public school funding model. This financial system for
public schools would have far reaching effects much later, in the cities of today’s
urban public school.
In the latter part of the 19
th
century, the rise of the Industrial Revolution
continued to increase urbanization and immigration into the cities, which caused the
establishment of more public high schools. The Industrial Revolution in America
brought waves of immigrants into the states, with the hope of a better life (USDE,
2006). Additionally, African Americans migrated from the southern portions of the
U.S, into the northern cities seeking employment opportunities (King, Houston &
Middleton, 2001; Farmer-Hinton, 2002). During this time, the significance of
education prevailed across the United States. Ironically however, neither the Civil
22
Rights Act of 1866 nor the 14
th
Amendment in 1868 establishing equal protection of
the law within the states, guaranteed African American students access to education,
even a segregated one (Stephan, 1980).
The confluence of immigrants, African Americans and Whites competing for
jobs in the cities had a profound negative influence on the relationship between
African Americans and Whites. The threat of African Americans becoming equal
with Whites began a movement in which Whites would seek to remain superior over
African Americans (King, Houston & Middleton, 2001). The Plessey vs. Ferguson
case in 1896 made the “separate but equal” decision a justifiable and legal cause for
keeping blacks and whites separated in schools. This ruling inaccurately implied that
access to, and quality of educating African Americans was equal to that of the White
population (King, Houston & Middleton, 2001; Stephan, 1980). By 1910 the
National Association for Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was formed,
and in 1915 hired their first lawyer to legally challenge segregation (Stephan, 2002).
During the second decade of the twentieth century, the combination of World
War I (WWI) related factories and economic declines in the southern states
contributed to the increase of populations in the already crowded cities within the
northern regions of the United States. From 1900 to 1910 it is estimated that
approximately nine million immigrants came into the United State, increasing the
overall population of the country by ten percent (Garcia, 2002). Additionally, with
the opportunities created from factories supplying WWI efforts, during the years
from 1915 to 1930 approximately 1.5 million African Americans moved from the
23
southern regions in the United States to northern cities (Stephan, 1980). African
American neighborhoods faced overcrowding, and families were forced to live in
packed housing conditions, due to the congested situation within the cities. Schools
also felt the impact of the increased population. Parents of African American
children wanted access to the available seats in the White schools, instead of the sub
standard and crowded learning conditions the African American students
encountered in the segregated schools (Farmer-Hinton, 2002).
Between the years of 1910 and 1940 American public high school saw a
significant increase in student enrollment, which Goldin terms as “the High School
Movement” (1998, p. 348). In order to meet the demands of American society,
public high schools transformed from preparatory schools for students entering
college, into an institution that awarded a diploma and equipped students for the job
market. From the years 1910 to 1933 the number of students with plans for
furthering their education in college decreased by twenty-five percent.
During WWII, students were trained in job related courses, and most students
were expected to enter the workforce in a supportive role for the war (Public
Broadcasting Station (PBS), 2006). This trend continued well into the 1940s when
Dr. Charles Prosser conducted his eight-year study. He concluded that schools
should emphasize the “Life Adjustment” curriculum (USDE, 2006), in which the
central theme for educators was to train students in the leisure aspects of life,
encouraging them to gain work experience to prepare them for citizenship. As a
24
result of his findings, twenty-nine states changed their curriculum to meet this design
(PBS, 2006; USDE, 2006).
However, during this time African American and immigrant students were
still enduring crowded classrooms and substandard conditions. Schools in these
inner-city neighborhoods had buildings that were deteriorating and not intended to
house the number of students attending the school. To accommodate the number of
students, the schools placed their students on shifts, and rotated them through the day
(Farmer-Hinton, 2002). Additionally, the strained district budgets affected the ability
for schools to keep good teachers, due to low salaries and the difficulty of instructing
under demanding conditions (Farmer-Hinton, 2002). This organizational crisis
hampered any attempt at implementing a meaningful and educationally sound
instructional program.
By the 1950’s inner-city schools were receiving a lower share of the school
budgets. African American communities continued facing limited space constraints,
from the steady increase of Southern immigrants (Farmer-Hinton, 2002; Hirsch,
1983). In the 1954 landmark case of Brown vs. Board of Education, the U.S.
Supreme Court acknowledged that racial segregation of schools had significantly
negative effects on African American children. The inferior schools provided less
opportunity for the future of African American children, and subsequently the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made it unlawful for states to
prohibit students from attending schools on the basis of race (King, Houston &
Middleton, 2001). Forty-five years later, this significant ruling was nominated as the
25
single most important American event in the twentieth century, by a survey of top
African American journalists (Sanders, 1990).
Following the era of WWII, the curriculum in American high schools became
loosely aligned with academics and vocational skills, but neither was a primary focus
for school officials or students. The average student was enjoying a time of less
demanding curricula, and more emphasis on life adjustment training (USDE, 2006).
However, by the latter part of the 1950s, American schools began to fall notably
behind other countries in academic skills. This first became apparent in 1957 when
the displays of advanced science skills were demonstrated by the Soviet Union, upon
the launch of Sputnik. A shocked American public began to criticize the academic
elements in the schools, and the condition of American curriculum was suddenly
scrutinized at every angle. (USDE, 2006). This event marked not only the
beginning of the Cold War, but a new era for school reform which would carry on
for the next several decades.
School Reform
Although school reform is not new, it has gained increased attention in the
past twenty years with policy makers who are interested in improving America’s
academic performance. The ebb and flow of school reform in the U.S. during the
20th century, has often been the result of public policy response to the changing
needs of the American society. In 1988 Ginsberg and Wimpleberg analyzed fourteen
national reports covering the past one hundred years of school reform (Willie, 2001).
The reports indicated that during the first half of the century, school reform focused
26
on such topics as universal schooling, curriculum development, compulsory
schooling, professional teaching, college admittance, citizenship and employment
skills (Willie, 2001). The second half of the century’s school reformed focused on
key issues regarding school size, teacher training, federal funding, alternative schools
for difficult children, parental and community involvement, curriculum changes for
gifted students, and standards-based education for student achievement (Willie,
2001).
Throughout the 1950’s, 1960’s and the 1970’s, the United States put forth
significant efforts to make sure that public education was available for all students.
The U.S. government’s federal branches began to play a vital role in the design of
public schools. During the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson, decisions such
as Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 which ended legal segregation in schools
and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reinforced the mission of congress to enhance
education through desegregation, integration and compensatory education (Garfield,
Garfield & Willardson, 2003). Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act as well as the Education of all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, requiring full
access for all children who had disabilities, went further to ensure equal educational
opportunity for all students (Garfield, Garfield & Willardson, 2003; USDE, 2006).
These school reform efforts opened the door for policy makers to then analyze what
schools were doing to make certain that each student was educated to the highest
standards.
27
International events such as the Vietnam War in the 1970s and the Cold War
in the 1980s made it evident that the U.S. competitiveness in the global market
contrasted starkly with the inadequacies of American school system. Curriculum,
teaching practices and student efforts were all critiqued on multiple levels and
evaluated in order to identify where changes needed to be made.
A Nation at Risk
Although equal access to schools was the predominate message in the
federal governments push towards school reform, during the 1970’s Americans had
once again settled for mediocrity in the high schools, meanwhile U.S. students were
falling further behind their counterparts in other industrialized nations (Godwin &
Sheard, 2001; Urbiel, 2001; McCaslin, 2006).
In 1983 the government-sponsored report, A Nation at Risk: the Imperative
for Educational Reform, which highlighted several shortcomings of American
schools (Godwin & Sheard, 2001; McCaslin, 2006). Falling on the heels of the
1970s, when a large number of adults were out of work and the minimum age and
wage requirements were lowered, economic downfalls reverberated throughout the
United States (McCaslin & DiMarino-Linnen, 2000). People seemed to be more
concerned about their financial security, rather than educational achievement of their
children (McCaslin, 2006). A Nation at Risk merged these two factors into a policy
that equated low student achievement with less economic stability for the nation.
This combination translated into a national security issue (McCaslin, 2006). But who
was responsible for fixing the problem? According to the report, teachers and
28
students were simply not working hard enough (McCaslin, 2006). However, the root
of the issue was the nation’s complacency with the public school results.
There were also major concerns in the report regarding minority students in
public schools. Test score data indicated that there were large differences between
African American students and White students outcomes, even after controlling for
socioeconomic indicators (Godwin & Sheard, 2001). Furthermore, graduation rates
for minorities of in inner-city schools were shown to be declining each year.
The concerns that A Nation at Risk cited forced American schools into the
political arena on the federal, state and local level prompting higher demands for
academic outcomes, concluding that “more” was the answer to a complex set of
issues (McCaslin, 2006): More rigorous academic standards, longer school days,
more homework and further adjustments of school reform were all set in motion for
the next several years, with the intention of solving the problems for a nation at risk
of educational failure. However, as the literature indicates more academic rigor and
longer school days did not necessarily translate into higher student achievement.
No Child Left Behind
During the past 20 years, the demand for higher level of educational
proficiency and the state of the global economy have pressured policy makers to
make greater advancements in school reform. Spurred by the slow progress of
schools responding to A Nation at Risk, the federal government took steps to
implement the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act; which combined the
29
components of equal access school reform of the 1970s with the demands of higher
student performance of the 1980s.
The new school reform act in 2001 focused on holding all public schools
accountable for producing high student achievement in math and reading through
mandated testing (Kane & Staiger, 2002; USDE, 2006). Schools must report
achievement of several sub-groups by ethnicity, race, migrant status, English
Language proficiency, disability status, gender and low-income level (Scales &
Roehlkepartain, 2003). Based on the results of student achievement, low income
school districts are provided with financial incentives to increase performance
through federal funding measures.
Related to student achievement, NCLB also required that teachers in the
classroom must be “highly qualified”. This regulation addresses the concern of low
quality teachers working in urban school settings. No longer were schools able to
use teachers with Emergency Substitute credentials to teach students for a long-term
assignment, especially in urban districts with high teacher turn-over. Only teachers
who possessed preliminary or clear credentials were allowed to teach long-term in
the classroom. Currently, multiple subject credential holders are permitted to teach
in primary grades or in some cases, high school as long as they are highly qualified
in the subject matter they teach. High school teachers must be credentialed to teach
at the secondary level, and must also be highly qualified to teach their subject matter
(CDE, 2007).
30
Riding on the most recent wave of school reform, NCLB became the federal
government’s attempt to restructure public schools in order to address student
academic deficiencies. NCLB specifically focuses on the student achievement “gap”
between that of disadvantaged urban or rural students and advantaged students
residing in higher economic districts. (McCaslin, 2006).
The goal of NCLB was to bring equal classroom opportunity to federally
funded schools located in high poverty urban communities, and to improve academic
achievement while reducing drop-out rates. Implementing these changes would
require a partnership between students, parents, principals, teachers and leaders at
the local, state and federal level (USDE, 2006).
NCLB also opened the door for parental choice in public schools. It allows
parents who are not satisfied with the performance of their resident district school, to
send their students to an alternative school setting. Parents may use either vouchers
or charter schools as an alternative. Charter schools began to emerge in 1992, after
Minnesota passed the first charter school legislation (CSDC, n.d). California was the
second state to enact charter school law in 1993, and subsequently since that time,
charter schools have been providing smaller learning communities for students, and
public school choice for parents and students (CSDC, 2006; National Association of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2006).
Charter schools are public schools, which are usually operated by persons
outside of the traditional school districts (Charter Schools Development Center
(CSDS), n.d.), including parents, educators, community members or other groups
31
(EdSource, 2007). These schools are generally exempt from most laws pertaining to
other public school entities. Therefore, teachers, administrators and parents have a
level of freedom and autonomy to make decisions they feel are best for the students
in their school. Although the charters school runs independently they are sponsored
by a school district or other educational agency. The schools must adhere to a set of
agreed upon guidelines that are spelled out in their “charter agreement” or petition
with the sponsoring agency. They have a set of standards which they are held
accountable to, and are funded on a per-pupil basis either directly or indirectly from
the state (EdSource, 2007). However, in an effort to ensure that these schools are
not operating in a fraudulent manner, charter schools are held to higher
accountability and academic measures than traditional schools in order to continue
operating (CSDC, n.d).
Charter schools may be structured in a seat time or non-seat time manner (i.e.
independent study), and may be a “conversion school” (previous traditional public
school) or “start-up” school (EdSource, 2007). These schools may be operated by a
non-profit or for profit agency. All charter schools are structured under a “voluntary
enrollment” and no student may be mandated to attend the charter school. No
charter school may discriminate and they are all considered to be nonsectarian. They
must enroll students by lottery, if the amount of students wishing to enter the school
exceeds the available space within the school (EdSource, 2007).
Charter schools are required to meet a set of criteria for student outcomes
outlined in their charter petition. These outcomes are measured using the same
32
criteria for all students who participate in the standardized tests. All charter schools
may hire their own teachers, but the teachers must meet the same requirements for
credentialing as other public school teachers in California. If a charter school does
not meet the set criteria for student outcomes, they may lose their charter and be shut
down (EdSource, 2007). This design creates competition for public schools, where
both charter schools and non-charter schools rely on the same state dollars for
funding.
NCLB continues to expand with the goal of providing equal educational
access to all students enrolled in American public schools. The schools are held
accountable to meet the demands of a variety of student needs and must continue to
work within the parameters of challenges they face in meeting the requirements of
NCLB.
Accountability
The NCLB reform movement has prompted educators and administrators to
make a paradigm shift regarding student academic performance. Student academic
outcomes no longer depend on student background, language ability or ethnicity.
Schools and districts have become accountable for providing equal opportunity for
student success. School accountability generally includes three components: student
testing, public reporting of test results and rewards or sanctions based on the degree
of the school performance or improvement needed (Kane & Staiger, 2002). The
implementation of NCLB created a watershed of accountability measures for all
states. Schools across the nation receiving Title I funds (federal support funding)
33
would need to demonstrate student improvement through reporting their academic
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) (USDE, 2006). Currently, most states require local
school districts to use some form of reporting device to demonstrate student
academic performance (Kane & Staiger, 2002; King, Houston & Middleton, 2001).
Essential to these reports are rating comparisons between schools and districts. The
goal is to measure student performance and evaluate assessment strategies upon
which school reform can be implemented (King, Houston & Middleton, 2001).
California has its own Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) system,
which provides information on schools reaching benchmark student assessment
targets, and creates opportunities of incentives for schools to increase performance
(CDE, 2006). The APR includes a combination of the California’s requirements for
student achievement, noted as the Academic Reporting Index (API), the NCLB
federal measurement for student achievement of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and
the federal Improvement Program (PI) report (CDE, 2006).
California’s API is a scale that measures student performance in schools,
based on mandated statewide tests. These results produce school-wide scores
ranging from 200 to 1000, and rank the schools within the state against each other
(CDE, 2006). Each school is expected to continue increasing their performance every
year as represented by a growth API, to ensure that students are making progress
towards proficiency in grade level subject matter. When the growth API is
calculated, a school is given more credit for improvements at the bottom of the
performance range than the top. This concept is aimed at creating an incentive for
34
schools to focus on their lowest performing students (Ed Data, 2007). Schools failing
to make progress each year are subject to a variety of supports and sanctions, ranging
from additional funding earmarked for supplemental programs to state take-over of
schools who fail to make needed improvements (CDE, 2006).
Standards & Testing
In alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act, California secondary
schools began to more stringently define what students should know in order to
attain the highest level of achievement, and used these criteria’s to development
measurement tools for evaluating student progress within each grade level (CDE,
n.d.). As a result, educational leaders have defined content and performance
standards based on various subject areas.
California Standards have been adopted by the State Board of Educators, and
are designed to promote the highest achievement levels in Math, Science, English
Language Arts, Social Science, Physical Education, Visual Performing Arts and
Career Technical Education. Each of these standards requires students to
demonstrate their level of proficiency through a variety of assessments (CDE. 2006).
In order to support development of the standards, policy makers have created
assessments that are standards-based — a method that measures students’
performances against a set of criterion of learning rather than against other students’
performances (CDE, 2006). California generally uses two sets of data, which tell the
state if schools are providing adequate programs to keep students academically on-
track in content standards leading to graduation. The Standardized Testing and
35
Reporting Program (STAR) and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
are administered to student at least once per year, to determine each student’s level
of core subject knowledge (CDE, 2006). The combinations of these two test results
are part of a complex equation that the state uses to develop the API score for each
school.
The STAR tests are administered in the spring each year to determine how
well students in California public schools are achieving state content standards. This
test targets English-language arts and math in grades 2
nd
through 11
th
. In addition,
tests in science and history-social science and are given in specific grades.
Additionally, each school must have at least 95 percent of its students participate in
statewide assessments in order to meet federal accountability requirements of NCLB
(CDE, 2006).
The STAR results are intended to provide information on several levels. First,
the results should help teachers and parents work together to improve student
learning. Second, schools use the test results to determine how best to support
student achievement. Finally, along with other available data, STAR results also can
be used to aid in identifying students for special programs relating to intervention or
enrichment (CDE, 2006).
The California High School Exit Exam was designed because the state
Legislatures intended to set measurements for graduating seniors, higher than what
the STAR program assessed. The primary goal of the Legislature was to
"...significantly improve pupil achievement in high school and to ensure that pupils
36
who graduate from high school can demonstrate grade level competency in reading,
writing, and mathematics..." (Senate Bill 2, Section 1[b] as stated by the USDE).
Students are administered the test at least one to three times per year, depending on
grade level. Every student in California must pass the CAHSEE to obtain a high
school diploma. Subsequently, the CAHSEE is combined with the STAR test results
to achieve API results for California public schools.
Critics of NCLB and California’s API measurements have strong concerns
about the way in which standardized tests are used to measure student academic
proficiency. Researchers have pointed out that it is difficult to measure a school’s
performance, based on the test data from a single year (Kane & Staiger, 2002). A
variety of testing factors, which may influence student test results, range from the
quality of the teacher to a possible change in curriculum during the course of the
school year (Kane & Staiger, 2002).
According to King, Houston & Middleton there is also a large body of
research which indicates the use of the test data is not an accurate measurement for
student achievement, especially in poor and racially diverse schools, where resources
are limited and teacher turn-over is high (2001). Although there was some closing of
the academic performance gap between White and African American students during
the mid 1970’s through 1980’s, the gaps in the standardized test scores by race and
ethnicity still remain large (Jencks and Phillips, 1998; Kane & Staiger, 2002).
Furthermore, the gap between White students and Hispanic students has lessened
slightly, but is still pronounced (Kane & Staiger, 2002). King, Houston and
37
Middleton argue that it is detrimental to minority students in urban schools to have
standardized test results distinguish between high and low performing schools. In
their opinion, this measurement of school success tends to perpetuate the notion that
White students are more academically successful, while reiterating the ostensible
inferiority of minority and poor students (2001). Moreover, the system of testing and
measurements may disregard other factors that contribute to student achievement
(King, Houston & Middleton, 2001) such as student background and contributing
risk factors. Given the diverse nature of schools in California, this point is one
which must be seriously considered when standardized test results continue to be
used by policy makers in the decision-making processes on important educational
issues.
California Schools
California public schools served 6.3 million students in the 2004-2005 school
year, with approximately 1,937,000 students attending public high schools (Ed Data
n.d.; CDE, n.d.). These schools are found in many formats in both suburban and
urban settings. They range from large comprehensive schools, to smaller learning
communities such as charter schools, all of which are accountable by the state to
achieve high academic results. California schools are now spending more time than
ever focusing on the use of data to drive decisions (CDE, n.d.). The data consists not
only of student test results, but other indicators such as student enrollment numbers,
student drop-out rates, student levels of language proficiency, free and reduced lunch
38
candidates, special education and several other factors that affect student success
(CDE, n.d.).
Despite the recent economic recession, California remains an attractive
destination, drawing immigrants from other states and countries and making it one of
the most ethnically diverse states in the U.S. According to the National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES) and the CDE, the 2003-2004 school year data
indicated that California schools ranked first in the nation for English Language
Learners, with twenty-five percent of enrolled students not fluent in English
compared to the national average of eight percent (Ed-data, 2006). Some students
who arrive in California may have gaps in their education, and are not literate in their
own language, as well as the English language (Ruiz de Velasco & Fix, 2000).
According to the NCES, over eighty languages are spoken by students attending
California schools (Ed-data, 2006).
As of 2004, charter schools in California make up approximately five percent
of the public schools total (EdSource, 2007). Since 1993, when 31 charter schools in
the state first opened their doors, the charter school numbers have increased steadily
to a total of 574 in 2006 (EdSource, 2007). These schools serve a diverse student
population both ethnically and socioeconomically. Figure 2.1 illustrates the
populations served by both charter schools and non-charter schools in California.
39
Figure 2.1.: Populations of Charter and Noncharter Schools
Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 5/06
Note: Data based on 509 of 511 charter schools open in 2004-05.
Educators and policy makers in California are well aware of the need for
schools to have the capacity of serving a diverse student population. The variety of
school models in California is an indication of the lengths to which districts are
reaching in order to meet the needs of students.
Urban schools
Schools in California are as diverse as the population they serve. Schools
located in the inner city and rural areas are very different than those of the suburban
locations, due largely to the nature of the local economy. As previously mentioned,
in 1874 the birth of U.S public school funding was established when the Michigan
State Supreme Court ruled that local taxes could be used to support public high
40
schools. Since that time, the quality of schools and the financial support that schools
receive have centered largely on the income level of the neighborhoods that surround
the schools.
Many urban inner city areas, once the hub of economic growth, began to
experience capital departure and transference starting in the 1950s, when middle
class urban families began to move out of the cites into the suburban areas
(Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, & Crowley, M., 2006). What has been left behind,
are densely populated, poor and mostly minority families with many of the parents
working in low wage jobs. Due to high competition for tax money in cities where
urban schools exist, these communities must also fund social service programs for
many of its unemployed citizens. For educational planning this has translated into
lower tax-based funding for many inner city schools; resulting in high minority,
under-funded public high schools with fewer resources to put towards increasing
student achievement (Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, & Crowley, M., 2006; USDE,
2002). The decrease in tax-based funding has led to a drop of per-pupil expenditure
in districts where student enrollment has continued to climb (Darling-Hammond,
2007).
Urban public schools are larger on average than suburban and rural schools
(Lippman, Burns & McCarther, 1996). Lippman, Burns & McCarther describe many
urban schools to be located in ghetto or high poverty settings within a mid-city
location where the poverty level can be as much as 40 percent or higher than the
suburban areas that surround the city. School sites structures are often deplorable,
41
with inadequate plumbing, heating and facilities. These schools usually have fewer
opportunities for their students to obtain a high quality education, due to the many
constraints of underfunding which have lead to a lack of supplies, high teacher turn-
over and inadequate challenging curriculum for students (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Urban schools are often characterized by their low capacity to educate
students in critical ways. The school faculty is rarely able to focus on “reform”,
“restructuring” or “teacher empowerment”, when they are preoccupied with trying to
obtain basic necessities such as books, paper, classrooms with sufficient lighting,
heat and functioning computers or typewriters (Garcia, 2000). Often staff members
must spend valuable time trying to obtain resources needed to function in the day-to-
day. Studies show that in urban settings, there is a minimum level of teacher
effectiveness leading to lower student’s achievement, especially classrooms that are
overcrowded, located in poor facilities near busy and noisy streets (CDE, 2007).
Crime and violence is also a major concern for many urban school districts.
Schools located within high crime cities often encounter a higher degree of violence
on the school campus. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES), public schools that had experienced one or more violent crime occurrences
on campus showed an increase between the 1999-2000 and 2003-04 school years,
growing from 71 percent to 81 percent (2006). Specifically, urban schools were
more likely than urban fringe schools to experience violence. Eighty-eight percent
of urban schools had one or more violent episodes, in contrast to the 80 percent of
urban fringe schools (NCES, 2006).
42
Clearly, urban schools face higher and more significant challenges when
educating their students. Several obstacles such as poor facilities, high teacher turn-
over, low funding and high crime are stacked against the students who attend these
urban school settings, making it a greater challenge for many student to obtain a high
school diploma.
Students of Urban Schools
According to the CDE, approximately 1,806,648 students attend California
public high schools (2006). What types of students generally attend urban schools?
Many urban students are associated with risk factors such as family transience or
mobility, low parental education, poor emotional/physical health, gang affiliation,
exposure to drugs and teenage pregnancy which often leads to low academic
achievement, including diminished chances for graduating high school (Brooks-
Gunn, & Duncan 1997; Garcia, 2002; Lippman, Burns & McCarther, 1996). In the
2005-2006 school year alone, approximately 60, 176 California high school students
were reported as dropouts by the CDE (2007).
The literature also describes many of the students within the urban school
setting to be comprised of low-income, high minority (non-White) students who are
often associated within the lowest quartile measurement for indicators of “well
being” (Garcia, 2002). In 2003-2004, 48 percent of students enrolled in California
schools were living in low-income families, compared to the national average of 38
percent. This ranked California highest among the five most populous states in the
U.S. for educating students from low-income families (Ed-data, 2007). Furthermore,
43
California is becoming known as a “majority minority” state, inequalities in serving
many at-risk students continues to increase (Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender,
2007).
Students of urban schools are often associated with risk factors including
poverty, crime, limited English skills and health issues related to a student’s well
being (Brooks-Gunn, & Duncan 1997; Lippman, Burns & McCarther, 1996).
Students who live in poverty often encounter the highest degree of challenges when
it comes to achieving in schools. The number of students who qualify for free and
reduced meal prices is a measurement of this factor. According to the CDE, in the
2005-2006 school year, over 50 percent of California public school students qualify
for these programs (Ed-Data, 2007). Many of these students have single parent
homes, where the parent is either not working at all, or is working but in a low-wage
job.
Often students from families of low-income wage earners are faced with a
high degree of mobility. A variety of evidence indicates that students may relocate
several times during their academic career. According to recent studies, 31 percent
of urban students who have reached the 8
th
grade have moved approximately two or
more times (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Subsequently, at least 10 percent of high
school students move an additional two more times by the time they have reached
the twelfth grade (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Research suggests that student
mobility is detrimental to students and can lead to students repeating a grade, often
44
times leading to increased behavior problems or dropping out of school (Rumberger
& Larson, 1998).
Students of poor homes must often compromise resources in order to exist in
the lowest levels of basic living conditions. Garcia indicates that students who live
below the poverty level must often work during their high school years, resulting in
many students leaving school entirely, to enter the labor market in order to support
their family (2002). These conditions are compounded further, when the student is
of a minority and limited in speaking English.
Mounting research indicates that immigrant teens entering the secondary schools
are more likely to be concentrated in urban school settings (Ruiz de Velasco & Fix,
2000). Enrolled in schools faced with a low capacity to educate immigrant students,
English Language Learners (ELL) student were found to have the second highest
drop-out rates in California schools of 16.5 percent, led only by African American
students whose drop-out rate reached 21.5 percent in the 2004-2005 school year
(CDE, 2006). These statistics are in sharp contrast to white students, whose drop-out
rates were calculated to be 7.9 percent (see Table 2.1) (CDE, 2006).
45
Table 2.1. List of California dropout statistics for Ethnicity
Ethnic
Group Gr. 9
Dropouts
Gr. 9
Enroll.
%
Gr. 10
Dropouts
Gr. 10
Enroll.
%
Gr. 11
Dropouts
Gr. 11
Enroll.
%
Gr. 12
Dropouts
Gr. 12
Enroll.
%
Other
Secdy.
Enroll.
Total
Dropouts
(Gr. 9-12)
Total
Enroll.
(Gr. 9-12)
4 Yr.
Derived
Rate
(Gr. 9-
12)
1 Yr.
Rate
(Gr.
9-12)
AM IND 149 4,931 3.0 116 4,407 2.6 142 4,040 3.5 326 3,593 9.1 123 733 17,094 17.2 4.3
ASIAN 436 42,845 1.0 342 42,983 0.8 418 43,089 1.0 1,070 39,099 2.7 785 2,266 168,801 5.4 1.3
PAC ISLD 79 3,508 2.3 81 3,250 2.5 99 3,017 3.3 208 2,749 7.6 84 467 12,608 14.8 3.7
FILIPINO 169 14,011 1.2 114 13,618 0.8 183 13,276 1.4 422 12,624 3.3 344 888 53,873 6.6 1.6
HISPANIC 6,424 247,506 2.6 6,215 210,003 3.0 6,743 185,656 3.6 13,029 156,986 8.3 12,539 32,411 812,690 16.5 4.0
AFR AM 2,107 47,631 4.4 1,715 42,373 4.0 1,795 37,408 4.8 3,325 33,051 10.1 3,648 8,942 164,111 21.5 5.4
WHITE 2,012 178,736 1.1 2,138 172,485 1.2 2,845 165,807 1.7 6,285 155,638 4.0 3,953 13,280 676,619 7.9 2.0
MULT./NO
RESP
309 10,318 3.0 246 8,084 3.0 232 6,821 3.4 402 5,820 6.9 175 1,189 31,218 15.4 3.8
State Totals 11,685 549,486 2.1 10,967 497,203 2.2 12,457 459,114 2.7 25,067 409,560 6.1 21,651 60,176 1,937,014 12.6 3.1
Please note: In 2002-03 the California Department of Education started using the National Center for Education Statistics dropout criteria.
1 Year Rate Formula: (Gr. 9-12 Dropouts/Gr. 9-12 Enrollment)*100
4 Year Derived Rate Formula: (1-((1-(drop gr 9/enroll gr 9))*(1-(drop gr 10/enroll gr 10))*(1-(drop gr 11/enroll gr 11))*(1-(drop gr 12/enroll gr
12))))*100
** Asterisks in the 4 year derived rate column indicate that one or more grade levels have zero enrollment. If a grade level has zero enrollment, the
formula can not be calculated.(California Department of Education, 2006)
46
Urban schools face a multitude of challenges that hinder them from providing
high-level educational experiences for their students. It is apparent that a highly
diverse student body, some with limited English language proficiency, coupled with
densely populated classrooms does not provide teachers and administrators with
ideal conditions for educating students who reside in some of the poorest districts in
California. As districts struggle to cope with limited resources, their students have
their own personal challenges they must face.
Urban School Student Achievement
The educational literate is replete with reports of urban schools throughout
the United States that fail to meet minimum statewide academic performance
benchmarks. The inevitable conclusion one may reach from the evidence presented
in the previous section is that many students attending urban schools are often placed
in situations that increase their educational vulnerability (Garcia, 2002). Students in
many of California’s urban high schools have traditionally exhibited low
achievement, which is reflected by results of the state’s standardized test scores, high
school exit exam and student graduation rates.
California tests all high school students through grade eleven each spring by
administering the STAR tests, to determine proficiency levels within each grade
level. Disparity in performance level between students who are economically
disadvantaged and those who are not is apparent in the 2005-2006 STAR tests results
47
for English Language Arts and Algebra I, which is a graduation requirement. These
results from the CDE may be seen in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2. 2006 STAR tests results for English Language Arts and Algebra I
Category %Advanced %Proficient %Basic %Below
Basic
% Far Below
Basic
English Language Arts
Economically
Disadvantaged
7.3 15.6 29 24 25
Non-Economically
Disadvantaged
26 25 23 12.6 8.6
CST Math – Algebra I
Economically
Disadvantaged
.3 7.6 20.6 40 27.3
Non-Economically
Disadvantaged
1.3 13.6 26.3 38.3 20
California Department of Education (2006)
The test results from California’s exit exam also indicate low student
performance in urban settings. According to the CDE, high school students taking
the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) had an overall passage rate of 59
percent in mathematics and 61 percent in English Language Arts (ELA) (2007).
However, when one looks closer at the results, the breakdown of ethnicity and socio-
economically disadvantaged students becomes more revealing. Of the English
Language (EL) learner category, only 35 percent passed the mathematics portion,
and 28 percent passed the EL section of the test. Additionally, only 48 percent of the
48
Socio-economically disadvantaged students passed both sections of the test (CDE,
2007).
Compounding the issues surrounding student achievement results on state
tests, NCLB also requires that schools report their graduation rates as part of their
overall achievement score. Calculation of graduation rates is complex and many
states do their best to estimate graduation rates by using a variety of methods.
Although California reports a graduation rate of 70 percent, which compares
relatively favorably to many other states, the results are far from promising when
broken down by ethnic groups (West Ed, 2004). Historically, students from racial-
ethnic groups had a graduation rate between 50 and 60 percent in California (CDE,
2006; Swanson, 2005; West Ed, 2004). Statistically, graduation rates for African
American students approximated at 56 percent, and for Hispanic students at 60
percent (Swanson, 2005). The numbers reflect a disproportionate loss of African
American and Latino students within the graduation totals in California. This is
especially alarming in an era when less than two-thirds of the states ethnically
diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged students graduate from schools located
within urban districts; and where having a high school diploma is regarded as the
basic prerequisite for finding an entry-level job (Swanson, 2005; West Ed, 2004).
The differences in graduation outcomes between affluent suburban districts
and urban districts can be illustrated by comparing the state’s largest school district
with one of the state’s higher performing suburban districts. Consider Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) in 2002. With an enrollment of 735,058 students,
49
90.4 percent minority students, and Hispanics making up the district’s largest
minority ethnic group, LAUSD had 72.8 percent of their students qualifying for Free
or Reduced Lunch programs. In the year 2002 the district had a total graduation rate
of 45.3 percent (Swanson, 2005). Compare these figures to the San Juan Unified
School District located near Sacramento, California in the same year. This suburban
district with an enrollment of 51,383 students, the majority being white students and
only 27.2 percent eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch programs, had a graduation
rate of 93.9 percent (WestEd, 2007).
The trends for student academic achievement in urban schools are clear.
Many students are scoring lower on state standardized test, fewer are passing
California’s High School Exit Exam and even fewer are graduating from high school
than the suburban counterparts. These large disparities challenge the policy makers
and educators in the public school system to devise ways by which all students will
be provided with equal opportunity to learn and succeed in California’s most
challenged high schools.
Beating the Odds
Despite the majority of low performing results from urban high schools in
California, there are a number of schools which have demonstrated high student
achievement, and are beating the odds stacked against them. In a study conducted by
the School Redesign Network at Stanford University, five urban high schools were
investigated for their extraordinary work in preparing their students for high
achievement in post secondary experiences such as college and/or careers (Darling-
50
Hammond & Friedlaender, 2007). These schools serve mostly low-income and
minority students that were both district operated and charter schools. Outcomes
from these schools reflect a success rate of 80 to 100 percent of their students
attending higher education, double the rate of the state average (Darling-Hammond
& Friedlaender, 2007). A case study of these schools revealed that these successful
schools shared three primary themes; personalization, rigours and relevant
instruction and professional learning communities (Darling-Hammond &
Friedlaender, 2007).
Other urban schools in California which also exhibit high student
achievement, have demonstrated their ability to move beyond the barriers and find
ways to empower their teachers and students so that success becomes the norm.
These stories are not new. Over twenty years ago the economist Thomas Sowell
wrote about high performing urban schools (Meyerson, 2000). William Bennett,
Secretary of Education under President Reagan also publicized outperforming
schools as did Richard Riley the Secretary of Education for President Clinton
(Meyerson, 2000). Margaret Spelling, who holds the current position under
President Bush, noted in her December 2006 report of the U. S. Education Guide that
even charter schools have become important in closing the achievement gap. She
stated, “these are schools that are bringing a new consciousness to the challenge of
raising the achievement of traditionally underserved student populations at the
secondary level” (USDE, 2006).
51
Successful urban schools have found formulas that work with regards to
meeting the needs of the population they serve. According to Robert Marzano a
foremost leader in research on school success, offers the viewpoint that these schools
have a substantial impact on student achievement, regardless of student background
(2003). Marzano has combined his interpretation of much of the research focusing
on high achieving schools. Subsequently he has organized school effectiveness into
three broad level factors: School-level factors, teacher-level factors and student-
level factors (2003). It is helpful to consider these categories, when evaluating high
performing urban schools, to better understand what formulas these schools are
implementing to increase student achievement despite, the challenges that these
urban schools face.
School-level factors pertain to things that schools do, in order to increase
student achievement. Marzano list five specific school-level factors, which he
asserts contribute to school effectiveness. These five factors are: guaranteed and
viable curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parent and community
involvement, safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and professionalism
(Marzano, 2003). The order they have been listed, according to Marzano, is the
level of priority at which they affect student achievement the most (2003). However,
he concedes that does not imply that those factors with lower rankings are less
important to the effectiveness of a school (2003).
Some researchers such as Samuel Carter would argue, that collegiality and
professionalism, which is inclusive of school leadership, should actually be ranked as
52
one of the first factors to affect student outcomes, as he indicates that strong school
leadership is a critical component of successful schools (Carter, 2000). Other case
studies of high achieving schools provide comprehensive portraits of schools with
strong leadership. These studies contend that school leadership influence student’s
success by setting forth ambitious goals and establishing environments that support
teachers and help students to succeed (Leithwood and Riehl, 2003).
Each school-level factor may have an enormous impact in student outcomes,
however Marzano argues that based his years of research, the school-level factor of
most importance is a Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum which tends to have the
highest impact on student achievement (2003). He introduces the notion of a
student’s Opportunity to Learn (OTL). This component of the school level factor
essentially asks the question “Did the student have the opportunity to learn and then
study a topic, before being assessed on it?” (Marzano, 2003). This key question is
especially pertinent when you consider the focus of state standardized tests. Did
students in the classroom actually have the opportunity to learn the material, study it
well and produce evidence of doing so when they take the state mandated tests?
The next category of school achievement is the Teacher-level Factors, or the
instructional practices that impact student learning and outcomes. These factors are:
instructional strategies, classroom management and classroom curriculum design
(Marzano, 2003). These factors are intertwined in terms of their application to the
classroom setting. Teachers who are skilled with using a variety of strategies to
address student needs such as setting objectives and providing feedback, identifying
53
similarities and differences and reinforcing effort and providing feedback are likely
to be a more effective teacher (Marzano, 2003). Strong classroom management is
another of Marzano’s teacher-level factors which he defines as: “1) Establishing and
enforcing rules and procedures, 2) Carrying out disciplinary actions, 3) maintaining
effective teacher and student relationships, and 4) maintaining an appropriate mental
set for management” (2003, pg. 88-89). The final component of the teacher-level
factor is classroom curriculum design. Marzano suggests that teachers apply the five
recommended action steps for increasing student success with curriculum. These
steps include: identification of curriculum content, multiple exposure of content,
identification of procedures for content mastery, use of meaningful vocabulary and
students engaging in complex tasks that require them to understand the curriculum in
other contexts (Marzano, 2003). By using the previously mentioned teacher-level
factors, Marzano indicates that the research supporting these factors has
demonstrated increased student academic outcomes.
A component of research not presented in Marzano’s teacher-level factor,
suggests that teachers and school administrators should embrace the use of data to
make decisions about student progress and achievement. According to James
Johnson, effective schools are a result of educators making high stakes decisions
based on accurate information (1997). In his report, Data-Driven School
Improvement, Johnson identifies a profound and timely comment made by James
McLean in 1995, in which he is quoted as saying “[the] implementation of a
complete program of data collection and use can lead to the improvement of
54
education as no other educational innovation of the last century” (1997). In an era of
accountability, the use of school test data may be the very cornerstone as to how
schools measure improvements. Johnson implies that an educator’s goal is to collect
and utilize accurate information, which will allow the teachers and administrators to
make adjustments to their teaching style or curriculum (1997). Additionally, districts
have spent money to make data accessible by implementing software programs and
Internet access to provide a valuable range of information on students (Jerald, 2005).
If teachers take on the role of a researcher, they are able to bring their findings into
the classroom, where students are impacted at the very basic level.
The final lists of factors outlined by Marzano in high achieving schools are
related to student-level factors. He has identified four primary student-level factors
that he suggests may account for the bulk of variance in students achievement,
however he contends that any negative features that these factors bring towards
student achievement, can be defeated (Marzano, 2003). These factors are: home
environment, learned intelligence and background knowledge, and motivation. These
features are often what is most focused on when discussing urban students.
Home environment, including socioeconomic status (SES) has been shown to
have a strong relationships to student achievement. Specifically however, Marzano
points out that research has shown how home environment can be a positive
influence on student achievement when parents communicate with the school often,
and about school with their children (2003). Additionally, parents who provide
encouragement regarding their child’s schoolwork as well as support for completing
55
the work can be highly effective. Furthermore, parents who have realistic and high
expectations for their children’s education can also play a strong role in student
achievement (Marzano, 2003). Therefore, Marzano suggests that high achieving
schools provide support for parents, in such a way that they are able to train parents
in skills to support their students (2003). Furthermore, he suggests that these school-
parent interactions provide the opportunity for parents to become active in other
school-affiliated activities.
Marzano’s research into what makes schools work has revealed a systematic
approach using three levels, each associated with factors relating to the school, the
teachers and the students. Other research indicates that effective school leadership
and the use of data to drive decision making has also positively impacted student
outcomes in urban school settings. These factors are based on a synthesis of much
research, which has identified several components of highly successful schools,
regardless of student backgrounds. Other research on school leadership and use of
data to make decisions may also round out what successful urban schools have done
to make significant strides in student outcomes.
An additional element of student success in urban communities may be
related to school size. Over the past 10 years, studies have shown that smaller
learning environments are conducive to student success. These settings are generally
more personalized and focus on student needs, providing them with increased
exposure to adults who may be able to motivate students in a unique way (Huebner
& Corbett, 2004). West Ed has explored research focusing on smaller learning
56
communities and has found five small public high schools where students are offered
a rigorous curriculum in a more tailored setting. These identified schools exhibit
many similar factors that Marzano has indicated lead to student success. Overall,
their findings recognize the following elements that have lead to the success of these
small schools. These factors are: a) a strong faculty and staff, b) strong emphasis on
effective teaching and curriculum, c) innovative school design and d) flexible school
governance (Huebner & Corbett, 2004). Although these elements may seem unique
to small school settings, many other larger comprehensive successful urban schools
have also reported similar descriptors that they believe have contributed to the
success of the school.
Cumulatively, there are a variety of factors that the research indicates
influence high school student success and have had a substantial impact on students
within urban school settings. In a 2005 report from the Iowa Department of
Education, six characteristics of successful high schools were identified.
Considering the previous research mentioned, these six elements combine the
research of Marzano with the successful components of smaller learning
communities identified by Huebner and Corbett. These six components are: 1) High
expectations for all learners, 2) collaborative school leadership, 3) high quality
professional development, 4) a school environment that is student-focused, 5)
rigorous and relevant curriculum, and finally 6) school decisions based on data.
However there appear to be other intangible elements of what makes a school
successful. Descriptors such as “school culture” as applied to a student’s level of
57
confidence, trust and respect between students and teachers might also play a role
(Willie, 2000). West Ed reported that the five highly successful small schools have
indicated that the students in these schools are highly engaged in learning (Huebner
& Corbett, 2004). They support these findings by noting that attendance rates at all
five sites are shown to be higher than the districts they are set in. Additionally, the
average number of suspensions and expulsions is significantly less than their local
districts (Huebner & Corbett, 2004). So the question remains, do other factors such
as these intangible features of school culture, trust, and engagement positively affect
student achievement? As evidenced in the WestEd study, there is a sense that
student engagement may be one of these contributing factors for student achievement
in urban settings. To better understand the role engagement plays, it is important to
consider additional research on this topic.
Engagement
For many years, the term “engagement” has been measured and analyzed in
the private sector and business industries, as one of the main contributing factors
towards increased production in the workplace (Constantino, 2007). Engagement
has also been studied in affiliation with students in school settings, primarily because
engagement in the school setting is about relationships (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). The
literature reflects that the concept of school engagement is considered to be a
multifaceted complex structure, but consist of three general contexts: behavioral,
emotional and cognitive processes (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004).
58
Researchers from Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation & Education Policy
have developed further criteria which defines student engagement as:
The student’s relationship with the school community, the people
(adults and peers), the structures (rules, facilities, schedules), the
curriculum and content, the pedagogy and the opportunities
(curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular). (2006, p. 1)
Other research suggests that student engagement in the school setting
represents a psychological process that affects the level of interest, investment and
attention that students put forth in their efforts toward school work (Marks, 2000).
Students tend to be more likely to learn, if they are engaged in school (Marks, 2000).
The past research regarding the connection between student engagement and
learning demonstrates breadth but not necessarily depth, however the emergence of
further investigation into this subject appears to have become a greater focus for
educational research during the past two decades. Some research topics have
focused on whether student racial and ethnic groups differ on levels of engagement
in school (Johnson, Crosnoe & Elder, 2001). Other studies have centered on the
relationships between school-level factors and student engagement (Fullarton, 2002).
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education sponsored a guide to assist educators
with improving student literacy in response to the requirements of NCLB. This
study examined how student engagement affects literacy improvements, focusing
primarily on student confidence, teacher involvement, relevant and interest, and
student choice (USDE, 2005). There continues to be an increased pursuit of research
linking student’s engagement to a variety of school related features.
59
The scope and intention of much of the research available seems to be
designed to offer further instruction to educators on “how to” engage students more,
whether it is at the school level, teacher level or even in the home. However,
knowing how to engage students does not complete the picture with regards to
engagement and the student’s relationship with the school. The quality and depth of
the student’s engagement with the school environment must also be determined
(Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). It is clear that engaged students learn more, take school more
seriously and produce schoolwork they can be proud of (Newmann, 1992).
Moreover, it is also important to consider such aspects of the student’s relationship
with the school in terms of the people, structures, curriculum and opportunities that
exist (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). As noted in previous sections, there are some urban
high schools in which student outcomes have exceeded expectations. One may then
ask the question; does the factor of student engagement play a role in why some
urban high schools are beating the odds? Therefore a logical progression for further
research would be to consider if student engagement in the urban high school is a
factor contributing to the success of these students.
High School Survey of Student Engagement
The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), developed by
Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy may help with
investigating student engagement as one of the many factors behind what high
performing urban schools are doing right. From 2004 to the 2005 school year the
HSSSE has been administered to over 180,000 high school students (HSSSE, 2005).
60
In 2006 an additional 81,499 students from 110 high schools in America completed
the HSSSE (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). In 2006, the HSSSE was administered to a variety
of high schools, ranging from schools with enrollments of 3,881 students to 37
students, the average high school size being 1,010 students (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007).
The national student profile of the 2006 HSSSE indicated that 34 percent of
the students who responded to the survey were from urban schools, 33 percent of the
student responders were from suburban schools, 23 percent of students who
responded were from rural schools and a remaining 10 percent of student responders
were from schools located in towns (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). The U.S. regions of
participating schools were divided into five sections; Northeast, Southeast, Midwest,
Southwest and West, with the Midwest representing the largest portion of schools at
56 percent, while the West represented almost the smallest portion of schools with
nine percent participation (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007).
Questions on the HSSSE relate to how students feel, think and see themselves
with regard to their own interactions with the school community as a whole (Center
for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP), 2006). The HSSSE considers certain
student level factors such as student grade level, sex/gender, race/ethnicity,
free/reduced lunch eligibility, primary language at home, class grades, and student’s
plans for academic track including vocational/career, general/regular, or
honors/college prep (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). Additionally students are provided with
extra space to write any further information about the questions in the survey they
answered (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). This added feature offers the researcher the
61
opportunity to combine both qualitative data and quantitative data from the students
who complete the HSSSE, providing a comprehensive report of student’s response to
questions regarding engagement.
The results of the 2006 HSSSE, revealed important insights into student
perceptions regarding their degree of contentment with their school, their level of
care for their school and how important they perceive themselves to be within the
school setting. Sixty-one percent of students indicated that they would go to the
same school again, while over 70 percent of students said they cared about their
school. However most interestingly, only 55 percent of student respondents
indicated that they felt they were an important part of the school community (Yazzie-
Mintz, 2007). While it is important to consider that more than half of the students
feel a sense of importance within the school, just less than the majority do not feel
that they are an important aspect of the school community. In a world where NCLB
is a guiding factor that requires schools to address all student needs, schools who
receive this type of feedback from students may then have the opportunity to be
proactive with changing student perceptions and attitudes related to the school
setting.
Other important information gathered from the 2006 HSSSE included
answers to questions found on Table 2.3.
62
Table 2.3. Results from 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement (Yazzie-
Mintz, 2007)
Why do you go to school? Because I want to get a college degree 73%
Because of peers/friends 68%
Because it’s the law 58%
Because I want to acquire skills for the
workplace
47%
Have you ever been bored in
school?
Every Day 50%
Once in a while 27%
Every class 17%
Why were you bored in class? Material was interesting 75%
Material wasn’t relevant 39%
Work wasn’t challenging 32%
No interaction with Teacher 31%
Overall response from students indicate that although they may enjoy being
at school because of future plans or because of their friends, half of the students are
bored in school, and the majority of them found it to be so due to lack of relevance,
leading to less challenging curriculum and a lack of interaction with teachers. These
combining factors of student perceptions are also likely to be signs of students
becoming disengaged from their school, and eventually in some circumstances
students may view dropping out as a feasible option with regard to their
disengagement from the school (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). According to the 2006
HSSSE, students were asked questions that addressed dropping out. Among students
63
who had considered dropping out (22% of respondents), some reason students gave
were “I didn’t like the school” (73%), “I didn’t like the teachers (61%), and “I didn’t
see the value in the work I was being asked to do” (60%) (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). One
of the most compelling responses in the HSSSE came from the student group that
had considered dropping out. One in four respondents of this group stated that the
reason they considered dropping out was that they believed “no adults in the school
care about me” (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). Research indicates that students need to feel
connected through relationships with adults within their school community
(Marzano, 2003; Yazzie-Mitz, 2007). As schools utilize the data generated by the
HSSSE, they may then reform policy and practice within the school setting through
intervention programs in order to better address the needs of their student population.
The HSSSE is a single instrument that has been used to measure student
engagement in high schools across the nation. The information from the surveys
contributes to a database that has become the largest of its kind (CEEP, 2006). The
results of the survey provide information to high school administrators regarding the
perceptions, attitudes and beliefs that students have with consideration to their high
school environment. The information the survey offers may also provide insight to
how students experience school and the priorities students place on the various
aspects of school (CEEP, 2006). Through the use of the HSSSE the results may
offer further information and insight into whether student engagement is a factor in
the academic achievement for students attending the high performing urban schools.
64
Conclusion
The process of American high schools from the early 17
th
century through
today has been a long and turbulent road filled with potholes of segregation, reform
and high-stakes testing. The evolution of pubic schooling has continued to focus on
the means of providing students with an educational experience that will lead them to
a better life in post secondary existence. During the past twenty years, high schools
across the nation have begun to wake up to the call for higher standards, increased
student performance through the implementation of high-stakes decisions resulting in
potential rewards or sanctions based on student performance. Income levels,
geographic location, ethnicity and achievement have stratified the schools
themselves as well as the students who attend them.
The literature and research regarding public education is incredibly vast. In
the folds of the educational literature, there is a great deal that describes the bleak
conditions in which some of the nations poorest schools exist. However if one looks
deep enough, there also appears to be a shining star within in the literature that
highlights some of the urban high schools where increased student achievement has
been attained. The literature offers “best practices” identified by researchers that are
found in many of the nations most successful schools, along with assumed “non-
tangible” entities such as school culture and student engagement. However, what is
not clear is if the urban schools in which students have achieved at higher levels
utilize these best practices, and if other non-tangible factors such as student
engagement, played a part in increased student achievement. Although it is possible
65
that student engagement is a component of the urban high school student’s
educational experience, the High School Survey of Student Engagement is a single
tool, which may assist school administrators and policy makers to determine whether
or not engagement is a contributing factor in high achieving urban school.
Through the evolution of high school development and reform in California,
what has emerged in the literature is a disturbing trend in which students of
California’s inner-city schools are at a greater risk for dropping out and therefore
abandoning their potential to receive a high school diploma. In contrast however,
there also appears to be some urban schools where, for reasons not completely
understood, students are succeeding academically and graduating with a high school
diploma, despite the risk factors and deplorable conditions often associated with
urban high schools.
The mystery surrounding this phenomenon is the impetus to research further
and ask appropriate questions which will lead to better understanding what perceived
factors contribute to student achievement in a high performing urban school. Further
investigation into these factors may also indicate if student engagement plays a role
as to why some urban schools have succeeded with providing their students the
opportunity to achieve at higher levels. In the next chapter, we explore these
questions and formulate methods by which we can examine a high performing urban
high school.
66
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to understand the perceived factors related
to the success of an urban secondary school setting, which has been identified as a
high performing school compared to other similar schools. Furthermore, the case
study determined if student engagement in this environment was or was not one of
the contributing factors to the school’s high academic performance. An urban school
setting provides unique challenges for student success; therefore identification of the
perceived factors related to student achievement in this environment is considered to
be of relative importance. This study examined the nature and level of these factors,
specifically focusing on student engagement, and reflects on the impact of this
phenomenon with regards to student achievement. Student engagement is of
particular interest, because it may offer a window into better understanding how
students interact with their school, which may affect student retention and increase
academic outcomes. Finally, the research gathered was organized and viewed
through the lenses of Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames, in order to better understand
the organizational structure of the school and analyze what, if any, affect student
engagement may have on student achievement.
Research Questions:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high
performing urban high school?
67
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
In this case study, the researcher examined several factors, including student
engagement, to determine if it contributed to the high academic performance of
students in a high performing urban high school setting. This study is one of ten
other case studies, which has investigated the same phenomenon in ten other urban
high schools. The Conceptual Framework (Figure 3.1) provides an illustration of
how all the studies approached this investigation using the same research questions
and data collection tools, and the context in which the studies processed the
information.
Figure 3.1. Conceptual Framework
68
As the conceptual framework indicates, there are four identified outlying
environmental factors that influence the school setting, and subsequently student
achievement. Based on the literature, the research cohort members believe that these
outlying environmental factors exist, influencing schools and their ability to
maximize student achievement. These factors are Globalization (including the
ability for American high school graduates to compete in the world market and
economy), National, State and Local district influences (such as budget cuts and
policy implementation), Accountability (including student testing and outcomes) and
Urban-like risk factors (such as poverty, crime, language barriers and student health
risk factors). All of these outlying factors do not directly affect student achievement,
but they influence the way in which a school operates in order to produce high
achieving students.
Within these outlying factors, the literature indicates that many high
performing urban high schools share common core themes that seem to be associated
with high student achievement. The cohort group has identified four primary
conditions in a high school that we believe may lead to increased student
achievement. Three of these (School Culture, Instruction and Curriculum,
Leadership) have been identified in the literature. The fourth factor (Student
Engagement) is an additional factor that our study will be focusing on to determine if
it is also a factor that can be linked to student achievement.
In order to really understand how and why an urban high school was
producing increased student academic outcomes, a case study approach appeared to
69
be the best means for gathering “rich and thick” information about the school, while
allowing the researcher to describe, evaluate and bring meaning to the this
phenomenon (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003). The case study method also allowed the
researcher to utilize in-depth examination and scientific inquiry, to focus on the
natural setting, context and perspectives of the subjects in the study (Gall, Gall &
Borg, 2003). Conducting a case study also allowed for the unique opportunity to
investigate the many layers of the school setting, so that the smaller situations and
larger situations, which were bound together within the whole of the organization,
were described in greater detail (Patton, 2002). Additionally, during the process of
the case study, the researcher was able to tease out any patterns that emerged, which
provided further detail about the school, students and faculty members. Finally, the
participants of the study provided a unique internal perspective of the school, which
contributed to the interpretive evaluation of the factors associated with student
achievement.
As mentioned previously, the primary advantage of doing a case study is that
such an approach allows for developing a “thick and rich” description of the case
(Gall & Gall, 2003). In this specific study, the researcher sought to attain a very deep
understanding of the school and its day-to-day functions, while striving for the
highest level of credibility, validity and transferability possible. The level of
transferability is generated from the cohort’s nine other case studies which are also
considering the same research questions. Through the process of analyzing the data,
the findings from these case studies can be transferred to other urban high school
70
settings. Patton refers to the term “particularization” (2000, p. 582), which
encourages the researcher to know and understand particulars in a situation,
extrapolating the data, and then applying the particulars to new and different
situations. By our team of researchers recognizing patterns throughout the case
studies the outcomes of these case studies may assist the reader with applying the
findings to other settings or contexts.
Two main disadvantages conducting a case study are that there may be
ethical problems of researcher bias and that it may be difficult to generalize the case
to other settings or circumstances. In this case study, the researcher took careful
consideration in selecting the school so that researcher bias was reduced and would
not influence the outcome of the study. Furthermore, similar case studies of high
achieving urban schools were conducted by nine other researchers in nine other
schools. As a thematic group, we are able to provide cumulative strength with
regard to the results. The ten individual studies presented by the thematic group
provide a basis for data that may be applied to other urban school settings where
student engagement and student achievement may intersect. Through the use of
multiple data sources and systematic data collection, we were able to establish the
reliability of our findings throughout the ten studies that considered the same
phenomenon of high student achievement in an urban high school.
Furthermore, since the validity or accuracy of the research may be questioned
if the data is not triangulated, by triangulating these multiple data sources, we were
be able to test for consistency in our findings. By comparing and cross-checking the
71
consistency of information, through qualitative measures, we were able to bring
together a variety of information in order to shed light on the phenomenon of student
achievement in the urban school setting. This does not suggest that one single theory
has emerged, but the salient point is that we were able to formulate a deeper
understanding of the school and the factors related to student achievement. Either
consistency of patterns will develop from the multiple data sources, or reasonable
explanations of the different findings in the data emerge, providing increased
credibility of our study. Therefore, a variety of measures including qualitative and
quantitative instruments were used to triangulate the data, in order to provide validity
for the study, and these will be discussed in the following section.
This case study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data
collection, which presented both advantages and disadvantages for providing the best
information and explanation of student achievement in the urban high school. The
use of qualitative data was beneficial in this case, because there was little research or
evidence that supported the concept or phenomenon that was being studied.
According to Patton (2002), qualitative methods “facilitate depth and
detail…without being constrained by predetermined categories of analysis, which
contributes to the depth, openness and detail of qualitative inquiry” (p. 14). The
interviews, field notes and document reviews used during the course of gathering the
research data reflected this design. Although qualitative design provides deep detail
and a wealth of information for the subjects studied, once again, there were concerns
about limitations in transferability. Yet this type of study may develop grounded
72
theory that alternatively may be used as the basis of developing quantitative research
for future applications, which are “more suitable for testing the generalizability of
research findings” (Gall & Gall, 2003, pg. 466).
Quantitative methods on the other hand, allowed the researcher to gather data
using a standardized measure and compare the responses using the aggregation of the
data (Patton, 2002). This provided an objective means of analyzing the data,
providing validity. Additionally, the quantitative methods also allow for more
generalizablity of the information gathered, because it can be utilized to compare
similar data from other studies.
The use of several forms of data collection, including qualitative and
quantitative ultimately provide the opportunity to triangulate the data. Triangulation
provided strength to the study, because the researcher was able to take the results of
the qualitative measures (i.e. observations, surveys and interviews) and cross check
them with other sources of data (i.e. the results from the HSSSE, school documents,
test score results). The combination of these multiple method strategies helped to
reduce errors and increase validity by allowing for cross-data comparison (Patton,
2002). The ultimate goal of using triangulation with the data collection was to
verify consistency and to investigate further, any inconsistencies. Through
evaluating inconsistencies, there were opportunities to look deeper into the
relationship between the method of inquiry, the results, and how those results related
to the phenomenon of student achievement in the school.
73
Process for selection of sample
The process for selecting the school and student sample was determined by
utilizing a collaborative approach by other members of a Thematic Dissertation
group, who together, designed the research questions and definitions for high
performing urban high schools. During the course of two months in the winter and
spring of 2007, the group met and identified various aspects of the study, including
the purpose of the study, definitions to be used in the study, criteria for selection of
school and type of approach by which to investigate the subject of the study.
Additionally, the group specifically targeted the notion of student engagement,
which was studied in-depth to determine if this factor contributed to the performance
of the urban high school chosen for this specific study. To support the process of an
in-depth study of these central themes, the thematic group determined that a
purposeful selection of high performing urban high schools was in order, which set
the stage for this qualitative study of these high schools.
Criteria for Selection of Sample
The school for this specific study was selected based on the criteria of high
academic performance, using the school ranking system developed by the California
Department of Education’s Academic Performance Index (API). The chosen
school’s API score must be at least two deciles higher than other similar schools.
Additional criteria also required that the school was an urban high school, consisting
of a population that was at least 40 percent Free and Reduced lunch, had a minimum
of 25 percent mobility rate and served a diverse ethnic student population.
74
Additionally, the researcher chose to study a school in which the population was
specifically targeted as “academic recovery” in that the students had already been
designated to be “at-risk” for graduating from high school. Therefore, the researcher
selected a school under the California Alternative Schools Accountability Model
(ASAM), in which the school also had specific indicators for measuring student
progress. The design of these indicators measure changes in learning, engagement,
academic achievement and cognitive growth. Furthermore, the school measures its
progress by comparing it to its own growth, rather than to other schools (CDE,
2006). Although the school does not receive a valid API score used in the California
school ranking system, the school does generate an “unofficial” API score.
Sample and Population
This study collected data from a 9-12
th
grade high performing charter school, which
is comprised of 6 learning centers and located in an emerging urban area of southern
California. “High performing” refers to a combination of elements that contributed
to the students in the school achieving higher than expected, given the urban risk
factors associated with the school and the population it serves. The school selected
for the study is Everest charter school located in a community, which has seen
significant growth in population and density over the past 10 years and is
experiencing many “urban-like” factors including increased population growth,
decreasing capacity for economic support and increasing ethnic growth. With the
influx of affordable housing, this once rural community has become a hotspot for
families seeking out the opportunity of jobs and home ownership. However, with the
75
increase of families to the area, a new demographic of student population has also
filled the local comprehensive high schools as well as the charter school. The city
which surrounds the charter school has had an average annual growth rate of eight
percent for each year from 2002 to 2006. From the year 2000 to 2012 the population
in the area is expected to more than double (Table 3.1)
Table 3.1. Historic and Projected Population Estimates
1995 2000 2005 2007-est* 2012-est*
60,009 67,600 90,671 114,695 140,579
Annual Growth Rate: 8% (2002-2006)
Source: City of Middletown Development Department
*Claritas, Inc. 2007 Demographic Snapshot Report
Everest charter school serves primarily at-risk youth in a non-seat time
program, which is an independent study format. The charter school was established
in 1987 as a contracted district educational program to serve out-of-school students.
It became the 13th Charter School in California and the first start-up charter school
to receive accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) in California.
The make-up of student population in the charter school is based on the 2005-
2006 school year and can been in Table 3.2 below.
76
Table 3.2. Everest charter school enrollment by ethnicity 2005 - 2006
(CDE, 2006)
77
Overall, there are more females (55.8%) than males (44.2%) attending the school.
Furthermore, the largest ethnic groups consist of 38.8% White students, 38.6%
Hispanic students and 11% African American students. Much like the surrounding
community the charter school has seen significant growth and change in
demographics during the past several years. For example, in the year 2000 the
charter school had an enrollment of 683 students and by the year 2007, the school’s
enrollment has increased by 260% to a total of 1,786 students for the 2006-2007
school year, which can be seen in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.2 below.
Figure 3.2. Everest Charter School student enrollments from years 1993 – 2007
(CDE, 2007)
78
Table 3.3 Enrollment Trends for Everest Charter School 1998 - 2007
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
777
690
(-11.2%)
683
(-1.0%)
896
(+31.2%)
975
(+8.8%)
1,162
(+19.2%)
1,279
(+10.1%)
1,549
(+21.1%)
1,786
(+15.3%)
(Ed Data, 2007)
It was of particular interest for the researcher to study this charter school with
regards to the student engagement factor and student achievement, because charter
schools represent voluntary enrollment and the students at this school only attend
two to three days per week for up to two hours per day. This element combined with
the fact that the charter school serves at-risk students seemed contrary to the fact that
despite the voluntary enrollment and the at-risk urban student population, the
school’s academic performance continues to improve year-to-year. In 2005, the
charter school had an API base score of 558, and in 2006, increased their API growth
score to 580 (Table 3.3), meeting the API criteria of a twenty-two point growth in
one year. In the year 2006, the school had a base API score of 616 (CDE, 2007).
Furthermore, this increase of 22 points, was higher than the increase for the district
and state in which the school resides (Figure 3.3). Clearly this school was doing
something that led to increased student learning.
79
Table 3.4. Everest Charter API scores for 2005 – 2006
2005 API Base 2006 API Growth 2005-06 Growth Met 2006 API Criteria
558 580 22 Yes
2006 API Criteria for meeting Federal AYP: A minimum "2006 API Growth" score of 590 OR "2004-
05 API Growth" of at least one point.
(CDE, 2007)
Figure 3.3. Everest Charter School API growth compared to Local District and State
scores
(CDE, 2007)
80
The charter schools graduation rate was another area that indicated the school
had developed key systems to ensure that these students who had previously proven
to be “at-risk” for not graduating, were for the most part, staying on track to
graduate. According to the Department of Education website, the school’s
graduation rate in 2005 - 2006 was approximately 82 percent, considering all twelfth
graders enrolled (n223) and those that completed twelfth grade (n184). (CDE, 2007).
Since the researcher has several years of experience working in at an
independent study charter school, she was able to gain entry to the school chosen for
the study, in part because she was able to recognize the significance of the academic
accomplishment of the chosen school for the study. After identifying key
“gatekeepers” in the organization for obtaining the critical permissions (Gall, Gall &
Borg, 2003) making initial contact with the Director of Education and the Area
Director at the school, the researcher was able to secure the appropriate permissions
for studying the school.
Due to time and resources, the observations of the school was limited to three
of the six learning centers. This allowed the researcher to gain a deeper
understanding of the organization and the participants of the study, without
compromising the integrity of the data gathering process. By focusing on the three
learning centers, the researcher was also able to interact with the staff and observe
the students, providing for greater opportunities to gain greater insight to the
operations of the program and the nature of the student population.
81
Instrumentation
Just as a mountaineer relies on his or her equipment to help them successfully
navigate and safely reach the top, the researcher must also determine which
instruments will provide the most assistance to gathering data during the exploration
of information in the study. The instruments for data collection in this study were
developed by the Thematic Dissertation group, which met several times during the
winter and spring of 2007. The group also received additional instruction and
feedback from a representative at the Dissertation Support Center located in the
Rossier School of Education. In subsequent group meetings, the interview template
and observation tools were developed, along with organizing the logistics of
administering the survey and document review templates. After many revisions and
refinement, the Thematic group established and developed a document review
template, a survey, observation template and interview questionnaire. Each tool was
developed to address the questions in different ways and may be found in the
Appendices.
The document review process addressed question number one, allowing the
researcher to verify components that identify the school as high performing, and to
better understand factors that may impact the urban setting. The Document Review
template (see Appendix A) provided an opportunity to guide the research process so
that it remained focused on investigating three primary questions: How are we
identifying high performing schools? b.) What do we need to know? c.) How would
we find this information? By using school documents that directly answered these
82
questions, the researcher remained on-task towards investigating the high performing
urban school.
Two surveys designed by the thematic group, were given to the
administrators (Appendix B) and teachers (Appendix C) of the school. The focus of
the surveys was on questions pertaining to student engagement; questions included
such topics as the number of hours students spend on homework, teacher practices in
using strategies for student participation, student support systems at the high school,
and opportunities available for student involvement in the school and their
community. Through the use of multiple methods for collecting data about student
achievement in the urban high school setting, we are able to triangulate the data and
enhance the validity of the study (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003).
Observing the school “in action” can contribute greatly to the collection of
thick and rich data, which supports the qualitative study process. Observation of
classrooms, school environment, staff meetings and the school leadership provided
added insight to the processes and interactions at the school, and the relationship it
has with the students. The thematic group developed an Observation template tool
(Appendix D), which again helped the researcher to continue searching for rich and
thick information about the school. The template organized the observation process
by providing categories such as “School Culture”, Curriculum and Instruction”,
“Leadership”, “Student Engagement” and additional space for any other observable
indicators that would help in answering the research questions. The researcher used
83
this template in the learning center, at sporting events and other functions where
students interacted with each other or with school staff.
The design of the charter school is such that each learning center operates on
the exact same format, using the same curriculum and student/teacher meeting
program. Due to the constraints of time and distance between all six learning centers
of the charter school, the researcher chose three out of the six learning centers to
observe. The researcher did a minimum of five visits to each of the three learning
centers, spending a minimum of one hour in each location, culminating in a
minimum of fifteen total hours of observations.
The interviews were designed to illicit responses, which provided further
insight to the phenomenon. The use of the interview protocol included the
following components: heading, instructions to the interviewer, the key research
questions, additional investigation following the key questions, a transition message
for the interviewee, a space for recording the comments of the interviewee, and a
space for recording of reflective notes by the interviewer (Creswell, 2003). The
fourth instrument template developed was an interview cue sheet (Appendix E). This
template provided a guideline for standard questions that would be asked during the
interview, and provided guidelines for who should be interviewed. In this case, the
Director of Instruction, Area Director, Master Teachers, Mentor Teachers, School
Counselors, Board Members, Teachers, Support Staff and Parents were interviewed
at each of the three chosen learning centers.
84
The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) is a single
instrument developed by Indiana University School of Education (Appendix F). The
HSSSE was provided to the entire subject school by the researcher, and the teachers
of the school administered the survey to their students. The data was compiled and
analyzed by Indiana University Department of Education. Therefore the data
collected from these surveys was interpreted as secondary data. The importance of
this survey was that it provided the researcher with the ability to quantitatively
measure the level of student engagement at the school and through analysis,
determined if this was a contributing factor for student achievement in the school
that was studied. Since students may enroll in the charter school at any time during
the year, the survey was given to all the students in the charter school who had been
enrolled for six months or longer. This was intended to provide data from students
who had some experience with the school.
Data Collection
Collecting and making sense out of the data can be quite overwhelming if the
researcher does not have a structure in place to organize and prepare the data for
analysis (Creswell, 2003). Through employing the Four Frames of Bolman and Deal
during the data collection process, the researcher was able to organize the data into
four primary categories: Structural, Human Resource, Political and Symbolic.
During the collection process, these frames served as a lens or window through
which the researcher was able to expand or focus time and resources as needed,
according to the setting, event or circumstance, which was being recorded. At times
85
they also served as a catalyst for further investigation and provided a needed
structure for researching the factors related to student achievement.
The frames were often utilized at the school site to view a variety of
situations that allowed for deeper investigation and analysis. The structural frame
provided the desire to better understand the specialized roles and formal relationships
that individuals had in the school setting, as well as how goals, policies and
procedures of the organization affected student achievement (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Aligned with the previous elements, emerged the political frame, which focused on
how individuals in the organization dealt with power and where the power was
concentrated, all the while competing for the resources that are so often scarce within
the school setting (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Offsetting this notion was the symbolic
frame, which focused on the heart of the school’s mission, including the social
aspects of the school setting, ceremonies, rituals, celebrations and stories (Bolman &
Deal, 2003). Finally, but certainly not least was the use of the human resource
frame, specifically noting the interaction of the individuals of the school and seeing
them as a large and extended family, where the psychological aspects including the
“needs, feelings, prejudices, skills and limitations”, (Bolman and Deal, 2003, pg. 14)
were studied.
Once at the school site, observations began as soon as the researcher entered
the school. Coding the notes was very important in organizing the observation
(Creswell, 2003). Interviews with the various persons were scheduled well in
advance, and according to the convenience of the interviewee. During the interview,
86
the researcher used an audio device, which was later transcribed into written text.
Additionally, during the interview, the researcher took notes of what was said that
related most significantly to the theme of the study.
The forms and documents were used to enrich the description of the school
and provided a deeper understanding of the student population and performance
measures. The documents represent primary items (direct information from the
school) or secondary items (documents written by others – such as the HSSSE
survey) (Creswell, 2003). Surveys were distributed to all teachers and administrators
of the school. A small incentive of a California lottery ticket was provided for the
return of the teacher and administrator surveys.
The protocols for the surveys were very important to establish at the outset,
in order to gain the highest level of consistency while implementing each of the
research instruments. These were implemented in all settings in the exact same
manner and time frame. Each of the three schools sites chosen for observations by
the researcher, were visited for a minimum of five times and for at least one hour per
visit. The three school sites chosen for observations represented the largest of all six
learning centers, and therefore were considered to provide the greatest means of data
collection. All school staff members were provided with an Informational Sheet for
Non-Medical Research (Appendix G), prior to the beginning of the school
observations, survey administrations and interview processes.
87
Data Analysis
Creswell describes the process of data analysis as “moving deeper and deeper
into understanding the data, representing the data, and making an interpretation of
the larger meaning of the data”, (2003, pg. 190). Furthermore, this on-going process
requires frequent reflections and the analytical questioning in order to present
accurate findings. Therefore the researcher employed the use of Creswell’s six step
process to organize and better understand the data. The six steps of this process are
as follows:
Step 1 Organize and prepare the data for analysis.
Step 2 Read through all the data.
Step 3 Begin a detailed analysis with coding process.
Step 4 Use coding process to generate a description of the setting or people as
well as categories or themes for analysis.
Step 5 Use narrative passages to convey findings.
Step 6 Interpret the data according to the researcher’s understanding.
(Creswell, 2003)
Through the use of Creswell’s six steps of data analysis, the researcher was
engaged in the process described above.
Six Steps to Data Analysis
Step one involved organizing and preparation the information for analysis.
This process required the researcher to transcribe the interviews, scan the material,
88
type field notes and arrange the data according to the sources of information
(Creswell, 2003).
The second step required that the researcher read through the data to get an
overview of what was collected and identified specific themes. This process allowed
the researcher to gain a better understanding of the whole picture and enabled them
to prepare for the next step.
In the third step, the researcher reviewed the data, and then began to analyze
the underlying meaning of each section of the data. Through using the Bolman and
Deal Four Frames, the third step required that the data was “chunked” by placing and
categorizing the information according to these broad four frames. Next, the chunked
sections of data were coded, and through the use of coding, the data was retrieved
based on the connectedness of the codes to the topic they fell under.
Using the third step provided the researcher with a “systematic process of
analyzing textual data” (Creswell, 2003, pg. 193). The researcher was then able to
triangulate the data, testing for consistency (Patton, 2002) and adding to the validity
of the themes that began to emerge. Where there were inconsistencies, the
researcher was able to further investigate and determine where more research should
be conducted. The methodological combination of a variety of sources (i.e.
observations, document review, interviews and surveys), contributed to the
triangulation process and allowed the researcher to better understand the themes that
began to emerge.
89
In step four, the descriptions of the categories used generated themes, which
emerged and were identified through the contextual information, which was
supported by the data.
The fifth step involved creating a narrative to present the material in a
coherent manner. This allowed the researcher to highlight the connectedness of the
data with the themes. This included a chronological description of the events with
detailed information to paint an accurate picture of the process, and participants of
the study, which lead to the final step.
The sixth step allowed the researcher to develop an explanation of what was
learned from the data (Creswell, 2003). By comparing the study with other existing
information on the topics, the researcher was able to present the findings in a
meaningful way, which allowed for questions about further study or implications of
the current findings.
Due to the nature of the study, in which the researcher sought to determine
the factors that influenced student achievement in an urban school setting, utilizing
the design of the case study provided the greatest opportunity for fully understanding
the phenomenon of how student engagement affects academic achievement. The
fieldwork aspect of this approach allowed the researcher to “interact with the study
participants in their own natural setting” (Gall & Gall, 2003). Therefore, the use of
multi-method data collection through the use of instruments such as surveys,
document reviews, interviews, and observations provided the ability to triangulate
the data ensuring greater validity (Creswell, 2003). Furthermore, as emergent
90
themes surfaced, they were developed into constructs and subsequently linked to the
literature on the topic studied.
91
CHAPTER IV
THE FINDINGS
Introduction
The establishment of Everest Charter School is the realization of a dream the
founders of the school had over twenty years ago. As educators themselves, they
hoped to create an environment where at-risk students would be provided with an
unique and meaningful educational opportunity to obtain a high school diploma. The
school's mission statement from their website reflects this goal.
Everest charter school can be the best independent study public
school empowering underserved students by unlocking their passions
and dreams and moving them daily toward graduation.
The complex structure of the school represents a system of administrators,
support staff, teachers, parents and students working together to accomplish this
common goal. Although the school's mission statement does not directly state that
the school is considered a high performing urban high school, their declaration to “be
the best” may be a reflection of those efforts. Furthermore, the schools core values of
Mutual Trust, Mutual Respect, Integrity and Honesty underscore these intentions
from which, according to the school's founders, every decision is based.
In order to better understand the school's status as a high performing urban
high school, the researcher collected and organized several components of data,
based on perceived factors affecting student academic success including the specific
notion of student engagement. Throughout the process it was the intent of the
researcher to examine the data and answer the following research questions:
92
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high-
performing urban high school?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and achievement in a high-
performing urban high school?
This chapter represents the findings compiled from a number of sources the
researcher utilized and through a variety of means for gathering information about
the school. The school's website and many other district and site documents
presented a variety of information and historical insights, leading to its evolution and
development as a charter school as well as indications of how student academic
performance was addressed. The researcher also attended staff meetings and parent
meetings, made classroom observations, conducted one-on-one, phone and group
interviews with various stakeholders, attended school events and surveyed school
staff members. Each situation represented a unique opportunity to better understand
the school and its impact on student achievement.
Furthermore, the researcher used additional secondary data by means of the
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), which was administered to a
sample of students in the charter school by their teachers, and the results were then
compiled by Indiana University and returned to the charter school, in the form of a
several charts, graphs and analysis of student responses. The students who
participated as a sample group were chosen because they had attended the school for
a minimum of six months. This allowed the school to target students who had a
relative amount of history with the school. The HSSSE contained a number of
93
questions pertaining to student engagement, and represents student feelings about
their school, coursework, teachers and how they prioritize the many components of
the school experience.
This chapter is organized into five primary sections highlighting the findings
from the data collection process. The first four sections of the chapter reflect the
same four components of the conceptual model created by the thematic group in
order to better understand the perceived factors related to student achievement in an
urban high school. Therefore the following sections of the chapter are categorized as:
School Culture, Curriculum and Instruction, School Leadership, Student
Engagement, and finally Emergent Themes. Within each component of four sections
and the Emergent Themes, the data from the findings were further configured, and
viewed through the lens of Bolman and Deal's “Four Frames” of organizational
framework which include the Structural, Human Resource, Political and Symbolic
frames. The researcher applied these frames to each section of the Emergent Themes
to make sense of the findings and relate them to the organizational structure of the
school, with the goal of better understanding how student academic achievement was
affected. The emergent themes came about as a result of the data collection process;
with the intent to ultimately answer the research questions previously mentioned, and
to further develop the implications of the findings, which will be addressed in
Chapter 5.
94
School Culture
Utilizing the perspective of Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic frame, I began my
investigation into the school’s culture by focusing on the heart of the school’s
mission, with the hopes of better understanding the social aspects of the school
setting; including any ceremonies, rituals, celebrations or stories (Bolman & Deal,
2003) that might emerge. My first step began with the school’s website, including
several documents posted on the website such as the School Accountability Report
Card for 2004-2005, the most recent verification letter from the Western Association
of Schools and Colleges (WASC) granting the school a six year term with a three
year mid-term visit, a State Assessment document and an External Evaluation Report
completed in 2004 by a contracted researcher from a local university. Additional
components of the website included the history for Everest charter school, the
school’s mission statement, enrollment information and testimonials from students,
parents and teachers. These testimonials praise Everest charter school, and seem to
indicate a level of success in the school’s ability to provide a supportive, academic
environment for students seeking an alternative educational opportunity.
I really appreciate the fact that I could have a second chance at school
after I messed up in my freshman year. Everest has given me the
opportunity to regain what was important to me and that is to be able
to be a firefighter.
Another student wrote:
I would like to become a teacher because of the big difference they
make in students’ lives. Like my teacher Sam at Everest, he has given
me a lot of hope and he doesn’t even realize it.
95
Everest charter school functions as an academic recovery program in which
at-risk students are served through an independent study modality. The charter
operates through a charter petition agreement between the XYZ Unified School
District and Everest, Inc. of Middletown, ST. According to the school’s most recent
WASC Self-Study report for its mid-term visit:
EVEREST is a not-for-profit organization working to reduce student
dropout rates in the state, with the intention of providing safe,
accessible, rigorous and viable educational opportunities for students
to earn a high school diploma.
To better understand how this model translates into school culture and
subsequent impact on student achievement, I began the next part of my investigation
with the first of fifteen school site observations. The charter has a total of six
learning centers located throughout the city. In order to gain a deeper understanding
and to develop a thick and rich description of the school, I chose to observe the three
largest of the six learning sites and visited each site five times, allowing me to get to
know the staff and students at a more intimate level by studying the same sites more
often instead of several sites less often.
My first visit to a learning center revealed a very different setting than what
most students would expect a “school” to look like. All Everest school sites are
located within strip malls throughout the city. The “store front” design provides a
unique environment for students to meet with their teacher. A staff member later
informed me “Since we meet with small groups of students at a time, we don’t need
a full-scale large school site”. As I entered the front door, a “Center Coordinator”
96
greeted me warmly. This person’s job is a combination of a school registrar and
office manager. The Center Coordinator’s desk is located near the front door, and
therefore is often the first person that a student, parent or any visitor meets in the
learning center. I picked up one of the business card on the Center Coordinators desk
and noticed these words at the bottom of the card: “Inspiring Hearts by Empowering
Minds”. “That is our mission statement” the Center Coordinator informed me with a
smile. When I told her I read on the school’s website that the mission statement
referred to “unlocking the student’s passions and dreams” she said, “oh yes, we do
that to! But we recently have revised our mission statement and I don’t think it has
gotten onto the website.”
The layout of the center consisted of several teacher desks on the parameter
of a large square-shaped room. Each teacher’s desk had a computer. Additionally,
there were several eight-foot long tables paired together to form mini “table clusters”
in the middle of the room, where many students were sitting. Hanging above each
table cluster, was the name of the student’s teacher. I was told that this would let
students know where they should sit and essentially the tables represented each
teachers “classroom”. “For example, if the student’s teacher is ‘Ron’, then they
would sit at the table cluster with ‘Ron’s’ name hanging over it.” All students are
invited to refer to their teacher by the teacher’s first name. There appeared to be
approximately one “table cluster” per teacher, with three to four laptop computers
located at each cluster for student use.
97
I also noticed several smaller rooms within the learning center, one in which
many students were sitting and listening to a teacher explain an algebra problem.
“That’s our Math SGI class”, explained the Center Coordinator. “SGI” stands for
Small Group Instruction, and these special classes allow students to get more in-
depth tutoring in specific subject areas. “We also have the Area Director’s office
here, and another SGI room. Sometimes we have more than one SGI going on at the
same time”.
I quickly noticed how bright and colorful the learning center was. There
were several “art projects” hanging on walls throughout the center. These appeared
to be student work, which was confirmed by one teacher.
We are really proud of what students accomplish here. We like to put
their work up on the walls, because it makes them feel special. Many
of these kids have never even had a teacher recognize the good work
that they have done.
Behind each teacher’s desk hung a white board with several messages to
students, including an “Honor Roll”, or a quote of encouragement. “We use these to
communicate with our students about a variety of things”, explained one teacher. “I
like to let the students see their name on the board. If they’ve turned in six or more
units, they go on the ‘Honor Roll’ list.” On the wall behind one teacher’s desk were
other bulletin boards with headings such as “Pride”, “Culture” and “Student Info”.
Next to the Center Coordinators desk, was a sign that stated, “Please wait inside the
center for a ride” and “No Cell Phones”. In other centers I also found similar types
of messages.
98
Next to the water cooler, appeared to be the only rules posted for the school
and these were titled “Behavior Expectations”. As I read them, I recognized them
from the school website I had reviewed prior to coming to the school. They were, in
fact behavior expectations for students while they were in the learning center. The
four statements read:
1. Follow all written and verbal agreements.
2. Be courteous and respectful to others
3. Respect the property of others
4. Be prepared to learn at all times
When I asked a nearby teacher about these, he replied:
We don’t really need to spend too much time going over the
rules…they are pretty simple. Students need to come to their
appointments and do their work. If they do that, they really don’t
seem to need very much discipline from us.
During an interview with a mentor teacher at a later time, the topic of these
behavior expectations also came up. One mentor teacher analyzed further,
why there appears to be such a small amount of discipline issues.
I think just the fact that it’s one-on-one, they see that you care about
them. It’s not one kid competing with 30 or 40 other kids in a
classroom, like traditional schools. They don’t have to say ‘look at
me, I’m a discipline problem’.
Another mentor teacher added,
[There is] so much supervision, because all the teachers and students
are in one room, that they can’t get away with anything, even if they
wanted to. I mean even if it crossed their mind that ‘I’m going to
throw a spitball’, or something, well…there are seven teachers in the
room…they are not going to do anything like that.
99
As I visited the other school sites I saw a similar layout of the teacher desks
and student tables within each center. “We tend to do the same thing in each center,
it makes it easier for students who might transfer from one center to another”,
explained a Mentor teacher. However, there were some variances in terms of teacher
messages and personal touches among the learning centers. One center had a poster
on the wall stating: “Freedom- Free to Learn, Free to Work, Free to Think, Free to
Grow, Free to Speak.” Another center had a series of bulletin boards listing student
activities: “Everest Basketball dates” and “Back to School Night Information”. All
the sites I visited had student work on the walls, teachers with white boards
expressing positive messages, SGI rooms for student enrichment, and student laptops
set up on student tables. The centers were warm, inviting, colorful, clean and in most
cases very quite.
The school culture of Everest is an extremely warm and receptive
environment, especially compared to similar schools dealing with similar student
populations. Students were observed quietly working at the tables, or meeting one-
on-one with a teacher or a tutor. There were small, and for the most part, quiet
conversations going on among groups of students, but none that would be
categorized as disruptive. One thing that was evident however, was that the learning
center was completely full. A student occupied almost every seat. At one point I
inquired with a school counselor if space was a limiting factor for serving students.
Obviously we can’t enroll any more kids into a center, if there isn’t
enough room. But it’s more than that…sometimes we don’t have
100
enough space to offer the small group instruction that we want to, or
have enough space for the tutors to sit and work with kids, or have
enough space for the counselors to meet with kids. You know, lack of
enough space is an issue that we need to deal with….
A primary question that repeatedly seemed to need an answer was, “How is
this type of program effective for such a high risk population?” Given that the
program was “full” and in fact I had been told, actually had a waiting list of students
to enter, it seemed counter-intuitive to the researcher that students who had
previously “ditched” school, dropped out or were suspended/expelled in other school
programs, could be successful in a program where they were only required to meet
with a teacher for 2-5 hours per week? I felt it necessary to dig deeper, so I
conducted an interview with parents of students who attended the school, on
November 11, 2007. In this meeting, five parents and one student who accompanied
her mother was present. The parents were asked several questions from the
Interview Question template created by the thematic group. However other
interview questions were specific to the school program including a question which
asked if they believed that the school culture promoted academic success.
My daughter came here, went back to her old school, and then came
back here. She wants to be here because she has a great relationship
with her teacher, she’s not ashamed to ask questions and she knows
she can call her teacher anytime if she needs help.
Another parent had other reasons she believed the school culture contributed to the
success of the three children she has enrolled in the program.
They have become very confident and they are excited about
exceeding. The teachers build self-esteem by saying ‘You can do
101
this!’…In the streamlined schools they don’t give you that. Our kids
aren’t lost here.
Another parent commented about the school safety aspect.
A lot of kids that go to streamlined schools don’t get along with other
kids. They come here; they don’t have to worry about other kids.
They can focus.
One parent talked about the convenience of the school schedule.
The kids want to be here, because they can come to school after
9:00am. Other schools provide a lot of restrictions that don’t always
work for every kid.
When asked if they would consider the school to be high performing, one parent
responded quickly. “Definitely, they don’t let them slack. They ‘push’ them without
really pushing them away”. Another parent responded with a smile.
Yes, my daughter’s teacher is always giving her college prep classes.
Yes, I would say this is a high performing school, especially
compared to other schools who serve these kinds of kids – you know,
kids who don’t always do really well in the regular school.
Finally, the parents were asked if they thought there were any other specific things
they felt the school did, to contribute to the academic success of the students.
Yes, they keep us informed. Most schools don’t talk to us unless we
call them. In this school, you know if your son or daughter is doing
well or if they are falling behind. The school sends out these Truancy
letters to let you know if your kid is in jeopardy of being dropped.
Boy, those letters are a definite eye-opener. If my kid gets a truancy
letter, I know she is slacking…her car is the first thing to go!
The parent who responded to this turned to her daughter who was also at the meeting
and asked her what she thought. The girl nodded her head, and laughed. She also
explained that she liked the school, including the way her teacher talks to her.
102
She treats me with respect, I feel like I can ask her questions and she
answers me without making me feel stupid. I also like the field trips I
have gone on. I don’t think they do that kind of thing in other schools
like this.
The relationship between the teacher and student becomes a strong motivator for
students to remain in school, and to progress through each class at an adequate pace.
Inherent in the success of the Everest charter school appears to be the setting
of the learning center, which allows teachers and students to work collaboratively in
a safe and focused environment. Students are exposed to the opportunity to build a
relationship with a professional educator, who in turn, provides the student with
meaningful guidance through their educational process. Positive traits exhibited by
the students and observed in all three learning centers include a high degree of
cooperation, a willingness to learn and responsibility of actions. During an interview
with a school counselor, they explained why this may be the case.
I think the number one thing is that we have a safe haven for kids. It
is safe for them to come to school here. They don’t’ feel like when
they walk down the hall that they are going to be attacked or abused.
Also, at a lot of schools there are problems between the black and
Hispanic students, you can see that at these other schools, but here in
the centers, they are okay with each other.
A mentor teacher also added another reason that students may find the environment
more conducive to their success.
There is not as much of a ‘mob mentality’. I think it’s because this is
so much more of an academic environment, rather than a social
environment. They are not in a cafeteria hanging out in little groups.
Here they are expected to focus on their schoolwork. And they are not
sitting with a ton of their friends, they don’t have to impress anyone.
103
One other key aspect of the instructional program worth noting is the
systematic monitoring of attendance and rapid student intervention. The researcher
observed several instances of personalized interaction between the teacher and the
student. A teacher explained, “this makes it possible to discover issues or difficulties
that the student may be having, earlier than if they were in a traditional classroom”.
Absenteeism or the failure to complete course work with acceptable academic rigor
is quickly noticed and addressed by a team of caring professionals including the
teacher, counselor, center-level Mentor teachers and/or other Area Leadership. A
school counselor described two recent examples of this.
I think they see us as an advocate for them, but also as an advocate
that will hold them accountable. For example, yesterday, there was a
conference with a student who was getting some pressure from her
social worker and her teacher. The social worker wanted to pull her
out. So yesterday we had a meeting and she is not going to be pulled
out. She knows that the reason her social worker wanted to pull her
out was because she wasn’t getting her packets done. Well, why
wasn’t she getting her packets done? So we talked about some
interventions, including more hours in the center. And another girl
was going to be dropped by her teacher. He had to tell her she needed
to improve or she would be dropped. We met and were able to tell
her ‘Look, we don’t want to lose you, but you need to do X,Y and Z
to stay here’. So I think sometimes when another person steps in and
reinforces what is important and what needs to happen, sometimes it’s
just the thing that makes it click for that kid.
One very unique aspect of this urban school is that the school records indicate that
they do not have any student expulsions on file. According to the Director of
Instruction, one reason may be due primarily to the “voluntary enrollment” nature of
the program. “A student facing possible expulsion usually chooses to withdraw from
the program to avoid further procedure and hence having an expulsion on their
104
record”. Other reasons likely evolve around the relationship a student has with their
teacher, as explained by a Mentor teacher.
The student doesn’t want to disappoint you as a teacher, once you’ve
established that relationship. They are okay if they think you are
upset with them…they are okay with that. But you use that word
‘disappointment’… I have seen even boys cry when you use that word
with them.
Graduation is another central theme in all the school sites I observed. Each
center had a graduation display including a cap and gown mounted on the wall and
posters stating “Countdown to Graduation”. In one of the learning centers, a
counselor was meeting with a student who was receiving a “Grad Check”. The
counselor explained that the process is an evaluation of student transcripts, and
provides the student with the most up-to-date information for earning a high school
diploma.
We have our winter graduation next month, and we need to make sure
that our students who want to attend the ceremony know what they
still need to do, in order to finish the requirements for their diploma.
The winter graduation ceremony was held for approximately seventy-two
students in a local church building. One teacher at the ceremony explained, “Well,
we used this place because it doesn’t really look like a church, and it’s large enough
for us to use for this purpose.” The graduation ceremony is a wonderful example of
how Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic Frame aligns with the school culture. Everest
charter school uses the idea of earning a diploma and the graduation ceremony as a
way to make sense of the educational journey that many students have gone through.
They communicate that the symbol of a high school diploma is a valuable and
105
worthwhile pursuit, by celebrating the accomplishment of their students who reach
this goal.
The graduation ceremony also includes a special piece that is unique to
Everest charter school and represents another symbol that provides meaning to the
educational process. It is an opportunity for students to acknowledge others in their
lives who have helped them reach their goal. The “Floral Presentation” uses flowers
attached to cards written by students, and presented by students to those in the
audience who they feel have contributed to their attainment of a high school
diploma. Following an introduction specific to this part of the ceremony, which
explains to the students how everyone, including the founders of Everest charter
school needed support from others to make their dream happen, the students are then
encouraged to do the same. As Celine Deon’s voice bellows over a loudspeaker with
the tune of “Because You Believed in Me”, graduated students disperse into the
audience to find their special persons. Parents, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts,
boyfriends, girlfriends and teachers are presented with flowers and cards from
students. Tears flow from many participants including students and their recipients,
while hugs and kisses occur throughout the room. Watching this special ceremony, it
becomes apparent that culture of Everest charter school values support to students,
who are willing to work hard to meet their goal of graduation.
Students are not the only members of the school who are recognized for their
hard work. Everest charter school is bountiful with celebrations and has two annual
ceremonies for staff members of the school. Explained by the Director of
106
Instruction, the “Spirit Award” recognizes teachers who have been especially
successful with meeting student needs, and who have taken on some form of
leadership role within the school. On the other hand, “The Circle of Light” award is
specifically designed for any staff member of the organization, including staff
members from support departments such as technology, human resources or
curriculum development. This award recognizes persons who continue to pass on
the meaning of service and strives to ensure the mission of Everest charter school is
fulfilled.
Both awards are a result of peer nomination, and the founders of Everest
charter school celebrate these individuals by presenting the awards in person, often
during staff parties or team building events. The founders feel that these awards
represent their strong commitment to the members of the school community, who
continue to work together to make their dream come true.
Discussion of Findings of School Culture
Based on the data collected and evidence provided, the school culture appears
to be a significant factor in promoting student academic success. Teachers and
students work collaboratively to reach the academic goals outlined by each student’s
individualized plan. Teachers express a true desire to assist students, and the school
staff including teachers, counselors, administrators and the founders of the school all
share a belief in the students who attend the school and a commitment to do
whatever it takes to ensure a safe, inviting, approachable and academic atmosphere
for students to succeed. The entire school staff including Center Coordinators,
107
teachers, and administrators takes responsibility for developing the school culture by
continually monitoring student-teacher interactions as well as student achievement,
and revise procedures as necessary to infuse mutual trust, mutual respect, honesty
and integrity, the school’s core values. Finally, through the celebrations and
recognition of both student and staff accomplishments, Everest Charter School has
set a standard of mutual trust and respect for individuals who are willing to work
hard and reap the benefits of being associated with the school.
Instruction and Curriculum
Everest serves students who are achieving at grade level as well as students
who are deficient in credits. According to the school’s WASC self study document,
students who are eligible to receive Special Education, may also be enrolled in
Everest, however, their Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) from their previous
school must state that Independent Study is the least restrictive environment. Everest
is an “Open Entry” program in which a student can enroll virtually any weekday of
the year. According to one Center Coordinator, state charter school law dictates that
if the school is at capacity, a waiting list must be maintained for students wishing to
enter the program. Furthermore selection for students from the waiting list must be
done by a lottery system, to determine who will fill openings as they occur
throughout the year. All students who attend Everest do so, on a voluntary basis.
After initial enrollment of students, Everest teachers will identify the
particular needs of each student by providing diagnostic testing to determine gaps in
the individual student’s knowledge and skills base. Currently, the school utilizes an
108
on-line testing program to evaluate incoming students’ math and reading levels. All
students entering the program must be able to read at a minimum of a sixth grade
level in order to handle the rigors of independent study. Working collaboratively,
the teacher and student develop an individual plan to maximize his or her goals and
educational objectives. The Director of Instruction explained:
We recognize that individual students have varied and often changing
needs. Teachers adjust a student’s plan to meet these needs while
maintaining strict adherence to a well-defined set of content and
performance standards. Therefore, students are provided with a
balance between structure and flexibility in their learning process.
The school’s student handbook states that because Everest is independent
study, students do not attend the school site every day. However each student is
expected to complete a minimum of 4-6 hours of schoolwork per school day
(Monday – Friday). Much of the schoolwork is completed off-site from the learning
center. Observations in the learning centers revealed that students meet one-on-one
with their teacher for a minimum of two days per week and a minimum of one hour
per meeting. During the observations, teachers could be heard encouraging their
students to contact them via phone or e-mail, whenever they felt they needed
additional support while learning the material off-site and away from the learning
center.
In addition to the two weekly meetings students have with their teacher,
many students also participate in Small Group Instruction (SGI) classes, which
provide a balance of direct instruction and individualized assistance to each student.
Currently Everest has several of these SGI classes in the form of Math,
109
Reading/Writing and Leadership/Career Development, available to the students in
the learning centers. Each of these classes is taught by a Highly Qualified teacher,
and focus on in-depth material, which is designed to assist student in learning the
subject matter through a variety of modalities. Students may either voluntarily enroll
in these additional courses, or they may be referred by their teacher for mandatory
attendance, if the teacher feels it will benefit the student. Currently the Everest
charter has four full-time Language Arts SGI instructors, three math SGI teachers
and additional math tutors, who rotate throughout the charter to each learning facility
in order to meet the demands of the student population at each of the learning
centers.
A typical student-teacher meeting observed by the researcher, can be
described in the following way: each meeting time is specifically designed around
the student’s academic needs. Students and teachers work collaboratively to meet
specific course objectives including review of student homework assignment,
clarification of course material (including answering homework questions or
teaching supplemental material to the student) and teacher assessment of student
knowledge and understanding through alternative and comprehension assessments.
During the student-teacher meeting, the teacher also reinforces student dreams, goals
and progress through a variety of ways. Teachers will generally end the student-
teacher meeting by assigning appropriate course material (1-3 courses at a time),
which enable the student to matriculate through the class(s) at an appropriate pace
110
and learning ability. This allows students to concentrate their learning into smaller
chunks, explained a Master Teacher.
We only give them one to three classes at a time, so they are not
overwhelmed with all the different subjects. For many of them, that
was their downfall at another school. There was just too much to keep
track of. Many of our student’s home lives are not conducive to
having a quiet place to study. When they have five or six classes with
test and projects in all of them, they simply may not be able to
concentrate enough to manage all of that.
However, a survey given to the teachers in the charter school, and conducted
by the researcher, reflected a number of responses that may not support high student
achievement through the type of written assignments teachers give to students.
Thirty-seven teachers completed the survey, including twenty-three female teachers
and fifteen male teachers. Teachers were first asked if English was the main
language used in the majority of student homes. Thirty teachers responded “yes”, six
teachers responded “no” and one teacher indicated that they “don’t know”. The next
question asked the teachers to report if the majority of their students had a computer
with Internet in their homes. Thirteen teachers reported “yes”, twelve teachers
reported “no” and twelve teachers said they “don’t know”. The response to these
questions may indicate why so many teachers reportedly assigned shorter written
papers to students during the course of the school year. As many as seventy percent
of the teachers indicated that they assigned papers/school reports fewer than three
pages long, eleven or more times per year. Additionally, sixty-two percent of the
teachers surveyed also stated that they only assigned papers/school reports that were
five or more pages long, zero to two times per year. At first glance, this may indicate
111
that students are not given challenging academic written assignments, that require
the students to practice in-depth research and form lengthy examinations of topics.
On the other hand, teacher’s surveyed also identified areas of instruction that
they felt “best identifies the extent to which the school emphasizes a specific skill or
learning activity for the students”. The results may be seen in Table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1 Key responses from Teacher/Administrator Survey
Question Very
Much
Quite
a bit
Some Very
little
a. Students must spend a lot of time studying
and on schoolwork.
28 8 1 0
b. Students are encouraged and provided
meaningful opportunities to learn work-related
skills.
9 15 11 2
c. Students are encouraged to write effectively. 16 18 3 0
d. Students are encouraged and provided the
support to use information technology.
20 16 1
e. Students are encouraged and provided
opportunities to solve real-world problems.
10 14 10 3
f. Students are encouraged and provided
meaningful opportunities to develop clear,
sequential career goals and prepare for
appropriate post-secondary education or
training.
13 17 6 1
When examined closely, the information in question “c” above appears to
counter the teachers earlier response in the previous survey question, where they
indicated that they assign very few written reports that are longer than three pages (in
112
question “c” a combined thirty-four teachers felt that the school emphasized “writing
effectively” either “Quite a bit” or “Very Much”). However, when I asked further
questions about this apparent discrepancy during a leadership team interview, the
Area Director stated, “It is possible that although the written assignments may not be
lengthy, the teachers requires the students to be very accurate in their writing
technique and to meet the standards of the CAHSEE”. Additionally, a Mentor
teacher explained, how a student’s daily work may also contribute to increasing their
writing skills.
Essays are done on a daily basis for the homework, and it is
determined by the homework. Whether its coming from history or PE,
we have several subjects that have the rubric in the packet, and we
also have writing tutors that help us to do more with students. Yes,
we believe that although they are assigning shorter papers, they are
honing in on writing skills on these papers. We use the rubric that is
provided in the packet for writing skills. The rubrics in the packets are
modeled after the CAHSEE requirements.He further explained:
We also required students who have not passed the CAHSEE to
attend special classes. We’ve even added classes on Saturdays, so
that students have more opportunities to take these classes. We have
found them to be pretty effective with helping students to pass the
CAHSEE.
However another teacher did not feel that the writing assignments were
enough for all their students. “We know a lot of our students will go to college, and
I think we need to improve on giving them longer assignments to prepare them to
write.” The Area Director acknowledged that this may be true, but added further
support for the reason behind the lack of lengthy written assignments.
But if we are seen as a school that is having good performance [on
testing]. We talk about it a lot, and we are working on getting our
113
students to write effectively. You know not everybody does that.
Writing effectively does not necessarily mean getting kids to write
page, after page, after page. It means writing in three or four or five
paragraphs, succinctly, directly clearly what you are trying to convey.
So if that what people are attempting to do, that’s one thing that could
result in better performance for our kids. The state assessment
measure is not can you write a five-page paper, it’s can you write a
five-paragraph essay.
Everest’s educational program includes a continually evolving curriculum,
which according to the Curriculum Department Manager, has been specifically
developed to meet the needs of independent learners. “The curriculum is designed in-
house, and has been created to meet State Standards, WASC Accreditation standards
and University entrance requirements where applicable.” Additionally, all core
courses use state approved textbooks.
Materials seemed to be designed in a language and format that was readily
accessible to the students, and although the program maintains both minimum (one
unit per week) and maximum (two and one half credits per week) work load levels
for students to remain in good standing, students can complete course work at their
own pace with the continual monitoring and guidance of their teachers. One math
teacher reflected, “The flexibility is often a key to success for students wishing to
accelerate the learning process as well as a safety net to those students who may
struggle in a particular subject, especially math!”
Everest students may earn a minimum of a C- (70%) on all course tests, in
order to be allowed to move onto the next unit within their course curriculum.
Therefore, any student who does not earn a minimum of a C- grade is not considered
114
to have passed their test. Everest does not administer D’s and F’s for students who
do not pass the tests. A Mentor Teacher further clarified this point.
Instead, the student is given the opportunity to study the information
further, from their homework material and is able to re-take the test,
either the same version or a different version, at their next
appointment with their teacher. The highest grade a student can now
earn on the re-test is a C, even if they only miss a couple questions.
Since the test is a re-take, they have forfeited their opportunity to earn
any grade higher than a C for that unit.
Several important elements of instructional support come together during the
process of student learning, in order to achieve student success. A counselor
described this in an interview with the researcher.
One of the things is, is that a lot of the students see this school as their
last chance, so they get here and they realize ‘Wow, this is a cool
place, the teachers are nice and they have tutors’, and they start to
have that experience of success when they turn in their work, and that
feels good. A lot of them will tell you in their senior meetings that the
things they were having trouble with in their previous school, like
math for example, they will tell you that they would have never
passed math because they weren’t getting the help and now they are.
Finally, there is an important emphasis on curriculum relevancy when
students are completing their homework packets. Teachers quiz students on their
work, prior to giving the student a test, and students must demonstrate proficiency.
However, the staff realizes that a student will gain more from the process, if they are
able to understand why they are learning the subject matter.
[There] is an interactive program on –line the student can log onto
and say, ‘Oh yeah I want that expensive car or clothes, but oh my
gosh how can I afford that?’ One of the realistic approach that these
students have to take, is to realize that ‘This is what you have now.
Why do you have to take math, why should you excel in math? Why
is necessary for you to take English? Why are the skills of writing
115
important?’ And taking these skills as stepping-stones and saying,
‘These are the types of skills you have to have to get this. And these
are some opportunities that we can offer you, but you have to want
them’.
Findings of Instruction and Curriculum
It is clear that the staff in the school is focused on providing several avenues
for students to gain academic knowledge. The curriculum meets the needs of
students who perform at a range from the college prep level down to the remedial
level. Although the curriculum is designed for student completion away from the
school site, there are multiple layers of support that assist students with succeeding
in coursework, which appears to translate into increased performance on state
testing. These instructional practices and policies have all been implemented by the
teachers and counselors, under the careful guidance of the school’s leadership team,
who remained focused on the schools two primary goals; one hundred percent
passage of the High School Exit Exam and to decrease the school’s student drop-out
rate to zero. The implementation of the in-house curriculum combined with the extra
support of CAHSEE prep classes and SGI classes appear to be adequate evidence of
why student achievement has increased at this urban school.
School Leadership
In order to best understand the “social architecture” (Bolman and Deal, 2003)
of Everest charter school, the researcher viewed the intricacies of the leadership team
through Bolman and Deal’s Structural, Political and Human Resource frames. Since
the Structural frame focuses on the specialized roles and formal relationships that
116
individuals have in the setting, as well as how goals, policies and procedures of the
organization affected the organizational goals, it is important to describe how the
school leadership is aligned within the charter school in order to better understand
how this framework may impact student achievement. Furthermore, utilizing the
political frame, allowed the researcher to focuses on how individuals in the school
leadership dealt with power and where the power was concentrated, all the while
competing for the resources of the educational system (Bolman and Deal, 2003).
Finally, observing the leadership team through the Human Resource frame allows
the researcher to make sense of how needs of the school were assessed, skills were
utilized and the relationships affecting those processes were formed.
According to the Everest charter school's most recent report for the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), the leadership team consists of five
primary levels of school leadership, which includes one Director of Instruction, one
Area Director, three Master Teachers, seven Mentor Teachers and three School
Counselors. There is a sixth peripheral component of the school leadership, which
includes the Everest charter School Board. Additionally, it should be noted, that
during interviews with members of the leadership team, it was stated that the
teachers within the learning centers played a crucial role in leadership within the
charter school through development of ideas, curriculum and student achievement.
Often times, they [the teachers] know the students better than any of
us, and can recommend what we can do better or add to our program,
if it will help the students. The teachers also write some of our classes
and contribute to student success by really understanding how our
students learn and what we can add to our program, like sports or art
117
classes or clubs. Many teachers are also in charge of committees like
the Graduation committee and the Prom committee. These kinds of
opportunities for teachers enable them to lead in various ways.
To better understand the hierarchy of the leadership team, utilizing the
school’s most recent WASC document was helpful in explaining the role that each
position plays. The Director of Instruction oversees the educational staff at all five
charters located throughout the state, under the Everest Charter School umbrella. The
Director of Instruction functions much like that of a superintendent of a traditional
district, operating out of Everest's corporate office (equivalent to that of a school
district office) and due to the decentralized nature of the charter school, is only on-
site within the charter school properties periodically. The Director of Instruction is
the schools senior instructional leader, coaching and guiding the school’s leadership
team. In addition, she supports instructional planning duties to insure that
implementation of programs and policies are being carried out in accordance with
specified company objectives and state standards. The Director of Instruction
however feels that several people who work for the charter school support her in this
role.
It is imperative that all decisions we make as a leadership team can be
connected directly to student success. Each person should be able to
connect whatever he or she is doing within the company to supporting
our students. In a way, they should be able to draw a line between
themselves and the students, whether directly or indirectly, in order to
support our students in academic achievement.
118
The next level of leadership in the charter is the Area Director (AD) of the
Everest charter, who functions much as a Principal would in a traditional school
district. According to the WASC report,
Along with the regular duties performed at this administrative level,
the Area Director also acts as a liaison between the Everest charter
and the Everest corporate offices. Additionally the Area Director
plays a key role in the relationship between Everest charter school and
the [XYZ] School District, by which Everest's charter is sponsored,
through district meetings and policy development.
At least once per month, the Director of Instruction and the AD meet
to discuss the specific issues within the charter. Additionally, the AD attends
a monthly meeting facilitated by the Director of Instruction, held at the
corporate office, and in attendance with the Area Directors of the other
charter schools operated by Everest. According to the notes from previous
AD meetings, the Area Directors may discuss new policies for the school,
student academic progress, testing results and program support.
In an interview with the AD, when asked to describe her leadership
team's structure, she compared the role of the Master Teachers in the charter
to a similar position of Vice Principals in traditional schools, overseeing the
day-to-day operations in the centers. Each of the three Master Teachers is
responsible for two learning centers including staffing, policy implementation
and student academic results.
The AD also compared the function of the charter's Mentor Teachers
to how a Lead Teacher would operate in a traditional school. “The Mentor
119
Teacher is instrumental in coaching new teachers to successfully motivate
students to take responsibility of their education in becoming independent
achievers.” There is approximately one mentor teacher for every four to five
teachers per learning center.
A review of center documents including student rosters and a
“Utilization Report”, as well as interviews with various teachers indicated
that the Mentor and Master teachers carry a reduced student load. The
mentor teacher has forty students and each Master teacher has approximately
eight to ten students (different from the teacher student load of fifty to fifty-
five students). As explained by one Master Teacher,
By maintaining a reduced student load, we play an integral role in the
direction of the leadership team. We not only have administrative duties, we
also meet with students regularly and therefore have a relevant perspective of
how we can continue to keep student achievement at the forefront of what we
do.
Furthermore, the reduced student load allows the mentor and Master teachers
to work with teachers in the learning centers, on a daily basis during times that the
Master and Mentor teacher do not see students. This enables them to assist the other
teachers with student issues, and promote policy implementation.
Some of the time spent, when we are not with students, is with
teachers. Often times it's with new teachers, who are in need of
further training or mentoring. The goal is to get new teachers up-to-
speed, in order to allow them to work better with students. Or we may
be working with more veteran teachers to help them with a situation
regarding their student(s).
120
Conversely however, many classroom observations by the researcher
indicated that there did not seem to be this type interaction taking place between
Mentor or Master teachers and the other teachers in the center. A few times a Mentor
teacher was seen assisting another teacher in the center, however, for the most part
the mentor teachers in each of the three learning centers observed, were often at their
desk working on their own computers, or working on what appeared to be student
folders. It should be noted that it is possible that the researcher may not have been in
the centers at the appropriate times when Mentor teacher students loads may have
been reduced, therefore lessoning the opportunities to observe the Mentor teachers
during their hours when they did not have students scheduled. However, when the
researcher inquired about this during an interview with several Mentor teachers, one
Mentor responded by stating:
It’s nice to spend time with teachers, but I definitely think I don’t
have enough time to spend with teachers and get their feedback… I’d
like to have more time for center meetings and to communicate.
Another Mentor teacher added:
I guess it’s just that we really need to find some time. I use the time I
don’t have students to catch up on my own work….but I don’t really
have a specific time that I say ‘Oh, my office is open’ [for the
teachers]….it’s ALWAYS open! What we do now is like what a
Master teacher did a few years ago, with 1/2 a student load. They had
2 days [per week] to spend with teachers.
Additional comments made by another Mentor teacher supported these
comments.
121
As much as our center has grown, we have changed globally, and
having only two days in the afternoon where we barely are able to
catch up on our work doesn’t leave us enough time to spend with
teachers.
Several Mentor teachers seemed to agree with these points. Although they
may not have as much time to spend with the teacher, at one point the researcher did
see a Mentor teacher meeting at the tables, talking with students about their
homework. In a discussion with a teacher, regarding the availability of their Mentor
teacher, the teacher indicated they hoped for more time to spend with their Mentor
teacher.
As a teacher, having more time with my mentor would be extremely
valuable. I would want to tell him my ideas about how I think the
center could work better and I would want him to spend his time
maybe developing policies to make that happen. He tries to do this
[now] in between his students. If he could have more dedicated time
to figure that out, it would make everything run more smoothly.
When asked how this teacher thought more time with her Mentor teacher would
translate into increasing student achievement, she responded, “It would help the
teachers to have a more clear plan to know what’s going on, then it would filter
down to the students.”
It also appeared to the researcher that during the classroom observations
conducted, that the Master Teachers or Area Director was rarely present in the
learning center (sometimes they were visiting their other centers they were
responsible for, or in meetings outside of the learning center). However, it appeared
that the teachers felt comfortable with not having an administrator on site and the
teachers reported that they felt they could access their Master teacher or Area
122
Director via e-mail or phone, should they need to contact them for further support.
One teacher reported, “our Master Teacher is pretty good about letting us know
where she is, and she usually checks in with us if she is going to be out of the center
for long periods of time”.
It should be noted here, that there are meetings that Master Teachers and
Area Directors are often engaged in, and are not always able to be directly available
to teachers and support staff. These may include interviews, one-on-one meetings
with a teacher in an office, IEP (Individualized Educational Plan) meetings for
students in Special Education or meetings with students and parents. Master
Teachers and AD's are usually the primary staff members who meet with students or
who may possibly be on the verge of being dropped from the program, due to poor
attendance or has established a pattern of incomplete school work. School
Counselors may also be called in to assist in the process. According to the Area
Director, “Often the Master Teacher or Counselor steps in to meet with parents with
the hopes of resolving student issues. This process allows the teacher to continue
working with other students, without being disrupted.”
Other important components of the leadership team are the school counselors.
The school has three counselors available to students, and the focus of the
counselor's job is to ensure that students have academic, emotional and social
support for meeting the goal of graduation. The counselors provide feedback to the
AD for support programs and career day opportunities. Additionally, during an
123
interview with the counseling team, they described themselves as contributing to
student success in other ways.
We all want the student to succeed, but we can be a buffer between
the student and the teacher. We don’t’ have anything riding on us, like
the student’s ADA. We are neutral. I think the kids have picked up
on this and realize we are here for them, here to serve them.
Another counselor, nodding, added:
As a counselor, we look at the student holistically; getting their work
done in a specific time frame is only one component. We can look at
this student and say, ‘What is your dream? How can we look at your
goals, short term or long term? How can we make it happen?’
Providing social and emotional support is also an important component of the
counseling program.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind the girls that get pregnant,
who don’t think they have any options and drop out. We need to
make sure they know they DO have options and to stay in school.
The counseling team feels that there is a great sense of camaraderie between
themselves and the other members of the school’s leadership team, creating a strong
unit which they feel supports the students.
I think camaraderie is really important with this company. Don’t get
me wrong, there are politics. But I know regardless of the politics
there isn’t the negative like there are at traditional schools.
A final layer of leadership, affecting the decision making process of the entire
school, involves a Board of Directors. The Everest Charter School Board meets
quarterly or as needed at one of the centers in the charter. Members are invited to
attend the learning center and at times, some Board Members may only be available
via phone conference with those who are at the learning center. Each meeting
124
agenda and minutes may be found in the corporate offices. The Board of Directors
has ultimate responsibility for the operation and activities of the school. They have a
responsibility to solicit input from, and opinions of, the parents of students regarding
issues of significance and to weigh the input and opinions carefully before taking
action. The primary method for executing their responsibility is the adoption of
policies that offer guidance and interpretation of the charter and procedures to assist
the staff in facilitating the implementation of such.
The Everest charter school Leadership Team maintains an open door policy,
to ensure that staff members feel welcomed to share any and all concerns as they
relate to the well being of the students as well as the staff. It is apparent that the
leadership team respects each other as well as the staff they supervise. They speak
fondly of each other, and often joke with each other. The Area Director and Master
Teachers appear to be respected by the staff members they supervise, and this can be
observed at the charter’s staff in-services, as well as the day-to-day interactions
between staff members and the leadership team. The AD and Master Teachers
circulate regularly throughout the 6 learning centers and meet together at least once a
week.
According to the school's Master Calendar, the Leadership Team of Everest
charter school meets weekly (and they fondly refer to this meeting as the “MAD
COW meeting” - noting the acronyms of the titles of Master teacher, Area Director
and Counselor), where the primary topic of the meeting is the success and welfare of
the students. While observing two of the leadership meetings, it was clear that a good
125
portion of the meeting focused on problem solving to ensure that processes within
the area remain seamless and do not affect student enrollment and academic
performance (i.e. testing schedules, school events such as graduation and school
holidays).
Decisions made by the Leadership Team allow teachers to meet the needs of
their students. The AD and the Master teachers also conduct staff interviews for new
positions ranging from a support position within the center as well as teaching
positions. This opportunity provides flexibility to the school leadership in choosing
staff members they feel meet the needs of the school and the students.
I like being the one to do the interviews, because it allows us to find
people who have a heart for kids, and are skilled at working with our
kind of students…If they are a teacher, they need to be highly
qualified in a core subject area in order to work in this program. This
ensures that we have qualified teachers, according to the state. But
the teachers also have to be organized and be able to multi-task,
because even though the teachers work one-on-one with students,
there is a lot of paperwork and time schedules that have to be met.
New and updated information from the President of the organization, the
Director of Instruction and other senior leadership comes to the teachers through the
Area Director, and ultimately through the rest of the Leadership Team. The
Leadership Team shares this information through a variety of outlets including
monthly staff in-services and individual center meetings.
Monthly In-Services for all staff members of the charter vary in topics. Many
focus on providing staff with ideas on how to encourage both growth and awareness
among staff, as related to student issues. Community experts such as Child
126
Protective Service staff or Sheriff Deputies that specialize in narcotics or gangs are
invited to share their expertise with the staff. Surveys completed by the school staff,
indicated that approximately ninety-seven percent of the school staff felt that school
safety was “clearly a priority of the campus”. As evidence, the researcher observed a
monthly in-service, which focused on “Emergency Preparedness”. The local fire
department and law enforcement agencies were invited by the leadership team, to
assist the teachers and support staff to be better prepared in the event of an
emergency. Teachers were interested in knowing various components of school
safety. Questions such as “What do we have the right to do?” and “How do we get
the police to come to our center?” and “What do we do with regards to pot and
tobacco?” were asked by the staff. The combined efforts of the attending Sheriff
Deputy and the Area Director helped to put many teachers’ minds to rest, and
answered several of their questions, separating things that are enforceable through
the sheriff's department and things that were school policy. Area updates regarding
upcoming events, such as field trips, prom, graduation, etc. were also given by the
leadership team and other committee leaders during this time.
Center Meetings are also a key component of the information channel and are
utilized by the leadership team. These meetings are held on an individual center
level, and led by the Mentor Teachers on a monthly basis. It is the hope that in these
meetings the Mentor Teachers train all staff on new and revised curriculum as well
as collaborate with the staff on the direction that the center is moving towards
regarding center policies, and progress towards identified goals, including student
127
achievement. The sharing of techniques that various staff may have found useful in
working with their students, or seeking advice on how to deal with students in certain
situations, is also a crucial component of the center meetings, although some
members of the leadership team indicated they didn’t feel that there was always
enough time for these important elements.
I know even at once a month, there is so much to go over we don’t
cover it all…We can’t do everything. I have to make choices about
what I want to do. Sometimes I want to talk about techniques like
sending a letter out to parents, or a post card telling parents where
students are each month. But as a mentor, it’s that same thing about
making choices if there are other things going on, where I don’t have
the time go over those things in a meeting.
Many members of the leadership team shared this consensus regarding the time
factor. Several members agreed that there never seemed to be enough time to get
everything done in a day, and that there always seemed that there was more that
needed to be done.
Overall, the leadership of Everest charter school appears to maintain a
primary focus of student success. During one interview, a Master Teacher reflected
that:
Students need to be given chances to grow in their unique ways. The
leadership team needs to make sure that teachers are providing sound
academic rigor in order to ensure that students succeed with passing
the CAHSEE, and graduating.
In other ways, student success may mean that a student returns to a previous
school, which they may have dropped out of before. Or, it may mean that a student,
who did not initially have hopes of graduating, actually participates in a graduation
128
ceremony. When asked during the winter graduation ceremony, what the most
important role of the leadership team is for the school, one Master Teacher stated
while waiting for the ceremony to begin:
Ultimately our primary role is to support teachers and students so that
they are able to go through something like this. We give hope and
support to students who nobody else thinks will make it. This
[graduation ceremony] is the reward that we all look forward to. As a
leadership team, we need to make sure we continue to support
teachers so they can help kids reach this goal
Discussion of Findings of School Leadership
The Everest leadership team offers a unique approach to what they believe
has contributed to the increase in student achievement. While many urban school
leaders spend much of their time disciplining students or searching for scarce
resources, the leadership team in this school appears to focus on specific strategies to
support teachers, which in turn they believe will support student achievement.
However, it is unclear if this approach to teacher support has positively impacted
student achievement, or if the increase in student achievement is a byproduct of other
factors in the school’s leadership process. It is clear, however that the leadership
team struggles with finding a balance of enough time to work directly with teachers
and students, and that “time” is one of the most scarce resource that the leadership
team would like to have more of.
The leadership’s focus on student graduation and decreasing the school’s
drop-out rate appears to be the leadership’s most significant contribution to student
achievement. Although the leadership team utilizes some previous testing data to
129
make decisions such as adding an SGI class or hiring additional staff, it appears to be
of a reactive nature rather than a pro-active process. Rather the team continually
plans for and focuses on how to ensure that all students in the program will reach
their goal of graduation, either in Everest Charter School, or by returning to their
resident school. This primary focus appears to be the important angle that the
leadership team has taken, which in turn, has likely contributed to student academic
achievement.
Student Engagement
As previously mentioned, students who attend Everest charter school enroll
in the school on a voluntary basis. Each student appears willing to give up all the
social aspects of what most high schools offer, by choosing an independent study
plan. Therefore one of the most compelling aspects of studying this urban school,
was to find out what this independent study program could offer to keep students
engaged and on track to graduate, especially given the previous lack of school
attendance for many of these students. Furthermore, one aspect of the study
questioned if student engagement contributed to the academic achievement of the
students at this high performing urban high school. When I inquired what the
program offered to students, to involve them in the school beyond earning academic
credits, a master teacher gave this response: “A sports program, career days, field
trips, a prom, a grad night, a graduation ceremony, student council, open house
nights, and special classes such as art”. He explained that students who enroll in
Everest don’t always know these things will be available to them, but once they find
130
out, many of them really like to get involved. “Having the sports programs has been
one of the most effective things we have to help some of these kids stay engaged in
school.” The school offers basketball, soccer, volleyball and bowling teams
throughout the year. “Any student can try out for the teams, but they must maintain
good standing with their academics to stay on the team”. The Master teacher also
informed me that last year two students were sent to the state championship for
bowling. “They didn’t win, but it was a great experience for them!”
In interviews and surveys with teachers, parents and students, many
expressed how much the extracurricular opportunities have made a difference in
students getting the most out of the program.
The student participation for Prom 2006 was phenomenal! There was
a 100% increase in student interest and participation from past years.
There were 4 charters that participated and over 375 students attended
the prom. The enthusiasm and energy demonstrated from students
was delightful. Students looked amazing as they entered the ballroom
to celebrate their Junior/Senior Prom.
The students that attended Prom 2006 have sparked an interest in
those students that will be attending prom in the future. It was a very
memorable moment.
College/Career days have been adapted over the last 2-3 years to better reach
the students and their needs. Students were encouraged to participate through
mailers, flyers in the centers, direct invites and incentives. According to committee
records located at the school site, student participation at the events has been
marginal. In 2004 attendance was around 25-30 students and parents; in 2005 about
15-20 students and parents. In 2006 the attendance was still low, and not as well as
131
the teachers had hoped, but in part it may have been due to the fact that the
graduating seniors were also attending the Senior Social, a mandatory meeting for all
seniors who planned on walking in the graduation ceremony. Though students have
attended these events over the years, the lack of student participation, relative to the
size of the charter may indicate that the career fairs do not make a large difference in
increasing the level of student engagement.
In addition to the Career/ College Fairs, the school seems to have been very
successful in getting their students to attend field trips. The school has taken students
on trips to many musicals such as Wicked (two separate trips), Jesus Christ Superstar
and Camelot. Additionally the school has taken field trips to the Ronald Reagan
Museum, Disneyland (for December graduates only), Everest sports games (thier
sports program has away games) and the, Pirate Dinner Show and Adventure. Other
field trips this year are planned for the Japanese American Museum, Museum of
Tolerance, High Desert Power Plant, Aquarium of the Pacific, Medieval Times.
Although the school provides a number of extracurricular activities, there continues
to be an overwhelming sense that students are engaged in learning, primarily because
students are personally responsible for a large aspect of their own academic success.
One teacher described how students participate in their own educational plan:
They are engaged in their own education, because they have to be.
They don’t say, ‘I just go to a school because this person is making
me’. These kids really have a stake in what they do, and their
education. What we do is promote them to guide their education. We
want them to think ‘I’m in this for me’. I realize that they are trying
not to disappoint themselves; I think that’s really powerful. There are
kids that are going to leave here and know they can do something.
132
Another teacher further explained:
I think they are also engaged in their work. They can’t come here and
sit around, and say ‘I’m enrolled in this school’. They actually have
to produce work, and perform in order to be here. So they are engage
because they have to come here with work done, completed and take a
test. They are constantly academically engaged. The focus is
completing a test, earning their credits, getting a grade in their class.
They are engaged because they see this happening based on their own
contributions, and it’s a daily process.
During an interview with a school counselor, they also remarked that they felt
students were required to be engaged in order to be successful in the program.
Failure is not an option here. We are not just going to slide the kid by
for the D- because he sat in a seat all semester long…he has to be
engaged in order to be successful, and we offer a lot of support
services for that.
Because student engagement is an important component when one considers
that students who drop-out are exercising the ultimate form of disengagement, the
researcher felt that it was important to investigate the details of the school’s
graduation and drop-out rates.
Most students who attend Everest Charter School are enrolled in the school
for approximately six months (Catterall, 2003). Therefore, as students are leaving
the school, it is possible that they return to their comprehensive school to complete
their high school diploma. The school uses specific “drop codes” to track students
leaving the program. According to the school attendance tracking system,
approximately 44 percent of students who left the school in the 2005 – 2006 school
year, returned to their resident comprehensive high school. For many students, this
was their goal upon entering the charter school, and they hoped to “catch-up” in
133
credits, so that they could return to their previous school on-track with their credits.
Approximately five percent of students who left the school, transferred to adult
education, or took the GED. The remaining students who left the school without
indicating their reasons equated to approximately 17 percent of all those who leave
school. Again, considering the population this charter school is serving, and the fact
that almost all of the students attending the school had previously “dropped-out”
from their previous high school before attending Everest, the drop-out rate for this
school is relatively low.
At first glance, the graduation data from the California Department of
Education website, indicates that Everest charter school has a graduation rate of 23.5
percent. However this formula for determining graduation is based on the National
Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) formula which is: the number of graduates
(year 4) + Grade 9 dropouts (year 1) + Grade 10 dropouts (year 2) + Grade 11
dropouts (year 3) + Grade 12 dropouts (year 4). However one must consider that this
charter school is designed for academic recovery, and is attempting to return students
who had previously not been attending school, back into the comprehensive school
setting. Therefore it becomes clear why the graduation rate, using the previously
mentioned formula, does not reflect a true graduation rate for this school. When
considering the previously mentioned process of students who enter the school, catch
up on credits and return to their previous school or other educational opportunities,
the “adjusted” graduation rate from the California Department of Education that truly
reflects students who are enrolled in the twelfth grade and graduate from the charter
134
school is found to reflect an 83 percent graduation rate for the 2005 – 2006 school
year (CDE, 2007).
The students, who choose to remain at Everest for the duration of their
education, graduate with a high school diploma once they have completed all
graduation requirements. Since all students matriculate through the graduation
process at an individual pace, each student may earn their diploma at any given time
throughout the year. Therefore, all Everest graduates are invited to participate in the
annual graduation ceremony each June or December to celebrate their
accomplishment. According to the record of the past three years of graduation
programs, on average, 132 students have participated in each of the June graduation
ceremonies.
This past winter, the school held it’s second “Winter Graduation”. A Master
Teacher interviewed at the graduation ceremony explained how he felt the
graduation impacted student academic performance.
We feel it really makes a difference to encourage students to graduate.
They have to do well in their coursework, and pass the CAHSEE.
Since we have some students who graduate in October or November,
a June graduation just seems too far away for some of them. By
offering another graduation in the winter, I believe it contributes to
students working harder.
Approximately one month prior to the graduation ceremony, the students who were
planning on participating in the graduation were required to attend a “Senior Social”
meeting. The event is not mandatory but offered students the opportunity to get to
know each other prior to the actual ceremony.
135
This was our first year doing that, I think it was a great opportunity
for the student to meet each other, because our charter has six
locations so all the student don’t really know each other. We wanted
them to have fun while learning about the final requirements for
participating in the graduation ceremony.
The fact that there is year-round enrollment and a longer school year at
Everest charter school, allows students who have fallen behind in credits to catch up,
and if they choose, return to their school district at grade level. Over the past three
years, an outside consultant from a local university has conducted a study of the
students who have left the program. His most recent study has shown that 65% of
the students leaving the program per year have returned to a traditional school
system, which may include private schools, public schools, or adult education
programs. When questioned about this statistic, the director of instruction replied,
“We consider it an accomplishment to recover students who have been out of or not
successful in the traditional school system and return them back into public
education.” The remaining thirty-five percent of their students who left the program
each year left for a variety of other reasons. The school is working to reduce that
percentage to zero, ensuring that all students either graduate at Everest charter
school, or return to another school and graduate there.
An additional program that is contracted by Everest charter school is called
Smart Talk. Students who have been dropped from the charter school, and are
hoping to return to the program must enroll in Smart Talk and go through a seven
week long course before returning to the school. The materials and presentation of
the course require both the student and parents of the student to participate. One of
136
the Master Teachers explained that the program seems to be very effective with
getting students back on track with school.
I believe we have had success with some students, because they have
gone through this program. Because we require both the parents and
students to attend, the parents become very invested in the student’s
success the next time the student enrolls.
The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) created by Indiana
University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, and administered by the
teachers at Everest, provided additional unique insight to student perspectives of the
school and their connection to the school environment, through measuring various
components of student engagement. The “Dimensions of Engagement” (HSSSE,
2008) section of the report examined three primary levels of student engagement.
The HSSSE refers to these as “Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement
(CIAE), Social Behavioral/Participatory Engagement (SBPE), and Emotional
Engagement (EE)” (HSSSE, 2008). The researcher had the opportunity to view the
results of the survey, and was able to extrapolate additional information with regards
to the level of engagement student’s exhibited towards Everest Charter School, and
compared their level of engagement with the HSSSE national profile. The results of
the mean score comparison between the HSSSE 2007 participants can be seen in
Table 4.2 below:
137
Table 4.2. HSSSE 2007 National Profile results compared to Everest Charter School
HSSSE 2007 results
HSSSE 2007 Everest
Engagement Dimension Mean Mean Prob
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic
Engagement (CIAE)
34.48 37.34 0.0000
Social/Behavioral/Participatory
Engagement (SBPE)
7.53 6.45 0.0000
Emotional Engagement (EE) 24.4 29.02 0.0000
p < 0.05
Source: Indiana University Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, 2008
According to the data, students attending Everest Charter School had a higher
level of CIAE than the national profile of all other participants in the HSSSE 2007.
This indicates that students at Everest tend to invest more effort and develop more
tactics for learning, compared to the national profile. Authors of the HSSSE report
suggest this is a higher level of “engagement of the mind” (2008, p. 1) than the
average number of students who participated in the national profile of 2007. This
can be illustrated by the following statement by an Everest survey participant: “I try
hard as I can at the time I [am] workin’ on trying harder and am focused more
now!!”
The SBPE dimension for Everest students however is lower than the national
profile, indicating that students at Everest view themselves as interacting with the
school community less than the national profile of student participants. These
138
interactions may consist of non-academic activities such as social, extracurricular
activities or interactions with other students in the school. Due to the independent
study format of the school, it appears that the additional extracurricular activities that
the school offers such as athletics or field trips may not result in providing a
heightened sense of “engagement in the life of the school” (HSSSE, 2008) as
perhaps some members of the school community believe they do. One Everest
student surveyed wrote, “they should have a music production program or something
of the sort.” Yet another student clearly indicated their desire for further interaction
with others at the school site. This is not to say that all students at Everest do not
find the extracurricular interactions important as stated by one student in the survey
“Um that I just want more sports!” Given the fairly new development of the school’s
extracurricular activities for students, the school should consider this an
accomplishment in reaching some students who did indicate these activities did keep
them engaged.
The third dimension of engagement measured in the HSSSE 2007 was EE.
The scores of the national profile compared to those of Everest indicate that students
at Everest feel closer to where they are in the school community than the students in
the national profile. Everest student’s score suggest that the students are connected
to the school, the inner workings of the school and the people who are in the school.
HSSSE authors refer to this dimension as “engagement of the heart” and this is
evidenced by many of the student statements written on the HSSEE 2007 survey:
139
“I would like you to know that the teachers here do really care about
the kids because if it weren't for mine I wouldn't be here. Thanks to
her, I am.”
“I feel that my teacher and tutorers are involved in my education and
care about my success.”
“I continue to work because my teacher shows me i can.
“I enjoy my school because QV gave me the opportunity to change.
Before I came here I had no credits and I was in alot of trouble.
….gave the chance to work at my own pace and change by academic
self without changing me or who I am.”
“I would recommend this school to anybody who wants to succeed in
life.”
Discussion of Student Engagement
Student engagement in the school appears to be one of the most important
factors contributing to the academic performance of the student population at Everest
Charter School. The irony of this component is based on the complexity of the facts
that students who were previously failing or had dropped out of the traditional school
system, were now succeeding in a program where they complete most of their school
work away from the learning environment, and are expected to maintain a high level
of involvement and commitment to their educational plan in order to stay enrolled in
the school. Additionally, the component of “school choice” for these students
appears to add to their level of engagement, simply due to the fact that they have
voluntarily enrolled in the school, and take an active role in making choices along
the way. Overall, it is clear that students and teachers value the relational aspect of
teacher-student interaction at the charter school. Additionally, students and teachers
140
work collaboratively to develop a plan of action that will support the students and
increase their chance of successfully meeting goals. The charter school has also
initiated several extracurricular components of the program, to entice students to stay
enrolled and stay on track to graduate. The academic requirement for students to
participate in these extracurricular programs, may also be contributing to the
academic performance of students, however due to the relatively small number of
students who participate in these programs, it is unclear how much of an impact the
programs make.
The importance of students being held accountable and taking responsibility
for their educational progress cannot be overlooked, and likely has contributed most
to engaging the student in their academic pursuit of obtaining a high school diploma.
The data supports that student engagement is a leading factor contributing to
increased academic performance for this urban school.
Emergent Themes
The final section of this chapter is dedicated to teasing out the emergent
themes which have permeated throughout the findings of the research data, and to
organize them in such a way that there is a general understanding of what these
findings represent. Through use of a variety of investigative tools, such as school
documents, staff interviews, observations and interviews, a vast amount of collected
data has now been presented. However, in what way does the data relate to the
research questions, and how, if at all, does it answer them? By viewing these
emergent themes through the lens of Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames, four main
141
themes began to materialize which play a part in addressing the research questions.
This important step offers an opportunity to create supporting facts in order to make
sense of the findings and develop possible theories that may better explain how this
school has outperformed other like urban high schools. The four emergent themes
include collaboration, a sense of purpose, focused goals and relationships.
Collaboration:
There is a strong sense from both the leadership team and the teaching staff,
that they must work together to meet the needs of the students and the goals of the
school. The teachers have the autonomy within their given day to make decisions
and assign students curriculum that best fits the needs of the student. They also
collaborate with each other, in the sense of working closely in one room in each of
the learning centers, while addressing multiple student needs. The teaching staff
communicates with the leadership team when they need additional support. They see
the function of the leadership team as important for decision making as well as
supportive in their mission of serving students. The cornerstone of the collaborative
unit is the way in which the leadership has structured its political layout. The
leadership team design reflects a system that is multifaceted and complex. However,
does the organization and alignment of the leadership team contribute to student
achievement? Although Bolman and Deal indicate that there is not one specific way
that an organization should be structured (2003), the design of the leadership team
seems to accomplish a variety of functions through a designated set of duties.
142
When viewed through the lens of Bolman and Deal’s Political frame, this
multilayered approach to leadership aligns with what Bolman and Deal refer to as
“simply the realistic process of making decisions and allocating resources in a
context of scarcity and divergent interests” (2003, p. 181). Through the scarcity of
having a manager on-site for making every decision, the leadership team and
teaching staff work collaboratively together to ensure that a student’s achievement
level is reached. The leadership within the school entrusts the teaching staff to
respond to a number of external factors including state requirements, compliance
issues and school site needs. A master teacher illustrated this point by stating:
The strategies that people implement to help students succeed, like
field trips, or our bowling team. I mean we had to ask for that from
people at the top, but we have them in place now. We look for ways
we can help students. I think that’s what we do as a leadership team.
We continue to look for possibilities. It’s both top down and bottom
up.
At the same time the collaboration of the leadership team within its own unit,
provides an opportunity for the sharing of ideas, networking and the practice of what
Bolman and Deal refer to as “moral judgment – mutuality, generality, openness and
caring” (2003, p. 182). This combination of collaborative processes created by the
school’s leadership team and carried out by the teaching staff appears to have made a
positive impact on student achievement, by allowing the people who work closest
with the students, to make decisions that positively affect student learning.
143
Sense of Purpose:
As Bolman and Deal’s Symbolic frame dictates, the meaning behind the
culture of any organization stems from a strong a sense of purpose, recognizing an
individual’s passion in the work that they do and the ongoing contributions they
make to the culture of the organization. The rituals and customs described in the
previous section of this chapter provide a sense of inspiration for staff as well as
students. According to Bolman and Deal, “culture is both a product and process”
(2003, p. 243). Everest charter school strives to produce high achieving students,
through its independent study process, by practicing a culture of respect, while
exhibiting flexibility and creativity to ensure students are supported in reaching their
ultimate goal of a high school diploma. Every teacher interviewed expressed a true
passion for assisting students in this unique environment. The culture of the school
permeates with a sense of purpose from both teachers and students. When the staff
was asked what they were most proud of in the scope of their job, several people
reflected a sense of helping students who were previously underachieving. One
teacher’s comments summarized what many implied.
We get the kid that everyone else has given up on, and they start
succeeding. We pick them up off of the ground and then we see them
graduate.
Furthermore, the sense of purpose was also reflected in the approach the staff takes
to ensure that egos are put aside, and student needs are put first. A Mentor teacher
praised the diversity of the school staff, and complimented them on supporting
students.
144
What’s awesome about us is that our staff is SO different. We have
people that will work with all types of kids. And you know exactly
who these kids should go to, who fits them best. And we have all
these different types of kids that you can match with the right teacher.
This gives kids the opportunity to work with someone that will work
with them, not against them, and that is really awesome!
Students also share in the sense of purpose for their learning experience. Due
to the very nature of voluntary enrollment, students must hold up their end of the
bargain with regards to the requirements of staying in the program. As students enter
the learning center, they must be prepared to work, and complete tests, in order to
progress through their high school credits. If students become distracted they risk
losing their enrollment. Teachers continually discuss educational options with
students, and hold students accountable to follow-through with choices. Several
observations at the school sites revealed students who were engaged in their own
educational experience, and who clearly understood their purpose in attending this
school.
Focused goals:
Bolman and Deal present the notion that “organizations exist to achieve
established goals and objectives” (2003, p. 45). Furthermore, they indicate that
successful organizations reach these goals through several methods that “coordinate
individual and group efforts and link local initiatives with corporation wide goals”
(2003, p.50). These descriptions of the Structural framework, provided a lens with
which to view the way that Everest Charter School utilized focused goals to improve
145
student learning. The first primary goal of the school is evident in the following
statement by a teacher:
A lot of people in our school say the same thing about what’s
important to them in this school, and that’s the students. The focus is
really the student.
Written one the white board behind one teacher’s desk was the following
statement “Your teacher’s goal is simple, to help you reach yours!” This message
seemed to exemplify one of the primary roles that teachers and school counselors
feel they play in supporting student achievement at the school. Further evidence of
this can be found in the outcome of the Survey of High School Teachers and
Counselors Regarding Student Engagement, administered by the researcher and
completed in November by the school’s teaching and counseling staff. The result of
the survey indicated that approximately 61 percent of the teachers listed that
“teachers showing they care about student achievement” was an important factor
contributing to student achievement. Additionally, “identification of and progress
towards goals” was another area that 17 percent of the surveyed members felt were
important factors contributing to student academic achievement.
Student achievement is the foundation for the goals of the school. The two
main instructional goals of 100 percent passage of the CAHSEE and 100 percent
student retention has permeated throughout their program practices including the
structure of how the school implements changes. While writing this year’s action
plan for their upcoming WASC visit, one teacher stated:
146
This goes back to our Action Plan for WASC. We have a goal of
helping 100% of our students pass the CAHSEE. What we are doing
is meaningful, and the students know their success has meaning.
It is clear that the school faculty share the common goal of student academic
success, through their focus on student graduation. During a staff meeting, when the
researcher asked the meeting participants what the primary goal of the school is, one
answer was provided in an almost unison fashion “Graduation!”. This answered was
followed closely by a few others, which included “Provide the means for our
students to graduate” and “To help kids stay in school and get an education”.
In the Structural Frame, Bolman and deal describe the implementation of
policies, rules, operating procedures, and standards as providing uniformity and
predictability for the organization. Focused goals for the staff and students, helps to
ensure that they are able to effectively negotiate through the varied terrain of student
education, leading ultimately to student achievement instead of the otherwise
negative consequences for students who drop out.
Relationships:
When describing Bolman and Deal’s Human Resource frame, the authors
stated, “everyone knows that organizations can be alienating, dehumanizing and
frustrating. Such conditions waste talent, distorts lives, and motivates people to pull
out or fight back…” (2003, p.114). Much of the same can be said for some
educational institutions, especially in the urban school setting. However at Everest
Charter School, the findings indicate this couldn’t be further from the truth,
147
especially with regards to the emergent theme of relationships between people within
the school setting and the way in which the organization supports them.
It is clear that one of the primary reoccurring themes in the school is that the
staff and students value their relationships they have formed, in order to meet the
goals of student achievement. In the survey administered to teachers and
administrators, most of the respondents (75 percent) wrote that “One-on-one
teaching” or “Personal Attention to all students from teachers and staff” were
significant factors that they believed contributed to student academic success.
During an interview with the school counseling staff, one member described how
forming these important relationships with students, allow the students to find
meaning in what they are doing.
It just seems like there’s a mentality here that school is important, but
it's important because it’s the next step. [We say] ‘It’s that stepping-
stone to have a life that you think you want to have. What is that life?
Let’s talk about it, what are your dreams?’ I think the kids have more
of a chance to get those questions answered here. They are small fish
in a smaller pond, instead of being this small fish in a gigantic pond.
Bolman and Deal’s Human Resource frame provides a lens through which it
is possible to make sense of why the relationship between students and teachers is so
effective within the school setting. The concept of meeting human needs is a focus
of the Human Resource frame, and utilizes Maslow’s theory of human needs,
including Physiological, Safety, Belongingness and love, Esteem and finally, Self-
Actualization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Furthermore, once the primary needs from
the physiological and safety have been met, the next levels of belonging, self-esteem
148
and self-actualization become more prominent and are reflected in human
relationships. The importance aspect of the symbiotic relationship between the
school staff and the students, is that there is a recognition of the value that each
brings to the learning environment. The teachers view the students as an investment,
rather than a burden. They are motivated by students who see the value in their
education.
For me it’s the interaction I’ve had with a student. Where at the end
of it, the student was like ‘I’m so glad I was able to talk to you’, or
‘Now I know what I’m going to do’ or ‘Okay, I’ll do better’. Overall
the interactions I’ve had with the students and the opportunity to
make those interactions meaningful has been important and I’m proud
that I’ve done that.
The concept of the student-teacher relationships was in almost every
observation, survey and interview conducted. The school invests in its employees to
build trust and appropriate student-teacher relationships with the students. The
Director of Education indicated that one of the most difficult decisions she makes is
to put the right people in the right position. “We hire people with a heart for kids,
but we also need to make sure that they have an appropriate level of understanding
how to build those relationships”. Additionally, the school provides professional
development for teachers and school counselors so that they may learn how these
relationships can improve student achievement.
Ultimately there is a strong commitment to assist students, and example after
example indicates how the school believes that the student-teacher relationship
works.
149
They are not as afraid to ask for help, because I’ll go and sit at the
table and say, okay, let’s work on this together, or they will sit across
from my desk and go through it. And I’m helping EVERYBODY.
The kids are not sitting in a regular classroom and raising their hand
saying ‘I need help, I’m a dummy’. Every student is getting help
from me and support.
Teachers feel that they must make themselves approachable and recognize
students for their talents, effort and energy, the students will respond by becoming
engaged in a process that is designed to help them succeed and reach the ultimate
goal of a high school diploma. The HSSSE 2007 supports these teachers’ efforts,
through illustrating the level of student engagement. The survey results indicate that
Everest students recognize how important the interactions with their teachers are,
and that their own level of engagement provides them with a sense of being part of
the school community and adds value to the school work they complete through their
effort and commitment to learning.
Response to the Research Questions
Throughout the process of data collection, it was the intent of the researcher
to examine the data and answer the following research questions:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high-
performing urban high school?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and academic achievement in a
high-performing urban high school?
It is important to understand the nature of the questions in order to most
accurately answer them. Due to the process of data collection including a review of
150
school documents, observations of the school sites, surveys to school staff,
interviews with parents, teachers and administrators, and secondary data from the
HSSSE, Research Question number one seeks to verify what perceived factors, based
on the data collected, contribute to academic achievement in this high-performing
urban high school. The word “perceived” is an important nuance, because the
answer to the research question is based on the perception of the subjects studied,
and the researcher’s interpretation of the data.
Based on the findings, there appears to be four main factors contributing to
academic achievement in this high performing urban high school and these factors
also align with the research team’s conceptual model. These factors are school
leadership, school culture, curriculum and instruction and student engagement. Each
of these adds contribute to student achievement in varying degrees, and students,
teachers and administrators experience these in different ways. However, it is
important to add that these factors are not separate entities, but that there are central
themes which have emerged to support the process and improve the school’s ability
to promote high academic achievement. The emergent themes of collaboration,
sense of purpose, focused goals and relationships are woven throughout the
perceived contribution of these factors, once again indicating that they are complex
and multilayered.
As the school leadership maintains focused goals towards student graduations
rates and student retention, the staff responds by administering appropriate
curriculum and implementing instructional practices that hold students accountable
151
for learning and assessments. The students in turn, respond with an engagement
level indicating that they feel accepted by the school staff, and build relationships
with teachers and counselors. It was this discovery during the research process that
was most exciting and also enabled us to answer the second question:
2. Is there a link between student engagement and academic achievement in
a high-performing urban high school?
It appears that student engagement in this school has lead to relationships
which have fostered collaboration between the students and teachers. The results of
the HSSSE 2007 further support this by indicating what students believe to be
important aspects of the school setting. The HSSSE offers a unique perspective
because student responses suggest that they value the cognitive, intellectual,
academic, and emotional engagement found within the Everest Charter School
setting. Students must be engaged in their own learning and educational planning to
remain enrolled in the school and to make adequate progress while matriculating
through grade levels. Students are also required to pass their tests at the school with
a “C” or better, and thus are required to demonstrate proficiency in subject matter.
While students may struggle to reach these benchmarks, student engagement
reflected by the HSSSE supports the notion that the students within the school are
engaged and learning. These important factors support the focus of the goals of the
students, teachers and school administration, who are all aiming for student success
and ultimately a high school diploma. Keeping this in mind, one cannot help but
152
determine that student engagement at this urban school has positively affected
student achievement.
153
CHAPTER V
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS, CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The dropout rate of high school students in the United States has become an
issue of national concern. Although this crisis affects almost every school district
throughout the nation, students attending schools located in urban areas of the
country have the highest likelihood of leaving the school system. As if the dropout
rates of approximately 30 percent of the students in American high schools (Braun,
Kirsch, and Yamamaoto, 2007) wasn’t startling enough, the current news for some
minority populations indicate a staggering trend of less than a fifty-fifty chance of
completing high school (Braun, Kirsch, and Yamamaoto, 2007). Urban schools
often lack crucial resources such as safety, adequate facilities and well-trained
teachers, as they continue to face the challenges of keeping students enrolled,
engaged and on track to graduate.
Educational literature provides the historical context for the evolution of
American schools as well as the process in which policy makers have attempted to
cultivate it. Since its inception, educational institutions have struggled with refining
their mission of providing accessible, high quality education for every student. One
can observe the effects of world events on the ever-changing American school
system. Yet over the past one hundred and eighty-eight years since the English
Classical School in Boston opened its doors as the first public high school (Boyer,
1983), the stakes have never been higher for the students who struggle to succeed in
154
the urban high school setting. Policy implementation such as the federal No Child
Left Behind act of 2001 leading to higher school accountability has raised hopes that
students will become more competitive in the global economy (McCaslin, 2006).
However, in what appears to be an almost cruel twist of fate, the urban high school
schools that strive to meet the demands of such programs as No Child Left Behind
have seemingly now become America’s most fragile educational settings.
Students who are most at-risk of dropping out from these urban high schools
encounter obstacles that, in theory, should not be of any consequence to a teenager
living in arguably the world’s wealthiest nation. These students encounter barriers
on an almost daily basis such as high crime, poverty, health issues and language
barriers (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Lippman, Burns & McCarther, 1996). Yet
despite these risk factors, some urban high schools have found ways to support
students and provide them with an educational setting which fosters high student
achievement, directly impacting student retention and graduation (Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, 2006). These schools located throughout some of America’s most
impoverished neighborhoods have incorporated successful strategies that work.
In California, urban schools throughout the state face similar issues of a high
student drop-out rate, lack of resources and lack of appropriately skilled teachers
(Darling-Hammond, 2000). Yet there also reside schools within large urban areas of
the state, where students are performing at higher than expected levels, despite the
risk factors associated with these urban schools. This study has aimed to investigate
155
one urban high school that has demonstrated higher student proficiency than other
similar urban schools within the region.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to understand the nature of and determine
the factors that directly affect academic achievement for students attending a high–
performing public high school in a California city, where student risk factors
associated with traditional urban schools are prevalent. These factors were explored,
through observation, student and faculty surveys, interviews with school faculty and
review of school documents. This case study also reviewed formal and informal
procedures that were used by staff and students to increase student achievement.
Specifically, this study targeted students attending a large, high-performing charter
high school located in an area of southern California which is experiencing rapid
population growth and subsequent urban issues.
Further purpose of this study was to develop and describe a thick and rich
understanding of one high performing charter school, by viewing several elements of
the school site through the lenses of Bolman and Deal’s “Four Frames” (2003),
which included aspects of the schools cultural elements, political system, symbolic
protocols and human resource components. The researcher hoped to learn what
factors contribute to student achievement in this unique urban school setting.
Additionally the purpose of this study was to determine if student engagement
played a role in affecting the academic achievement for the at-risk students who
156
attend the charter school. This chapter is intended to summarize the findings of the
research, and apply these to answering the research questions.
Research Questions
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in a high-
performing urban high school?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in a
high performing urban high school?
Summary of the Findings
The study of Everest Charter School provided a unique opportunity to
research in depth, the phenomenon of perceived factors associated with a high
achieving urban school, and to investigate if student engagement was also a factor.
Through utilizing several tools to investigate this school, including surveys,
observations interviews and review of school documents, the researcher was able to
better understand the intricacies of this school, and formulate evidence of factors
associated with student achievement. The triangulation of the data provided the
ability for the researcher to verify the results of the surveys with the observations of
the school setting and interviews with school staff supporting much of the
information revealed in the preliminary review of the school documents. The four
primary factors of School Culture, School Leadership, Instruction and Curriculum
and Student Engagement organized under the Conceptual Model produced
substantial evidence that these factors contributed to student achievement at this
charter school. Additional enabling factors including Sense of Purpose,
157
Collaboration, Focus on Goals and Relationships emerged, as the research was
further explored. When viewed through the lenses of Bolman and Deal’s Four
Frames, it is these additional factors which are responsible for further explaining
why the four primary factors have been effective in the school with regards to
student academic success.
A Sense of Purpose indicates that students know what is at stake for not
participating in the process. Through observations, it was noted that they were
willing to do whatever it takes to meet their goals. A review of the school
curriculum documents revealed that the curriculum allows students to move forward
and at their own pace, which was verified in interviews as well as surveys. The fact
that students apparently do not form a “mob mentality” and work at home during
most days was also significant evidence observed in the learning centers and
revealed through interviews with the school staff. The school’s leadership team has
set clear goals and responds to the needs of both student and staff to assist them in
reaching those goals. Through professional development, timeliness and a “hands
on” approach, the leadership team is driven to support teachers so that they may
support students. Each member of the school community communicated in surveys
and interviews that they felt they were contributing to the success of these at-risk
students, and were motivated by these student’s accomplishments, including
graduation.
Throughout the data collection phase of observations and interviews, an
obvious sense of collaboration among the staff was apparent, as they worked
158
together to reach student goals. Observations of staff meetings demonstrated
problem solving and enthusiasm for student success. Teachers and parents work
together through communication channels and meetings. Leadership had elements of
collaboration and sharing, both of which allow the leadership team to be flexible and
responsive to the needs of the school.
A Focus on Goals, specifically graduation and student retention appeared to
drive the ways in which decisions at the school are made. These stated goals assist
the students with understanding their purpose, and hold them accountable. Students
have short and long-term goals allowing them to work their way along, and see
measurable progress. The measurements provide instantaneous feedback in which
students and teachers alike can restructure learning to gain the greatest academic
advances.
Relationships between a caring adult and the student appears to be the
cornerstone of what has worked over the past twenty years for this school, and more
significantly in the past three years where student academic progress has been noted.
Both staff and students acknowledge the importance of these relationships and
embrace the effect it has on student achievement. The establishment of the student-
teacher relationship allows or honesty and the students are open to asking for help
when they need it. Teachers in turn provide a safe and nurturing environment where
students can rely on them for support.
159
Recommendation for Practice
It is with the utmost respect to those dedicated to providing excellent
educational opportunities in urban settings, that these recommendations are put forth.
First and foremost, it is important that districts and schools recognize that there does
not appear to be one “magic bullet” for a high performing urban high school. A
combination of several approaches appear to provide a comprehensive strategy that
once refined for the particular school setting and student population, must be
implemented with some expectation that there will be bumps along the way. As
leaders of urban schools are challenged every day with ensuring that students receive
adequate instruction and curriculum, it is not enough to assume that a classroom in a
traditional school setting is the best situation for all students. Evidence cited in this
study supports the notion that alterative settings, even a charter school located within
an urban-like area offers unique opportunities for student success.
The alternative settings studied provided students the opportunity to take
responsibility for their own academic progress. However, this practice need not be
exclusive to the design of this particular charter school. Capacity building in any
school should include the cooperation of members within the school community,
leading to the development of regular meaningful interactions between students and
caring adults. These key components allow students to formulate relationships built
on trust and guidance. Providing accountability to students and holding them to
mutually agreed upon standards within the school setting incorporates the
establishment of goals for both the student and the adult.
160
Providing the school staff and students with the opportunity to participate in
decision making and feedback allows them to gain a sense of purpose. Allowing
school staff members to take leadership roles, promotes buy-in when new policies or
procedures need to be implemented. Additionally, staff feedback allows the school
to respond to the changing needs of the students, especially since teachers and
support staff are closest to understanding the needs of the students and they way in
which the school should respond. Students also must be provided with similar
opportunities, and should be encouraged to participate in a variety of school
activities and should be focused on what students see as engaging and interesting,
not what the adults of the school assume would be of interest to students. These
activities may not only provide students with a sense of belonging, but also a means
of communicating to the leadership team ways in which the school may improve.
Finally the research data from this study suggests that school leadership must
have an “ear to the ground” with regards to what the needs of the school is, and
implement strategies to meet these needs. Meeting with parents, students and board
members on a regular basis allows the school leaders to function in response to the
unique needs of the student. The leadership team must be organized in such a way,
that they are able to make decisions quickly and lead the school community through
these changes.
Implications for Further Research
It is the responsibility of all schools to provide a place where student success
is attainable. Whether it is in a large comprehensive school setting or a smaller more
161
intimate alternative setting, the educational system in the United States owes future
generations the opportunity to succeed academically. Much of the educational
literature is filled with stories of failing and low achieving urban schools. However
this study hopes to lend to a growing body of literature that focuses on successful
urban schools, specifically illustrating the way in which one alternative Independent
Study charter school has accomplished this goal.
As we move towards an era where earning a high school diploma may mean
the difference between life and death for some students within the urban community,
it is imperative that future studies focus on developing realistic tactics for schools
that are serving our most at-risk students, and provide them with recommendations
that show how these students can be successful. Although this study is one of nine
other research studies of a thematic group focusing on high achieving urban high
schools, the benefit of further research will provide educators, leaders and policy
makers with more tools for implementation of positive strategies to support high
student achievement in urban school settings. The results from this study suggest
that there are four recommendations for further research:
1. Further analysis of alternative, smaller settings which may provide
beneficial learning opportunities to students who struggle to meet the
demands of a traditional classroom. Although recent research has
indicated that smaller learning communities can be beneficial for some
students, further research into how these settings may impact students
residing in urban settings would be beneficial. Such studies should focus
162
on analyzing student data including student goals, student accountability
and student engagement.
2. Studies that analyze what specific environments students find most
conducive to their style of learning. Investigation should consider to
what degree, if any, does adult feedback and student control of their
educational program play into student retention.
3. A longitudinal study of students who return to a learning environment,
after dropping out of the school. What factors influence their return to
the school, and how could these factors be implemented into an urban
learning environment to prevent other students from dropping out.
4. Charter school partnerships with urban school districts. What influences,
if any, do these unique settings offer to support urban districts and
students that attend the schools within the districts. Do charter schools
provide any further opportunities to the district, that other alternative
schools do not? A comparison could be done between a district’s
alternative school (continuation school) and a charter school sponsored by
that district to better understand if there are advantages or disadvantages
that the charter school brings to the urban district.
Conclusions
As the U.S population is anticipated to grow from 300 million in 2005 to an
estimated 360 million by the year 2030 (Braun, Kirsch, and Yamamaoto, 2007),
schools throughout California will no doubt be faced with greater challenges
163
educating students in more populated urban settings. With an economy that demands
a solid education, the consequences for students who face the ultimate level of
disengagement and drop out of school are more serious than ever before. Students
who do not succeed in their urban high school risk becoming part of a growing class
of poverty, unable to access productive opportunities within their community
(Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Policy makers as well as educators must devise ways in which student who
attend these schools are provided with optimal educational opportunities to succeed.
By reflecting on and investigating in the best practices of successful urban high
schools, further efforts can be made to enhance student engagement in the learning
process and ultimately guide them to the finish line of a high school diploma. It is
therefore, that the hope of this study to make a small contribution to a growing body
of literature and provide insight into what one high performing urban high school has
done to promote academic success, one student at a time.
164
REFERENCES
Braun, H., Kirsch, I. and Yamamaoto, K. (2007). America’s perfect storm: Three
forces changing our nations future. Policy Information Report. Policy
Evaluation and Research Center. January, 1-32.
Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children. The Brookings Institute 7 (2) Summer-Autumn, 55-71.
Boyer, E.L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America.
New York: Harper and Row.
California Department of Education (2007). http://www.ced.ca.gov/index.asp
Charter Schools Development Center (n.d.) What is a charter school? Downloaded
on February 23, 2007 from http://www.cacharterschools.org/faqs.html
Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from high performing high-poverty
schools. Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (n.d.). High school survey of student
engagement 2005: What we can learn from high school students. Indiana
University, Bloomington Indiana: downloaded on January 27, 2007 from
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/
City of Victorville downloaded on January 21, 2008 from
http://www.victorvillecity.com/Facts___Figures/Community_Profile.html
Crane, E. & Edwards, B. (2007). California’s charter schools: Measuring their
success. Edsource Annual Report, 1 – 24. Downloaded on October 23, 2007
from http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_charterperf07.cfm
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform
and the education of African American students. The Journal of Negro
Education, 69 (4), 263-287.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s
commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36
(6), 318-333.
165
Darling-Hammond, L. & Friedlanender, D. (2007). High schools for equity: Policy
supports for student learning in communities of color. Policy Brief by the
School Redesign Network. Downloaded on December 15, 2007 from
http://www.srnleads.org/press/pdfs/hsfe_report.pdf
EdData (n.d). Student enrollment information page downloaded on December 30,
2006 from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Fl
evel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16
EdSource (2007). Webstite http://www.edsource.org/index.cfm
Farmer-Hinton (2002). The Chicago Context: Understanding the consequences of
urban process on school capacity. The Journal of Negro Education, 71 (4),
Autumn. 313 - 330.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P.C, Paris, A.H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential
of the Concept, State of the Evidence Review of Educational Research.
Washington: Spring Vol. 74, Iss. 1, p. 59-109 (51 pp.) (Downloaded 1-27-
07 from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=630272351&Fmt=4&clientId=4676&R
QT=309&VName=PQD)
Garcia, G.E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3
rd
ed.), (pp. 3 -39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Garfield, R. R., and Garfield, G. J. and Willardson, J. D. (2003). Policy, Politics
and Education: The Connection. Policy and Politics in American Education
(pp. 1-43). St. Barthelemy Press, LTD.
Gevardt, G. & Phan, T. (2006). Documentation to the NCES common core of data
public elementary/secondary school locale code file: School year 2003-
2004. (NCES Publication No. NCES 2006-332). Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Godwin, K. & Sheard, W. (2001). Education reform and the politics of 2000.
Publius, The State of American Federalism, 2000 – 2001, 31(3), 111-129.
Goldin, C. (1998). America’s graduation from high school: The evolution and
spread of secondary schooling in the twentieth century. The Journal of
Economic History, 58 (2), 345-374.
166
Goodwin, E. M. (1990). Black migration in America from 1915 to 1960: An uneasy
exodus. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Hirsch, A. R. (1983). Making the second ghetto: Race and housing in Chicago,
1940-1960. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hudley, C., Daoud, A., Polanco, T., Wright-Castro, R., Hershberg, R. (2003).
“Student Engagement, school climate, and future expectations in high
school”. A paper presented at the 2003 Biennial Meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development (Tampa, FL, April 24-27, 2003).
Indiana University Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, (2008). High school
survey of student engagement results report.
Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington
D.C.: Brookings Institution. Downloaded on December 8, 2007 from
http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/index.html
Jerald, C.D. (2005). Establishing a strong foundation for school improvement.
January Policy Brief from The Comprehensive School Reform and
Improvement website downloaded on April 3, 2007 from
www.centerforcsri.org
Johnson, J. H. (1997). Data Driven School Improvement. ERIC Digest No. 109
(ED401595), Jan. 1997.
Kane, T.J. & Staiger, D. O. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise
school accountability measures. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16
(4) Autumn, 91-114.
King, K.L. and Houston, I.S. and Middleton, R.A. (2001). An explanation for school
failure: Moving beyond black inferiority and alienation as a policy-making
agenda. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49 (4) December, 428 – 445.
Laird, J., DeBell, M., and Chapman, C. (2006). Dropout Rates in the United States:
2004 (NCES 2007-024). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 23, 2007 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzl, G., and Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout Rates in the
United States: 2005 (NCES 2007-059). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 23,
2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
167
Lippman, L., Burns, S., McArthur, E. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of
location and poverty (NCES 96-184). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Leithwood, K.A. & Riehl, C. (2003). “What we know about successful school
leadership”. A brief prepared for the Task Force on Developing Research in
Educational Leadership. January, 2005. Available in PDF format at
www.cepa.gse.rutgers.edu/whatweknow.pdf
Meyerson, A. (2000). From the Forward of No excuses: Lessons from high
performing high-poverty schools. Washington D.C.: The Heritage
Foundation, pp. 1 – 6.
McCaslin, M. (2006). Student motivational dynamics in the era of school reform.
The Elementary School Journal. 106 (5), 479 – 492.
McCaslin, M. & Dimarino-Linnen, E. (2000). Motivation and learning in school:
Societal contexts, psychological constructs, and educational practices. In T.
Good (Ed.), American education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow: Ninety-
ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II
(pp. 84 – 151). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (2007). Downloaded on
July 23, 2007 from
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23
Newmann, F.M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American
secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Public Broadcasting Systems (2006). School: The story of American public
education. Downloaded on November 6, 2006 from
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/index.html
Roscigno, V.J., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Crowley, M. (2006). Education and the
inequalities of place. Social Forces, 84(4), 2121 – 2144.
Rumberger, R.W. & Larson, K.A. (1998). “Student mobility and the risk of high
school dropout”. American Journal of Education. Vol. 107, No. 1. (Nov.,
1998), pp. 1-35.
Ruiz de Velasco, J. & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and Underserved: Immigrant
Students in U.S. Secondary Schools. The Urban Institute. Retrieved 2/01/07
from: http://www.urbaninstitute.org/pdfs/overlooked.pdf
168
Sanders, R. (1999). African-American journalist name the most important news
events of the twentieth century. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education,
No. 24 16-18.
Scales, P. C. & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2003). Boosting student achievement: New
research on the power of developmental assets. Search Institute Insights &
Evidence, Vol. 1 (1) 1 – 10.
Stephan, W.G. (1980). “A Brief Overview of School Desegregation.” In W.G.
Stephan, and J.R. Feagin. (Eds.), School Desegregation. (pp. 3 – 23.), New
York: Pleum Press.
Swanson, C.B. (2005). Who graduates in California? The Policy Bulletin. The
Urban Institute. Retrieved 03/01/07 from:
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900794
Urbiel, A. (2001). Book reviews. Journal of American History. 88 (2) pg. 704.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). From there to here: the road to reform of
American high schools (U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-99-
CO-0163).
West Ed.org (2004). “California’s Graduation Rate: The hidden crisis”. PDF
downloaded on February 13, 2007 from
http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/752
Willie, C. (2000). Confidence, trust and respect: The preeminent goals of
educational reform. The Journal of Negro Education, 69 (4), 255-262.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006
high school survey of student engagement. Downloaded from the web on
06/01/07 from: http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/
169
APPENDIX A
Document Review Form
Document Review Form
How we would identify high performing schools?
API score
Similar School Ranking
What do we need to know?
CAHSEE passage rate
Discipline (suspensions, expulsions, rewards)
School sponsored activities
Attendance
Graduation rates
Student Demographics (SES, free/reduced lunch, mobility, ELL)
Parent education level
Course grades (GPA)
How would we find this information?
California Department of Education (Data Quest- http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/)
WASC Report- Self study report & recommendations
School Accountability Report Card
District Website
School Website
School Handbook
Student/Parent Handbook
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at Urban
High Schools
170
APPENDIX B
Survey of High School Administrators Regarding Student Engagement
Survey of High School Administrators Regarding Student Engagement
This survey asks questions about how you perceive the high school experience for the students at your
high school. The information provided by these surveys will be compiled to be shared with site and
district stakeholders. Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
1. What areas do you supervise?
2. Are you _____ Female ______ Male
3. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
(Mark all that apply.)
______American Indian/other Native American ______Asian American or Pacific Islander
______Black/African American ______White
______Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin ______Other, specify: ___________
______Prefer not to respond
4. Is English the main language used in the majority of your students’ homes?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I do not know
5. Do the majority of your students have a computer with Internet access at home?
____ Yes ____ No ____ I do not know
6. During this school year, about how many writing assignments are students given?
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+
a. Written papers/reports of more than
5 pages
b. Written papers/reports of 3 to 5
pages
c. Written papers/reports of fewer
than 3 pages
7. How much reading are students assigned in a typical school week?
# of hours of assigned reading
____0 ____1 ____2-3 ____4-5 ____6-7 ____8-10 ____11+
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at Urban
High Schools
171
8. During this school year, how often do teachers utilized strategies to encourage all students to
participate in class?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
9. During this school year, how often are students given prompt, personal feedback on
assignments?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
10. School safety is clearly a priority on this campus?
____I agree ____I disagree
For numbers 11a-11k, check the response that best identifies the extent to which this high school
emphasizes the skill or learning activity mentioned.
Question Very
Much
Quite
a bit
Some Very
little
a. Students must spend a lot of time studying and on
schoolwork.
b. Students are provided with the support needed to succeed
in school.
c. Students are encouraged to participate in school events
and activities (athletics, music, etc.)
d. Students are encouraged to get involved in school
leadership and governance.
e. All adults on campus treat students fairly.
f. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to learn work-related skills.
g. Students are encouraged to write effectively.
h. Students are encouraged and provided the support to use
information technology.
i. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities to
solve real-world problems.
j. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to develop clear, sequential career goals and
prepare for appropriate post-secondary education or training.
k. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to make their community a better place.
12. What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey.
172
APPENDIX C
Survey of High School Teachers Regarding Student Engagement
Survey of High School Teachers Regarding Student Engagement
This survey asks questions about how you perceive the high school experience for the students at your
high school. The information provided by these surveys will be compiled to be shared with site and
district stakeholders. Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
1. What subject area do you teach? ____________________________________________
2. Which category represents most of the classes you teach?
_____ General/Regular _____ Special Education
_____ Remedial _____ Honors/College Prep
_____ Career/Career Technical Education
3. Are you _____ Female ______ Male
4. What is your racial or ethnic identification?
(Mark all that apply.)
______American Indian/other Native American ______Asian American or Pacific Islander
______Black/African American ______White
______Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin ______Other, please specify: ___________
______Prefer not to respond
5. Is English the main language used in the majority of your students’ homes?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ I do not know
6. Do the majority of your students have a computer with Internet access at home?
____ Yes ____ No ____ I do not know
7. During this school year, about how many writing assignments have you given?
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+
a. Written papers/reports of more than
5 pages
b. Written papers/reports of 3 to 5
pages
c. Written papers/reports of fewer
than 3 pages
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at Urban High
Schools
173
8. How much reading do you assign in a typical school week?
# of hours of assigned reading
____0 ____1 ____2-3 ____4-5 ____6-7 ____8-10 ____11+
9. During this school year, how often have you utilized strategies to encourage all students to
participate in class?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
10. During this school year, how often have you given prompt, personal feedback to students on
assignments?
____Very often ____Frequently ____Sometimes ____Never
11. School safety is clearly a priority on this campus?
____ I agree ____ I disagree
For numbers 12a-12k, check the response that best identifies the extent to which this high school
emphasizes the skill or learning activity mentioned.
Question Very
Much
Quite
a bit
Some Very
little
a. Students must spend a lot of time studying and on
schoolwork.
b. Students are provided with the support needed to succeed
in school.
c. Students are encouraged to participate in school events
and activities (athletics, music, etc.)
d. Students are encouraged to get involved in school
leadership and governance.
e. All adults on campus treat students fairly.
f. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to learn work-related skills.
g. Students are encouraged to write effectively.
h. Students are encouraged and provided the support to use
information technology.
i. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities to
solve real-world problems.
j. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to develop clear, sequential career goals and
prepare for appropriate post-secondary education or training.
k. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to make their community a better place.
13. What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey.
174
APPENDIX D
Observation Log
Date: ____________________________________ Page ________ of ________
Observation Log
School Class Leadership Meetings
School
Culture
Curriculum &
Instruction
Leadership Student
Engagement
Additional
Observations
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Impacting Student Achievement at Urban High
Schools
175
APPENDIX E
Interview Questions
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Suggested personnel to interview: Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services, Principals, Assistant Principals of Instruction, School Board
Members, Counselors, Teachers, Support staff, Parent groups and community
groups, Extra-curricular Activities Leaders (minimum of 5 interviews)—maybe
focus group or department chairpersons or during a designated prep period.
Questions:
Tell me about this school/school district
What are you most proud of at this school/school district? What areas would you
like to improve within the school/school district?
What is the vision or mission of the school? Are there common goals in which all
stakeholders are focusing upon? If so, please tell me about them.
What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement at your
school/school district?
What role do you feel student engagement (defined by cohort group) contributes to
student achievement at your school/school district?
What do you feel are the strengths of the school/school district?
Would you consider your school/school district high performing? Why or why not?
If so, how?
Is your school/school district unique? If so, how?
How does the school/school district prepare students beyond high school?
176
APPENDIX F
High School Survey of Student Engagement 2007
177
178
179
180
APPENDIX G
Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research
Consent Form
University of Southern California
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Student Engagement in High Performing Urban High Schools
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Annette Alpern,
Sharon Anderson, David Chang, Juliette Ett, Julio Fonseca, Katherine Frazier, Jose
Hernandez, Anne Kershner, Amicia Lambert, Kelley Mayr, Jolie Pickett, Talin
Pushian, Stephania Vu and Stuart Gothold, Ed.D., from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. Results from this study will
contribute to the Co-Principal Investigators’ dissertation. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because you are a administrator or teacher with at a
high performing school in this study. A total of approximately 20 subjects will be
selected from district administrators and school administrators or teachers to
participate. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn
more about the school factors that contribute to increased student engagement and
increased student achievement.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions
will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You may be asked to do one or more of the following:
Interview: Participate in a one-time, one-hour interview in a place convenient to
you. There are three main questions with additional questions if needed to provide
additional information. Questions are related to school factors that contribute to
increased school engagement and increased student achievement. Sample questions
may be “Your school has been identified as a high performing urban high school.
What school factors do you think contribute to this identification?,” “What school
factors contribute to student engagement at this school?” and “Are there any aspects
to the school culture or school atmosphere that contribute to higher student
engagement?
181
Survey: Participate in a one-time, 15-question survey of your perceptions as a
teacher regarding student engagement and student achievement taking approximately
20 minutes to complete. Survey will be completed either at the end of a teacher
meeting or at a place convenient to you. Sample questions include: “I am able to
help students care about their schoolwork” and “My students attend class with
readings and/or assignments completed.”
Observation: Allow researcher to observe (no interaction) your classroom during
instructional time, a faculty meeting and general campus environment. Each
observation should take no longer than one hour, one time during this study.
Document Review: Make available to researcher documents such as School
Accountability Report Card, Master Schedules, and standardized test scores. None
of the documents requested will have any student identifying information.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some
discomfort at completing the questionnaire or participating in the interview or
observation phase of the study or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out
of your day to complete the questionnaire/survey instrument.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
This study may help to identify school factors that contribute to increased student
engagement and increased student performance.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file
cabinet/password protected computer. No information will be released which will
identify you. Audio-tapes will be destroyed upon transcription. You will not review
or edit the tapes. Only the researcher will have access to the tapes and will only be
used for educational purposes. No names will be collected on survey, your identity
will be coded on interview sheets and observation charts. The coding sheet linking
your code to your identify will be destroyed upon transcription.
182
The other data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Stuart Gothold, Annette Alpern, Sharon Anderson, David Chang, Juliette Ett, Julio
Fonseca, Katherine Frazier, Jose Hernandez, Anne Kershner, Amicia Lambert,
Kelley Mayr, Jolie Pickett, Talin Pushian, Stephania Vu at the Rossier School of
Education, USC, WPH 902C, Los Angeles, California. You may also contact all
investigators at 213-740-3451.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
PDF
A case study of an outperforming urban high school: the relational pattern between student engagement and student achievement in a magnet high school in Los Angeles
PDF
A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school
PDF
Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
Effective factors of high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
Student engagement in high-performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement
PDF
Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school
PDF
Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school
PDF
Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability
PDF
Overcoming a legacy of low achievement: systems and structures in a high-performing, high-poverty California elementary school
PDF
Factors that contribute to narrowing the achievement gap for elementary age students: a case study
PDF
The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: 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
Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school
PDF
Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
Asset Metadata
Creator
Mayr, Kelley Jennifer
(author)
Core Title
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/01/2008
Defense Date
03/19/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
charter school,dropout,education,education history,engagement,OAI-PMH Harvest,school culture,school leadership
Place Name
California
(states),
educational facilities: Everest Charter School
(geographic subject),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee chair
), Hocevar, Dennis J. (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
mayr@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1073
Unique identifier
UC168006
Identifier
etd-Mayr-20080401 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-50989 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1073 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Mayr-20080401.pdf
Dmrecord
50989
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Mayr, Kelley Jennifer
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
charter school
dropout
education
education history
school culture
school leadership