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
/
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
(USC Thesis Other)
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
NARROWING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: FACTORS THAT SUPPORT ENGLISH
LEARNER AND HISPANIC STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN AN
URBAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
by
Patricia Arleen Flores
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2010
Copyright 2010 Patricia Arleen Flores
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to the people who are most important to me. Even
though my time energy and effort were directed on completing this goal, they are the
ones in my heart all of the time and in my prayers each morning and night. Joshua,
Marisa, Jessica and Amanda are brilliant and my best accomplishment. I thank them for
loving and encouraging me to continue when I needed it. My mother, father, and sisters
support me and applaud my accomplishments even when I’m kept from their presence.
Their love has helped me through some very challenging times. To my husband, despite
the stress and challenges, you encouraged me to continue towards this goal and I am
grateful. My friends and colleagues gave me encouragement, laughter, and prayers that
buoyed me when I needed it most. I look forward to spending time with you.
My intelligent and committed colleagues in the USC doctoral program, class of
2010, inspired, encouraged, and challenged me through 3 years of victories and setbacks.
I give special thanks to my “Panera” buddies, Rosalinda Lugo, Theo Sagun, and also
Young Shin Daily—exceptional educators whose ongoing feedback and friendship
encouraged me to give my best. Thanks always to my God for grace and deliverance.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Three years ago, the first course on this journey, Leadership and Diversity, with
Dr. Etta Hollins, challenged my preconceived notions of why children fail and put me on
a path of inquiry focused on schools, instruction, and equity in resources. Dr. Hollins’s
uncompromising point of view always gave me “something to think about.”
Dr. Stuart Gothold’s direction ensured that our thematic dissertation group would
complete this process successfully and that we would contribute quality research to the
profession. Committee members Dr. Robert Rueda and Dr. Dennis Hocevar provided
critical feedback that improved the quality of the paper. Dr. Linda Fischer, Dr. Debbie
Collins, Dr. Stella Port, and Ms. Aye Mon Htut gave their time and expertise generously.
I want to thank and acknowledge mentors and models of leadership: Dr. Carl Cohen, Dr.
Joel Shawn, Dr. Al Clegg, Dr. Louie Pappas, Dr. Louise Taylor, and Joe Medina. I also
wish to acknowledge the staff at two schools: the passionate educators at the school
selected for this study, and the staff at Traweek Middle School, dedicated professionals
committed to student learning.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge a former student who forced me to begin this
journey. In 2007, Martin, a bright, verbal, mischievous 12-year-old middle school
student, made me ask why an intelligent seventh-grade student, born in the United States,
schooled since kindergarten in the same district, would still be categorized as an English
Learner student. Martin represents a student group that makes up a majority of English
Learners in California: U.S. citizens whose poor academic progress and low-level
English proficiency is an indictment and call to action. I will work hard to do better.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: The Problem and Its Underlying Framework 1
Significance of the Problem 1
History of the Problem 4
Segregation and Discrimination 4
Integration and Civil Rights 4
No Child Left Behind: Standards and Accountability 6
Program Improvement 7
Inequities Continue 7
English Learners 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 9
Research Questions 10
Research Questions 10
Methodology 11
Assumptions 12
Limitations of the Study 12
Delimitations 13
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Dissertation 20
Chapter 2: Literature Review 22
Historical Perspective of the Achievement Gap 23
Assessing Educational Outcomes 26
No Child Left Behind 29
The Achievement Gap 29
Underperforming Subgroups 30
Hispanic Students 31
English Language Learners 33
Long-Term English Language Learners 34
v
Assessing the Achievement Gap 36
California Standards Test (CST) 38
Graduation Rates 40
Attendance Rates 40
Advanced Placement and College Entrance Exams 41
Factors Influencing the Gap 42
Societal and Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Achievement 42
Student Factors Affecting Achievement 43
School Factors Affecting Student Achievement 45
Challenging Curriculum 45
Collaboration 46
Teacher-Centered Factors That Affect Student Achievement 46
Leadership 48
Theoretical Frame in the Analysis of High-Poverty, High-Achieving Schools 49
Social Justice Theory 49
Critical Race Theory 51
Sociocultural Theory 51
Social Capital Theory 52
What Really Works in Schools 52
Sustainability and Ability to Replicate 54
Summary 54
Chapter 3: Methodology 56
Thematic Dissertation Group 57
Case Study Method 58
Criteria for Selection of Sample 60
Description of the Case Study School 62
The Demographic Context of the Sample School 64
Achievement History and Description of the Sample School 65
Instrumentation 66
Research Design 68
Data Collection and Analysis 72
Summary 76
Chapter 4: Results 77
The Setting 78
Data Collection and Analyses 83
Findings for Research Question 1 86
A Culture of Inclusion, Equity, and Access to High-Quality
Education 87
High Expectations for All Students 90
High Expectations and College-Oriented Goals 92
High Expectations for EL students and Special Education Students 94
Strong Shared Leadership 96
A Culture of Collaboration 100
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 102
vi
Findings for Research Question 2 103
School-Wide Instructional Practices 103
Identified School-Wide Instructional Strategies 104
Positive Learning Environment 105
School-Wide Instructional Strategies 107
Differentiated Instruction 112
Block Scheduling 113
English Learner Students 114
Data-Driven Standards-Aligned Practices 116
Standards-Aligned Curriculum and Instruction 117
Standards-Aligned Curriculum and Instruction 118
Standards-Based Grading 121
Support for Data Analyses 122
School-Wide Discipline Practices and Strong Teacher/Student
Relationships 123
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2 124
Findings for Research Question 3 124
Survey Responses 125
Programs Promoting Academic Achievement and College 128
Tutoring 128
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) 130
Saturday Math Academy (SAM) 132
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3 134
Discussion 135
Emerging Themes 136
A Shared Mission 136
A Strong Principal Who Shares Leadership With a Committed Staff 138
Consistent Clear Rules and Relationships 138
Collaborative Data Analysis 139
Alignment With Standards 140
School-Wide Instructional Strategies 141
Equity and Access to Academic Achievement for EL students 142
District Alignment With School Goals Sustains Achievement 142
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 144
Overview of the Study 145
Findings 147
Research Question 1 147
Research Question 2 151
Research Question 3 156
Analysis of Findings and Theoretical Frames 159
The Findings and the Social Justice Frame 159
The Findings and Sociocultural Theory 162
vii
Limitations of the Study 165
Recommendations for Practice 166
Implications for Further Study 168
Conclusion 169
References 171
Appendices
Appendix A: Alignment of Research Questions with Data Collected 180
Appendix B: The Staff Input Survey 181
Appendix C: Observation Tool 186
Appendix D: Interview Questions 189
Appendix E: Document Review Master List, Categorized 181
Appendix F: Alignment of Data Needs, Sources, and Instrumentation 193
Appendix G: Staff Input Survey Results, Questions 1-15 195
Appendix H: Instructional Strategies Definitions 198
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Characteristics and Educational Needs of English Learner Subgroups 37
Table 2: Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) of the Target School From 2005 to 2009 64
Table 3: Descriptors of Staff at the Sampled School 84
Table 4: Descriptors of Interviewed Staff at the Sampled School 85
Table 5: Observations of 24 Classrooms in the Selected School 106
Table 6: Observations of Instructional Practices in 12 Classrooms 109
Table 7: Instructional Strategies Observed in 12 Classrooms at the
Selected School 111
Table 8: Four-Year Trends of English Learners (EL) and Redesignated as
Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) 115
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Statewide percentages at or above proficient in English Language
Arts, 2009 39
Figure 2: Statewide percentages at or above proficient in mathematics, 2009 39
Figure 3: Clark and Estes’s gap analysis process model 69
Figure 4: Narrowing the achievement gap process model, an adaptation of
Clark and Estes’s gap analysis process model 70
Figure 5: The triadic relationship of learning 161
x
ABSTRACT
A persistent and pervasive disparity in academic achievement exists between
ethnic minority and English Learner students and their White and Asian peers. This
qualitative single-case study of a high-poverty, high-performing middle school focused
on the cultural norms, practices, and programs that were perceived to be contributing to
narrowing the achievement gap. Through interviews, observations, a survey of
certificated staff, and review of school documents, the factors that were perceived to
increase academic performance of Hispanic, low-income, and English Learner students
were explored.
The cultural norms of a compelling mission of inclusion, equity and access, high
expectations, shared leadership, and collaboration were perceived to contribute to
narrowing the gap. The practices of data analyses, standards alignment of curriculum,
instruction, assessment and grading, school-wide instructional strategies, consistently
enforced discipline practices, and strong student/staff relationships were perceived to
contribute to narrowing the gap. Programs at the selected school were perceived as only
moderately contributing to narrowing the achievement gap. A significant percentage of
school staff, united by a compelling mission and provided with access to current accurate
student achievement data, collaborate to develop solutions that address learning needs of
students. Sustaining practices included intentional acculturation of new staff members to
believe in a compelling mission, district office support and goal alignment, and time
reserved for collaborative data analysis.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
Two children enter a kindergarten classroom in USA Public School; their eager
faces scrubbed clean, new tennis shoes on their feet, each clinging tightly to a parent’s
hand. They enter the school together; each parent, hopeful for his own child’s future,
gives the child up to the educators. However, one of these children is almost 3 times as
likely as his White peer to drop out. He has only a 60% chance of emerging with a high
school diploma 13 years later. Of the students in his ethnic group, less than 39% will be
able to demonstrate proficiency in grade-level English Language Arts (ELA; Gandara &
Contreras, 2009), whereas 69% of the students in the other child’s ethnic group will
demonstrate proficiency.
There is a growing disparity between the education haves and have-nots, a
disparity that is clearly divided by ethnic group, socioeconomic group, and English
language proficiency. However, some schools seem to be reducing the disparity despite
urban conditions, high poverty, and ethnically diverse students who speak a language
other than English. This study seeks to determine how one urban, high-poverty, high-
ethnic minority middle school is narrowing the gap between its students’ academic
achievement and the academic achievement of White and Asian students in California.
Significance of the Problem
The disparity in academic performance between groups of students is evident
nationwide (Lee, 2002). White and Asian students have a higher graduation rate, have a
higher percentage of students entering 4-year institutions, and outperform other
2
demographic groups on standardized achievement tests (EdSource, 2008; Guryan, 2003;
Haycock, 2001). The disparity in academic achievement, referred to as the achievement
gap, defines a current crisis in schools nationwide, in which students who are poor,
African American, Hispanic, English Learners (EL), or special education students
demonstrate significantly lower academic achievement than their White and Asian peers.
According to the California Department of Education (CDE; 2008), the gap is demon-
strated by a difference of more than 150 points on standardized test scores when compar-
ing White and Asian students and low socioeconomic (SES) groups and more than 200
points when comparing the higher-achieving group with EL students.
Yet, in some schools with a large population of minority, English Learner, and
low-income families, students are achieving academic growth and are narrowing the gap
(Williams et al., 2005). Some schools are experiencing success with student populations
who are lagging in achievement in other schools. Factors in achieving schools that seem
to have positive impact on student achievement must be identified and educators, parents,
legislators, and the voting public must be informed so that all students have access to
academic attainment. This study focused on one high-poverty middle school, selected for
its continuing growth in achievement by low SES, ethnic minority, and English Learner
students to identify factors that contribute to academic success. An in-depth study of the
school cultural norms, school practices, and school programs reveals factors that could be
implemented to improve learning and student academic achievement in other schools
with similar populations.
3
A growing sense of urgency to increase academic achievement of at-risk popula-
tions is evident as educators, parents, students, and national and local communities recog-
nize the social and economic consequences of the disparity. Although educators strive to
meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population while complying with accountability
demands, the number of California school districts not in compliance with legislated
achievement requirements continues to climb. According to the California Department of
Education, in 2008, 92 districts were designated as Program Improvement (PI) districts, a
designation that carried sanctions, increased monitoring, and even closure. In 2009, 97
districts were designated as PI districts, a designation that results primarily from poor
academic growth of at-risk student groups, specifically low-income, Hispanic, African
American, and English Learner students. A district with PI status experiences increased
monitoring, loss of autonomy, and sanctions from the state each year that the district is
thus designated.
For parents, the reality of unequal educational outcomes results in unfulfilled
dreams for their children. Fifty-seven percent of Hispanic students and 27% of EL
students leave high school with a diploma, compared to 89% of White students (Koehler,
2004b). National, state, and local policy makers and the business community feel the
impact of low achievement when growing numbers of low-income citizens are not edu-
cated enough to provide a competent work force or sufficient tax base. The detrimental
effects of low academic achievement also include increases in poverty, social problems
associated with poverty, and inequities between races, all of which lead to an inability to
compete globally (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). The identification and understanding of
4
factors that contribute to academic success for low-income, ethnic minority, and EL
students will benefit schools, the nation, communities, and each individual life improved
due to academic success.
History of the Problem
Segregation and Discrimination
The concern for America’s schools and whether they measure up when compared
to schools in other countries is evident throughout the history of pubic schools. In a 19th-
century speech, Horace Mann (1848) referred to education as “the great equalizer,” call-
ing for stronger efforts to improve schools. Yet segregation in schools was protected by
law under the 1886 ruling Plessey v. Ferguson, which supported separate schools for
African American and White children. In California, a Hispanic farming family
challenged the policy of separate schools based on ethnic or racial origin and won the
landmark case Mendez v. Westminster (1946). But the separate but equal doctrine was
federal law until the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, which
overturned Plessey, stating that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Integration and Civil Rights
Brown v. Board of Education changed the legality of discriminatory and segrega-
tion practices and attempts at integration of schools in the South drew much attention in
the 1950s and early 1960s, although segregation was being practiced throughout the
United States, not just in the South. Despite the ruling that was intended to equalize the
education received by Black and White children, de facto segregation, continuing racism,
and ingrained social policies continued the unequal school experience of minority and
5
poor children and separation from their middle-class White peers (Reed, 2002). Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted under President Lyndon Baines Johnson, pro-
tected citizens, including students, from discrimination based on race, color, or national
origin (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). Programs that received federal financial
assistance were prohibited from discriminatory practices in student admissions, treat-
ment, and services. President Johnson, acknowledging the existence of inequities due to
discrimination and the role of education in the social programs planned by his administra-
tion, said, “Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until oppor-
tunity is unconcerned with the color of men’s skins, emancipation will be a proclamation
but not a fact” (Johnson, 1963, n.p.).
Despite public policy, legal rulings, and political/social movements, large gaps
between minority and White students continued in the 1960s and early 1970s, with
significant differences between outcomes for White American students, and outcomes for
low-economic status and ethnic minority students. The concept of cultural deficits
explained these disparities for educators and public policymakers and resulted in
programs intended to compensate for the child’s perceived shortcomings (Ladson-
Billings, 2007). Supporting the idea of cultural deficits, a study commissioned by
Congress in 1966, referred to as the Coleman Report (Coleman, 1966), offered the
conclusion that inequities in student outcomes resulted largely from the inadequate,
impoverished homes and that schools had very little impact in combating the negative
results of poverty. The governmental response to this study’s conclusions was to
implement important and longstanding programs to reduce the powerful effects of
6
growing up poor. Programs such as Head start and Equal Opportunity Program were
funded to ensure that minority and poor children received the benefits of a good educa-
tion; the impact of these programs continues today.
No Child Left Behind: Standards and Accountability
Under President George W. Bush, the achievement gap was magnified due to
accountability requirements presented in legislation sponsored by his administration. The
reenactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 2002, commonly
referred to as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required that schools account for achieve-
ment by all students. NCLB required that schools measure, report, and improve achieve-
ment results for at-risk students such as low-income, ethnic minorities, EL students, and
special education students (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). NCLB catapulted the
achievement gap into the forefront of public opinion and policy and focused educational
reform, funding, and accountability efforts on narrowing the disparity between student
groups and increasing achievement by all students, including student groups that were
underperforming. NCLB legislation required that every public school identify and
measure achievement of the at-risk subgroups. Schools not making adequate yearly
progress (AYP) in increasing the percentage of students achieving proficiency, as
measured by standardized state tests, had to increase their performance on achievement
tests or risk accountability consequences. These requirements continue to dominate
school practice and reform today, creating strong pressure on schools to improve student
performance or risk governmental sanctions.
7
Program Improvement
The PI status is assigned under NCLB requirements when schools fail to meet
achievement targets set by the federal government or state for 2 consecutive years. In
2008, 97 Local Educational Agencies (LEA), or districts, in California were classified as
PI. Two districts merged and four districts were not eligible for funds because no schools
in those districts were in PI status, resulting in the designation of 92 PI school districts
(CDE, 2009). Schools that are in PI status experience increased control by monitoring
agencies as well as sanctions by the state and federal governments. There are five levels
of PI status, designated 1 through 5, with increasing sanctions and monitoring and
decreasing autonomy from state governance with each level. A growing number of
schools and districts are at risk of entering PI status because their English Learner
students or ethnic minority students are not achieving Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMO)—growth targets set by the federal government. A school or district that is
designated PI experiences increasing pressure to achieve sufficient academic growth in
ELA or mathematics or experience increased monitoring, sanctions, and loss of auto-
nomy. Knowledge of effective practices, programs, and school culture or organization
would assist these schools and districts to address the learning needs of students.
Inequities Continue
Despite legislative, judicial, and social efforts to ensure academic achievement for
all students, inequities in education practices, resources, and outcomes continue.
Unequal educational outcomes are demonstrated by significantly lower graduation rate
for Hispanics, African Americans, and ELs in California, compared to White and Asian
8
students (Koehler, 2004b). Graduation rates data differ depending on the method of
calculation; rates for White and Asian students range from 70% to 80% overall, while
graduation rates for non-White, non-Asian students are as low as 40% for Hispanic
students and 48% for African American students (Koehler, 2004a). Dropout rates for
Hispanic students declined from 1980 to 2007, according to the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES; 2009), but the dropout rates were still higher than those for
White, Asian, or African American students. About 37% of dropouts were Hispanic in
2007, although they made up only 15% of the overall population, excluding the citizens
of Puerto Rico. White and Asian student dropout rates were 10% and 7.5% respectively.
English Learners
Of the underperforming student groups, (ELs) have the lowest graduation rate,
highest dropout rate, lowest percentage of students meeting federal or state proficiency
targets, and lowest percentage of students passing the California High School Exit Exam
(August, Hakuta, & Pompa, 1994; CAHSEE; Cobb, 2004; Freeman, Freeman, &
Mercuri, 2002; Gandara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003). Yet, according
to the Legislative Analyst Office, EL students make up over 25% of California’s students
(Payan & Nettles, 2008). More than half of elementary EL students are concentrated in
about one fifth of the state’s schools, where they make up more than 50% of the student
body (Rumberger, Gándara, & Merino, 2006). The special learning needs of EL students
are often responded to by schools with remedial, low-level classes and teachers who are
not highly qualified (Rumberger et al., 2006). A subgroup of EL students referred to as
Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) because they have been in U.S. schools for more
9
than 5 years, have stalemated in their progress toward achieving proficiency in English
(Freeman et al., 2002). LTEL students make up more than half of the students identified
as EL students in California. Yet some schools are implementing practices that are
effective in raising EL student achievement. If other schools are to increase achievement
by this population, the best practices of these successful schools must be identified and
shared with schools with similar populations.
Statement of the Problem
Low achievement results for poor, EL, African American, and Hispanic children
in many public schools create an achievement gap between these students and their White
and Asian peers. However, some schools and districts appear to be having success in
raising achievement by all students. Some schools and districts appear to be raising the
academic achievement of EL students, even though EL students present specialized
language learning and academic needs that are not shared by other groups.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined cultural norms, practices, and programs that seem to
contribute to increasing student achievement in a high-poverty, high-performing middle
school. One of nine case studies by doctoral students researching high-poverty urban
schools that are raising academic achievement of poor, ethnic minority, and EL students,
this study focused on EL achievement in a high-poverty urban middle school. By gaining
a deep knowledge of a highly successful middle school, this study adds to the body of
knowledge about factors that contribute to academic achievement of at-risk student
10
populations. The study also examines steps and school efforts that sustain academic
achievement results over time.
Research Questions
This study was directed by the following research questions:
1. What cultural norms practiced within the school are perceived to have
narrowed the achievement gap and sustained success?
2. What practices employed by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
3. What programs utilized by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
Each question was focused on EL and LTEL students.
Significance of the Study
The study examined practices, programs, and school culture norms identified as
factors that contribute to achievement of poor and minority students in urban schools.
Schools with similar populations might use the knowledge gained from this study to build
their capacity to address their students’ needs by adopting or adapting these practices.
Schools with LTEL students who have specific learning needs beyond those of other
subgroups will benefit from identification of these practices. This study also contributes
to the body of knowledge about factors that sustain academic achievement over time.
Together with the other eight studies of schools narrowing the achievement gap, a body
of knowledge about best practices in high-poverty urban schools will inform educators
who are determined to respond to the ethical imperatives behind NCLB.
11
Methodology
This case study examined the school culture, practices and programs in a high-
poverty urban middle school that demonstrated and sustained growth in achievement of
students over the past 3 years. The case study method provided opportunity to gain a
deep knowledge and understanding of the school site studied. The case study focused on
factors contributing to the growth in achievement by EL students in a middle school
selected for its continuing growth in performance by Hispanic, low-SES, and EL
students. Through observation, teacher survey, document review, and interview of
specific staff members, data about the factors that lead to student success at the school
were collected and analyzed. The researcher utilized triangulation of data to search for
common themes and validated conclusions with participants.
The methodology process framework for this study was based on Clark and
Estes’s (2002) gap analysis, in which knowledge, motivation, and organization factors are
identified and analyzed to determine the causes of a gap between the organization’s goals
and its performance. The researcher adapted the gap analysis process to examine a
school that has closed the gaps to focus on factors that seemed to have increased achieve-
ment and narrowed the gap in a school that was meeting performance goals. Factors that
are contributing to narrowing the gap were examined, including practices or knowledge
and skills, the culture norms that motivate achievement, and the organization structures or
programs that contributed to narrowing the gap in the selected high-performing school.
This study relied on sociocultural, social capital, and social justice theoretical framework
to interpret results.
12
Assumptions
The most basic of assumptions in a case study is that the researcher can truly
comprehend and know deeply a school by spending time at the school over a period of
days. The second assumption in this study was that the staff who were interviewed or
surveyed offered truthful insights into the nature of their practices, programs, and school
culture and that the classrooms observed were not prepared especially for the researcher,
but that observations painted an authentic picture of instructional practice. The third
assumption was that the selected school experienced growth in academic achievement
due to conscious choices in practices, programs, or cultural norms. It was assumed that
growth in the Academic Performance Index (API) over the previous 3 years was a valid
indicator of school success and academic achievement. It was assumed that the selected
school did not practice selective enrollment but instead enrolled students in the school
who were registered without criteria to eliminate students who were low performing.
It was assumed that the cohort of nine researchers from the University of Southern
California, Rossier School of Education, would share information and data results to
build a strong knowledge base of best practices for at-risk urban students.
Limitations of the Study
This research was conducted as a case study to gain a deep knowledge of one
school site. Although internal and external validity were extremely important in planning
the methodology, the study of one case limited the extent to which conclusions can be
generalized. Although a case study methodology was selected as the best way to gain a
deep and rich knowledge of the school, the time permitted for this study was limited to
13
one semester; therefore some events, programs, and practices could not be observed.
Another limitation was the impact of poor economic outlook on the case school. Many
districts and schools are experiencing harsh changes as staff and programs are reduced
due to insufficient funding levels. For example, Class Size Reduction (CSR) was elimin-
ated at the middle school level in the district of the case study school, and the impact of
the change in class size on student achievement in the study school is unknown. Unin-
tended bias of the researcher might influence interpretation of classroom and events
observed or survey and interview results. The sample school studied was designated a
school of choice, and although the lottery employed to select students was intended to be
an unbiased method of selecting students, there may have been unknown factors that
limited the kinds of students who might apply to participate in the lottery. The fact that
this is a school of choice may limit the application of findings to other schools with
similar demographics that are also schools of choice.
Delimitations
This study is one of nine case studies of schools that were narrowing the achieve-
ment gap. The cohort of researchers conducting the case studies determined the criteria
for schools to be studied: (a) school located in an urban area with a population above
50,000, (b) a student population that consisted of at least 40% low-income students as
measured by eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), (c) a significant
minority student population, (d) at least 15% EL students, significant growth in API
scores over the previous 3 years by its at-risk student populations. Many outstanding
schools with high achievement scores were eliminated because of low numbers of
14
English Learners or non-Asian ethnic minorities. Also eliminated were schools with
limited success with at-risk populations, even though many fine educators had experi-
enced individual success in raising achievement in their classrooms. The research instru-
ments developed to collect data structured the nature of the data to be collected and
focused on practices, programs, and school culture, possibly eliminating consideration of
other factors that might influence student achievement, such as home culture, English
language proficiency of students entering the school, and facility quality.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they are used in this study. The definitions are
taken from the Resource website when those definitions present an accurate description
of the terms in the context of this study or are defined by the researcher using practical,
common terms.
Academic Performance Index (API): A number that summarizes performance by a
group of students, a school, or a district, based on standardized California Standardized
Test (CST) scores. An API score is determined for the school and for student demo-
graphic groups called subgroups, when the group makes up at least 15% of the student
population within the school. In this case study the API for Hispanic, White, socioeco-
nomically disadvantaged, and EL students are discussed as significant subgroups in the
school.
Accountability: The idea that the school, district, or government should be
responsible for improving student achievement and rewarded or sanctioned depending on
achievement data.
15
Achievement gap: A consistent disparity in achievement scores on standardized
tests between poor, Hispanic, African American, and EL students and consistently
higher-performing White and Asian students. Other achievement gap indicators include
graduation rates, dropout rates, rates of passing the CAHSEE, and college entrance. For
the purpose of this study, the disparity in achievement scores was the primary means of
measuring the achievement gap.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Annual academic benchmark targets set by the
federal government for schools or districts that receive Title I funds. AYP requires (a) a
specific percentage of students from demographic groups to score proficient on the CST,
(b) at least 95% participation rate, (c) API specified gains, and (d) for high schools,
specified graduation rates.
Annual measurable objective (AMO): Achievement targets set by the state to
determine whether a school, district, or state is making AYP towards the 2013 goal of all
students achieving proficiency.
At risk: Students who belong to ethnic or demographic groups or exhibit other
indicators of high dropout rates or low graduation rates and who are not prepared for
successful college admissions.
California Achievement Tests, 6th Edition Survey (CAT/6): A norm-referenced
test of basic skills that gives a national percentile ranking. Only third graders and seventh
graders take the CAT/6.
16
California Department of Education (CDE): Headed by the elected superintend-
ent of public instruction, CDE oversees the school finance system, including categorical
funds, and is responsible for implementation of NCLB policies.
California English Language Development Test (CELDT): English language read-
ing, speaking, listening, and writing proficiency test for students who report a primary
language other than English to determine whether student is an EL. The CELDT deter-
mines the level of proficiency from 1 to 5 (beginning to advanced).
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): A state test for California high
school students that must be passed to earn the high school diploma. The pass/fail test
can be retaken until passed; once a student passes a portion, that portion is taken retaken.
California Standards Test: Part of the Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) program, it is a criterion-referenced test based on the academic content standards
and is the main foundation for determining API and instrumental in meeting AYP.
Students score far below basic, below basic, basic, proficient, or advanced.
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Legislation enacted during the Johnson administration
that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity by any program, including
schools, that receives federal assistance.
Class size reduction (CSR): In California, a program that began in 1996 to reduce
the number of students in kindergarten through third grade and in ninth grade to no more
than 20 students per teacher.
Cultural deficit: A concept that takes the perspective that negative qualities,
behaviors, and values of a culture contribute to low academic achievement.
17
Cultural norms: The values, beliefs, and relational behaviors in a school; cultural
norms are manifested in behaviors and organizational structures.
Curriculum frameworks: The California state curriculum blueprint used to com-
municate state-adopted content standards.
Disaggregated data: Assessment data separated by student groups, such as ethnic
subgroups, low-SES subgroups, and English fluency for parents, the public, educators,
and policy makers to see how each group is performing.
Dropout rate: An estimate of the percentage of students who drop out between
9th and 12th grade based on data collected for a single year.
English Learner (EL) or English Language Learner (ELL): Student whose home
language is not English and who requires extra assistance to develop fluency in English.
Equity: A belief that governments are obligated to provide equal access to educa-
tional and life opportunities. Disparities in funding levels, adequate facilities, and skilled
teachers contribute to inequity.
Federal School Lunch Program (FSLP): A federal program to provide lunch and
or breakfast for students from low-income families. The percentage of students who
qualify for this program contributes to determination of the poverty level of a school or
district.
Generation 1.5: English learners who are children of immigrants, although the
children were born in the United States.
Graduation rate: The number of graduates divided by all graduates plus dropouts
over a period of 4 years. Graduation rate is also calculated by the dividing the number of
18
graduates by the ninth-grade enrollment when the graduates were freshmen. Neither
method is accurate but is only an estimation, since neither includes students who use
alternate methods of graduation, such as Graduate Record Exam (GRE) or the California
High School Proficiency Exam.
Heritage speakers: English learners who may have been born in the United States
and have oral skills in English, but a primary language other than English spoken in the
home.
Highly qualified teacher: A teacher who is credentialed to teach the subject that
she/he is teaching, according to NCLB.
Intervention program: A program implemented in a school or district that gives
students who are below grade level extra support and resources to improve performance.
Long-Term English Learner (LTEL): Student who has a home language other than
English, who is not designated as proficient in English, and who has been in the United
States for more than 5 years.
Local education agency (LEA): School district, county office of education, or
charter school district that maintains administrative control of a group of public schools.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national test given to
small samples of specific grade levels nationwide to establish a comparison of national
averages. It is sometimes referred to as the National Report Card.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The reauthorization of the 1965 ESEA. NCLB
significantly increased the influence of the federal government in education, including
19
assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. NCLB sets proficiency targets that
increase each year with the goal of achieving proficiency for all students by 2013-2014.
Practices: Instructional, administrative, professional development behaviors that
are intentional or unintentional and influence student achievement outcomes.
Professional learning communities (PLC): Groups of professional educators who
work together to study student performance and collaboratively develop solutions to
improve student learning (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).
Proficiency: Mastery of grade-level standards as measured by CST. For EL
students, proficiency also means English fluency as measured by the CELDT and district-
determined multiple measures that usually include grades and CST scores.
Program: A school’s intentional, organized formal plan of action to achieve a
goal.
Program Improvement (PI): A designation under NCLB for schools or districts
not meeting AYP targets for 2 consecutive years. Schools or districts in PI experience
increasingly serious interventions, including sanctions, restructuring, and even loss of
Title I funds.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): An annual report on a school that
covers not only student achievement but also information about the facility, staff, school
vision, and goals.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) students: Students who participate in the
free/reduced-price meal program because of low income and students whose parents do
not have a high school diploma.
20
Subgroups: A demographic group that is identified under NCLB to include
Hispanic, White, Asian, African American, EL, and special education students.
Triangulation: A data analysis strategy that utilizes multiple data sources, data
collection, and theories to confirm or validate a finding.
Urban: A city or area with a population of more than 50,000 people and with
characteristics associated with urban areas, such as diverse ethnic populations, high
poverty rates, and issues commonly associated with inner-city areas.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the study, describes the achievement gap,
and provides a description and background of the problem. The purpose and significance
of the study provided a rationale for conducting the study. A description of the methodo-
logy, research questions, assumptions, limitations, delimitations and definitions followed,
providing sufficient information to understand the problem and case study.
Chapter 2 presents a review of the most relevant research that clarifies and
explores facets of the problem of disparity between at-risk student subgroups and White
or Asian students and potential solutions and best practices addressing the problem of the
achievement gap. The chapter includes a historical perspective of the problem, a descrip-
tion of the impact of NCLB, and issues related to increasing academic achievement by
EL students. Research is presented that informs about factors that contribute to sustaina-
bility and potential for replication.
Chapter 3 explains the methodology employed to examine school culture norms,
practices, and programs in a school that demonstrated 3 consecutive years of growth in
21
achievement by students, including ELs. The chapter presents the research design, a
description of the sample school, instrumentation used to collect data, and a description
of the data analysis methods used to address the three research questions.
Chapter 4 describes the findings, presenting a thick and rich (Patton, 2002)
description of interviews, survey, and observations. The richness the study is in the
descriptive detail of the observed school, given the opportunity for the researcher to be a
part of the school and know the school through interviews, observations, survey, and
documents.
Chapter 5 presents a detailed analysis of the data, including conclusions and
recommendations for schools, districts, and other LEAs that want to raise academic
achievement of ethnic minority, poor, or EL students.
This dissertation reports a case study of one school that appeared to be having
success with EL and Hispanic students. Using the identification of factors that seem to
be contributing to and sustaining student achievement at the school, other schools with
similar populations may be able to apply the knowledge learned and increase achieve-
ment by these underperforming student populations.
22
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
A review of research related to student achievement revealed increasing dispari-
ties between groups of students, specifically, African American, special education, low-
income, Hispanic, and ELL students and their White and Asian peers (Borman, Hewes, &
Overman 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1995; EdSource, 2008; Haycock, 2001; Koehler,
2004b). The disparity, referred to as the achievement gap in both the literature and popu-
lar culture, creates deep concern for educators, policy makers, and the general public,
who may hold a popular viewpoint of education as the great equalizer (Mann, 1848).
This chapter examines the roots of this gap, clarifies the definition of the gap, identifies
students whom the gap is impacting, indicates measurements of the gap, and analyzes the
implications of the gap.
A historical perspective is presented to provide background to understand why the
achievement gap has become such a focus of education discourse and study. Research
examining school issues or inequalities contributing to the gap is presented to determine
factors, practices, and programs that close the gap. Then, research related to the EL
achievement gap as well as a subgroup of this student population, non-immigrant or
LTEL, is presented to analyze the practices that are closing the gap with this unique
group. Because this study is focused on sustainability and potential for replication, a
synthesis of factors that have an enduring effect on student achievement and that contri-
bute to the potential for replication and sustainability is presented.
23
Historical Perspective of the Achievement Gap
Long before the term achievement gap was popularized, indications of the dis-
parity (e.g., low academic achievement, low graduation rates, and high dropout rates) had
been persistent and pervasive in society and schools (Carroll, Fulton, Abercrombie, &
Yoon, 2004; Cobb, 2004; Guryan, 2003). The U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v.
Ferguson (1886) upheld a separate but equal policy that reinforced segregation in
schools, permitting disparity in resources, facilities, and quality of education (Verdun,
2005). African American and Hispanic students have lagged behind their White and
Asian counterparts since the early years of the 20th century in graduation rates (Curran,
2005), literacy (Witte & Henderson, 2004), and college or university enrollment (Guryan,
2003). Until the 1950s, the official law of the land reinforced this disparity through a
policy of separate but equal.
The landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, which overturned the
Plessy v. Ferguson ruling of 1886, made segregation of students illegal, finding that
segregated institutions were not equal and that non-White institutions provided inferior
programs to African American children (Carroll et al., 2004; Reed, 2002). The desegre-
gation of schools did not result in equality of achievement by all students (Barton &
Coley, 2008). Guryan (2003) documented the effects of desegregation during the 1950s
and 1960s on achievement as measured by Black student graduation and dropout rates
and found an increase in graduation and decrease in dropout rates in schools that had
gone through desegregation. Nevertheless, in the 1960s, gaps in academic achievement
24
continued as Whites and Asian students outperformed African American, Hispanic, EL,
and low-SES students, as measured by the NAEP.
The disparity in academic achievement emerged as a significant social, educa-
tional, and political issue when desegregation failed to bring about equity (Reed, 2002).
Education research since the 1954 Brown ruling reveals continuing large gaps in student
achievement (Carroll et al., 2004; Welch & Light, 1987). In 1964 President Johnson
signed the Civil Rights Act and commissioned a report to supply the U.S. Congress with
information about “the lack of availability of equal educational opportunity for indivi-
duals by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin” (Coleman, 1966, p. 10). The
Equality of Education Study, generally referred to as the Coleman Report, examined data
from 570,000 students, 60,000 teachers, and 4,000 schools and concluded that family
background accounted for most of the disparities in children’s performance and that the
effects of schools was relatively small. The Coleman Report found that school efforts to
increase student achievement could not overcome the impact of these student socioeco-
nomic characteristics. Policy makers acting on President Johnson’s efforts to implement
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cited the report and created programs to counteract the
purported negative effects of the home and to raise student achievement. Programs such
as Head Start, which began in 1965 to ameliorate the deficits in social and cognitive
development of poor children, utilized the findings of the Coleman Report to gain
political and funding support (National Head Start Association, 2009). In 2008, over one
million children were served by the program. Another program resulting from the
Coleman Report, the Equal Opportunity Program (EOP), now in its 40th year, helps
25
impoverished minority college students to enroll in colleges and universities through
funds, tutoring, and admission accommodations (Caroll et al., 2004).
The achievement gap narrowed in the 1970s and early 1980s as a result of
compensatory funding and programs (Haycock, 2001). The disparity between Hispanic
and White students from 1970 to 1988 decreased by one third, attributed to increased
funding for teacher training, materials, and curriculum (Haycock, 2001). However, other
research attributed the narrowed achievement gap to the emphasis on basic skills rather
than higher standards, and to changes in cut scores of the NAEP, which tests specific
grade levels and provides a national snapshot of academic progress (Barton & Coley,
2008). Changes to the NAEP resulted in a small rise in indicators of achievement in
minority and poor students without raising scores of those already achieving proficiency.
NAEP (1990) results in the 1980s indicated that school achievement by both African
American and Hispanic ethnic minorities increased.
In 1983 the U.S. Department of Education’s National Commission on Excellence
in Education (NCEE) published the report A Nation at Risk, a document that promoted
educational goals of high standards, high expectations, and graduates who could compete
in a global economy (NCEE, 1983). Despite the report’s call for educational improve-
ments, achievement scores on the NAEP in the 1990s indicated that the gap continued to
widen (Barton & Coley, 2008).
The 1990s saw a shift from evaluating the effectiveness of schools based on
adequate funding and programs to evaluating effectiveness based on student outputs,
moving from minimum competency to proficiency in content standards, precursors to
26
NCLB standards-based testing (Barton, 2006). One major response to reduce the
achievement gap in the latter half of the 1990s was to implement CSR statewide in
California. Schools scrambled to obtain federal funds to implement a promising practice
that proposed that reduction in the number of students per teacher increased student
achievement, a position supported by popular appeal and some positive research results
(Mosteller, 1995). CSR is an extremely expensive program that impacts school and
district funding, human resources, facilities, effort, and time (Odden, 1990). The
California implementation of CSR was statewide, not just schools where significant gaps
existed (Odden, 1990). Achievement increases as a result of CSR were mixed or
unimpressive (Hoxby, 2000) and the costs in human resources, funds, and facilities
outweighed gains attributed to CSR (Krueger, Hanushek, & Rice, 2002).
Despite less-than-successful outcomes of efforts to address inequities in
educational achievement, reform efforts to reduce the achievement gap continue.
Assessment that appropriately measures student achievement has become the key in
reform as educators and policy makers determine what students should know and what
teachers should teach (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985). The form and purpose of
assessment has changed as the role of public education has changed.
Assessing Educational Outcomes
During the past century the function and form of testing and assessment in
education influenced and shaped the goals of public education but was also shaped by the
changing role and purpose of public education. As far back as the early 1900s,
Thorndike advocated that tests could be used to evaluate the success of public education
27
by measuring performance in specific skills, such as reading, a position that influenced
the first statewide testing program, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, launched in 1929
(Haertel & Herman, 2005). Initial assessments were replaced by test batteries, which
assessed specific content areas. These batteries facilitated sorting and tracking students
and were popularized by use for determining military jobs and placement. In the 1940s
the concept that tests could be used to reassure parents, students, and community and
could provide a strong basis for public relations supported the use of objective-based tests
(Borman et al., 2003). Thus, two functions of testing and assessment continue today
through assessment to place and identify student ability and to measure school quality.
The 1950s and 1960s emphasized objectives-based testing in which students were taught
specific materials and then were assessed on their mastery of the determined learning
objectives of the materials. Influenced heavily by B. F. Skinner’s behavioral learning
theory, the idea of mastery of specific material influenced instruction through task
analysis and assessment. Bloom’s conceptualization of higher-order thinking (Bloom,
1956), mastery teaching, and assessment influenced the concept of designing assessment
of complex thought processes and contributed to the concept of examining specific
thought processes through criterion-referenced tests.
Assessment of educational programs took on a broader role with the passage of
ESEA in 1965, as funding for compensatory programs brought attention to accountability
through assessment. The results of these assessments proved disappointing and focused
attention on improving education achievement by all groups. The NAEP has been the
primary national assessment of educational achievement since its first application in 1969
28
and is popularly known as the Nation’s Report Card. As concern for American student
achievement and competitiveness globally increased through the 1980s, so did the
demand for specific learning objectives and standards-based testing. Minimum compe-
tency tests gave way to standards-based proficiency tests to indicate mastery of grade-
level content material. The emphasis on determining standards and developing tests to
assess accomplishment of the standards raised the expectation that all schools could be
measured and held accountable for their effectiveness. The accountability of schools was
institutionalized nationwide through the bipartisan NCLB, which is the subject of the
next section.
The state accountability system, STAR, was implemented in 1998; it consists of
a norm-referenced test and a criterion-referenced test (CDE, 2008). Until 1999 the
Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9) measured basic skills in Grades 2 through 11, when
it was replaced by the CAT/6, which is currently administered to Grades 3 and 7. The
criterion-referenced test is the second part of the state accountability testing, the CST
given yearly to Grades 2 through 11 in ELA and Mathematics and at specific grade levels
in Science and Social Studies. The CST is the primary assessment tool for the API and
disaggregated CST data results are used to develop NCLB’s measurement of AYP. Since
2005 NCLB has focused schools, districts, states, and the nation on the widening gap
between higher-performing student groups (White and Asian) and underachieving
groups, specifically learning disabled, Hispanic, African American, and low-socioeco-
nomic groups (Williams et al., 2005).
29
No Child Left Behind
The reauthorization of ESEA in 2002 known as NCLB charged public education
with one of the most significant challenges and goals in the history of the nation: to be
accountable for ensuring that every student achieve mastery level by 2014 (NCLB, 2002).
Advocates of NCLB contend that it strengthened the role of assessment, requiring that
every state implement assessment plans in all public schools, set strict guidelines for
accountability, focused public attention on accountability, and spotlighted performance
by specific student groups. Its critic say that it overemphasizes tests that may not be a
valid reflection of learning, unfairly tests Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, does
not fund required elements, labels schools as failing even though year-to-year growth in
individual students is evident, and labels other schools as successful even though students
do not show growth but maintain proficient status (Darling-Hammond, 2007). With
NCLB fully implemented across the nation, every state is required to utilize compre-
hensive assessment of students and disaggregate findings to reveal achievement by
specific student groups such as EL students, ethnic groups, special education students,
and low-income students. NCLB requires that all students be proficient on grade-level
standards as measured by the state accountability system test by the year 2014.
The Achievement Gap
The achievement gap, for purposes of this paper, is a persistent and significant
disparity in learning, as measured by standardized assessment, between White and Asian
students and specific groups of students characterized by minority ethnicity, ELL status,
learning disability (assigned to special education programs), and low socioeconomic
30
status. The U.S. Department of Education (2009) defined the achievement gap as the
difference in academic performance between ethnic groups. The disparity between
groups is often measured by a statewide or national standardized test but is also demon-
strated by other measures, such as graduation rates, college entrance examination results,
and dropout rates.
Underperforming Subgroups
The results of statewide testing in California as well as other states indicate that
Hispanic, African American, special education, EL, and low-SES groups have benefited
from instruction and curriculum improvements as a result of NCLB (Koehler, 2004b).
While some gains in achievement have been documented since the inception of NCLB,
the gap continues to widen as White and Asian student performance increases and rates
of underachieving groups fail to rise at a sufficiently high rates (Koehler, 2004b). A
WestEd study (2004) reported that, despite gains reflected in both CST results in Mathe-
matics and the NAEP Mathematics scores, the overall student population of fourth
graders reaching proficiency was only 45% and was much lower for African Americans
(27%), Hispanics (24%), low-SES (24%), EL (15%), and special education (14%)
students. The disparity is substantial. The Governor’s Committee on Education
Excellence (2007) released a report stating that the California school system ranked sixth
lowest in eighth-grade mathematics according to the 2007 NAEP, with almost two thirds
of its seventh and eighth graders scoring below proficient on the 2007 CST Mathematics
test. According to data from the NAEP for year, 16-year-old African American and
31
Hispanic students’ reading and math skills were equivalent to eighth-grade White
students’ reading and math skills (Haycock, 2001).
Hispanic Students
Nationally and in California, Hispanic and African American students are not
making sufficient progress to close the gap (Lee, 2002). In a revealing study using the
NAEP, college attendance, taking of advanced courses, and other measures of the gap
between White students and African American and Hispanic students, Lee found that the
gap between White or Asian and Black students narrowed in the 1980s, then continued to
widen in the 1990s to the year 2000. He compared Hispanic student academic perform-
ance on the NAEP, graduation rates, and college entrance with socioeconomic factors
such as poverty and single-parent status and determined that social policies and improved
educational practices had an effect on improving performance by lower-achieving
students but did not raise the upper-performing Hispanic students significantly (Lee,
2002). Lee also compared performance by Hispanic students and Black students with
that of White and Asian students on the NAEP, graduation rates, advanced course enroll-
ment, SAT results, and college entrance rates. He compared these measurements of the
gap with factors such as socioeconomic condition, youth culture (e.g., self-reported
alcohol or drug use, television viewing time), and school factors. He found that the gap
measured by the performance indicators had gone up and down over three decades and
seemed not to be related to stable but low socioeconomic factors or to youth culture
factors. Lee found that the gap remained wide in performance on the NAEP but that the
gap as measured by enrollment in advanced courses and college entrance narrowed.
32
Although the lowest-performing Hispanic students according to NAEP results continued
to improve slowly, the middle and upper Hispanic students did not improve, which
created a widening gap as White students continued to climb from 1980 to 1999. This
study emphasizes the complexity of determining factors that seem to contribute to closing
the achievement gap. In fact, the factors that would seem to be obvious, such as SES,
single-parent household, and television viewing time, did not seem to correspond to rises
and falls in student performance (Lee, 2002).
Haycock (2001) explored factors that inhibit or contribute to achievement by
ethnic minority and English learner students and found that school factors were pro-
foundly different for Black and Hispanic students and their more affluent White and
Asian peers. Haycock concluded that, while family factors play a role in achievement,
school differences have a strong influence, including differences in teacher preparation,
rigor of the curriculum, and teacher expectations. Haycock study noted that there are
noticeable differences in these factors in high-poverty schools and affluent schools with
more teachers without proper subject authorization, less rigorous assignments, and lower
teacher expectations than in more affluent schools (Haycock, 2001). School factors that
may contribute to achievement of minority students include leadership (Fullan, 2005b),
standards-based curriculum (Williams et al., 2005), teacher collaboration (Cobb, 2004;
DuFour et al., 2006), and using assessment data to make instructional decisions
(Haycock, 2001).
33
English Language Learners
According to the CDE (2008), almost 1 of every 4 students in California is an EL
student. Of the almost 5 million EL students in the nation and 1.5 million EL students in
the state, about 85% speak Spanish. EL students make up roughly 25% of the student
population in California (Gandara et al., 2003) and a majority live below the poverty
level, qualifying them for free/reduced-price meals through NSLP. EL students perform
poorly on state CST and national tests such as NAEP (Freeman et al., 2002), a fact that
has contributed to a sense of urgency in school districts with 100 or more EL students, as
federal NCLB proficiency targets increase to over 50% in 2010. The number of districts
in year 3 PI status rose from 92 in 2008 to 97 in 2009, which means that sanctions and
decreased autonomy are likely. Information from the CDE (2008) revealed that districts
in Los Angeles county in PI status have EL populations that are not making adequate
progress, a fact that is probably true for the majority of districts in PI. About 66% of EL
students are not meeting federal proficiency targets, resulting in more PI-designated
districts each year. Ironically, when schools are labeled as failing, keeping a highly
qualified staff and maintaining levels of funding through high enrollment are difficult,
impacting learning and student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Over the past 30 years, from 1980 to the 2010, the socioeconomic condition of EL
students has remained persistently low in income, two-parent families, housing, and
parental educational attainment (Lee, 2002). The high-stakes tests measure proficiency
in ELA and Math, but EL students by definition are not proficient in English, so low test
performance seems logical. Standardized tests in English undermeasure EL students’
34
learning because these students lack the fluency skills to adequately demonstrate their
content knowledge (Collier, 1992).
Long-Term English Language Learners
LTEL students are those who have been in U.S. schools for more than 5 years;
they meet complicated obstacles to learning, including low literacy in primary language,
feeling of marginalization, and limited academic English (Freeman et al., 2002).
Although 85% of California’s EL students are Spanish speaking, the homogeneity of
primary language masks very important variations in family make-up, economic and
social resources, proficiency in primary language, and academic readiness (Freeman et
al., 2002). Up to 64% of all EL students in 2006 were not immigrants but had been born
in the United States (NCELA, 2006). The number of students referred to as LTEL varies
by grade level, with about 75% of elementary school ELs and about 57% of secondary
school EL students born in the United States (Freeman et al., 2002). ELL students are
classified as a single subgroup, but differing characteristics of students within this group
pose specific instructional issues and challenges with regard to student achievement.
Freeman et al. (2002) identified differing characteristics by classifying ELLs in three
groups: newly arrived with adequate schooling, newly arrived with limited formal
schooling, and LTEL.
LTEL students, also referred to in the literature as heritage speakers, Generation
1.5, and native-born ELL students (Capps et al., 2005), do not conform to the standard
transition to English and normal assimilation of second language learners within three
generations (Freeman et al., 2001). Of the non-immigrant EL subgroup, 56% do not
35
demonstrate enough academic gains to accomplish grade-level standards or meet the
criteria for demonstrating English proficiency even after 7 years of schooling in the
United States (Capps et al., 2005). Suggested factors include linguistic isolation, ongoing
ethnic and racial segregation, and low-performing schools in high-poverty neighbor-
hoods. In California, most LTEL students test at the Intermediate or Early Advanced
Level of English Proficiency on the CELDT (CDE, 2008) and indicate a preference for
English in communicating in their daily lives (Portes & Hao, 1998, as cited in Capps et
al., 2005), which dispels the errant assumption that these students do not want to learn
English. On the contrary, LTEL students display negative association with the home
language, low literacy in the home language (L1), and limited academic vocabulary as
well as literacy in English (L2; Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001). Cobb (2004) described in
depth the characteristics and instructional issues of three EL subgroups: newly arrived EL
with adequate schooling, newly arrived EL with limited formal schooling, and LTEL.
LTEL needs are significantly different from those of new immigrant students with strong
schooling in L1 or recent immigrants without schooling in L1. The differences are
evident in literacy ability, schooling history, goal orientation, socioeconomic conditions,
and student motivation.
Using these three groupings and the categories of group characteristics and
instructional issues suggested by that research, an analysis of other prominent studies
reveals a comprehensive picture about LTEL students. A compilation of research
findings about EL students indicates salient characteristics and educational needs of this
group that differ from those of the other two groups of EL students. Based on a synthesis
36
of research, differences in instructional needs, health and counseling needs, and home
and communication needs are presented in Table 1.
Socioeconomic factors may impact achievement of proficiency and achievement
of content learning. Freeman et al. (2002) looked at LTELs and academic achievement
and socioeconomic factors affecting these students. Limited homework supervision, low
literacy skills, and high transiency were identified as factors influencing school achieve-
ment. A majority of LTEL students are U.S. citizens and therefore may have more access
to social and medical resources that are not available to recent immigrants or undocu-
mented students. Socioeconomic factors that impact learning include high absenteeism,
high mobility, or minimal parental supervision due to long work hours or single-parent
household (Freeman et al., 2002). LTEL students are likely to have limited oral skills in
the language of their parents and no primary language literacy skills, which implies that
interpersonal communication in the family may be limited. Poverty is high, and these
student are often left without supervision while parents work in low-paying multiple jobs
(Gandara et al., 2003).
Assessing the Achievement Gap
This section discusses various means of measuring achievement and disparities
between groups. Measurements of the gap between African American and Hispanic
students and White and Asian students appear in the literature. Standards-based assess-
ments, graduation rates, and attendance measure the disparity in achievement among
subgroups.
37
Table 1
Characteristics and Educational Needs of English Learner Subgroups
Immigrant with Immigrant with Long-term or non-
Group adequate school limited formal school immigrant learner
Years in U.S.
schools
Less than 5 years Less than 7 years 7 years or more
Percentage of
subgroup
10 to 20% of EL students 10 to 20% of EL students 64% to 75% of EL
students, depending on
grade level
Common
character-
istics
Schooling
L1 literacy
Communi-
cation skills
Health and
social needs
Home country has schools
that parallel U.S. schools.
Prior continuous schooling
in primary language.
Literacy in L1
• Positive self-esteem
• Good attendance
Parents may have adequate
resources if U.S. residency
is documented but
inadequate resources if U.S.
residency is not documented
Limited or interrupted
schooling in home country
Limited background
knowledge
Social Oral ability in L1
Low literacy in L1 & L2
Low math skills
Limited background
knowledge
L1 proficiency decreases
with time in United States
High poverty
Some health needs
May be undocumented
High transiency
May have attended
multiple schools in
United States
Negative attitude
toward school; low self-
efficacy
Limited background
knowledge
Limited ability in L1
and L2. Low literacy
Reduced parent/child
communication due to
student’s limited
proficiency in L1
High poverty
Parents underemployed,
working multiple jobs
Student U.S. citizen
Note. Data derived Closing the Achievement Gap: How to Reach Limited-Formal School-
ing and Long-Term English Learners, by Y. Freeman, D. Freeman, and S. Mercuri, 2002,
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; The New Demography of America’s Schools: Immigration
and the No Child Left Behind Act, by R. Capps, M. Fix, J. Murray, J. Ost, J. Passel, and
S. Herwantoro, 2005, Washington, DC: Urban Institute; “English Learners in California
Schools: Unequal Resources, Unequal Outcomes,” Education Policy Analysis Archives,
11(36), 2003, retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
38
The most common means of measuring the achievement gap are standardized
testing results, either from the state or federal government. Other means of measurement,
including graduation rates, attendance rates, advanced placement (AP) participation rates,
and college entrance rates, are presented to demonstrate that, regardless of the method
used to measure the gap, the same groups fall behind and the same groups succeed.
California Standards Test (CST)
In California, the CST measures academic achievement using a five-tiered scale
of Far Below Basic (1) to Advanced (5). According to the CDE (2009) CST assessment
results in 2009 revealed glaring gaps between student groups. Asian and White students
outperformed Hispanic and EL students by 30 to 40 points. Figures 1 and 2, taken from
the CDE website, give a snapshot of performance on the 2009 CST by students across
California. EL students and students with disabilities scored lower than other groups in
ELA (33.2% and 30.0%, respectively). However, the two lowest-performing groups in
Mathematics were African American students and Special Education students (37.6% and
31.6%. respectively). EL students scored significantly lower than their White and Asian
peers in math (42.8%) but higher than African American students. Hispanics scored
38.9% in ELA and 43.8% proficiency in Math, compared to 69.0% for White students
and 74.6% for Asian students in ELA and 67.4% and 81.0%, respectively, in math (CDE,
2009). The proficiency target in 2009 for all students was 45% in both ELA and Mathe-
matics. EL students and students with disabilities scored significantly below all other
peers, but Hispanic, African American, and low-SES groups also scored well below their
39
Figure 1. Statewide percentages at or above proficient in English Language Arts, 2009.
Figure 2. Statewide percentages at or above proficient in mathematics, 2009.
White, Asian, and Filipino peers. In 2009 African American, Hispanic, low-SES, EL and
Special Education students did not meet the national proficiency targets set by NCLB.
40
Graduation Rates
Achievement increases by African American students measured by graduation
rates demonstrate that the gap narrowed in the 1980s but the narrowing did not continue
into the 1990s, although White student rates remained steady and higher than all other
groups except Asians (Hanushek, 2001). While 88% of White students graduated and
59% completed at least some college, only 63% of Latino students graduated from high
school and only 33% completed some college. According to the 1998 U.S. census, a
higher percentage of African Americans than Hispanics received a high school diploma
(88% versus 63%) but only 50% of African Americans completed some college and 16%
received a bachelor’s degree, compared to 51% of Asian students and 28% of White
students. These figures seem a clear indication of disparities between African American
and Hispanic students and their Asian and White peers. However, accurate measures of
graduation rates nationwide are weak and present difficulties that must be resolved to be
reliable. Graduation rates depend on school reporting and tracking, which currently are
not uniformly defined nor documented (Curran, 2005).
Attendance Rates
Attendance data correlate with student achievement data in that students scoring
at the 85th to 100th percentile in a statewide test attended school 93% of the time, while
students who attended only 85% of the time scored below 54%. Data indicate that dis-
parities in student attendance can be correlated with achievement and achievement data
indicate disparities by race, poverty, and disabilities (Lehr, Sinclair, & Christenson,
2004).
41
Advanced Placement (AP) and College Entrance Exams
AP assessments are administered by the College Board, in a standardized testing
environment to test content knowledge of college-level AP courses taken in high school
(Lichten, 2007). Scores are ranked from 1 (Below Standard) to 5 (Excellent). The
College Board’s efforts to expand access to AP course to urban schools and minority
students include offering subsidies to pay for the test for low-SES students and increased
outreach efforts. In the AP Report to the Nation the most frequent AP score for African
Americans was 1, with a 16% pass rate (where 3 is passing). For Hispanics the pass rate
was 28%, but if AP Spanish is removed, the pass rate was 16%. The pass rate overall
was 30% (College Board, 2009).
Minority students score lower than White and Asian student on college entrance
exams. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and Achievement College Test (ACT) report
gaps in performance. The mean SAT score in 2006 was 500, but the mean score for
African Americans was 425 (Lichten, 2007). The ACT National Profile (2009) reported
that 10% of the Hispanic students met the 2009 cut points, indicating college readiness,
but only 4% of Black students taking the ACT met the cut points, compared to 28% of
White students and 36% of Asian students. One positive area of growth was an increase
in access to the college entrance exam, as the number of Hispanic and Black students
attempting the test increased from 2005 to 2009, with 57,000 more Black students taking
the test in 2009 than in 2005 and 50,000 more Hispanic students taking the test in 2009
than in 2005.
42
Factors Influencing the Gap
Disparities in student achievement have been blamed on students for lack of
motivation and ability, on parents for their absence or ineffectiveness, on schools for
ineffective leadership, or on practices and teachers for lack of commitment or skills. A
review of major studies (Borman et al., 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Freeman et al.,
2002; Gandara et al., 2003; Haycock, 2001; Williams et al., 2005) reveals at least 35
factors that contribute to student achievement or lack of achievement. Some of the key
factors found in the literature are discussed here.
Societal and Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Achievement
Almost all schools in California have EL students, but over 50% of elementary
EL students are segregated in only 21% of elementary schools, where they make up over
half of the student body (Rumberger et al., 2006). Students who live in high-poverty
areas are more likely to have a teacher who is not certified to teach the content area being
taught, a factor that is associated with low academic achievement (Gandara, 2006).
Segregation impedes students’ speed in learning to speak a second language because
English-speaking peer role models enhance second language learning but may not be
available in segregated schools, where the opportunity to interact with English-speaking
peers is decreased (Gandara, 2006). Segregation also has a significant effect on minority
children’s achievement due to inadequate and unequal resource allocation (Ladson-
Billings, 2007).
Discrimination may play a role in overrepresentation of certain subgroups of EL
students in special education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). EL students
43
who have reached middle or high school, who have received little or no primary language
support and who are not proficient in either L1 or L2 have a disproportionate representa-
tion in special education classes (Gandara et al., 2003). EL students who are also classi-
fied as special needs students require English Language Development (ELD) services, as
well as specialized learning support from underfunded programs in schools where
resources are increasingly scarce (Gandara et al., 2003).
Family and culture factors that affect student achievement include parent expecta-
tions, parental participation and involvement in schools, parent provision of health care,
and social services and family adaptation to school culture (Ogbu, 1992). Okagaki
(2001) presented evidence that incongruence between majority culture reflected at school
and minority culture reflected at home contributes to low achievement. However a meta-
analysis of factors that affect achievement found that parental academic socialization,
defined as strong home values emphasizing school achievement, positively influenced
student academic progress in middle school, while school-based and home-based parental
school involvement had less impact (Barton & Coley, 2009). Parents who emphasize the
value of school, expect high achievement, and set expectations of school success have a
great impact on student achievement, whether or not they participate directly at school.
Student Factors Affecting Achievement
Student resistance to schooling, student self-concept, and self-efficacy are indivi-
dual student characteristics that impact motivation and therefore learning and achieve-
ment (Bandura, 1977; Ogbu, 1986, 1992). Student motivation and self-efficacy studies
indicate that a student’s beliefs about himself and his/her own potential for success is
44
influenced by expectations of significant others in the student’s life (Bandura, 1986).
Children who were taught to set short proximal goals increased their self-efficacy as they
accomplished the goals and their belief in their ability to accomplish the goals spurred
them on (Zimmeran, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Marzano, Pickering, and Pollack
(2001) validated this finding through a meta-analysis of effective classroom instruction in
which students, taught how to set meaningful learning objectives and taught effective
meta-cognitive skills, showed increased achievement.
EL students have an additional task besides learning grade level content. They
must acquire reading, writing, and speaking skills in English that are equivalent to those
of English-only peers. How the acquisition of English is accomplished in the quickest
way possible continues to be debated. Advocates of primary language teaching in the
classroom, or bilingual education, cite studies that demonstrate positive achievement
results (Cummins, 1981). Much research has found that the use of primary language to
teach content and use of content to teach second language results in increased student
achievement (Collier, 1992; Cummins, 1981; Rumberger & Gandara, 2005). Second
language learning occurs in a naturalistic setting of interaction and meaningful, relevant
communication with explicit teaching of grammar and vocabulary to filter and monitor
newly acquired language skills (Krashen, 1981). However, opponents of bilingual
education campaigned successfully against teaching the child’s first language other than
English in the classroom. The passage of Proposition 227 in 1998 severely limited EL
students’ access to bilingual programs. Based on the 2009 State R30 Report, a required
45
report about services for EL students, most EL students in California are mainstreamed in
ELA classes and receive additional lessons in an ELD class (CDE, 2009).
School Factors Affecting Student Achievement
Studies of school factors that impact student learning and achievement have
repeating themes that include effective leadership (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2005), rigor in
the curriculum, collaborative decision making, inclusion of the student’s culture and
language in curriculum planning, powerful instructional strategies, and accurate and
timely assessment (Gandara et al., 2003; Freeman et al., 2002; Hanushek & Rivkin,
2006). School-focused factors include funding, school culture and structure, class-size,
leadership, safety, instructional minutes, and ongoing assessment (Borman et al., 2003;
CDE, 2008).
Challenging Curriculum
Barton and Coley (2008) identified rigor in the curriculum among nine contribu-
tors to student achievement. Using NAEP results, they presented data showing that the
gap in Hispanic and White student achievement remained unchanged from 1990 to 2005.
It is difficult to determine whether the unchanging gap was due to lack of rigor or any of
the many other factors presented in the research based on NAEP scores, but multiple
studies directly link rigor in the curriculum with student achievement (Marzano, 2003).
Gandara et al. (2003) identified inadequacies and inequalities of educating EL
students and named a “weak curriculum” as associated with practices of tracking and
pullout of EL students, especially at the secondary level. EL students are commonly
given shortened day schedules, reducing instructional minutes (Gandara et al., 2003).
46
Elementary students are often provided ELD support through pullout time, withdrawing
them from the regular classroom for instruction, which prevents their access to what the
other students learn while they are out of the room, creating potential for increasing the
gaps in learning (Ovando & Collier, 1998).
Collaboration
Professional development in the form of teacher collaboration produces commit-
ment to improvement (DuFour et al., 2006). The authors’ description of PLCs requires
structural elements such as time allotted to discuss a common instructional goal and
cultural elements such as trust and transparency. Teachers who collaborate to develop
common assessments, improve instruction, and use curriculum effectively demonstrate
positive results on student achievement (DuFour et al., 2006; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005). When teachers collaborate to address learning needs, students are
impacted in a positive way if the collaboration is focused on open, honest discussion
about students with low achievement. Collaboration focused on solving a problem that is
identified and verified with data results in teachers who are engaged in data driven
instruction (Schmoker, 2003).
Teacher-Centered Factors That Affect Student Achievement
Teacher factors that affect student achievement include self-efficacy, credential-
ing, experience, professional development, acceptance/valuing of student culture or
language, instructional strategies, rigor of curriculum choices, professional collaboration,
and access to and use of data to make instructional decisions (Koehler, 2004a; Lehr et al.,
2004; Mitchell et al., 2005; Williams et al., 2005). The impact of the teacher on student
47
achievement is so powerful that students assigned to highly effective teachers for 3
consecutive years gained as much as 50 percentile points more than students assigned to
three ineffective teachers in 3 years (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
The Tennessee Value Added Model Study (Sanders & Rivers, 1996) proposed
powerful outcomes for students who experienced highly effective teachers. When
students with similar achievement levels are assigned to highly effective or ineffective
teachers, the outcomes reflect the teacher ability and the effects endure for several years.
Studies of teacher effects look backwards at teachers’ past behaviors and students’ past
performance. The difficulty of predicting whether a teacher is highly effective is compli-
cated by the fact that a teacher who is highly effective in a specific year may not perform
at the same level in future years due to changing personal situation, assignment, fatigue,
or motivation.
The predictability of teacher effectiveness is problematic, but teacher self-efficacy
may be a strong indicator of highly effective teachers. Bandura (1977, 1978) examined
self-efficacy and developed the construct as the product of initiating behaviors to accom-
plish a goal and persistence even when there are obstacles. Teacher self-efficacy focuses
on the teacher’s belief in his/her own ability to impact student achievement positively.
Gibson and Dembo (1984) examined the self-efficacy of teachers through survey and
observation and correlated teacher self-efficacy with student performance; they found
that teachers’ beliefs about their own ability to impact student outcomes were demon-
strated by their instructional behaviors. Teachers with high self-efficacy persisted in
behaviors that they believed would result in student achievement such as redirecting
48
students who were off task and providing positive feedback more than teachers with low
self-efficacy.
Teachers’ experience and credentialing impact student outcomes and achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rice, 2003) Experienced teachers with credentials and
coursework in the subject that they are teaching are more likely to have positive out-
comes in student achievement than inexperienced teachers. Teacher preparation and
credentialing have strong correlation with student achievement (Darling-Hammond,
2000). Teachers’ beliefs about their students and high expectations positively impact
student achievement.
The teacher implements strategies that engage students authentically in the
learning, make the content comprehensible to the EL student, and scaffold learning
through differentiated instruction (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Marzano et al.,
2001). The skill level in accomplishing these demanding tasks directly impacts student
learning. The teacher’s ability to use highly effective instructional strategies and teach
meta-cognitive skills determines whether the child will access the learning contained in
the curricular material (Echevarria et al., 2008).
Leadership
The school leader orchestrates the complex functions of a school, including
effective instruction, rigorous curriculum, student learning, safety, professional develop-
ment, parent/community relations, and staff supervision. Effective principals develop
effective teachers and effective organizational structures and processes (Davis, Darling-
Hammond, LaPoint, & Myerson, 2005). The qualities of leadership that correlate with
49
student achievement include monitoring and evaluating, flexibility, sharing decision-
making, and knowledge of curriculum and instruction (Marzano et al., 2005). Fullan
(2005b) identified effective mindsets of a leader as having a strong moral purpose, under-
standing how to implement change, knowing how to build relationships, and developing
and sharing knowledge. The qualities, mindsets, and role of the leader directly affect
the direction and effectiveness of a school (Fullan, 2005a). Leadership qualities that
positively affect EL students were not outlined specifically in the literature but must be
inferred from research of regular education and at-risk populations. While it seems
logical that good leadership is the same for all students, EL students with cultural and
language differences may require specialized strengths and skills from a leader, such as
cultural sensitivity, compassion, and an interest in student achievement beyond merely
increasing test scores.
Theoretical Frame in the Analysis of High-Poverty,
High-Achieving Schools
Social justice theory (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2003; Rawls, 1971), critical race theory
(CRT; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano, 1998), sociocultural theory (Vygotsky,
1978), and social capital theory (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), present principles to explain
dynamics pertinent to this study.
Social Justice Theory
Social justice theory originated from the legal field in the 1970s (Rawls, 1971)
to address the issues surrounding inequities and discriminatory societal practices experi-
enced by minority communities. Social justice theory is a response to injustices experi-
enced by African American and Hispanic communities, despite the Civil Rights
50
movement, by ensuring equity in distribution of resources. Three forms of social justice
are expressed in the student’s educational experience, as the school is an institution that
reflects the larger society prejudices or racist beliefs and present obstacles to the very
children whom the schools are intended to serve (Gordon, 1995). Distributive social
justice refers to fairness and equity in distribution of resources such as highly qualified
teachers, effective leaders, technology, or funding to the most in need. Cultural social
justice refers to recognition and respect for differences within the institution. Social
justice theory is participatory: Participants have a voice in matters that affect them. The
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC; 2008) stated that,
although children are usually excluded from educational decisions, they benefit from
these basic human rights and entitlements.
Social justice theory is reflected in Fusarelli’s (2004) study of NCLB sanctions.
Fusarelli presented the argument that the sanctions are illogical and do not accomplish
the intent described in the educational reform’s title: no child left behind. Sanctions that
punish the minority child in urban public schools include the withdrawal of Title I funds
for low performance on state tests; parental choice to withdraw students from a low-
performing school, leaving many children behind with fewer resources; disincentives for
highly qualified teachers to remain in poorly performing schools; and manipulation of the
system by schools to exclude poor performers from mandated tests or to concentrate
resources on those most likely to succeed (Fusarelli, 2004). Social justice theory is
closely associated with critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), which
focuses on the effects of racism manifested through institutions and systems.
51
Critical Race Theory
CRT describes and analyzes the role of race and racism in society (Ladson-
Billings, 1995). CRT asserts that racism is endemic and permanent in society, social
institutions, and systems (Solórzano, 1998) and attempts to understand oppressive racist
elements to transform institutions. CRT is useful to examine, from the point of view of
students of color, the norms, practices, or programs in an institution that maintain sub-
ordination of students. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) described the role of the voices
of people of color, their experience as oppressed individuals, and their resistance to the
oppression. The stories and experiences of people of color shed light on the nature of
racism to guide the transformation of oppressive social conditions and unconscious
attitudes that express White superiority. CRT advances a social justice framework that is
focused on exposing and ending social inequalities (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) proposes that learning is a negotiated
process between the learner and the teacher, who supports student academic achievement
by scaffolding learning. Sociocultural theory is helpful in analyzing a school with high
poverty and high EL student enrollment because it considers learning to be a socially
situated interaction (Lantolf, 2000) in which the student’s history, language, and culture,
as well as the teacher’s interaction, relationship, and ability to scaffold in a low-anxiety,
highly supportive learning environment affect learning. The theory’s key concept is the
zone of proximal development (ZPD), which describes the ability zone of the child in
which he/she could accomplish learning, given the assistance of an experienced other.
52
Social Capital Theory
Closely associated with access and equity in education, social capital theory is
based on the concept that knowledge about how to gain entry to social and educational
systems is a valuable property and that school personnel can provide a critical avenue to
an institution and act as a resource for minority students. Sociocultural boundaries are
difficult to cross when the values, beliefs, and practices of one culture are viewed as
negative by the majority culture (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Educational institutions can
operate as gatekeepers instead of bridges. Unfortunately, students name teacher dis-
crimination as a major reason for disengagement and lack of learning (Katz, 1999).
Social capital theory presents a model by which school personnel and school practices
open avenues and connect minority students to resources and are sources of goal
achievement (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
What Really Works in Schools
The literature identified practices, programs, and school culture norms that
enhance learning and are well researched. Others are what Caroline Hoxby, professor of
economics at Stanford and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, referred to as practices
implemented “based on the cardiac test: we just know in our heart that they’ll work”
(Hoxby, 2008, p. 1). CSR is a case in point. Although some well-publicized research
showed a positive impact on learning from CSR, little evidence that CSR increases test
scores has resulted from studies (Williams et al., 2005). CSR was implemented statewide
in California in 1996, reducing class size at specific grade levels to 21 students.
Although the program was very expensive in dollars, time, and use of human resources,
53
only small gains in student academic achievement have been attributed to this program
(Williams et al., 2005).
As California’s achievement gap continues to grow, there is some cause for
optimism as pockets of achievement can be found in some schools as they address issues
that close the gap (Schwartz, 2001). Websites such as Schools to Watch (n.d.) and
publications such as Beating the Odds (Ascher & Maguire, 2007) and the study Similar
Students, Different Results (Williams et al., 2005) spotlight schools with large number of
students who belong to subgroups identified as underachieving in statewide and national
assessments, who are nevertheless performing at significantly higher rates than similar
students at other schools. Factors that many of these schools have in common are teacher
collaboration and shared decision making as a result of analysis of achievement data,
capacity building for effective teaching, effective leadership, strong relationships and
connections between students and staff, and schools structured in small learning com-
munities. Schools that appear to be increasing student achievement in the underperform-
ing student groups spend time and effort in increasing teacher capacity and effectiveness.
Teacher capacity and effectiveness are supported through collaboration that focuses on
assessment of student learning and use the analyses of the assessment data to implement
rigorous and relevant curriculum (DuFour et al., 2006). Rigorous and relevant classroom
curriculum and assignments relate directly to quality of student work and to achievement
on standardized tests (Mitchell et al., 2005). Sanders and Rivers (1996) suggested that
the effects of 3 consecutive years of being assigned to a highly effective teacher would
54
result in significantly higher scores on a math test than for students assigned to
ineffective teachers.
Sustainability and Ability to Replicate
The research seems to show that capacity building of teachers and accountability
together lead to improvement in student achievement (Borman et al. 2003; DuFour, 2004;
Marzano, 2003). Moreover, the long-term returns of building teachers’ capacity to be
effective instructors makes a significant difference to student achievement and learning,
with positive effects lasting long after the student is no longer in the same grade or is no
longer with the same teacher (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Further research in building
teacher capacity to meet the needs of EL students who have been in schools in the United
States for 7 or more years is needed.
Summary
Despite low achievement results for poor, EL, learning disabled, African
American, and Hispanic students, resulting in an achievement gap in a growing number
of public schools, some schools and districts appear to be having success in raising
student achievement among EL students, even though these students present language
learning and academic needs that are unique to their group. A subgroup within the EL
student group, LTEL students make up about two thirds of the EL population and appear
to have additional or different needs than those of immigrant EL students. This group
presents both opportunities and challenges for schools in California serving EL students.
An examination of cultural norms, practices, and programs in a school that is increasing
55
academic achievement by EL and LTEL students will inform educators who are
determined to respond to the moral and ethical imperatives behind NCLB.
56
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study examined the school culture, practices, and programs in a middle
school that had demonstrated 3 consecutive years of growth in achievement by students
in groups that had been underperforming in other schools statewide, compared with their
White and Asian peers. The study focused on the factors contributing to growth in
achievement by EL students in a middle school selected for continuing improvement in
student achievement. It is hoped that the study reveals practices, programs, and school
culture norms that contribute to academic achievement of at-risk students, in particular
EL students. Schools with similar student populations may be able to apply learning
from this study to support student achievement. The study was guided by three research
question:
1. What cultural norms practiced within the school are perceived to have
narrowed the achievement gap and sustained success?
2. What practices employed by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
3. What programs utilized by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
This chapter presents the research design, sample school, population, instrumenta-
tion for collection of data, theoretical framework, and data analysis implemented to
address the three research questions. In this chapter a description of the thematic
dissertation group process and rationale for choice of case study is presented. A
57
description of the school selected to study and the criteria for the selection follow. A
description of the methods for gathering data related to each research question follows,
including the instruments utilized to interview, survey, and conduct observations. A
synthesis of research questions and data aligned to each question appears in Appendix A.
Data collection and analysis methods are described, as well as issues of validity and
reliability.
Thematic Dissertation Group
The University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education provides
collaborative support and direction for doctoral students through the thematic dissertation
group. Professor Stuart Gothold, whose research interests are reflected in the theme,
chaired the thematic dissertation group. The thematic dissertation group consisted of 8 to
10 students who were interested in contributing to the body of knowledge about the
theme: closing the achievement gap. A summer conference in August 2008 allowed
students to attend up to eight presentations in which professors explained their research
theme, choice of research method, and criteria for selecting students to participate in the
thematic group. Students then selected three dissertation themes and submitted essays
describing their own research interests and potential for contribution. Students were
selected based on their responses to the request for essays. Nine students were selected
for this thematic dissertation group; they were informed of the timeline and expectations
for participation within the group by the faculty advisor and chair, Dr. Gothold.
Each student in the Achievement Gap Thematic Group produced an individual
dissertation, utilizing group collaboration to develop common research questions,
58
instruments, sampling criteria, and research methods. Students within the thematic group
critiqued each other’s written work, shared pertinent studies from the literature review
research, and reflected on each other’s ideas or opinions which promoted rich, thoughtful
dialogue about observations and data results. Equally important, the group offered
support and encouragement throughout the process, ensuring that self-efficacy remained
high. This researcher found this process to be enriching, sustaining, and productive.
Case Study Method
The theme of this group’s study, the achievement gap, focused on factors that
contribute to student achievement within high-poverty and high-performing schools.
A case study method was used to study the achievement gap, a construct resulting from
the comparison of standardized scores of White and Asian students with the scores of
students who were performing significantly lower throughout the state and nation.
However, these low-performing student populations (African American, Hispanic, EL,
special education, and low-SES students) were achieving at a higher rate that was
narrowing the gap in some schools. This study examine one such case, with a focus on
the cultural norms, programs, and practices that had positively impacted student achieve-
ment, particularly achievement by EL students who had been in U.S. schools for more
than 5 years.
The case study method used to study this phenomenon provided structure, as well
as flexibility to observe and learn about one school in the context of its natural setting.
The case study provided a means for recreating the school’s experience on paper so
practitioners could recreate applicable aspects of the phenomenon in their own schools
59
(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). The product was a detailed description of factors that seem to
contribute to student achievement and thoughtful, in-depth explanations from the per-
spective of school staff of the effectiveness of these factors. The perspectives of the
school administrators and teaching personnel are presented with fidelity, allowing insight
into the beliefs and behaviors of school staff in their natural school context and under-
standing of the cultural norms, practices, and programs that contribute to student
achievement.
Case study as a valid method for accumulating in-depth knowledge of a phenome-
non must have “objectivity, internal validity, external validity, reliability, rigor, open-
mindedness and honest and thorough reporting” (Shavelson & Towne, 2002, p. 1). The
researcher’s beliefs, biases, and theoretical lens influence the interpretation of what is
seen and recorded; therefore, a concern in using a case study methodology was that the
effectiveness of the study was dependent on the researcher’s skill in interpreting observa-
tions, interviews, and survey results. As the case study process unfolded, the develop-
ment and direction of the study was determined by the researcher’s interpretation of the
perspectives of the educators at the school. A rich case study strives to capture the
perspectives of the staff and stakeholders of the school, as well as those of the researcher
as the observer and recorder. To reduce the influence of researcher bias in conducting
this case study, the researcher reflected on her own interpretations of the data and
presented the interpretation to school site leadership and teachers to receive feedback on
the accuracy of analyses.
60
Another concern in capturing a complex organism such as a school is the
researcher’s willingness to reflect on and respond to factors outside the focus of the
study. There may exist factors that influence student performance that were not antici-
pated and that do not fall within the definition of school norms, practices, and programs.
The researcher’s ability to present these other factors enriches description of a school that
is both high achieving and high in student populations that are underperforming in other
schools.
Some researchers criticize a qualitative study, assuming that there will not be
strong validity because findings could not be generalized from the study of one case.
However, validity is increased when there is constant focus on the purpose of the study,
the research questions being asked, and the use of several means of gathering evidence
from multiple sources (Yin, 1984). The researcher analyzes the data to produce common
themes and factors that seem to provide a logical response to the research questions. The
validity of the results of this study is strengthened when taken in context with the results
from the eight schools studied by members of the thematic dissertation group. Together,
a complex phenomenon of student achievement can be analyzed to determine features or
factors within a high-poverty, high-achieving school that contribute to student
achievement.
Criteria for Selection of Sample
Through group discussion, the thematic dissertation group selected criteria for
choosing a school that would be the focus of the case study. The group determined that
the school should have a student population with at least 40% high-poverty students as
61
measured by eligibility for NSLP. The school had to have at least 15% of the student
population designated as members of at least one of the subgroups being examined:
low-SES, African American, Hispanic, EL, or special education. This criterion was
developed after some discussion of the definition of an urban school, and it was decided
that the definition should reflect the school’s percentage of high-need student populations
and its response to the needs and the risk factors of its underperforming student popula-
tions. Therefore, the definition of an urban school was not limited to inner-city schools
but included schools with significant populations of high-need students who were achiev-
ing at lower rates in other schools but were gaining and closing the achievement gap in
the selected school. The Center for Urban School Transformation defines urban as an
area with over 50,000 population and urban schools as those serving at least 40% high-
poverty students with a diverse population that may include ethnic minorities, EL, and
special education students. For the purposes of this study, urban schools refers to schools
in cities and metropolitan areas that have a population of over 50,000 and that have a
high percentage of students (at least 15%) who are low-SES, minority, and/or EL
students.
An additional focus of this study was to identify factors that contribute to achieve-
ment by EL students who had been in U.S. schools for more than 5 years. Therefore, the
selected school was required to have a significant population of EL students who were
not recent immigrants but instead had been in U.S. schools for at least 5 years and had
demonstrated achievement for 2 or more years.
62
Description of the Case Study School
It was difficult to identify a school that met the criteria determined by the
thematic dissertation group, primarily because few middle schools that were consistently
meeting API targets had a significant number of EL students. Several Internet websites
offered leads in identifying schools. The CDE website provided a starting point to find
information about schools that were performing well compared to like schools. The CDE
ranks schools on a scale of 1 to 10, in equal bands called deciles, according to their per-
formance as measured by API, which is determined primarily by performance on CST.
Each school’s statewide rank is based on a comparison of the school’s API with all
schools’ API scores statewide. A school’s similar schools rank compares a school’s API
with that all other schools within the same decile ranking. The CDE website identifies
schools by statewide rank and similar schools rank. The result is that every public school
in California receives a statewide rank from 1 to 10 and a similar schools rank from 1 to
10. This researcher selected schools that had a statewide ranking of at least 5 and a simi-
lar schools rank of at least 8. The CDE website yielded many possible middle schools
with a statewide ranking of 5 or greater, but within each band were only two or three
schools with a similar schools ranking greater than 8 that had a reasonably large EL
population.
A review of the SARC for each potential case provided information about student
achievement, staffing, attendance and facility. The schools identified were cross-
referenced with schools presented on the Schools to Watch website, which identified
schools that were demonstrating excellence in meeting the needs of diverse student
63
populations and exhibiting key elements of the CDE document describing goals for
middle schools called Taking Center Stage (CDE, 2008) and its update, Taking Center
Stage II (CDE, 2001) and it web-based update, Taking Center Stage II (CDE,2009). The
National Center for Urban School Transformation identified schools that met a criterion
of urban schools that were narrowing the achievement gap between White or Asian
students and minority, high-poverty, or EL students.
Using these three sources, 10 schools were identified, and from this group, 3
schools in southern California emerged that met the selection criteria for this study. One
San Gabriel valley middle school had the largest and highest-performing EL student
group a longstanding work relationship existed (prior to the study) between the principal
and the researcher that might call into question researcher bias; therefore, this school was
eliminated. After driving though the attendance zone area of each of the two remaining
schools to get a feel for the student population and the socioeconomic context, the princi-
pal of Making the Mark Intermediate School (MMIS, a pseudonym) was contacted via
email to request a meeting. This school was selected primarily because it had a large EL
population (31%), was located in a large Hispanic community in southern California, and
had increased student achievement by 67 points in the previous 3 years, according to the
school’s API results. The school has sustained growth in achievement by EL students as
measured by CST scores since the subgroup achievement data began to be reported by
the state, and EL student achievement had increased by 69 points since 2005.
Proficiency increases had been demonstrated, although the school did not meet
proficiency targets in 2009 (30% proficient in contrast to a target of 46% proficient for
64
that year). Targets increase dramatically in 2010, and continued progress is expected but
may not be sufficient to meet targets. Table 2 presents the data for a 5-year period.
Table 2
Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of the Target
School From 2005 to 2009
Year Measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AYP target 24.4 24.0 35.2 46.0
Hispanic API 725 731 727 783 798
Hispanic % proficient 35.4 35.7 34.6 45.4
English learner API 677 708 673 731 746
English learner % proficient 28.6 20.6 29.0 30.0
I contacted the principal of the target school in April 2009 to explain the research
project’s purpose, as well as the case study process, and received permission to proceed
with the research. The required application to conduct research was submitted to the
district that includes MMIS and the application was approved in June 2009. I spent time
reviewing available documents to get a sense of the demographic makeup of MMIS and
the community.
The Demographic Context of the Sample School
MMIS is located in one of the largest districts in California, serving over 57,000
students. The district website boasts a mission statement that “Success is the Standard.”
65
Serving a high Hispanic population, over 55% of the district’s students qualify for ELD
and 86% qualify for NSLP. The 2009 State of the District presentation highlighted the
language and ethnic minority characteristics of the community and included a statement
that 9 of 10 students enter the district as ELLs and 96.8% speak a language other than
English at home. The district continues to achieve, despite budgetary cutbacks and a high
“at-risk” population, and district performance results indicated a growth of 21 points in
performance on the CST in 2008.
Achievement History and Description of the Sample School
MMIS opened its doors in 2000 and serves 1,521 students in Grades 6, 7, and 8.
Because it is a school of choice, students living within the district’s attendance zone are
eligible to enroll in the school through a lottery system. EL, special education, and low-
SES students have an equal chance of being selected through the lottery system, which
takes place when the student is in the fifth grade. Ninety-seven percent of the students
are Hispanic. Although 56% of the district’s population is EL, a lower percentage (31%)
of MMIS students are EL. Because MMIS students are enrolled via the lottery, new-
comers to the district, including EL students who are recent immigrants, register for the
lottery much less frequently than do students who have been in the district for several
years. Nevertheless, MMIS students who qualified for EL support comprised a signifi-
cant percentage of the student population and met this study’s criteria. Furthermore, a
majority of the EL students who enter MMIS are considered LTEL students, offering the
opportunity to study factors that influence achievement in a category of students who are
not making AYP statewide.
66
MMIS met the criteria for the case study based on the composition of its student
population and its achievement history. According to the SARC, student performance as
measured by API had improved 54 points since 2005 and the school had surpassed the
AYP statewide target of 35.2% achievement of proficiency in ELA, scoring 44.6%
achievement of proficiency in 2008. Because MMIS had met state and federal targets for
2 consecutive years, the school had exited PI status in 2008 and had been designated a
Distinguished School in 2009.
Instrumentation
The thematic dissertation group worked collaboratively through spring and
summer 2009 to develop three instruments for the case study at the school site: a Staff
Input Survey (Appendix B), a classroom and school observation tool (Appendix C), and
an interview form (Appendix D). A guide to the review of documents (Appendix E) was
also developed jointly. The observations, survey, document review, and interviews were
developed to examine student learning, motivation, and school/classroom organization,
and to determine how teachers mediated learning in the classroom to increase student
achievement. Each of the three instruments was developed after brainstorming and
discussion during a group meeting in March 2009 in which each research question was
analyzed to determine what data were needed to address the questions, the data sources
that would yield the needed information, and the tools that would be effective for
collecting and recording data. The group reviewed and refined the three tools and
reached consensus that the tools would collect the necessary data from a school site.
67
The Staff Input Survey (Appendix B) was piloted at a middle school that was not
part of the study, and questions were modified to address the research questions related to
the school’s essential norms, practices, and programs. The resulting survey consisted of
34 questions aligned to the research questions and to the other two tools for potential
triangulation of data. The survey contained 22 items applying Likert-type scale
questions, 7 open-ended questions, and 6 “check all that apply” questions. Participation
in completing the survey was voluntary; to encourage a high return, the survey was
distributed immediately following the presentation about the study during a staff meeting
of teaching staff and administrators. No identifying information was required and
teachers returning their survey that day were given a pen with a positive quote about
education written. The survey completion goal was 85% return rate.
The interview tool consisted of nine categories of open-ended questions address-
ing norms, practices, and programs in the school. Teachers were identified for interview
in several ways. The leadership team identified teacher-leaders at the initial introductory
meeting who could provide rich knowledge of the practices, norms, and programs at the
school, and these teachers were invited to volunteer. Contact forms were provided to
teachers who were interested in being interviewed after the initial orientation to the
research project.
Some staff members were selected for interviews specifically because they could
provide clarification of specific practices, programs, or school culture norms in their
areas of expertise. As an example, an algebra teacher was selected because of expertise
in teaching algebra and involvement with one specific program at the school. Staff
68
members were approached individually, with the clear understanding that participation
was voluntary. Interviews were audio taped by permission of the interviewee. Only one
staff member did not wish to be audio taped, so the researcher took notes instead.
Research Design
Patton (2002) indicated that purpose is the controlling force in research. The pur-
pose of this study was to examine one school that was demonstrating high achievement
by student groups that are often underperforming elsewhere. The study was conducted to
identify factors that contribute to achievement in high-poverty schools. The qualitative
study provides an effective method of using multiple sources of data collection to know
deeply such a school. By studying multiple pieces of evidence from several sources, the
researcher can discover factors, trends, and themes that are consistent in the data
collected and determine the practices, programs, and school culture norms that positively
impact student achievement.
The findings are important to high-poverty schools with underperforming sub-
groups. Low performance by students for 2 consecutive years will designate that a
school is not meeting NCLB standards and will place the school in PI status. A school
designated as PI is potentially risking penalties from the federal or state government if
achievement targets are not met.
This case study focused on a middle school that was an outlier: a high-poverty,
high-achieving middle school with a significant population of EL students. The study
analyzed a school that had closed the gap between high-poverty, ethnic minority, and EL
students and their White and Asian peers at a greater rate than students statewide. The
69
design of this study adapted the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2002) as a
research process model. Gap analysis is useful to examine programs that have perform-
ance gaps to determine solutions. The Clark and Estes achievement gap framework
requires a determination of the program’s goals and analysis of the knowledge, motiva-
tion, and organization gaps that have hindered attainment of the goals. Figure 3 depicts
the framework’s process.
Figure 3. Clark and Estes’s gap analysis process model.
An adaptation of the Clark and Estes model was developed by the thematic
dissertation group and applied to studying the achieving school’s practices, culture
norms, and programs. Figure 4 depicts the adaptation of the Clark and Estes model for
the current study.
70
Figure 4. Narrowing the achievement gap process model, an adaptation of Clark and
Estes’s gap analysis process model.
The three primary factors analyzed to determine performance gaps in the Clark
and Estes gap analysis model are knowledge gaps, motivation gaps, and organizational
gaps. Gap analysis identifies needs and solutions to ensure that all members of the school
have (a) the knowledge and skills necessary to implement practices, (b) the motivation to
initiate, persist in, and maintain their mental effort, and (c) goal-aligned organizational
work processes, resources, and structures.
This study was not looking at a school with a performance gap; instead, the study
examined factors that the staff perceived were narrowing the performance gap. In this
study of a school that was achieving closure of the gap between student groups, the
71
researcher sought to determine (a) effective practices that were implemented that indi-
cated pedagogical knowledge, (b) beliefs and motivation evident in school cultural norms
that sustained high achievement, and (c) programs that were implemented to provide
necessary support, structures, or resources for student learning.
In the adapted process model, instead of knowledge gaps, this study focused on
practices that were appropriately and effectively implemented by a knowledgeable staff.
Instead of motivation gaps in the Clark and Estes model, this study focused on the beliefs
and values represented by the mission of the school that were evident in the cultural
norms that propelled staff to engage, persist in, and maintain efforts to narrow the
achievement gap. Instead of organizational gaps in the Clark and Estes model, this study
examined an achieving school and focused on the culture, practices, and programs imple-
mented to support student learning and narrow the gap. In gap analysis, the disparity
between desired goals and actual performance is analyzed and solutions are recom-
mended. In this analysis of an achieving school with a gap that had been significantly
narrowed, the factors that seemed to be contributing to the reduction in disparity and the
achievement of goals were identified and became the focus of analysis. School culture
norms, practices, and programs impact the sustainability of the school’s progress toward
closing the achievement gap.
Classroom observations provide a rich source of data. Documentation of instruc-
tional practices, as well as observations of student/teacher interactions, reflect staff’s
beliefs about students and students’ beliefs about teachers. Teacher surveys provided
perceptual data about teachers’ beliefs, knowledge of instructional practices, and
72
effective use of resources and programs. Review of documents and interviews with
teachers and administrator were intended to reveal in-depth history, beliefs, perceptions,
and knowledge about the programs and procedures in place to support student learning
and identification of and intervention with struggling students.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection began before the campus visits by exploring several websites
containing data about the school. The CDE website provided valuable information about
the school’s achievement data related to API and AYP. The school website contained
information from the SARC, including information about student/teacher ratios, student
access to technology, staff certification, and a 3-year trend in API scores. The Dataquest
website offered additional information related to school achievement data. The collection
of data prior to onsite interviews, observations, and survey administration provided basic
knowledge of the school’s achievement history, especially by its subgroups. This under-
standing helped to formulate important points to be highlighted in gaining entry to the
school and to formulate questions for the initial interview of the leadership team.
The first formal data collection took place in August 2009 during a 45-minute
interview with the principal and leadership team, consisting of assistant principals,
counselors, and teachers/leaders. One goal of the meeting was to give an overview of the
purpose of the study, methods of collecting data, and the process for sharing analysis of
data with them. The other goal was to receive input from the leadership group about
practices, cultural norms, and programs that they believed had contributed to closing the
achievement gap. From this initial interview, key staff were identified who would be
73
interviewed, recommendations for securing a high return of surveys were offered, and
school culture norms were discussed.
Data collection took place by multiple means, increasing the validity through
triangulation, a method of validating findings by comparing results from multiple
sources. Gall et al. (2003) explained triangulation as corroborative evidence. The
interview questions were aligned to the three research questions. Twelve certificated site
staff interviews and two district administrator interviews, conducted from September to
November 2009, provided insight and clarification of observations and survey results.
All teachers were invited to participate in the interviews but 8 teachers were selected
specifically because of their in-depth knowledge of programs, practices, and school
culture of the school. Interviews were recorded in order to offer the researcher the ability
to fully focus on the interviewee rather than on note taking, and the ability to replay and
fully note the interviewee’s affect as well as responses to questions. The researcher
transcribed data collected from interviews. Observations of twenty-four classrooms,
several school events, and general school day practices were conducted between
September 2009 and January 2010. Observations were transcribed as soon as possible
following the classroom or school visit to preserve details of what was noted. The Staff
Input Survey was introduced at a staff meeting in September 2009, and teachers were
provided access to the survey in September and October 2009 through both hard copies
and a web-based survey site generated by Survey Monkey
®
. Collected data revealed
teachers’ perceptions of leadership, instruction, data use, collaboration, interventions, and
professional development practices, programs, and cultural norms at the school site.
74
Each question on the survey was aligned to at least one of the three research questions
and results were tabulated and analyzed in light of the research questions. A graphic
representation of the links between data sources, data collection instruments, and the
three research questions appears in Appendix F.
Collected data were maintained and categorized systematically to provide with
integrity evidence that could be examined by other researchers. Although field notes
documented impressions, beliefs, and perspectives of the researcher, the evidence
collected in response to the three research questions was the focus of all analyses of data.
Yin (1984) advised recombination of the multiple sources of data, crosschecks of facts,
and thorough examination of discrepancies when identifying potential solutions to the
research question. Therefore, analysis of the collected data was an ongoing process of
reflection, questioning the meaning of data, categorizing the data in a variety of ways,
and identifying themes and issues (Creswell, 2003). Six steps were followed as recom-
mended by Creswell to ensure valid and reliable data analysis:
Step 1. Organize and prepare data including transcribing, typing field notes, and
sorting. Interviews were recorded and listened to by the researcher immediately follow-
ing the school visit, then transcribed by a professional transcriber service. By listening to
the recording before sending it to the transcriber, the researcher recalled impressions,
added notes, and reflected on the knowledge gained. The goal in organizing was to
separate description from interpretation and judgment (Patton, 2002)
Step 2. Read, re-read, and reflect. By utilizing the services of a transcriber, the
researcher was freed from hours of transcription, which provided more opportunity to
75
reflect on the data. Through reflection, themes emerged that could be used to build
categories and further organize data.
Step 3. Code or organize material into categories or topics using descriptive
wording. Categories and subcategories were identified and data were grouped into
logical chunks to identify emerging themes.
Step 4. Use coding process to generate descriptive categories of the practices,
programs, and cultural norms in the study. Descriptive adjectives, acronyms, and
numbers identified categories, practices, programs, and culture norms.
Step 5. Determine how the description of themes and factors link to the theoretical
framework or can be presented to tell the story that the case study reveals. A detailed
rendering of programs linked to theory provided the basis for the deeper layers of
analysis that resulted in an understanding of deeper themes of the phenomenon.
Step 6. Interpret the meaning of the data to the research questions, the lessons
learned, and what questions are posed as a result of the case study. The researcher
interpreted the findings in light of the sociocultural theoretical perspective, supplemented
with social capital theory. Recommendations for change in educational practices were
presented.
Step 7. Check the observations and interpretations of observations for accuracy.
The researcher secured an emic perspective, the reality of the persons being studied (Gall
et al., 2003), by meeting with the principal and members of the leadership team with the
finished product to check for accuracy and completeness of the study. Specific programs,
practices, and cultural norms were verified with this team.
76
Summary
Chapter 3 presents a detailed account of the research methodology used to carry
out this study. The research design utilized an adaptation of the Clark and Estes (2002)
gap analysis framework to identify practices, programs, and cultural norms that were
contributing to student learning in a high-achieving, high-poverty urban middle school.
The data collection instruments, data collection process, and analyses were explained
(actual documents appear in the appendices). Procedures and processes were imple-
mented to increase validity and reliability of a qualitative study of factors that contribute
to closing the achievement gap. This study provides an opportunity to examine one high-
achieving, high-poverty middle school that was increasing achievement by EL students
and Hispanics and thus closing the gap between these groups and high-achieving White
and Asian students. The increase in achievement by high-poverty, ethnic minority, and
EL students is a moral and ethical imperative and impacts not only high-poverty urban
schools that are currently not meeting imposed achievement targets but also the broader
society and culture striving to recover from economic crises.
77
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Chapter 4 reports the results of a case study of one middle school, identified
because of the narrowing achievement gap despite a significant high-poverty, minority
and EL population. Chapter 4 presents the factors that seemed to be contributing to this
school’s efforts to raise achievement of all students. The focus is on the practices, school
culture norms, and programs that contribute to achievement by EL students and a sub-
group of this student population: LTEL students.
Suppose the two children described in Chapter 1 entering their first day of school,
are related: cousins who live in the same household. They climb the steps of the school
closest to home, tightly clutching the hand of the family member intending to register
them in the school. Imagine the shock that the family experiences when they are told that
one of the children, the fair-haired child with the honey-colored skin, will be able to start
immediately but the other child, with brown skin and dark hair, must attend another
school, where other children of her ethnic background attend.
In 1945 a family who farmed land in southern California chose to fight the
discriminatory practice of separating students based on country of origin or race. The
Mexican/Puerto Rican family filed a lawsuit against the district and won after appeal, a
court decision that resulted in full integration of the district’s schools. That lawsuit
victory was cited 10 years later by Thurgood Marshall to argue Brown v. Board of
Education, a case that prompted the Supreme Court to outlaw segregation (Zirkel, 2001).
78
The belief in equity and access to quality education for all provides the philosophical
foundation on which the vision and mission of MMIS was founded.
This chapter describes data and findings that seem to be aligned with the purpose
and mission of a school founded on the principles that all children should have the
opportunity to receive a high-quality and enriched education that prepares them for
academic success, high school graduation, and postsecondary education. Through a
thorough examination of the school’s cultural norms, practices, and programs, the data
presented reveal school-based factors that resulted in high student achievement and
sustained improvement. The following brief history and description of the school present
the context for the data.
The Setting
When asked about her original vision for the school, Lorena, the former principal,
who had open the school 10 years earlier, said, “I wanted the school to be a school of
equity. I wanted a school that would accept all students and a school that would provide
an excellent program to all kids” (personal communication, December 9, 2009).
MMIS began in 2000, one of nine intermediate schools in a district that serves a
predominantly Hispanic community (95%) with a large EL population (approximately
60%). It is a school of choice, drawing from students throughout a predominantly low-
income community. Initially, the school operated as the other schools of choice in the
district were operating, selecting applications on a first-come, first-served basis. The
school did not have to advertise because the demand was higher than spaces available,
prompting highly motivated parents to stand in line for hours or camp overnight to wait
79
for a coveted spot. Based on the urgings of the school’s first principal, the practice of
accepting students on a first-come basis ended in 2003, replaced by a lottery system. The
change allowed broader access to all community families as parents who could not leave
work or child care responsibilities to stand in line had an equal opportunity to participate
in the lottery.
As a school of choice, MMIS accepts any student who is selected through the
annual springtime lottery. It is also a fundamental school, founded on the values of
academic excellence, patriotism, and good citizenship. In delving into the factors that
have increased achievement, this fundamental feature plays a role in that the school may
revoke the privilege of attending the school from students who do not live up to a signed
contract. The contract between student, parent, and school states that students will follow
rules of conduct, parents will support enforcement of the rules, and teachers will provide
a high-quality curriculum and consistent enforcement of the rules and consequences. An
important aspect of being a student at a fundamental school of choice is that students are
continuously made aware that their continued participation is contingent on their
behavior. This potential consequence empowers teachers to expect much from their
students but also expect much from themselves to help students be successful and to
continue at MMIS. This study reveals that relatively few students are not invited to
return to MMIS, that academic ability is never the criterion for being uninvited for the
following school year, and that the educators at MMIS work hard to provide opportuni-
ties to the student and family to improve behavior and attendance.
80
The school is situated at the back of a long driveway that is part of large outdoor
business mall. MMIS is a joint use school, a term that means that the property is shared
with another use facility (in this case a shopping and business office mall, with stores and
dental offices in the adjoining parking lot). The three-story block wall exterior looks like
an office building and could be mistaken for a medical building except for the large sign
identifying the school and several hundred students waiting in front for the gates to open.
The area exudes a friendly appeal, with architecture consisting of unusual angles, a broad
span of stairs that invite one to run up “Rocky style” to the second level of the school and
its classrooms, and a glass entryway to the office that sends a message of openness and
transparency. On this first complete week of the school year, the school marquis invited
parents to three events: Back-to-School Night, Parent Teacher Conferences, and an
information meeting regarding the Saturday Academy of Math (SAM). A tall, energetic
woman with a commanding voice, Caroline Lewis (pseudonym) directs the traffic down
the long driveway, where cars make a U-turn, stop briefly to allow a student to emerge,
and then quickly move back out toward the street. Despite the school principal’s no-
nonsense “keep it moving” calls as the traffic controller, parents wave, shout greetings in
both Spanish and English, and follow her instructions without complaint.
The first days of school can be chaotic, but at MMIS there was an efficient hum
of activity and purposeful movement. Students wearing khaki or dark blue pants with
white- or blue-collared shirts neatly tucked in, unloaded from buses and cars, backpacks
bulging but free of graffiti or writing. They walked quickly toward the front of the
school in small groups, with animated conversations and occasional shouts of recognition
81
to friends or staff members. About 500 students were waiting on the steps in front of the
school, many talking and laughing animatedly, some standing alone; a few were sitting,
book in lap, quietly reading to themselves. Fifteen minutes before the start of the school
day, the gates were unlocked and students filed up the stairs to the campus of MMIS,
where for the next 15 minutes they stood around in small groups, sought help from a
teacher, or sat at tables and chatted with friends.
Since 2003, any student who applied to the school was accepted if the name was
selected by lottery, regardless of past academic record, attendance record, English
language fluency level, special education needs, ethnicity, socioeconomic level, or
parental education level. Consequently, the demographic makeup of the student popula-
tion is 97% Hispanic, 85% low-SES, and 31% EL. About 10% of the students in the
district and 6% of MMIS students qualify for special education services.
Near the foyer of the administrative office and the office of the principal of MMIS
is a room that looks like a conference room. Behind a wall of glass was a large
conference table, a master schedule board, and a Whiteboard containing the following
questions:
Do you know who your EL & RFEP students are?
What are their ELA and CELDT levels for the past two years?
What weaknesses do the students in each section have?
What will you do to fill the gaps?
82
These words were written and heard repeatedly during the study, as teachers and
administrators analyzed data and worked to determine solutions that contributed to EL
student achievement.
A door from that conference room led into an office that was free from décor but
contained a desk with a clean surface, a high-backed chair, and two additional chairs.
The door exiting to the main hallway from that office contained the word Principal.
Caroline L., MMIS Principal since 2007, would later explain that her priority was to
spend time in classrooms and that she had participated in a training promoted by the
district that maximized the role of principal as instructional leader by minimizing the
amount of time spent in the office.
The principal’s voice was heard on the intercom as she made morning announce-
ments. Greeting the students with “Good morning Scholars!” she explained the day’s
schedule, referred to the upcoming Labor Day holiday, and reminded both teachers and
students that the dress code was being enforced: Shirts had to be tucked in and students
with more that one bracelet had to remove the excess bracelets. She explained later the
school’s philosophy regarding the relationship between strict rules about student behavior
and dress and student academic success. In interviews, teachers and other staff echoed
the belief that attention to student dress and behavior played a major role in setting the
tone of the school and promoting achievement.
On this first observation day, the principal dedicated her day to my visit, intro-
duced me to her staff, and oriented me to the facility and school history. The certificated
staff consisted of 46 classroom teachers, three grade-level counselors, and three adminis-
83
trators. The facility consists of three levels. The first level houses a few classrooms,
gym, music and art rooms, the administrative offices, and the food service area. A large
covered area with tables serves as the eating area and outdoor stairs lead from the eating
area to the outdoor corridor on the second floor. The majority of classrooms are located
on the second and third levels.
Initially a stranger to this facility and those work there, over the course of the next
nine school visits I attended leadership, department, and PLC meetings, moved freely
about the school and classrooms of teachers, attended parent meetings and conferences,
and gave a presentation of the study at the English Learner Advisory Council (ELAC)
meeting and a staff meeting. I observed a Saturday program that promoted math skills
and several special activities such as Renaissance Rally for academic success. I talked
with staff during preparation periods, lunch, and after school. One evening, when an
assistant principal handed me a stack of reward tickets to give to parents as they left the
gymnasium at the end of the parent education session, I realized that I was no longer a
stranger to MMIS but was considered an accepted presence—a status that increased my
opportunity to gather authentic data.
Data Collection and Analyses
The data were gathered through the survey of certificated staff, observations,
recorded staff interviews to identify the cultural norms, practices, and programs that seem
to have contributed to narrowing the achievement gap at MMIS. Twelve certificated
MMIS staff, two district personnel (the former principal who founded the school, and the
district Director of Research) were interviewed. According to the 2008-2009 SARC, 50
84
teachers, 3 counselors, and 3 administrators comprise the certificated staff at MMIS.
Nine certificated staff were reported as Hispanic and 95.8% of the students were
Hispanic. A review of the 2007-2008 SARC revealed a veteran staff of teachers with an
average length of service of over 15 years; most held a master’s degree and were highly
qualified. Table 3 summarizes demographics of the certificated staff at MMIS.
Table 3
Descriptors of Staff at the Sampled School
Bachelor Years at Years in
Staff H W O Master + 30 school district
Administrators 1 2 3 15+
Counselors 1 2 2 1 3
Teachers 7 37 6 36 10 16.2 15.2
Note. H = Hispanic, W = White, O = Other than White or Hispanic.
Forty-seven certificated staff responded to the Staff Input Survey (Appendix B).
The survey was administered at a staff meeting following a brief computer presentation
explaining the purpose and methods of collecting data. Staff signed Informed Consent
documents explaining procedures and protections in writing before responding to the
survey. Staff were very enthusiastic about participating; although the web-based version
85
of the survey was available, they preferred to respond on hard copies distributed at the
staff meeting.
Twelve school site staff and two district staff participated in interviews. Six of
the interview staff had been hired by the founding principal, who revealed in her
interview that she had selected staff with the school mission in mind by hiring only staff
who expressed deep caring and commitment to the concept of equity and access to high-
quality education for all children. Six of the interviewed staff reflected the ethnic back-
ground of the student population at MMIS and 7 spoke Spanish. Table 4 offers general
descriptors of the staff member who were interviewed.
Table 4
Descriptors of Interviewed Staff at the Sampled School
Original Highly Non- Speak
Staff role n staff qualified Hispanic Hispanic Spanish
Administrator 3 1 3 1 2 2
Teachers 7 5 7 3 4 3
Counselors 2 0 3 1 1 1
District Administrator 2 1 2 1 1 1
Twenty-four classrooms were observed, but much of the classroom observation
data emerged from 12 classrooms in which observations lasted from 15 to 45 minutes. A
86
variety of school documents was reviewed and analyzed, including the Single School
Plan, Distinguished School Application, ELAC minutes, professional development
agendas, Data Tracker, Annual Student Survey, Annual Staff Survey, and other
documents. Data from these sources were gathered to address the three research
questions:
1. What cultural norms practiced within the school are perceived to have
narrowed the achievement gap and sustained success?
2. What practices employed by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
3. What programs utilized by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
The results of the investigation are presented below by research question,
followed by a presentation of emerging themes and discussion.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, What cultural norms practiced within the school are
perceived to have narrowed the achievement gap and sustained success?
Overarching cultural norms that emerged through review of school documents,
observations, interviews, and the Staff Input Survey were as follows: (a) A culture of
commitment to inclusion, equity in opportunity, and access to high-quality education
empowers staff and students to believe that all students can achieve; (b) a culture of high
expectations for all students is reflected by rigorous curriculum, college-oriented goals,
and personal responsibility; (c) a culture of strong, shared leadership results from a strong
87
leader who shares decision making with teachers committed to academic achievement by
all students; and (d) a culture of collaboration resulting from shared analysis of student
data and empowerment of teachers to determine and implement solutions.
A Culture of Inclusion, Equity, and Access to High-Quality Education
The mission of MMIS was described in an interview with the founding principal
Ms. Lorena Lorenzo (pseudonym). She stated in the interview that she believed very
strongly in access and equity in education for children of low-income families, in particu-
lar, Hispanic and EL students. The founding principal presented the argument to the
district that the new school had to be available for any student who desired to attend,
whether the regular education student, EL student, or special education student, and the
district responded with support for lottery, not only at MMIS but also other schools
within the district. Citing the issues surrounding the anti-segregation legal case described
in the opening paragraph of this chapter, the principal who opened MMIS declared to her
district:
We need a lottery system. If this is a school for all, then it has to be access for all.
. . . We will have EL; we will have Special Ed students. Just because a child has a
learning disability, it’s like Sylvia Mendez being too dark! Why does this special
needs child not have an opportunity to be at this school? Why would any child
not have access? (Lorena Lorenzo)
As this investigation was carried out, interviews, documents, and observations
revealed that the founding principal’s beliefs and values seemed to have had a powerful
impact on the direction and focus of the school. Beliefs about equity and access to
quality education for Hispanic and EL students were still very apparent in interviews with
88
MMIS staff as the school conducts its business 12 years later, even though she has not
been principal for over 5 years.
Five interviewees referenced the former principal as they talked about the culture
and purpose of MMIS, and 10 of 13 interviewees referred to the school’s mission or
vision of si se puede (yes, we can). Linda, a science teacher, explained when asked why
she believes that MMIS has been successful, “I think when we first opened MMIS, we
really had a spirit of pride, of what our school represented, and I think that learning
environment still exists and that’s what makes a difference.” She continued by stating
that she identifies with students and their struggles:
Our school represents a lot of our own struggles, our own family’s situations, and
that a lot of us are here for the opportunity for education. It’s why we are here.
And I don’t think they take it for granted. Maybe that’s the difference. (Linda)
Another teacher agreed that the commitment to quality education for all students means
inclusion.
We tried to create a culture when we opened the school that was equally as rigor-
ous as the others [fundamental schools] but more inclusive . . . . so that was kind
of the big push was we wanted people who were committed to working, maybe a
little bit longer , a little bit harder, putting their personal things aside for what’s
best for kids . . . . When we opened, we were the only fundamental school that
had special education and EL students. (Marcia, ELA teacher)
Responses to item 9 of the Staff Input Survey (Appendix G) revealed that 80.9%
of the staff agreed that administrators communicated the vision and goals of the school to
the staff. The principal expressed a strong commitment to ensuring access to a high-
quality education and communicated a passion for the mission in her interactions. She
talked to her staff often about the need to make rigorous grade-level curriculum available
89
to MMIS students and contended that students were entitled to grade-level standards.
The following observation notes were taken during a staff meeting.
Caroline presents Algebra and math data from the high school. She stands in
front of the room, taps the Whiteboard to forward the PowerPoint presentation.
She banters with staff, smiling, talking with her hands and with words . . . . She
tells staff that high school teachers will be observing practices at MMIS in the
spring because the high school was achieving only a 30% pass rate overall in
algebra. Caroline clicks the remote to move through the slide presentation of
data. She stops at one slide that shows that only 23% of high school ninth graders
are passing algebra. Caroline reminds staff of the 47% pass rate in MMIS class-
rooms. She tells her teachers that a high school teacher said that the high schools
students don’t read well enough to be part of a college prep course, but she
quickly dismisses the argument that the text books are too difficult if their reading
level isn’t high enough. She says, “You guys know that when the book is hard,
you find other ways to get the kids the information or to scaffold the learning.”
She states her rationale for putting all eight-grade students in algebra:
“If you have a kid in eighth grade who is in general math and still not proficient at
that level, they have to take general math over again in ninth grade, and then take
algebra in the 10th grade for the first time and if they don’t pass, you have just
wasted 3 years of that student’s math life.”
Staff eyes are on her. Staff members are silent. There are no sidebars or humor-
ous remarks. Everyone looks serious, attentive, nodding. (Observation notes,
staff meeting)
In this staff meeting presentation the principal promoted a vision of achievement
at the high school but at the same time reinforced the vision for MMIS staff, that all
students can achieve at high levels and that a skilled staff can make achievement possible
through effective strategies such as scaffolding the lesson. Access to a rigorous curricu-
lum is evidence of commitment to the mission. The mission of inclusion and access to
high-quality education was also evident in that 95% of MMIS eighth-grade students,
including EL and special education students, are offered algebra even though, statewide,
about half of eighth-grade students take algebra. MMIS provides support to students in
90
the challenging core algebra course through college student tutors who are placed in math
classes, and through daily, extended learning time in two-period blocks for ELA and
math. EL students have access in rigorous core ELA rather than separated into ELD
courses, the most common structure for providing ELD in other schools in California.
Interviews with staff offered impassioned statements about the school’s mission.
We just have the expectation at MMIS that you guys [the students] are going to
get it, and there’s no exceptions. We’re all going to get better, we’re all going to
move up, and we’re all going to work together to do that . . . . There is a group
expectation that everybody is going to succeed. (Principal)
To sustain the mission, staff members intentionally orient new staff to understand
the culture of the school. They emphasize the importance of the mission and retell the
story of equity and inclusion for all students in MMIS. An assistant principal, one of the
original hires, mentors and assists new teachers in acculturating to the goals and expecta-
tions of the MMIS culture. The leadership team also plays an important role in promot-
ing the MMIS vision, as one teacher commented during an interview, reflecting on the
important role of the original staff in conveying the mission and pride in being one of the
original staff.
I think, too, that, when Mendez first started, Lorena started to hire people who
were really dedicated and it started with a vision. It has changed somewhat but
we’ve managed to keep it going . . . we are the originals right here. (Marcia C.)
A leadership team member linked the mission of inclusion, access, and equity to
high expectations, the second cultural norm at MMIS.
I think we’re blessed that, when we started the school, we had teachers who were
completely committed to student achievement and whatever it takes. I think . . .
this vision of the school started in the hiring process and set the stage for high
expectations. That philosophy still stands. (Department Chair meeting)
91
High Expectations for All Students
The second theme that emerged from the study was a positive, efficacious attitude
from the staff about expectations for high academic achievement at MMIS, in the future
in high school, and especially insisting that students be prepared for a future that includes
college. Expectations of high achievement for all students include EL and special
education students.
Responses to interviews, surveys, classroom observations, and review of student
agendas and other documents demonstrate strong belief in the vision for MMIS students:
MMIS scholars are expected to work hard, to experience academic success, and to con-
tinue that success when they pass on to high school and college. Responses to item 2 of
the Staff Input Survey (Appendix G) indicated that more than 95% of the staff agreed that
students can achieve at high levels and almost two thirds indicated that they agreed very
strongly with the statement. The results of observations conducted in 24 classrooms
throughout the school, using instruction of grade-level standards as an indicator of high
expectations, demonstrated that all but two classrooms were teaching grade-level
standards. Grade-level standards work was evident on walls or in the lesson being taught
in 22 of the 24 classrooms. Almost all of the eighth graders were enrolled in a two-
period algebra course in which teachers were observed to use a variety of strategies and
instructional tools to build understanding. In one observation of an eighth-grade algebra
class one student rubbed her eyes and complained that she did not understand a problem
involving figuring out the slope of a line on a graph. “I just don’t get it!” she said
emphatically. “You just don’t get it—YET!” the teacher responded smiling but equally
92
emphatic as he bent down to work with her individually. Ninety-six percent of MMIS
eighth graders are taking algebra and over 47% of MMIS eighth graders tested proficient
on the 2009 CST, compared to the state average of 53% of eighth graders statewide
enrolled in algebra, with only a 44% pass rate (CDE, 2009).
Examination of a document used as part of the Distinguished School Application,
a survey of student opinions conducted by the school in the 2008-2009 school year,
revealed that 97% of the students responded that they believed that teachers at MMIS
held high expectations of students. In 11 of 12 MMIS staff interviews, the educators
made positive, vigorous statements about the potential for success of their students and
expressed in various forms the sentiment expressed by an eighth-grade history teacher:
“We’re going to do whatever we can to make you succeed!” The principal clearly leads
the charge, giving resounding statements about her confidence in every student’s ability
to achieve proficiency, as she presented algebra student data to the staff in one staff
meeting. She displayed confidence and a tone of resolve as she discussed a presentation
about algebra proficiency data with teachers. Referring to increasing AYP targets, she
stated,
We have to focus on continually making sure our kids are getting better, regard-
less if it’s 55, 65, or 75% proficiency targets. We just have to be true to ourselves
in terms of, are we moving in the right direction. (Principal during a staff
meeting)
High Expectations and College-Oriented Goals
High expectations for student academic achievement were evident in the many
messages that college is an expectation and that MMIS is preparing college-going
students, expressed in interviews with teachers and administrators.
93
This is the culture here at MMIS. . . . If you keep telling a student all his life that
they are going to college, then they are going to go to college. If you instead say,
“Oh, I hope you are going to college” or “Let’s see if you make it to college,”
then they might not make it to college. With MMIS, they think they’re going to
college and they act better for it. (Monica A., Assistant Principal)
The high-energy science chair echoed the same belief as she moved rapidly and
continually about the room during the interview, preparing for the next class.
The thing about this level of child, they pretty much rise to what an adult expects
of them. If you expect very little, they are going to produce very little. But they
have so much potential. If they are being expected to do these things . . . these
kids want to succeed. At our school, you are not a nerd if you are getting the high
grades. You are the kid that everyone wants to be. (Linda C., Science teacher)
Eleven of the 12 staff members who were interviewed indicated that they con-
sidered college to be the goal for their students. Remarkably, a review of the document
Student Survey Results Overview, which presents the results of a student survey con-
ducted by the school in 2008 for the Distinguished School application process, indicated
that 72% of MMIS students predicted that they would complete a 4-year college educa-
tion and 47% indicated that they would pursue postgraduate work. When asked how this
mindset had developed, the coordinator of the English Learner program said matter-of-
factly,
We all have this expectation. We’re not going to take the excuse, “Oh, I’m
Latina, I live in the [named] barrio, my parents are uneducated, I get to have free
lunch.” We take all that off the table. We don’t allow that excuse and we just
kind of set the bar and say, “For all those reasons, that’s why you should do it:
because you are Latina, because you live in the barrio, because your parents
maybe didn’t have an education. You’re going to be the one.” And it isn’t just
one teacher. I think they hear it from everybody . . . they really see themselves as
scholars because that’s what we call them: “scholars.” (Marcia C. ELA/EL
Department Chair)
94
Other indications of a college-going culture that were observed include the
college-themed classroom doors in every classroom, the newly instituted advisement
class in which students begin their day learning about college life and required skills, the
four sections of the college preparation program Advancement Via Individual
Determination (AVID), college students who tutor and mentor students in math classes
and provide positive role models, and field trips to university and college campuses to
build students’ background knowledge about the college experience.
High Expectations for EL students and Special Education Students
EL students and special education students are admitted without criteria or
restrictions and all but a few are mainstreamed in regular education classes all day. A
review of master schedule and the 2009 R-30 (the annual report required by the state on
the status of EL students) indicated that almost all of the 480 EL students were main-
streamed into regular English classes for almost a 90-minute block, which provides them
access to the core curriculum as well as ELD standards. Approximately 25 EL students
are in a three-period block of intensive intervention and ELA core content curriculum;
the rest are in mainstream classes. In the interview the principal referred to the common
practice in other schools of offering separate ELD, then declared, “Why should we keep
them from the regular curriculum? That’s like going backwards to separate them out.”
The principal indicated that teachers support achievement of ELLs through content-based
ELD and scaffold instruction in math, English, and other subject areas. Seven of the site
staff who were interviewed were classroom teachers, and each indicated that teachers
intentionally teach students writing and vocabulary. Teachers also explicitly teach
95
students meta-cognitive skills, such as note taking, surveying textbooks before reading,
graphic organizers, and other literacy strategies.
A review of the district criteria for Redesignation as Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP) indicated that EL students must meet rigorous criteria to exit the EL program,
including proficiency in English as measured by the CELDT and the CST. In the 2008-
2009 school year 45% of the EL students met proficiency according to the CELDT and
30% were proficient according to the CST. About 10% of EL students at MMIS met all
criteria to be considered fluent English proficient and were redesignated. One teacher
recalled the early years of MMIS when EL students and special education students were
not mainstreamed and how high expectations and belief in the necessity of access to the
core curriculum for all students led to changes.
When MMIS opened, it was a school equally rigorous to other schools of choice
but more inclusive because EL students and Special Education students were not
excluded, as in other fundamental schools.
When we opened, we had an SDC class and then we had several “special
ed: classes . . . . now they’re mainstreamed. We used to have ELD classes and
they were mainstreamed about 4 years ago. Probably in the last 2 years we main-
streamed all the RSP and “special ed” kids with the exception of the severely
handicapped. All the EL students are mainstreamed, with a small exception of
students. . . . We just kind of rethought it and decided to mainstream because they
just weren’t getting to proficiency. (Marcia C., ELA/EL Department Chair)
The EL students have a two-period block of ELA and Math daily and teachers
scaffold the learning and address ELD needs in the content classrooms. Writing across
the curriculum and scaffolded instruction are schoolwide practices utilized to teach ELD.
Every teacher assumes responsibility for student learning in the content area,
regardless of English proficiency or special education designation. It is in this culture of
96
“we’re going to do whatever we can to make sure they succeed” (Carl, Social Sciences
teacher) that teachers and administrators share the role of determining the best strategies
to accomplish challenging learning goals.
Strong Shared Leadership
The third cultural norm that emerged from the data was a culture of shared leader-
ship. A strong principal, focused on using data to identify learning needs and passionate
about providing high-quality standards-based education to all students, shared leadership
with a team of knowledgeable teacher leaders. Eight of the 12 MMIS staff who were
interviewed cited the strong leadership of the principal and included themselves in their
interview responses when referring to the leadership team. The Staff Input Survey
(Appendix G) revealed in responses to item 9 that 80% of the staff agreed that the vision
for the school was communicated by the administration and 95% of the staff agreed that
administration initiates programs that promoted student achievement (item 17).
Observations of the principal as she led a staff meeting and interacted with staff
indicated a strong principal who communicates high expectations for student achieve-
ment throughout the day. Acknowledging the difficult task of meeting rising achieve-
ment targets set by the federal government, she offered encouragement through a con-
tinuing focus on doing what is right for children and on moving them “in the right
direction.” The following interview selections illustrate her expectation of continuous,
honest examination of student data:
Social studies and science had to bring us their ELA data . . . they had to bring
how their kids did this year in English Language Arts and that was our spring-
board conversation. . . . “If this is how they are doing in reading, so when you go
to the textbooks, how are you going to scaffold it for them?”
97
At the Social Studies meeting I just said, “Here’s the data, you guys look at it.”
I was very quiet. I didn’t say a word in the staff meeting. I kind of walked
around in the groups and he [a resistant teacher] is in his group and thought we
did great. And he goes, “We did great” and I go, “Why don’t you go back and
look at the three ‘nos’?” And then he saw it. (Principal)
In 11 of the 12 interviews with instructional staff, assistant principals, and
counselors, leadership by the principal was mentioned as an important factor in promot-
ing student achievement. When asked about the leadership style of the principal, one
assistant principal replied,
She has lots of great ideas and people want to do them because it’s good for the
students, but I think they also want to do them because they want to make her
happy. For example the Standards-Based Grading: It just started last year and a
lot of people were reluctant because teachers are reluctant about what is new. She
provided everybody with the statistics and data and she starts comparing all of the
good stuff we’re doing with the other schools . . . and she’s pumping us up and
then everybody who wasn’t for it is now excited about it. (Marilyn)
Another administrative staff member laughed as she recalled a meeting in which
the principal had addressed the staff about the school’s API goals:
She [Principal] set the goal for 800, and I wanted to hit her over the head when
she said it. I said to her, “Are you sure you want to say that to the staff?” but then
we reached it this year! (Valerie G., Assistant Principal)
In response to Staff Input Survey item 9, staff agreed that administrators com-
municate a clear vision most of the time and additional 19% stated that at least some of
the time administrators communicated a clear vision. Caroline communicated her vision
of supporting access to rigorous courses, promoting a college-going student body, and
data based decision making at staff meetings, one-to-one meetings, and casual
conversations.
98
Survey responses to items 3 and 4 indicated that a majority of staff members
agreed that the school administration creates a positive school culture for teachers and
students and that the leadership of the school is shared with teachers. Interviews and
observations of staff, department, and leadership team meetings validated survey results.
Observations of a staff meeting, a department meeting, and interactions with
members of the leadership team demonstrated genuine camaraderie, as the principal
joked, conversed, and interacted with her staff. Staff appeared to have access to her; on
several occasions she ate in the lunchroom with staff. In an interview she reported that
decisions are usually shared and that the leadership team is the solution-making body.
“Even if I come up with an idea, it always goes to the leadership team, and then we kick
it around.” Interviews revealed that 7 of 12 staff were part of the leadership team but that
the team includes additional regular members representing other facets of the school,
such as Physical Education and the Arts.
Each of the 12 staff members made statements about their participation in school
decisions, even those who were interviewed but not members of the leadership team.
Two interviews reported collaborative hiring decisions. Five interviews discussed the
school-wide instructional practices and the interviewee’s involvement in the selection of
these practices. One discussed expenditures and spending decisions and 4 discussed
decisions related to assessment and to School-Based Report Cards. One teacher
described the decision-making process at MMIS as inclusive of staff outside the official
leadership team. The ELA department chair explained with a puzzled look how new
ideas emerge and become solutions to problems.
99
I think we talk about it with our peers, then maybe someone says it in depart-
ments, then it kind of filters up . . . you know, because we do a lot of things here
and gosh you think who started that? You kind of lose track because its just kind
of becomes such a group thing.
The principal described shared leadership and decisions, illustrating how she
shared leadership in the development of the design of the Data Tracker, a tool used to
record individual student achievement data that students carry with them daily:
The Data Tracker was my own idea. . . . One night I said, “Heck, nothing is going
to change if they [students] get their report card every 8 weeks. They’re still not
going to know where they are. They need to be able to write something down
every time.” So I just got up and designed it, I printed it, we used it, and then the
teachers said, “This doesn’t really work that well.” What happened is every
teacher used it differently, so when I looked at it I couldn’t figure out . . . I mean,
I knew what the kids were writing, but I said, “If it’s not consistent, how are the
parents going to understand it?” So then we put up butcher paper all over the staff
meeting and said, “Guys, what I’m seeing is I think all the kids understand it but
they look so different, if we could design the perfect one right now, what would it
look like?” And every table got together and just redid it, we put them up, and
then we all looked and said, “That one makes the most sense,” and overnight we
switched it. (Principal)
Staff members were included in the modification of a major source of information for
students, parents, and teachers. Although initiated by the principal, it was developed by
the leadership team and refined by the staff as a whole.
Leadership team meetings follow the twice-a-month staff meeting that occurs on
Wednesdays, a shortened day for students to give teachers the opportunity to meet. I
observed a leadership team meeting in which 10 staff members met in the conference
room, sitting around a table laden with forms, papers, laptops, and snacks. It was about
3:00 after a long day but the energy in the room was upbeat as staff joked with each other
and discussed the high school algebra data that had just been presented at the staff meet-
ing. The discussion topic for this meeting was the current research study and these
100
teacher-leaders shared their opinions about the factors that they believed were contribut-
ing to achievement by MMIS students. Factors that the leadership team identified were
high expectations, commitment, standards alignment, standards-based grading, celebra-
tion of student success, strict rules, parental support, and collaboration.
A Culture of Collaboration
Collaboration is ingrained in the culture of high expectations and shared leader-
ship, as almost all decisions are made after collaborative analyses of student data.
School-wide rules, best practices in instructional strategies, common assessments, and
standards-based grades are important and evident results of a culture of collaboration.
Collaboration emerged as a cultural norm that enhances student achievement.
Responses to survey item 2 indicated that 97.9% of the staff members agreed or strongly
agree that the school supports collaboration among teachers. Responses to item 5
showed that 69.6% agreed that collaboration to discuss student data to improve student
learning occurred most of the time and 28.3% reported that it occurred some of the time.
Three collaboration meetings in which discussion of student data led to decisions that
impact learning and verified that teachers collaborated to discuss student data. In an
interview with the principal, she described Data Chat meetings in which she meets with a
department to discuss student data to elicit responses that address identified needs. She
described one such meeting:
I meet with Social Studies and math and we meet to talk about these questions.
[referring to the questions on the Whiteboard]. “Do you know who your EL’s and
RFeps are? How have they performed for the past 2 years? What weaknesses do
these groups have? What will you do to fill the gaps?” . . . So Social Studies and
Science had to bring us their ELA. They had to bring how their kids did this year
101
in ELA and that was our springboard conversation . . . “This is what your kids are
doing. When you go to the textbooks, how are you going to scaffold it for them?”
The principal challenges her staff to look at the data and then collaboratively
determine instructional strategies as solutions to the problem. For example, a grade-level
counselor recalled in an interview the principal’s response to an increase in the number of
students sent to the office because of failure to submit math homework.
One day Caroline [principal] was walking through and she said, “These kids need
help!” and so we started a tutoring program. She let me work with other people
on the staff to get it going, paid tutors from AVID and we got volunteers from
Santa Ana College and we just kept after them [students] to come to tutoring.
(Valerie, Counselor)
In the collaboration meeting that I attended, six math teachers worked together in
grade-level groups to develop or refine common assessments. Fruit and snacks were
available in the center of the table and an LCD projector displayed data on the White-
board. Teachers pored over their computers or the problems and concepts in textbooks
and discussed how to match grade-level standards and CST release questions with the
concepts. A math teacher commented as he explained their process, “It’s a day for us just
to look at the textbook, kind of preview that we’re going to be teaching and ask . . . How
are your going to teach this?” Department chairs facilitated the collaboration meetings
rather than administrators. The school’s master calendar identified meeting dates for
department and grade-level collaboration. The bell schedule showed that the school’s
schedule on Wednesdays was shortened to allow departments or grade-levels to
collaborate twice a month and to hold the bimonthly staff meeting. Straightforward
questions focused teachers on analysis of student data. According to the principal,
questions written on her Whiteboard in the conference room adjacent to her office are
102
asked of teachers in a practice called Data Chats. The following questions were asked in
an individual or group meeting and teachers were held accountable for appropriate
answers.
Do you know who your EL & RFEP students are?
What are their ELA and CELDT levels for the past two years?
What weaknesses do the students in each section have?
What will you do to fill the gaps?
Teachers, administrators, and counselors spend time in honest and transparent
analyses of data about student learning for the purpose of improving academic perform-
ance and meeting student needs. Responses to survey items 6 and 8 indicated that 79%
of the certificated staff agreed that the school addresses the needs of students and 97%
agreed that there are processes in place that meet the needs of students. Eleven of the 12
interviewees expressed recognition that at MMIS all teachers were responsible for con-
tributing to data analysis and collaborating to find solutions. A department chair stated
about himself and his colleagues, “We’re going to do whatever we can to make you
[students] succeed.”
Survey responses, interviews, observations, and document review appeared to
show that collaboration is a cultural norm at MMIS. A strong principal and her team of
teacher-leaders led the collaborative effort to ensure that all students achieve.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
From the survey, observations, interviews, and documents, it appears that cultural
norms that are contributing to student achievement are a commitment to a compelling
103
mission of inclusion, equity in opportunity, and access to quality education that is held by
many; high expectations for academic success in middle school and beyond; strong
shared leadership; and collaboration focused on student learning. Each of the factors is
ingrained in the culture and is manifested through specific practices at MMIS.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, What practices employed by the school are perceived
to have narrowed the achievement gap and sustained success?
Practices that emerged as contributing to student academic achievement through
review of school documents, observations, interviews, and surveys were (a) school-wide
instructional practices, (b) data-driven standards-aligned practices, and (c) school-wide
discipline and student support practices.
School-Wide Instructional Practices
To determine the instructional practices that are contributing to student achieve-
ment, 9 days of observations were conducted, 24 classrooms were observed at least
briefly, including 12 classrooms observed for an extended period of time. On the first
day of observations as the principal walked with me through 12 classrooms, I noticed
instructional practices that appeared in classroom after classroom. Over the course of the
next 8 observation days I walked through and saw, at least briefly, 24 but spent from 15
to 45 minutes in 12, which provided greater opportunity to observe the instructional
practices employed. Specific practices were being used across the school. Learning
environments in classrooms that enhanced student learning. Teachers used a wide variety
of instructional strategies to teach content and build meta-cognitive skills. Extended
104
learning times created through block scheduling allotted sufficient time to accomplish
learning objectives. Differentiated, standards-based curriculum addressed the needs of all
students, including EL students.
Identified School-Wide Instructional Strategies
Eight of the 12 interviews addressed instructional strategies. The science depart-
ment chair discussed strategies that had been selected by the staff to be practiced con-
sistently across the school. This chairperson is a petite, energetic woman who had been
one of the original staff members of MMIS, selected by the founding principal. She
moved constantly about the room as the interview was conducted, talking while she
prepared for her next class. She recalled that school-wide strategies were adopted when
the school first opened.
I think that, when we originally opened the school, we deliberately came up with
specific strategies that we were going to use school-wide. . . . We chose Cornell
Note-Taking, Teaching Vocabulary, Using Graphic Organizers, SQ3R, and
positive classroom environment. Those are what we chose as school-wide
strategies and those are five things that every teacher will do consistently.
Descriptions and definitions of these practices can be found in Appendix H.
These instructional strategies have been added to over the years, but the decision
to utilize specific school-wide practices remains. The principal referred to the five
school-wide strategies but with a little variation, adding Word Walls and omitting
positive classroom environment. She stated that writing across the curriculum was in full
implementation this year. Writing across the curriculum is a practice in which each
department determines writing goals, develops writing assignments, and creates rubrics
that are student friendly so students can monitor their own writing. An Assistant
105
Principal at MMIS noted that posting learning goals for the students was a school-wide
instructional strategy. Two teachers mentioned Check for Understanding, intermittent
verification that students understand by having students respond in some fashion, and
Think Aloud, a strategy in which the teacher works through a problem or dilemma by
speaking her thoughts aloud to model the solution for students.
The Observation Data Matrix (Appendix C ) was used to collect data initially, but
as it became cumbersome and awkward to use in the classroom, it was abandoned in
favor of a steno pad to take Cornell-style notes, using the Observation Matrix as a
reminder of what to look for just prior to each observation. I made sure that I visited
classrooms of teachers whom I had interviewed. Observations were focused on the
learning environment, room arrangements conducive to collaboration, position of the
teacher in the room, availability of technology, student activity, engagement, standards-
based curriculum, and differentiated instructional strategies. The object was to determine
whether strategies that help EL students to comprehend English were included in the
repertoire of strategies selected by the teacher to teach the lesson and whether the
strategies identified by staff as school-wide strategies were present in classrooms
throughout the school.
Positive Learning Environment
Observations began by taking note of the environment, student work displayed on
walls, what was written on Whiteboards, displayed learning goals, technology, arrange-
ment of desks or tables, and lighting. Immediately noticeable were the number of rooms
with furniture arrangement that facilitated group work. Many of the rooms had desks
106
arranged by dividing them in rows facing the center with an aisle down the center for
easy access by the teacher. Only two rooms did not display student work, and most
Whiteboards contained learning goals. Table 5 indicates the classroom environment
practices that appeared to contribute to a positive learning environment.
Table 5
Observations of 24 Classrooms in the Selected School
Element f %
Room arrangement
Rows of desks 4 16.67
Tables 12 50.00
Desks facing center aisle 8 33.33
Student work displayed
Yes 18 75.00
Limited 2 8.33
No 4 16.67
Room supports learning
Yes 18 75.00
No 6 25.00
Position of teacher in the room
Circulating/walking around 20 83.33
Front/front of the room using board 4 16.67
Activity of students
Independent practice; note taking 6 25.00
Whole group 8 33.33
Partners, small group, collaboration 8 33.33
Other 4 16.67
107
Based on the observations, half of the rooms were arranged in a way that
contributed easily to student-to-student collaboration. Most room arrangements also
seemed to increase the opportunity for teachers to have easy access to students. The
teachers were observed circulating among students frequently; less than 20% of the
teachers observed were standing in front of the room. The subjective category Room
Supports Learning was used to identify whether it was possible to determine the subject
or content area being taught just by being in the classroom. The ambiance that the
teacher created to help students reduce anxiety, such as lighting, posters on the walls,
written learning goals clearly stated, indicated whether the room supported learning. Not
every room was an ideal learning environment. Between 15% and 25% of the teachers
displayed limited student work, arranged the room in traditional rows, and did not utilize
the room in ways that benefited learning. However, most of the teachers had created
classrooms that were friendly, displayed positive models of student work, and used the
space to create collaborative settings for learning.
School-Wide Instructional Strategies
In one observation of an eighth-grade math class, the teacher called his students
by name as he engaged them in learning the challenging task of graphing slope and line:
“Natalie, you got it honey!” when she correctly identifies the y intercept after consulting
her notes. Across the classrooms there was evidence that students took notes using
Cornell Notes, a system devised by Cornell University that utilizes half a piece of paper
to record notes and the other half to record questions or comments and thoughts about the
material. The algebra teacher encouraged students to use their Cornell Notes and to work
108
in pairs to determine the answers to the equations. He used small groups, checked
continually for understanding, and approached students who did not respond individually.
The electronic Whiteboard at the front of the room displayed the problem.
The following is an excerpt from observation notes.
[The teacher asks,] “For a linear equations, what are the two things you need . . .
Nadia?” Nadia sits up as he approaches. She looks at her notes, hesitates, then
“the y intercept? . . . “And the slope?” she asks hesitantly “Are you asking me or
telling me?” he replies. She re-examines her notes and says more confidently, her
eyes making contact and smiling, “the y intercept and the slope.” The White-
board now displays a photo of the back of the teacher’s head with an equation
shaved into his hairline. “Ladies and Gentlemen, the equation for slope is y = mx
+ b! If you forget this, I will cry.” The students laugh and ask the teacher what
he will shave into his head this year.
The school-wide practices of Cornell note taking, graphic organizers, and a posi-
tive classroom environment were evident as commonly utilized strategies in classrooms
throughout the school. Notable also in this room was the high energy, what-ever-it-takes,
relational approach of the teacher—a friendly, take-charge sort of attitude that was evi-
dent in many classrooms. “I do a lot of check for understanding,” states the teacher in the
interview. “If I’m losing them, I pick out one and use their name. One thing we do
emphasize here at MMIS a lot is making sure to take good notes, Cornell-style notes.
This definitely helps, as you could see.” He went on to explain that, with good Cornell-
style notes, “Instead of me telling what the slope is, now they can look up the question
and find the definition themselves.”
Table 6 lists the incidence of instructional practices in 12 classrooms (4 each in
Grades 6, 7, and 8) and the number of classrooms employing the five school-wide
instructional practices cited at the beginning of this section.
109
Table 6
Observations of Instructional Practices in 12 Classrooms
Strategy or practice f %
Cornell notes
Yes 8 66.67
No 4 33.33
Graphic organizers
Yes 7 58.33
No 5 41.67
SQ3R
Yes 3 25.00
No 9 75.00
Pre-teach content vocabulary
Yes 10 83.33
No 2 16.67
Positive learning environment
Yes 11 91.67
No 1 8.33
Note. SQ3R = Summarize, Question, Read, Recite, Review.
As shown in Table 6, the five practices identified in the school’s early years were
observed in a majority of classrooms, with the exception of Summarize, Question, Read,
Recite, Review (SQ3R), a literacy strategy used to scaffold difficult text, which was seen
in only 3 of the 12 classroom visited extensively. In interviews, two instructional staff
mentioned using this strategy in their instruction. Others may have been using this
method also, but they did not use the term when describing instructional practices.
110
Cornell note taking, teaching content vocabulary, graphic organizers, and maintaining a
positive learning environment were widely used. Moreover, a variety of other equally
powerful strategies were seen throughout the school. Table 7 summarizes the use of
other strategies that were observed during the classroom visits of 15 minutes or longer.
In 12 classroom observations, a large number of strategies were used in a single
lesson, sometimes with different groups throughout the room at the same time.
Responses to survey item 24 showed that The Staff Input Survey indicated that 35 of 47
respondents (74%) indicated that at least 12 of the 14 practices were important strategies
that the teacher uses to enhance student learning. The survey question wording of three
instructional strategies matches the wording of three of the school-wide instructional
practices at MMIS: The survey wording of the strategies Visual Aids/Graphic Organizers,
Pre-teach, and Note Taking match the school-wide instructional practices at MMIS of
Table of Graphic Organizers, Pre-teach Vocabulary, and Cornell Note Taking, respect-
ively. In response to survey item 24, 31 teachers marked all three of the matched
strategies as important strategies they used to enhance student learning. The survey
results in which many instructional strategies are identified as important support the
observations of lessons at MMIS in which multiple strategies were employed effectively
in a single lesson.
The following narrative of an observation in a sixth-grade math classroom
indicates no fewer than five strategies being used in about 5 to 7 minutes.
October 7, 2009. Sixth-grade math classroom, a veteran teacher in her mid
thirties. “We are learning about the equation and how to solve it. That word
“equation” hmmm, I wonder what does that sound like?” (TA – Think Aloud) A
very small boy from the other side of the room responds with “equal” and the
111
Table 7
Instructional Strategies Observed in 12 Classrooms at the Selected School
Instructional strategies (multiple responses) f %
Think Aloud 11 91.67
Check for understanding 11 91.67
Call and response 1 8.33
Background knowledge 6 50.00
Kinesthetic (TPR, sensory) 5 41.67
Cooperative learning 4 33.33
Reciprocal teaching 1 8.33
Independent practice 1 8.33
Peer coaching 1 8.33
Cornell notes 8 66.67
Graphic organizers 7 58.33
SQ3R 3 25.00
Content vocabulary 10 83.33
Collaboration (pair/share; checking partner work) 8 66.67
Higher-order thinking questions 9 75.00
Word walls 8 66.67
Writing across the curriculum 9 75.00
Note. TPR = Total Physical Response; SQ3 R = Summarize, Question, Read, Recite,
Review.
112
teacher smiles, moves towards him (Proximity) and asks her class to “Hold your
hands out to the side like a balance without whacking anyone. You are the ful-
crum and your arms are the balance.” (TPR) Students have their arms out as the
teacher explains that the equations they are working on are like a perfect balance,
equal on both sides. “If something is added to one side, then what must I do to
the other side? If I am like a balance what must I do?” Children respond with
words like “Balance the other side” and “Add more to the other side” She asks
“what EL students can I do to the balance to make it equal if I take away from one
side (Connections) The students respond by saying that she should take something
away from the other side. She then directs their attention to the smart board at the
front of the room and asks the children to solve the equation on the board on an
individual White board (Kinesthetic) and work together to do so while the teacher
and tutor circulate. “Turn to your partner and share your boards to make sure you
have the right answer.”(Share/Pair) Give me a thumbs up if you and your partner
have the answer (Check for Understanding, C4U). (Field notes from observation
of Janet’s mathematics classroom)
During this short instruction time the college student tutor and the teacher were
circulating, bending down to talk to individual students, checking homework completion,
and keeping students on task. The teacher moved to the front of the room for brief
periods of 2 to 3 minutes to demonstrate a solution, then circulated throughout the room.
Differentiated Instruction
Responses to survey item 16 indicated that 69% of the teachers reported that they
differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs and 31% reported that they differentiated
instruction sometimes. Differentiated instruction was evident in a social studies class as a
teacher taught an EL student to write a good topic sentence, in a science class where the
journal writing was prompted by a paragraph of starter sentences posted on the wall, and
in a math class where tutors worked individually with students on basic math facts while
the teacher moved deeper into the subject with the other students.
Almost 96% of the responses to survey item 15 indicated that instruction was
standards based. Almost 69% of the teachers responded to survey item 16 to report that
113
differentiated instruction was used to meet the needs of all students and 31% indicated
that they differentiated instruction some of the time. Observations validated these survey
results. A majority of the teachers implemented well-planned instruction based on grade-
level content standards. In 10 of the 12 rooms observed, indications of grade-level
standards were evident. In 7 of the 12 rooms there was evidence of differentiated
instruction. The observations seem to support the use of differentiated, standards-based
instruction.
Block Scheduling
Facilitating varied instructional strategies is the school’s alternative schedule of
eight periods blocked in extended instructional times. A review of the master schedule
and bell schedule showed that students received 1 hour and 17 minutes of instructional
time in math and ELA daily. Social Studies, Science, electives, and Physical Education
hold classes on alternating days for 1 hour 17 minutes on this block schedule. On
Wednesdays students attend all eight classes in shortened periods and end the school day
early, allowing teachers to gain collaboration time twice monthly and staff meeting time
twice monthly. The block schedule allows daily extended instruction time in ELA and
math, which permits teachers “to make sure everyone gets it,” as Luis, an eighth-grade
algebra teacher put it. In interviews, 4 teachers reported that block scheduling supports
differentiated instruction as the extended learning period allows teachers to work with
students in small groups or individually. In an interview, an algebra teacher explained
that the extended learning time in math and English benefits EL students, special
114
education students, Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) students, and regular
education students.
By having a double block, I can go over the warm-ups, review what we’ve been
learning since day one . . . go over every single problem and then go to the lesson.
Some people might say that’s too much time but it isn’t, there’s never too much
time for algebra. (Luis D., eighth-grade algebra teacher)
English Learner Students
According to the principal, almost all EL students are mainstreamed for all
classes, with the exception of a small group that receives a three-period block of intensive
intervention in ELA. They benefit from the same variety of strategies implemented in
classrooms throughout the day, and monitoring is emphasized throughout the school. In
an interview with the ELA department chair about EL achievement data, she explained
that MMIS staff identifies who are the EL and RREP students to target instruction to
meet their needs.
I send a reminder to staff to “be sure you highlight your seating charts so you
know who are your RFEPs and your EL students and look at CELDT scores.” . . .
If you look at my seating chart, I’ve got who’s GATE identified, who’s in EL, and
then little R’s if they’re RFEPS. Almost all of them are RFEP’s, so they’re
honors, too, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t need any instructional support.
A standard measurement of academic progress is the number of students who
meet the Fluent English Proficient criteria of a district. The district includes a criterion of
proficiency demonstrated by the CELDT, CST, and Writing Benchmarks. Students must
score proficient in all areas. About 10% percent of EL students were RFEP in the past
year. Table 8 indicates the number of EL students since 2006 and the number of RFEP
students. As achievement of proficiency targets increases, it becomes more imperative to
115
Table 8
Four-Year Trends of English Learners (EL) and Redesignated as Fluent English
Proficient (RFEP)
Total EL/RFEP in school year
Grade 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
6 213/32 221/19 242/24 194/
7 96/14 140/2 154/13 174/
8 97/22 71/0 129/16 112/
Combined 406/68 432/21 525/53 480/
utilize the most effective instructional strategies, teach ELD in the core content areas, and
work collaboratively so that everyone provides ELD support.
The principal stated in an interview that EL students are the focus of Data Chats
with her staff. Data Chats are discussions focused on student academic achievement
results that the district expects of principals and are non-evaluation discussions of
pertinent student data results. She reported that she meets with each department and with
individuals to discuss the student achievement data of their students and ask the “not
uncomfortable for me but maybe for some” questions about how teachers are meeting the
learning needs of these students. Observations of her interactions with staff indicate that
she is knowledgeable about classroom instruction of individual teachers and friendly but
unwilling to compromise when discussing the teachers’ analysis of student data and their
role in ensuring academic achievement.
116
Responses to survey item 7 showed that 82% of the teachers agreed that school
administration conducts classroom observations frequently and 71% agreed that school
administration ensures the analysis of student assessment data most of the time. Linda, a
science teacher, stated that consistency in use of instructional strategies is the key for EL
students to make progress and reported that the administrative team, consisting of the
principal and two assistant principals, are very strong and consistently enforce the use of
the school-wide instructional strategies and monitoring of students. “Our administrators
know the ins and outs of everything that is going on in instruction and that makes us
strong, that makes us accountable.” The principal, leadership team, and teachers deter-
mine, refine, and modify instructional strategies based on continuous analyses of student
achievement data. Collaborative analysis of data results reveals what works and what
should be modified to build student achievement.
Data-Driven Standards-Aligned Practices
Standards-aligned practices include grade-level curriculum and instruction,
assessment, and standards-based grading and assessment. These standards-aligned
practices are dependent on accurate current student data. In this section data-driven
standards-aligned practices that present a rigorous curriculum are demonstrated by
presenting the implementation of algebra for eighth grade, the standard set by CDE.
Following the data related to implementation of algebra for all eighth graders at MMIS is
an explanation of the interdependent and dynamic process of implementing standards-
aligned assessment of learning and standards-based grading.
117
Standards-Aligned Curriculum and Instruction
Standards-aligned state-adopted ELA, Math, Social Studies, and Science text-
books and supplementary materials guide lesson planning and learning objectives. All
eighth-grade students, including EL students, Special Education students, and low-SES
students, have been placed in algebra since 2003. The principal stated in an interview
that, at MMIS, “Algebra starts in the sixth grade,” referring to the grade-level standards
being taught in sixth grade as well as seventh grade that prepare students for algebra. In
2003 the former principal, true to her mission to promote access to rigorous academics to
all students, and her leadership team (including then-Assistant Principal Caroline L.)
made the decision to place 360 eighth-grade students in algebra. Recalling the decision,
Caroline stated, “I was here the first year she [Lorena Lorenzo] put all the kids in algebra
and I know she lost a ton of sleep over it. I know she was wondering if we were doing
the right thing.” In an interview with the former MMIS principal, Lorena described the
challenge and the decision to persevere:
That first year, only 25% scored proficient or advanced.
But by the third year, the majority of the kids had been with us so I worked with
our department, our leadership, with the plan that we’re preparing these students
to be in algebra in eighth grade. So then we just said, “Okay, everybody’s in
algebra, ready or not.” So it was a little trial-and-error. We had them all in
algebra . . . . We started monitoring our data and we had some pretty good results
the first year—even though the teachers, through that first year were like, “Oh no,
they’re not getting it or they’re not ready.” I said, “Okay, so here we are. We’re
the team. What do we need to do so that they will be?” So they started tweaking
what they were doing at sixth and seventh grade and a lot more collaboration.
And what we ended up doing, we had our kind of an algebra high and an algebra
that needed support, so they were kind of—knowing that, okay, they’re going to
not cover probably the whole course but let’s go through and see what we do so
we can reinforce those skills. So it’s just always been, then, algebra. (Lorena L.)
118
The current principal was equally adamant about placing eighth-grade students in
algebra. Her leadership practices ensured that teachers were accountable for how
students were progressing in algebra by holding Data Chats, a conversation about student
data to identify instruction choices to meet student needs.
I had a Data Chat on Monday with an eighth-grade algebra teacher . . . who was
amazing when he first started and kind of . . . his scores have gone to about 30%.
I asked him what he thinks is going on and he said, “I don’t know, what do you
see?” And I told him that I saw him a lot at his desk “while you’re using the
smart board you’re sitting at your desk and if I’m not a math person, I’m going to
be happy that you’re at your desk.” Now this year, I see him up and around
because CPM requires a lot of group work and just that piece is going to make a
difference to help kids. He totally saw what I was saying but that he had just
become complacent. (Principal)
Data Chats hold individual teachers and departments accountable for student
learning and focus on standards alignment and instructional effectiveness. According to
the principal, the questions on her Whiteboard referring to EL students focus dialogue on
EL students but the resulting instructional choices benefit all students. She uses Data
Chats as impetus for rethinking instructional choices. She emphasized that it is unaccept-
able to blame results on students’ home situation or background; the focus is always on
the classroom and standards alignment.
Standards-Aligned Assessments
The data used frequently to monitor and discuss student achievement come from
standards-aligned common assessment results. In an interview the principal explained
that student learning is measured by frequent common assessments that are aligned to the
standards. Common assessments have been developed in four content areas using items
from the text, CST release questions, and other test item banks. Ten common
119
assessments are administered throughout the year in math and ELA to measure student
learning, as well as in Social Studies and Science. To determine the extent of learning,
teachers must assess students periodically, and to determine that all students have equal
access to learning, assessments must test the same learning and results must be shared,
disaggregated, and discussed. Alignment of assessments to the standards requires that
very difficult conversations take place, in an atmosphere of trust, for teachers to share
their strengths and weaknesses as instructors.
During the previous year, according to interview responses, each department was
scheduled for 3 or 4 days to develop common assessments. The current year is the
second year of standards-based grading and release days are scheduled for each depart-
ment to modify or refine their standards-based assessments. I observed the eighth-grade
math PLC as they met to discuss results of the first benchmark and refine or develop
future tests. They worked intensely, poring over their texts and data results. In an
interview, one math teacher explained the importance of the release days to develop
common assessments:
This is one of the great things that MMIS does for us. . . . I think without these
planning days we would not be together, we wouldn’t know what’s going on.
These are arranged by the principal, and we have at least one every quarter last
year and with the budget cuts, we might only have three. It’s a day for us to . . .
go over the test, create the test, and if we already have the tests done, modify
them. We analyze our data from the year before, and we do item analysis. . . .
It tells us which problem did the kids miss the most. We actually sit down and
discuss if we maybe need to modify that problem. . . . Is it maybe we’re missing a
concept? We sit down and look at it from a kid’s point of view. (Luis D., Math
Teacher)
The principal has designated a significant allocation of resources from a dwindl-
ing budget—a strong indication of commitment to the alignment to the standards process.
120
The development or refining of these assessments requires reprioritizing resources to find
time and funding so that all departments have sufficient release days during the develop-
ment year and subsequent years to design and refine the common assessments.
Responses to survey items 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 15 indicate that a majority of the
staff recognized that collaborative analyses of student data drives instructional and
assessment practices at MMIS. Over 97% of the staff agreed or strongly agreed that the
school has a systematic process for identifying and assisting struggling students (item 8)
and 70% agreed that teachers collaborate to discuss student data and address student
learning needs (item 6). Teachers responded strongly to survey questions about use of
assessment data results to inform instruction, with almost 90% indicating that assessment
results inform their instruction. Almost 96% agreed that they utilize content standards to
plan lessons. Teachers demonstrate accountability as professionals as they share results,
discuss areas of weakness, refine assessments, and produce a strong indicator of student
learning and future performance on the CST. In write-in responses to the survey, one
staff member commented that “common assessments help to focus instruction” and
another wrote, “Using data analyses allowed us to focus more clearly on groups of
students that need help.” In response to the survey item 29, regarding the role of data
analysis to close the achievement gap, 9 written responses demonstrated recognition of
the importance and value of time spent in collaborative data analysis. A very important
outcome of analysis of student data, according to the principal: “We had 76% correlation
between our grades and our STAR results.” A correlation study is pending for the 2008-
2009 school year.
121
Another result of alignment of instruction, assessment, and grading is Data
Tracker, a personal accountability tool that every student carries in his/her binder daily at
MMIS. The 8.5 x 11-inch cardstock printed folder contains spaces to record CST scores,
CELDT scores, 10 benchmark results for each curricular area, and quarterly grades. The
Data Tracker is easily comprehended and easily accessed, and it increases accountability
for all stakeholders. Students cannot escape being accountable for actions, parents have
ready access to their child’s achievement, and teachers can easily get a quick overall view
of how an individual student is progressing. Any teacher can easily access information
that reveals whether one course is a stumbling block or whether the child is doing poorly
across all courses.
Standards-Based Grading
The results of standards-based common assessments become the students’
standards-based grades. All stakeholders are accountable for student learning at MMIS,
and when the school instituted SBG in the 2007-2008 school year, it increased accounta-
bility for staff members. Four interviewees referred to the specificity and accurate
communication of student achievement that SBG creates. According to Angela, a math
teacher, “Students receive three grades every 6 weeks: A standards-based grade reflects
performance on benchmark tests; a performance grade reflects homework, projects, and
class work; and a citizenship grade reflects behavior in the classroom.” SBG requires
accountability from teachers to produce common assessments that are aligned to grade-
level standards and then use effective instruction to teach the standards. Standards-based
grades are revealed on the Data Tracker, a personal accountability tool that each student
122
carries to record academic progress. All teachers and parents can easily review the
current achievement of a student and see graphic data that allow comparison between
state achievement test results, common assessment results, and grades. According to the
principal, the practice has eliminated incongruence between grades received in a subject,
benchmark results, and state assessments results. No longer do students who receive a
below basic score on the CST receive an A or B in a class because they work hard or turn
in all homework. Instead, their performance on standards-aligned common assessments
provides the grade for the class. Parents are able to comprehend what their child’s grade
actually means after minimal orientation to the system. “I think we do educate our
parents to understand and say they want them [the students] to be proficient.” Nine
positive comments about SBG and collaborative data analysis to produce common
assessments were presented on the survey, with no negative comments about the pro-
gram. One teacher wrote, “Changes instruction, validates instruction; Creates ‘Aha’
moments! Data drives assessment . . . and Vice Versa.”
Support for Data Analyses
Access to disaggregated, current, user-friendly student data emerged as an
essential factor in producing standards-aligned instruction, assessments, and grades.
Responses to survey items 8 and 18 showed that 90% of MMIS staff agreed that the
school has a systematic means of accessing data and 97% agreed that the school has a
systematic way of identifying and assisting students. The application for designation as a
Distinguished Middle School, a recognition earned in 2009, stated that MMIS had created
a “robust information system through a variety of data systems including district
123
benchmarks, Data Director reports, and site-based common assessments.” Because Data
Director enables teachers to access data on their own students quickly, Data Director
makes data analysis “possible, powerful and personal,” wrote one veteran teacher in a
survey comment. Data analysis and the commitment to meet the learning needs of
students produced programs implemented in individual classrooms and across the school.
School-Wide Discipline Practices and Strong Teacher/Student Relationships
The Staff Input Survey indicated that 70% of the staff responded to item 3 to
indicate that they believed that the administration creates a positive learning environment.
Interviews with 10 of the 12 staff members indicate that enforcement of strict guidelines
for dress, homework completion, classroom behavior, and positive relationships with
students create an optimum environment for learning. A review of the student handbook
and the MIIS Code of Student Conduct revealed 17 rules to which students must adhere,
including respectful behavior, and 20 rules for behaviors that students must not do,
including fighting, bullying, or cheating. The agenda includes a Student/Parent/Teacher
Contract that describes a three-way partnership. An interview with a math teacher
revealed the importance of consistent rules: “We don’t screen for anything but once
they’re here, we do have a mold and is the mold right for everyone? No, but for most of
our kids, it’s exactly what they need to be successful.” Eleven of 12 staff members
interviewed referred to the parents’ role in supporting teachers. Amy, the math teacher
said, “They see that education is the ticket to a better life for their children.”
Consistent enforcement of homework, tardy, and dress code practices includes a
system of accumulated demerits may result in a status of Discipline Probation. The
124
counselor explained, “Kids on probation need to improve if they are going to stay here,
but we have successful kids because we have great teachers who have clear expectations
in the classroom.” An Assistant Principal reiterated the importance of consistent teacher
practices: “We are very strict, but consistent; not many students have to leave, only a
very few, and it’s a credit to all that the teachers do here to keep students.” A student
survey employed by the school revealed that 73% of the students agreed that the strict
rules and positive teacher relationships help them to achieve.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
The practices that contribute to academic achievement include school-wide
instructional strategies that support ELD and grade-level content standards, collaborative
data analysis that results in standards-aligned curriculum, assessment and grading, and
school-wide discipline practices and teacher/student relationships that create a positive
learning environment. An exploration of programs at MMIS reveals that practices and
school culture are perceived to have greater impact on learning than do programs.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, What programs utilized by the school are perceived to
have narrowed the achievement gap and sustained success?
In this study program was defined as a school’s intentional, organized formal plan
of action to achieve a goal. This section presents the results of the staff survey that pro-
vided interesting results in that no single program was clearly perceived as contributing
to closing the achievement gap; instead, many programs were named and some were
validated through interview responses, observations, and documents.
125
Survey Responses
Responses to survey item 17 indicated that 95% of staff agreed or strongly agreed
that the administration initiates programs that promote ways to improve student achieve-
ment. Based on the clear agreement that administrators create programs that contribute to
achievement, it was expected to several key programs that were implemented across the
school. Instead, responses to other survey items related to programs were not as clear as
was expected. Responses to survey item 23 indicated that the administration plays a
major role in organizing professional development related to intervention programs.
However, responses also indicated that teachers and department chairs play a significant
role in organizing professional development related to intervention programs.
Respondents included multiple answers to the question about who initiates professional
development, with 5 responses (11%) indicating Other and referring to Department
Chairs in their explanation. If added to the other Department Chair responses, 21 (48%)
of the responses indicated that Department Chairs organize professional development
(PD) sessions. It appears that PD sessions are either a result of collaborative planning by
administrators, teachers, and department heads or there are various levels of PD and the
role of the person who is responsible to plan the PD depends on the level of PD.
Survey items 26 and 27 asked the educators to name intervention programs and
classroom instruction programs that had contributed to narrowing the achievement gap.
Most of the responses indicated various ideas about what staff considered to be programs,
which did not match the study’s definition of programs. Although a very high percentage
indicated agreement with the statement regarding administration’s role in initiating pro-
126
grams, written comments and responses to items 26 and 27 named practices, strategies,
and tools rather than programs. The responses to the survey items required follow-up
through interviews to understand the apparent incongruence.
Survey item 26 asked staff to identify “intervention programs at your school that
have contributed to closing the achievement gap.” Survey item 27 asked staff to identify
“the instructional programs . . . you use in your classroom that has helped close the
achievement gap.” The breadth of written responses to items 26 and 27 was surprising,
as the results for item 17 indicated overwhelming agreement that the administration
initiates programs that contribute to narrowing the achievement gap. However, in
response to survey item 26 regarding intervention programs, the staff listed 18 “interven-
tion programs” contributing to closing the achievement gap. Twelve of the 18 responses
to this question were offered by only 2 or 3 staff members. Most frequently cited were
tutoring (14), classroom instruction (10) and AVID (7). Intervention programs
mentioned by 3 or fewer staff were Read 180, Accelerated Reader, Boys and Girls Club,
and MESA.
In response to survey item 27, staff cited 27 programs that they considered as
programs used in the classroom to close the achievement gap. Most of the responses
could not be considered programs. In fact, at least 19 of the responses were more
accurately considered instructional practices or strategies. Tutoring was the only
moderately frequent response (6); others received only a low number of responses.
Although many of the responses did not meet the study’s definition of program, 10 staff
members cited classroom instruction as narrowing the achievement gap. Other responses
127
included differentiated instruction and instructional strategies such as Think a Loud,
graphic organizers, cooperative learning, and activating prior knowledge (cumulative
total of 14 responses). Six responses cited tutors as an instructional program and 4 cited
CPM, which is actually a math curriculum, as programs that had helped to close the
achievement gap. Although these are not programs, staff perceived a direct link between
these practices and student achievement.
Interviews provided clarification of the wide variety of responses. A few inter-
viewees stated that they were unclear about what the survey was requesting but others
presented a more interesting explanation. One teacher discussed an empowerment of
teachers at MMIS that coincides with the work ethic; variations of this theme emerged in
other interviews. A veteran teacher (22 years, including the most recent 6 years at
MMIS) stated that he had been given the opportunity to become involved in a grant
during his second year at MMIS that allowed him to incorporate technology and coach
other teachers and develop curriculum. He stated that, as a result, he now sees himself as
a facilitator of learning rather than a teacher and feels empowered to use instructional
practices, programs, and materials without restriction or imposition.
I get full support from the administrators. They put their faith in me as an
instructor, and they know that I’m doing what I’m supposed to be doing, and
they’re just kind of hands-off, go to it. And that’s nice to have that flexibility, to
be trusted as a teacher and not having someone say, “No, you shouldn’t do that.”
When they know that I know my content, that’s a very comfortable feeling.
Because I’ve been at other schools and when I worked at EL department I had to
visit other schools and we have an exceptional environment here. (Carl M.,
Social Studies Teacher)
Although the survey responses did not clearly identify instructional or interven-
tion programs that are widely perceived to contribute to narrowing the achievement gap,
128
interviews and observations provided data that identified several key programs: programs
promoting academic achievement and college, specifically tutoring, AVID, and SAM.
There are many other programs operating at the school, but these programs were identi-
fied most frequently in interviews, observed more frequently throughout the school, and
documented in school records and reports.
Programs Promoting Academic Achievement and College
The theme of high expectations for academic achievement was referred to
repeatedly in interviews, and the majority of teachers assumed that MMIS students would
attend college. Two programs that supported both academic achievement and a college-
going student body were tutoring and AVID. Tutoring in math and AVID classrooms
and after school is provided by college students.
Tutoring
Analysis of survey responses, interviews, documents, and observation data
identified tutoring as a program that was assisting the school in narrowing the achieve-
ment gap. The survey asked respondents for their perceptions regarding the programs at
MMIS that promote instruction, data analysis, and intervention and that may be contri-
buting to narrowing the achievement gap. In 41 responses to survey item 26 (What
intervention programs at your school have contributed to closing the achievement gap?),
tutoring was listed by 14 respondents. In interviews, 5 of the 12 teachers and adminis-
trators cited tutoring. In math classrooms, AVID classrooms, after-school tutoring, and
SAM, tutors were observed assisting individual students, working with small groups,
pulling out students one by one to work on skills, or assisting the teacher with a lesson.
129
At MMIS, tutoring is provided by college students who represent the ethnic,
cultural, or socioeconomic backgrounds of students, working alongside credentialed staff
in classrooms or after school and helping with homework or skill building. These college
students provide guided assistance primarily in math classes, AVID classes, or after-
school tutoring and homework help. Statements in interviews indicated that teachers
value the tutors not only for building student skills in math but also because they are role
models and support for the Yes We Can college-going culture.
I have one [tutor] 3 days a week and it’s awesome because she is studying to be a
nurse, so her math skills are strong and this is what I love about these kids
[referring to tutors]. She told me, “I noticed that they were having problems with
the math calculations, so I let them us a calculator so that they could concentrate
on learning the steps.” And they are awesome because they’re such good kids,
that my kids can look up to them. (Judy M., sixth-grade math teacher)
Tutors were observed working individually with students in two sixth-grade class-
rooms, checking homework in an eighth-grade algebra class, and tutoring math problems
with a small group of students in an AVID classroom. During an observation of SAM,
the following exchange was overheard between an eighth-grade male Hispanic student
and a young male Hispanic student tutor from the University of California, Irvine:
Why do you like X Box better? (Student, raised excited voice)
First let’s get this slope and line and get the graphs done. I’ll explain at break
why X-Box is better . . . and you probably don’t know this, but there’s all kinds of
math in X-Box. . . . I’ll show you later. (Tutor)
This brief conversation illustrates the two factors that MMIS staff reported as contribut-
ing to the achievement of their middle school students. First, tutors offer assistance in
building critical skills; second, tutors are positive role models who communicate the
message that college is an achievable goal.
130
Placement of college students as tutors evolved from the AVID program, which
uses tutors as one of its primary components. The idea to utilize tutors across the school
was initiated by the principal and leadership team, who believed that components of the
AVID program should be extended across the school. In an interview with the principal,
she discussed the need to provide more support in sixth-grade math classes and in after-
school tutoring. She had lowered the class size for eighth-grade algebra classes but this
increased the size of classes at other levels. Previously, she had hired teachers to provide
after-school tutoring but the cost was very high and the students who most needed the
tutoring often did not attend. She reported, “So then 2 years ago, I said, ‘Why don’t we
follow the AVID model and have tutors in class?’ . . . When we are hiring tutors for
AVID, just hire all of them and we’ll put them in math classes and they can do the after
school, too.” A supply of college students from a nearby university and the local com-
munity college provide ongoing paid and volunteer tutoring in math classes, after-school
tutoring, and SAM.
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)
Data analysis indicated that AVID emerged as a program that contributed to
narrowing the achievement gap at MMIS. Responses from the survey identified this
program only moderately, with 7 respondents citing the program in response to item 26.
However, AVID appeared in 6 interviews as a program contributing to achievement by
students, and even when the program itself was not specified, one or more of its integral
components (e.g., tutoring, study skills, Cornell note taking, critical thinking skills, and
promoting college as an achievable goal) were identified in interviews and observations.
131
We have a college going culture. We have AVID in place and we have the
college tutors in classrooms. We have teachers believing in AVID and committed
to making it happen school wide. Of course with AVID, it’s just a good program
with the statistics to prove it. (Karen G., Assistant Principal)
This Assistant Principal is referring to statistics provided by the AVID program
indicating that 87% of AVID students attend college. AVID, a nation-wide program,
targets SED secondary students to build study skills, promotes academic achievement,
and prepare for college. Critical components include tutoring, building students’ meta-
cognitive skills, Cornell note taking, writing, inquiry, collaboration, and literacy.
Assistant Principal Karen stated that the administration and leadership have been
promoting school-wide implementation of AVID program strategies such as tutoring and
learning strategies such as note taking, graphic organizers, and Socratic discussion. In
response to survey item 22, regarding intervention practices used for struggling students,
44 of 46 respondents (95.7%) identified tutoring as the number one intervention practice.
An interview with an Assistant Principal provided more information about school-
wide AVID strategies. According to this administrator, AVID provides training to
students in using study skill tools such as Cornell note taking and SQ3R. Four sections
of AVID were evident in a review of the Master Schedule document. Study skill train-
ing, college information, and test-taking strategies are taught in these AVID classes to
about 100 seventh- and eighth-grade students. AVID school-wide instructional strategies
of Cornell note taking and SQ3R are also taught to all students across content areas,
according to the Assistant Principal.
I got convinced of the power of good study skill strategies like summary writing
. . . It changed the way our kids approach test taking . . . and we have advisement
and we have the sixth-grade exploratory wheel where we teach these things.
132
Extended classroom observations provided evidence of Cornell note taking in 8 of the 12
classrooms and evidence of SQ3R in only 3 of 9 observations. However, were observed
using a variety of learning and thinking strategies that are within the repertoire of strate-
gies used in the AVID curriculum, such as graphic organizers.
Saturday Math Academy (SAM)
SAM targets students nearing proficiency and provides math application experi-
ences to build math and thinking skills, as well as college-going expectations. SAM was
referred to only twice times in response to survey item 26, which asked teachers to name
the intervention program that had contributed to closing the achievement gap. However,
in interviews, SAM was mentioned by 8 of the 11 interview responses to item 3
(Appendix D). When asked what programs had improved student achievement in
mathematics, 8 of the 12 interviewees spoke of the engagement and content learning that
occurs in participants over the 8-week program.
An observation of SAM in action was recorded. I was told by one of the teachers
to show up no later than 7:50, as the gates are opened at 7:50 and closed at 7:55. Four of
the six SAM classrooms were observed between 8:00 am and 10:30 am on that date.
When I arrived at 7:45, approximately 50 students were standing or sitting on the stairs
that lead to the second level, the entryway to classrooms for students. The students
talked quietly while waiting for the gates to be unlocked. The gates were unlocked just
before 8:00 am and students headed to their assigned classrooms. In the first classroom
the lights were lowered and music was playing softly as two students worked on a
problem on the Whiteboard, while the other 20 students worked in groups of four,
133
collaborating noisily to solve problems. The teacher gave instructions: “Make sure you
color the graphs of different equations different colors and in a few minutes the university
students will come around and stamp your answer.”
In another classroom the teacher was pre-teaching vocabulary to be used in a
writing assignment accompanying the math lesson. Students defined words such as
equal, equation, parallel, and intercept. The teacher said, “Although you have already
figured out the function correctly, you have to be able to communicate it, too. That
means being able to spell these words correctly.” Students, speaking Spanish and
English, discussed their writing at their tables. Students in other classrooms calculated
the number of rubber bands required to hold their Barbie doll as it drops from the top of
the second floor to the first floor, getting as close to the ground as possible without
hitting the ground. Like students in the other classrooms, these students were animated,
participating, collaborating, and problem solving. All of students would continue to
attend the 8 meetings and participate with their parents in a field trip to the nearby
university campus for an orientation tour led by their college tutors.
Anecdotal assessment of the success of the program indicates that teachers agreed
that conceptual knowledge is cemented through SAM and that even below basic students
benefit. In an interview, Luis explained:
We had just taken a test in school . . . so I ask, “Now how many of you think the
things you do in Math Academy Saturdays helped you for the test?” Almost
everyone’s hand went up.
Luis continued by describing why he thinks the program works, an opinion that was
reiterated in six interviews:
134
Good hands-on activities, questions, reasoning, thinking, then you put everything
in perspective of how it applies to real life . . . and it’s 4 hours long, so it lends
itself to doing more activities without a gap in between.
Tutoring, AVID, and SAM support learning and encourage students to set the
goal to go to college. Data from interviews, observations, and review of documents
about these programs appeared to support that staff perceive these programs to be bene-
ficial to MMIS students and learning. To determine the value and effectiveness of these
and other programs and practices, MMIS conducts ongoing data analysis concerning
student achievement.
Two tools are a key support for the ongoing data analysis cited in response to
survey items 26 and 27. Data Tracker and Standards-Based Report Cards were cited by
8 and 7 respondents, respectively. Although these responses that did not adhere to the
definitions of intervention or classroom instruction programs, these tools were key in
building the practice of data analysis and collaborative discussion.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
Although survey results did not clearly identify a program that most staff per-
ceived to contribute to closing the achievement gap, they identified a broad range of
programs being used by individual teachers. Many of the responses referred to classroom
instructional practices instead of programs, perhaps an indication that teachers recognize
the value of their instructional choices. Tutoring and AVID were cited, along with SAM,
in survey responses and in interviews, observations, and school records.
135
Discussion
A thorough study of MMIS was conducted to determine the cultural norms, prac-
tices, and programs that were perceived by the staff to be contributing to and sustaining
academic achievement. Nine days of observation, interviews with 12 certificated person-
nel and two district personnel, review of numerous documents (including the Single Plan
for Student Achievement, SARC, Data Tracker, Standards-Based Report Card, and other
pertinent documents), and a survey of certificated staff members provided the data for the
study regarding the cultural norms, practices, and programs that were perceived to have
contributed to academic success of MMIS students. Cultural norms that appeared to be
contributing to academic success of students were efficacy and high expectations,
accountability, shared leadership, and collaboration. Practices that appeared to be contri-
buting to academic success were school-wide instructional practices, data-driven deci-
sions, standards-aligned curriculum, assessment and grading, and school-wide discipline
practices. Programs that appeared to be contributing to academic success of students
were tutoring, AVID, and SAM. In addition, two tools that were found to be key in the
function of the school culture, practices, and programs were the web-based data analysis
program (Data Director) and the personal accountability tool for students (Data Tracker).
The following themes emerged in determining cultural norms, practices, and
programs that contribute to narrowing the achievement gap and sustaining achievement.
136
Emerging Themes
• School staff members share a conviction and commitment to the mission of the
school: to ensure access to high-quality education and maintain expectations for
high academic achievement.
• A strong leader shares decision making with a strong team of teacher-leaders and
co-administrators, promoting buy-in and accountability.
• School-wide practices of clear rules and high expectations create positive
relationships and a positive learning environment.
• Collaborative analysis of student achievement data and teacher practices results in
alignment of standards, instruction, assessments, and grading.
• Powerful teacher-determined school-wide instructional strategies address the
learning needs of all students.
• District and school goals for instruction, leadership, and assessment are aligned.
A Shared Mission
The first principal of MMIS had a very clear vision and mission for the school
when it opened: Students of any ethnic background, socioeconomic level, and language
can and will achieve at MMIS. She brought teachers with like passion for this mission on
board early and they helped her to interview and select other staff members. Many of
those teachers remain and some are on the leadership team. The current principal worked
alongside the first principal as her assistant for several years before being transferred to a
high school. The current principal reflects the same passion and purpose. She recalled a
137
moment when she was expecting her first child and wondering whether she would still
care about her job, once her own child had arrived.
The second my son was born, I was like, “Now I know why this is even more
important to me, because I want for all kids what I want for my own kid.” And
every day when I wake up, it’s “Would I want this for my own kids? Am I doing
the best for what I want my own kids to have?”
Many of the original staff still work at MMIS and serve on the principal’s leader-
ship team. In fact, five members of the current leadership team were selected by the first
principal of MMIS. In interviews, they expressed in passionate terms, with expressions
and hand movements for punctuation, their commitment to promoting academic
achievement for the students at MMIS. One member of the leadership team stated, “This
school represents our own struggles of our own families and a lot of us are here because
of the opportunity of an education.” Another team member stated that, even though other
fundamental schools did not accept EL students or Special Education students, she and
her colleagues wanted “a school that was equally as rigorous as others but that was more
inclusive.”
The foundation of the mission is a strong belief in the ability of each child to
experience academic success. “There’s nobody here that can’t learn,” I was told humor-
ously in one interview, and this message was reiterated in the counselor’s office, the
assistant principal’s office, and classroom after classroom. The principal said it best
when she said that, at MMIS, there was a “group expectation that everybody is going to
succeed.” This expectation manifested itself in the voices of MMIS students responding
to a school-initiated student survey in which 77% of the students that they intended to go
to college and 47% intended to seek a post-graduate degree.
138
A Strong Principal Who Shares Leadership With a Committed Staff
Caroline, the principal, is clearly “the queen bee,” as one staff member put it. In
interviews she was described by teachers, counselors, or other administrators with words
such as respect, follow through, strong, supportive, and collaborative. Instead of using
her position or title to bolster herself, she takes the responsibility very seriously and
shares decision making with a highly committed group of professionals on the Leadership
Team. The Leadership Team consists of the two assistant principals, department chairs,
and other staff as needed, who meet bi-weekly to make decisions that will impact the
school. The team determined school-wide instructional strategies, refined the Data
Tracker card that students carry to record and track their academic achievement, and
determined the necessity and scheduling of collaborative meetings. When technology
money had to be spent quickly, before it was swept into general fund, the team met in a
special session and identified items to utilize the funds. The team, individually and as a
group, exudes self-efficacy and competence to tackle any problems that might arise.
Consistent Clear Rules and Relationships
MMIS conveys a message of order, efficiency, and respect. A strict, consistent
implementation of a discipline policy that is fair is clearly communicated to students and
parents and followed by MMIS students to empower the staff with control both in and out
of class. Follow-through and consistency in enforcing all rules appear to reduce or
eliminate serious infractions. Students go up and down flights of stairs 5 to 10 times a
day as they pass from class to class but they do not shove, push past others, or horseplay.
Instead, they are orderly, wait their turn, help each other, and generally seem considerate.
139
When one child fell on the steps leading to the lunch area, instead of laughter, derision, or
walking on past, children of both genders stopped, helped her pick up her papers, and
asked if she was OK. The data in this research seem to indicate that consistent enforce-
ment of strict rules produces behavior that stays positive, even when there might be an
opportunity to express what might be considered normal adolescent inconsideration. The
campus was calm, there appeared to no physical altercations, and students complied
without argument when asked to carry out a consequence.
The second part of the theme is relationship. Teachers, counselors, adminis-
trators, and classified staff interact with students with respect, caring, and with a sense of
humor. Many teachers speak the child’s home language and some reflect the child’s
home culture. The principal sets the example for relationship as she dresses up as a
“triplet” for twin day, sporting converse tennis shoes, T-shirt, and pony tail just like her
two eighth-grade students. Forty students ride bikes to the beach with their teachers on a
Saturday. In every interview, teachers expressed deep caring and devotion to the
students. Observation of interactions between teachers and students during instruction
was especially revealing, as teachers persevered and continued to reach into their bag of
instructional tools or strategies to find what would make the content comprehensible for
their students.
Collaborative Data Analysis
Access to good student data and time to analyze them as a team were pivotal to
making sound decisions at MMIS. The school provided this time in a variety of ways
including after-school staff and department meetings, minimum days on Wednesdays,
140
all-day release days by department or by grade level three to four times per year, and
informal meetings before or after school as needed. Current, accurate, and relevant data
are provided by SBG, results of common assessments, the District Office of Research, the
CDE website, and Data Director (a district-wide web-based data analysis program that
teachers can access to develop reports or insert information on their own students in one
of the prepared reports). Out of these opportunities to analyze data together have
developed the frequent common assessments given to students in all content areas and
upon which the SBGs are determined. Collaborative data analysis has fostered trust and
de-privatized teaching practices as teachers collaboratively identify weaknesses and
strengths in student learning and instruction.
Alignment With Standards
The school has made significant strides toward standards-aligned instruction,
curriculum and assessment, as well as SBG. Alignment with state curriculum standards
was in the refining stage, as SBG at the school was in its second year of implementation.
SBG seemed to be part of the culture at MMIS; no staff member expressed dissatisfaction
or complaint about the significant change that had occurred with grades based on
standards-aligned assessments rather than on an A–F standard. Standards-based grades
required sufficient common assessments on which to base the grades and development of
these assessments accelerated skill development in data analyses, knowledge of grade-
level content standards, authentic collaboration, and professional self-efficacy.
The practice of aligned instruction, curriculum, assessment, and grading promoted
development of a tool that both informs and holds accountable student, parent, and
141
teacher. The Data Tracker card carried by every student locates important academic data
about the student’s progress in one place. It is a snapshot of student achievement but also
a reflection of instructional practice, as teachers can quickly see when there is little or no
alignment because the teacher has not achieved instructional goals for the child.
School-Wide Instructional Strategies
Teachers at MMIS identified five instructional strategies that they have utilized
since the early days of the school; they have added more since then. According to the
principal, the teachers utilized Cornell-style note taking, Vocabulary Development,
Survey, SQ3R literacy strategy, graphic organizers, and positive classroom environment.
Teachers utilized these strategies across the curriculum and taught students meta-
cognitive skills that increased student performance. The school-wide strategies were
observed, or evidence of them was seen on walls throughout the school, at various
implementation levels. Some content areas, such as science, lend themselves to SQ3R
more than others. Cornell note taking was frequently observed in math classes and social
studies classes. In addition to these powerful strategies, strategies such as Think Aloud
were also seen frequently in classrooms. In fact, a noticeable difference in instruction at
MMIS was that a majority of teachers used multiple strategies in planning lessons and
multiple approaches to reach all learners.
Writing across the curriculum was being implemented this year. The principal
reported in an interview that teachers had wanted to implement writing across the curri-
culum 2 years ago but, because the focus was to develop SBG and common assessments,
she had decided to defer that implementation to this year. Writing, writing rubrics, or
142
evidence of writing was observed in almost classrooms of every department. These
varied instructional practices increase comprehensibility of English for ELL students,
who are mainstreamed in all classrooms.
Equity and Access to Academic Achievement for EL students
ELL students are fully mainstreamed, monitored, and supported both in school
culture and academic courses. Every class and every program was available to EL
students; equally important, effective instructional strategies ensured that students
comprehended English and were closely monitored to check for understanding. The
standards-aligned assessments, Data Tracker, and SBG monitored the progress of these
and all students at MMIS.
District Alignment With School Goals Sustains Achievement
Block scheduling, algebra for all eighth graders, school-wide instructional
strategies, SBG, standards aligned common assessments, shared leadership, and Data
Tracker were identified in this study as practices contributing to student achievement and
narrowing the achievement gap. The district’s Director of Research identified alignment
of district goals with the practices implemented at MMIS. The district has supported its
school leaders and teachers with training in using data, providing instructional leadership,
and building collaboration and shared leadership. The district has promoted expansion
and piloting of some of these practices in other district middle schools. Most important,
the district’s established “focus protocols,” a term the director used to describe the
expectation that site principals practice ongoing data analysis and Data Chats with staff,
frequent classroom supervision and walk-throughs to observe classrooms, and shared
143
leadership and shared decisions. The Director of Research reported that the district had
established district-wide instructional strategies (evident at MMIS) that included a
focused approach to EL academic achievement through content-based ELD, graphic
organizers or Thinking Maps that are incorporated in classroom curriculum, front-loading
(use of prior knowledge) and pre-teaching vocabulary, all of which are incorporated into
daily content-based lessons.
The principal and teachers at MMIS and the district all valued the same instruc-
tional practices and protocols, and funding and time were set aside for training to build
competency in these strategies.
MMIS is a unique school, yet its successes in cultural norms, practices, and
programs that contribute to the academic success of Hispanic, EL, and low-SES children
are not beyond the resources available at most schools. As one teacher said, “Anything is
possible if enough committed people believe in it enough and are willing to work for it.”
144
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This qualitative single-case study explored factors that contribute to achievement
by EL and Hispanic students in an urban middle school. As the size of this student
population continues to grow in pubic schools, it becomes increasingly imperative that
schools be responsive to their needs. One in four students in California are EL students
and 85% of the EL students in California live in homes where Spanish is the dominant
language. Sixty-six percent of the EL students in California are not achieving proficiency
targets, while 75% of Asian students and 64% of White students are achieving profici-
ency. This study of a school that has met proficiency targets with large Hispanic and EL
student populations provides critical information about factors that have contributed to
achievement and may encourage and inform schools with similar populations. Through
interviews with key instructional staff members, classroom and school observations,
survey of certificated staff, and review of school documents, data were collected and
analyzed to address the following research questions:
1. What cultural norms practiced within the school are perceived to have
narrowed the achievement gap and sustained success?
2. What practices employed by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
3. What programs utilized by the school are perceived to have narrowed the
achievement gap and sustained success?
145
The data reported Chapter 4 were analyzed in light of the three research questions.
Factors that emerged as contributing to student achievement included a compelling
mission supported by strong sense of accountability, high expectations, shared leadership,
collaboration, ongoing analysis of student data, and effective instructional strategies.
These factors are supported in the context of an orderly, safe, and relational school
culture. A social justice theoretical frame (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2003; Rawls, 1971) was
utilized to illuminate cultural norms and a sociocultural frame (Vygotsky, 1978) was
utilized to examine instructional practices and programs. Social capital theory (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997) was useful in examining relationships between school staff and students
and their college goal orientation. A brief overview of the study, a summary of findings
discussed in light of the referenced literature, and tenets of these theoretical frames are
presented in this chapter. Implications of the findings and recommendations for
subsequent practice, actions, and research are presented.
Overview of the Study
Over the course of a 4-month period, nine visits to the school produced findings
that disclosed the cultural norms, practices, and programs that were perceived by the staff
to be narrowing the achievement gap. MMIS met the criteria for this study as an urban
school sustaining academic achievement with a significant minority and EL student
population in a densely populated community of more than 50,000 people; it had met API
targets for 2 or more consecutive years. The school has a student population that consists
of 97% Hispanic, 82% low-SES, and 31% EL students. Over the previous 7 years MMIS
had improved in achievement scores overall by more than 50 points and now had an API
146
of over 800. The school has sustained growth in achievement by EL students as well,
increasing its EL subgroup API by 69 points over the previous 5 years.
MMIS is a fundamental school of choice; it selects its students by lottery rather
than by criteria, from applications submitted each spring for the fall semester. EL
students tend to have intermediate or higher fluency in English, as there are fewer
applications from recent immigrants. Families of students who are recent immigrants or
who are new to the district often lack the social capital to understand the advantages of
enrollment in the school and therefore do not submit applications. Those students who
submit completed applications, including Special Education, EL, GATE, and regular
education students, are admitted by lottery, without quotas or criteria; once they are
admitted, siblings are automatically admitted. About 40 students are not permitted to
return to MMIS each year due to behavior issues rather than due to lack of academic
skill. Based on a specific criterion of demerits for breaking school rules and behavior
interventions, students who do not correct their behavior are “uninvited” at the end of a
semester and are not permitted to re-enroll in the school the following year. The potential
consequence of ongoing refusal to adhere to school rules is publicized, which helps to
create a school environment of compliance to expected pupil behavior norms.
The district Director of Research reported that students who were asked to return
to their home school at the end of the semester were sent not because of their academic
performance but because of a consequence for not following the protocols. A mobility
study that the district conducts follows students who leave the school to attend other
district schools verified that these students were from all proficiency levels, from
147
advanced to far below basic. The director verified that district non-fundamental schools
send at least as many students to other schools for disciplinary issues, poor attendance, or
poor academic performance as do the fundamental schools. Students with far below
basic and below basic performance level are not more likely than other students to be
dismissed from the school to return to their home schools.
Data for this study were collected via interviews with 12 staff members, one
former principal, and one district administrator; 24 classroom observations, 47 responses
sets from instructional staff, and review of numerous documents. Triangulation of data
provided validity of findings, which were ultimately reviewed with the school site
leadership. The painstaking process of coding and recoding data and triangulation of data
revealed themes to address the research questions.
Findings
The cultural norms, practices, and programs that contribute to narrowing the
achievement gap and sustain success that emerged from the data are discussed in this
section in light of the reviewed literature and theoretical frames of social justice, social
capital, and sociocultural theory.
Research Question 1
Findings related to research question 1 reveal one overriding cultural norm that
drives all other school norms, practices, and programs: the school’s mission. The mission
of the school advances equity in academic achievement and advocates access to high-
quality education by minority, low-SES, and EL students. The first principal of the
school felt passionately that MMIS must be inclusive in enrollment and empowered a
148
professional staff to provide highly effective practices focused on student learning and
academic achievement. Evidence of that same mission abounds in interview statements
and practices over 12 years later. The current principal adamantly conveys this mission
in all of her activities and decisions and seems fearless in challenging beliefs or practices
that do not coincide with that mission.
Research supports the finding that achieving schools share a common purpose and
well-articulated mission that mobilizes staff and holds them accountable to implement
effective instruction that results in achievement (Teske & Schneider, 1999). “A coherent
educational mission throughout all grades in the school helps mobilize the staff and the
school community, though which theme is selected may matter less” (p. 5). This case
study’s findings support a stronger assertion—that the content of the mission matters—
demonstrated through interview, survey, and observation data that consistently expressed
sustained fervor for this particular mission from both administrators and teachers. The
mission provides a high degree of motivation for MMIS staff to persevere and sustain
mental effort despite obstacles (Clark & Estes, 2002). Indicators of the mission in the
school culture are the inclusion of EL students in regular education classrooms and pro-
grams such as GATE, honors courses, algebra, and AVID. EL students receive content-
based ELD from appropriately authorized teachers throughout the school’s classrooms
rather than in separate ELD classes. Every teacher is a teacher of English to second-
language learners and a literacy coach. Other indicators of the school’s commitment to
the mission to ensure equity and access to high-quality education include access to
149
algebra by more than 90% of the eighth-grade class and continuous exposure to college
information and creation of a college-going culture.
Three additional findings related to research question 1 that reflect the commit-
ment to a compelling mission were the cultural norms of high expectations, shared
leadership, and collaboration.
High expectations emerge in studies of achievement as a consistent finding
(Marzano, 2003). A reflection of high expectations at MMIS includes the insistence on
high performance by MMIS students on grade-level rigorous standards-based curriculum.
Teachers call their students scholars, provide lessons that present deep conceptual knowl-
edge rather than rote memorization, and empower students by explicitly teaching meta-
cognitive skills. Advisement periods, AVID, classroom tutors who are Hispanic college
students, and field trips to colleges and universities encourage MMIS students to set goals
that include college. The structure of the school’s daily schedule accommodates the
belief that all students will succeed through provision of extended learning time for key
academic subjects and inclusion of students traditionally segregated in special education
or English development classes. Students benefit from block scheduling that includes
two periods daily of ELA and math, and an eight-period day. ELD is content based and
ELD standards are taught in math, science, ELA, and social studies classes.
The cultural norm of shared leadership reflects the ideals of a strong principal
and the leadership protocol set by the district for its principals. Leadership is shared,
decisions are made and implemented by a team, and results are owned by the staff. The
principal shares leadership with a team of teachers, co-administrators, and counselors
150
who identify goals and work together to determine solutions to problems related to
student achievement. Schmoker (2003) proposed that the collaborative goal/solution
process promotes team cohesion and efficacy. The school’s leadership team at MMIS
focuses on building teacher capacity through shared problem solving and shared best
practices. The culture of high expectations is communicated and modeled by the
leadership team, who expect all staff, including themselves, to work hard, work beyond
the traditional school day, and work together to ensure rigor in the curriculum, to utilize
student achievement data to inform instruction, and to promote a collaborative school
culture—all activities that the literature indicates as support for high student achievement
(Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2005a; Marzano et al., 2005). The leadership team is empowered
to innovate new practices, create new school structures, develop alternative schedules,
and determine best practices.
The cultural norm of collaboration reflects the way decisions are made at MMIS
and practices that address learning needs and empower students and staff to achieve at
high levels (DuFour et al., 2006). MMIS staff members expressed feelings of efficacy
and confidence in the collaboration of the team that they can collectively accomplish the
school’s mission and goals. These expressions encourage persistence in collaborative
analysis of student achievement data, planning standards-based curriculum and instruc-
tion, and assessing student learning. Collaboration occurs regularly, through twice-
monthly minimum days, and three to four department or grade-level/course level release
days throughout the year. Department chairs, as leadership team members and instruc-
tional leaders, facilitate the meetings to optimize the time spent, as well as outcomes.
151
The principal ensures that resources are directed toward accomplishing the goals of the
collaboration time. Collaboration as a cultural norm is expressed beyond specific meet-
ing times; collaboration is evident in the teamwork that is applied to school activities
such as parent/teacher conferences, Renaissance Rally, and a Saturday teacher/student
bike ride to the beach. One of the primary roles of collaboration at MMIS is the key
practice of analysis of student achievement data.
Research Question 2
Key practices that narrow the gap within this culture of inclusion and high
expectations for student achievement included collaborative analysis of data, standards
alignment, school-wide instructional strategies, and school-wide student discipline
practices that strengthen student responsibility and student/teacher relationships.
The first practice, collaborative analysis of student achievement data, focuses on
aligning curriculum, assessment, and grading to grade-level standards. Analysis of
student achievement data informs instructional decisions, modifies curriculum, and
determines interventions and programs. Teacher capacity to analyze data increased as
district priorities ensured that data were available to every teacher through a web-based
data source, Data Director, and that teachers were trained and provided time to utilize the
data. Collaboration focused on analysis of student data and shared best practices
(DuFour et al., 2006) increased knowledge of the student’s skill levels and effective
strategies to address learning needs. Shared best practices increased a sense of teacher
efficacy to address individual and group learning needs. The teachers’ perceptions of
152
their ability to increase learning were sustained by collaborative analysis of data, as the
collective solutions brought out a sense of team effort and cohesion (Marzano, 2003).
The other half of the key practice of collaborative analysis of student data focuses
on the goal of alignment to grade-level standards in instruction, curriculum, assessment
and grading. MMIS teachers implement SBG based on frequent common standards-
based assessment. Assessments are based on the standards covered through instruction
and curriculum over the assessment period. Students receive a grade every 6 weeks that
represents skill level, from Advanced to Far Below Basic, just as in state standardized
testing results, on specific standards. SBG requires that frequent common assessments be
developed, reviewed, and refined over time, which requires collaborative data analysis
and adaptation of content found in curriculum texts or materials to determine skills and
information that are most necessary to increase learning. As teachers analyze disaggre-
gated data together, honest and transparent discussion is inevitable. The school beliefs
and values behind the school’s mission discourage focusing blame on the child or home;
therefore, teachers locate solutions to the problem in themselves, individually and
collectively. These collaborative discussions result in standards-aligned common assess-
ments and produce the second practice that the literature identifies as key in increasing
learning: effective instructional strategies and a guaranteed curriculum for all students
(DuFour et al., 2006; Marzano, 2003).
The second practice related to research question 2 that contributes to narrowing
the achievement gap is selection and implementation of school-wide instructional prac-
tices. Marzano (2003) identified nine categories of instructional strategies, variations of
153
which were evident in the collected data. School-wide strategies or best practices estab-
lished when the school opened, are still evident and several more have been added to the
repertoires of the teachers. Strategies such as graphic organizers and pre-teaching of
content vocabulary have been supported through district training and meet the needs of
EL students as comprehensibility of English is increased (Echevarria et al., 2008).
Explicit teaching of meta-cognitive skills supports access to subject content (Freeman et
al., 2002) and builds background knowledge important to EL students. Strategies such as
Think Aloud, Cornell note taking, and SQ3R teach students how to think about thinking
and give them the tools to learn (Echevarria et al., 2008). Two noticeable practices that
teachers at MMIS utilized appeared to be associated with teacher effectiveness and
student engagement: (a) A high percentage of teachers moved about the room rather than
remaining in front of the room, and (b) teachers used a wide variety of key instructional
strategies in the course of a single lesson. Teachers organized the desks and tables to
facilitate their access to students throughout the room and used their proximity to
students to check for understanding and to re-engage students who were off task.
Observations indicated a high degree of student engagement for most of the period in
most of the classes, and the connection of this time-on-task and student engagement to
academic achievement is well documented in the literature (Echevarria et al. 2008;
Marzano, 2003). Teachers also planned instruction to include oral instruction, reading,
writing, and speaking within daily lessons to scaffold learning. They also explicitly
taught metacognitive strategies to students in each lesson. These strategies build English
154
literacy for EL students, as well as comprehension of content areas (August & Shanahan,
1997; Echevarría et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 2007).
Consistent application of school-wide discipline policies emerged as the third
practice and seems to reinforce student responsibility and student/teacher relationship.
The school environment supports learning by minimizing disruptions in and out of the
classroom and builds a sense of pride in community and achievement. The discipline
policies at MMIS balance consequences, such as detention and demerits, with rewards,
such as Uniform-Free Days and Renaissance Rally. Marzano (2003) found that the effect
of punishment and reinforcement on discipline and classroom behavior is greater than
either punishment or reward alone. A strict, consistent implementation of a discipline
policy that is fair and clearly communicated to students and parents is followed by MMIS
students and empowers the staff with control both in and out of class. Follow-through
and consistency in enforcing all rules appear to reduce or eliminate more serious infrac-
tions. The data in this research seem to indicate that consistent enforcement of strict rules
produces behavior that stays positive, even when there arises an opportunity to express
what might be considered normal adolescent inconsideration.
Strict rules and consequences could result in feelings of resentment, were it not
for healthy, strong relationships between teacher and student. Teachers, counselors,
administrators, and classified staff at MMIS interact with students with respect, caring,
and a sense of humor. Many teachers speak the child’s home language or reflect the
child’s home culture. Teachers are clearly empowered to establish clear standards and set
goals with students, yet take a personal interest in students’ success by taking extra
155
measures to connect students to experiences that direct the students toward setting college
as a goal. The school’s commitment to inclusion, equity in opportunity, access to high-
quality instruction, and positive relationship with staff empowers students to believe that
they can achieve (Kaplan, 1999).
Stanton-Salazar (1997) presented tenets of social capital theory that describe how
the members of the institution of school can facilitate the transference of knowledge and
skills necessary to negotiate the institution to achieve goals. Social capital is a construct
that describes this social support that a novice or student receives from a significant
other, in this case the teacher, that helps him/her to connect to another individual or
institution for the student’s benefit. In social capital theory the teacher assists the student
in negotiating the system and links the student to resources that will help to achieve
academic and personal goals. The student learns how to negotiate the road to a desired
outcome, such as college, and that knowledge becomes an avenue for achieving the
outcome.
As mediators of learning at MMIS, teachers introduce students to the expectation
of college in a variety of ways, such as college talks, classroom doors decorated with a
college theme, tutors who are college students, field trips to colleges, and knowledge
about seeking financial aid. Teachers use their relationship with students to help them to
build connections to other potential network members. Thus, a teacher’s invitation to a
lunchtime presentation by a private college preparatory high school provides potential
access to an elite university or out-of-state private school. MMIS students benefit from
introduction and orientation to institutions of higher learning. School-sponsored visits to
156
universities build knowledge about college but, of greater significance, the relationships
formed with teachers and college tutors who are from the same culture (often the same
neighborhood), who speak the same language, and who share their own college experi-
ences. Social capital theory explains the value of models that demonstrate steps to
achieve goals and that can provide a network of connections to a goal (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). The information that MMIS teachers and tutors provide about college expands the
students’ potential goals, but equally important, as role models of academic success, staff
and college students provide the hope and expectation that college is possible.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 investigated the programs at MMIS that contributed to
student achievement. No single program clearly emerged from the data to address this
third research question, although several programs were enthusiastically discussed in
interviews and demonstrated in observations. The school benefited from highly
motivated experienced staff, willing to do whatever it takes to improve learning and
consequently willing to use programs that they had used in the past or innovate their own.
Standards-aligned textbooks and state-adopted materials were utilized consistently across
the school, but teachers added to this curriculum based on their experience and success
with other programs. Consequently, many programs were being successfully imple-
mented in various classrooms across the campus.
The programs that staff moderately perceived as contributing to narrowing the
achievement gap were the tutoring program and the college-oriented programs of AVID
and SAM. Tutoring was offered after school, in math classes, and in AVID classrooms
157
by college students hired to provide academic support in math and in other subjects.
Students at MMIS also benefited from the mentoring relationship formed during tutoring,
as the mentor/tutors became part of the social network at MMIS that transfers social
capital related to establishing college-oriented goals (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Although
AVID and SAM received only a moderate response level from staff, several components
of these programs were reported by many staff as very important to student achievement.
Cornell note taking, Socratic discussion, academic vocabulary, and explicit instruction in
meta-cognitive skills were components of AVID and included among school-wide
instructional strategies. Both AVID and SAM advocate college-going orientation and
include as part of the program trips to universities and colleges, experiences that build
background knowledge in students and create social capital that provides resources that a
child might utilize to gain college acceptance. For example, interest and creativity
displayed by a student during SAM led to a conversation with a tutor about the Math
Engineering Science Academy (MESA), a course available at the school that emphasizes
careers in math and science, as well as math/science concepts. Such knowledge is social
capital that could transform to inclusion in this course. One of the goals of the AVID and
SAM programs is to expand inclusion and establish networks for the student to access to
appropriate experiences or activities to achieve goals.
Two tools utilized by the school were perceived to have had a significant impact
on academic achievement at MMIS; although they are not programs, they merit dis-
cussion. These tools emerged from the collaborative alignment of curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment to grade-level standards as very important to achievement of goals
158
and narrowing the achievement gap: (a) Standards Based Report Card, and (b) Data
Tracker, the personal accountability tool carried daily by every student. These tools
provide easily accessed, ongoing feedback and monitoring of student academic progress.
Marzano (2003) reviewed several studies about the effect of academic goals and effective
feedback and found that goal setting accounted for gains in student performance, from 18
to 41 points, and effective feedback accounted for gains in student performance, from 21
to 41 points. Both SBG and Data Tracker offer meaningful, visual, accurate, and timely
feedback for the student, parent, and teacher that is easily understood and holds all stake-
holders accountable for academic progress. Timely ongoing monitoring and accurate
feedback are particularly important to LTEL students who have reached a plateau in
progress toward proficiency. Data Tracker and SBG provide information by which valid
goals can be set and provide easily accessed feedback regarding language learning and
standards achievement levels for teachers and students. SBG holds promise in informing
the school about probable future performance on standardized high-stakes tests, as MMIS
found a 76% correlation between SBG and CST results in 2008.
The study found that a deeply held belief in the mission of the school—to
promote equity through inclusion of all students and access to rigorous, high-quality
instruction—provides the motivation for engaging in all other cultural norms, practices,
and programs. High expectations, shared leadership, and collaboration are cultural norms
and manifestations of this school mission to ensure high academic achievement. Within
this school culture is practiced collaborative data analysis focused on the goal of building
standards-aligned instruction, curriculum, assessment, and grading. Strong instructional
159
strategies that teachers identified as effective in promoting learning were practiced across
the school in an environment where consistent discipline policies and strong relationships
promote safety and minimal disruption to learning. Finally, cultural norms, practices, and
programs were supported by district policies, expectations, funding, and professional
development, all of which sustained the efforts of the school to increase academic
achievement by all students. The tenets of sociocultural, social capital, and social justice
theories are pertinent in understanding the findings of this study and are presented in the
following section.
Analysis of Findings and Theoretical Frames
The Findings and the Social Justice Frame
The tenets of social justice theory explain many of the cultural norms that this
study found at MMIS. The first principal was determined to include all students equally
by hiring well-trained teachers who implemented effective practices, grade-level
standards-based materials and curriculum, and fair and informative assessment. In social
justice theory as it applies to education, schools must ensure that differences in oppor-
tunity are equalized by recognizing that inequalities exist and by addressing the inequali-
ties to maximize outcomes. The current principal of MMIS ensures that all students are
included in access to quality education by using a lottery system instead of a first-come,
first-served application process. Students are admitted without criteria, and neither
academic nor discipline history are factors in the selection.
Concepts of social justice theory include distributive justice (Cribb & Gewirtz,
2003). The principle of equal access to resources necessary for gain was evident through
160
the original and current principals’ determination to provide highly skilled teachers who
used effective instructional strategies to teach standards-based curriculum and use assess-
ment that informs instruction. The principal of the school hires staff who willingly give
extra time, examine their own practices, and work collaboratively rather than in isolation
to apply methods that teach the content and teach students how to learn. Recognition of
the fact that students lack skills does not result in remedial content but in rigorous curri-
culum that teachers scaffold so students have access to grade-level content and standards.
Cultural justice (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2003), the principle of recognition and respect
for cultural differences, emphasizes that students bring strengths and assets from their
culture. The school acts as a bridge between the home and mainstream culture and
removes barriers through high expectations and a clear stand on racism (Gardner,
Holmes, & Leitch, 2009). The principal and staff at MMIS expressed their high esteem
for students and families, as well as their belief in the students’ right to receive a quality
education. The ongoing retelling of the story of the fight for social justice by that
farming family whose child had been denied access to the local school because of her
ethnic background and brown skin inspires students to tear down obstacles and achieve
educational goals. Teachers hold themselves responsible to provide sound, effective
teaching practices and use assessment to inform their practice and to validate their own
effectiveness, not blame the student or parent. High expectations for academic success
are evident in how they refer to scholars, in the college-oriented school culture, and in
the wide variety of strategies used to ensure that their students learn.
161
Participatory justice empowers citizens to be self-directed contributors to the
educational outcomes and decisions (Gardner et al., 2009). MMIS teachers empower
students to contribute actively to their own academic achievement by teaching meta-
cognitive skills effectively. They not only teach the content; they teach students how to
learn, an educational version of the old adage: teach a man to fish versus give a man a
fish. Students are empowered with specific and current information about their own
progress through the Data Tracker and Standards-Based Report Card, and through
standards-based assessments that inform teachers’ decisions about instruction and
curriculum. Students are empowered to access college information by teachers who
become agents of knowledge and expertise (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) and believe in the
students’ academic potential.
The implementation of a social justice framework in a school does not inoculate
students against societal racism and discrimination. Individual teachers within the
school, even with the best intentions, can reproduce attitudes that emanate from a com-
pensatory frame rather than an empowering ideal. Racism is pervasive in society and
some of the societal and governmental solutions to poor academic achievement actually
guarantee poor performance rather than ensure social justice (Fusarelli, 2004). For
example, a school’s poor performance may result in sanctions of decreased funding,
decreased autonomy of instruction, and increased monitoring, which could result in flight
of the most creative and innovative administrators, teachers, and most successful
students, which exacerbates the poor performance of students and teachers left behind
(Fusarelli, 2004). MMIS has strong leadership that confronts stereotyping and low
162
expectations of students. The school experiences high autonomy within their district that
has resulted in an empowered staff that implements innovative practices such as SBG,
school-wide instructional practices, and mainstreaming of Special Education and EL
students. The teachers at MMIS see themselves as mediators of learning, able to assist
students in accessing the content of the curriculum and the mainstream culture and
language.
The Findings and Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theory describes learning as a mediated process of communication
and imitation (Lantolf, 2000). The student, with his/her own individual history of
experience, cultural lens, and language, interacts with an experienced other and co-
constructs meaning of the content being learned. The other is the teacher, as mediator
and facilitator, who uses his/her knowledge of the child’s background, development,
achievement results, language ability, as well as his/her knowledge and skill in using
effective instructional strategies to scaffold the student’s learning. The sociocultural
concept of ZPD is a metaphor describing the difference between what the student can
learn alone and what the student can learn with support (Lantolf, 2000).
MMIS teachers mediate learning in the ZPD through scaffolding activities, such
as their school-wide strategies that allow MMIS students to accomplish new tasks with
guidance that they would not have been able to accomplish alone (Vygotsky, 1978). The
teacher instructs the child how to take Cornell Notes, which the child uses in algebra
class. The child records new information about graphing slope and line and gains skills
toward greater independence as she depends on the notes for recall of learning. The
163
teacher then is a critical partner in guiding the learner through the ZPD and is able to
recognize the range of ZPD through the analyses of student’s most recent standards
aligned assessment results.
Figure 5 is a graphic representation of the triadic relationship of student, teacher,
and the content of learning. The teacher mediates the content of learning, activating the
child’s background knowledge to scaffold learning, and the student learns to use meta-
cognitive skills to mediate his/her own learning. As an example of this dynamic, the
MMIS algebra teacher asked a student a question about graphing slope and line and she
consulted her Cornell notes that her teacher had explicitly taught to help her to access
complex concepts.
Figure 5. The triadic relationship of learning.
164
The teacher, highly motivated by his/her powerful conviction that students must
have access to a standards based curriculum, English language proficiency, school and
mainstream culture, utilizes highly effective strategies and skills in instruction, builds
strong relationships, and always expects success from students. The student, who brings
to school a rich family and cultural background and primary language skill, is able to
utilize these to navigate learning, co-construct meaning with the teacher, and build new
learning that will be utilized to access new concepts in the future (Lantolf, 2000). The
partnership in this learning model builds on a foundation of trust, mutual respect,
acceptance, and perseverance. The content of learning is an interwoven work of
standards, acquired meta-cognitive skills, mainstream culture, and English language.
ZPD can be used in a broader way to explain the interaction and co-constructing
of learning that occurs through collaboration as MMIS teachers analyze student data
together, develop standards-aligned assessments, and determine school-wide instructional
strategies. Lantolf (2000) described this broader definition of ZPD as the dynamic when
“people working jointly are able to co-construct contexts in which expertise emerges as a
feature of the group” (p. 17). The teachers interact, mediate learning for each other, and
emerge as experts in developing and implementing effective instruction and standards-
based assessment and grading for ELLs and Hispanic students.
School-wide instructional strategies at MMIS scaffold learning so that complex
materials and content are comprehensible through implementation of agreed-upon
instructional strategies. The school-wide teacher-selected instructional strategies not only
ensure that teachers scaffold the curriculum but also teach students how to mediate their
165
own learning. Students are asked to interact, collaborate, use higher-order thinking
questions, and communicate orally and in writing. An example of a scaffold strategy,
Cornell note taking, teaches students Socratic questioning as they record their interpreta-
tion of the learning, a practice that teaches students how to mediate their own learning.
These best practices result from teachers’ collaborative analyses of student achievement
data, open discussion of areas of weakness, and shared effective instructional strategies.
Instruction that results from the collaborative process is targeted; that is, students who
will benefit have names and identified learning needs. Instruction is intentional; that is,
the instruction has been chosen to fill a specific purpose or address an identified need.
Teachers intentionally select instructional strategies that benefit their high EL population
and students who are Fluent English Proficient but still need support for full comprehen-
sion. For example, the strategy of modeling thinking about thinking, or Think Aloud,
teaches students and EL students in particular how to mediate their own learning.
Teachers model how to use context clues to understand meaning or work through an
equation to arrive at a solution by talking their thoughts aloud. Research on second
language learning suggests that collaborative verbalization of meta-cognitive strategies
such as predicting, planning, problem solving, or monitoring is a more effective media-
tion of learning than mere instruction in how to carry out learning strategies (Lantolf,
2000).
Limitations of the Study
The design of this study did not permit adequate focus on LTEL students,
although data were gathered regarding EL students, Hispanic students, and low-SES
166
students as subgroups. The Staff Input Survey was limited by the wording in that the
choices provided to respond to survey items should have been worded similarly so that all
questions could have been answered by level of agreement rather responses such as some,
which created ambiguity.
Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations for practice are based on the findings of this study.
Professional educators united in meaningful mission become empowered when they have
a challenging goal and are given the structure and time to collaborate. Therefore, schools
should establish a compelling collective mission that all stakeholders understand and
believe in and establish a process for “passing on the torch” to newcomers to the school
through an inculcation process that informs about the mission, history of the school and
“the way things are done here” (Barth, 2002).
Collaboration, focused on examining student data, produces effective instruction
and assessment when the data are clearly presented, current, and easily accessed and
when teachers have sufficient time to discuss results. Schools should support collabora-
tion by allotting sufficient resources to ensure that teachers have a meaningful and
challenging goal, as well as sufficient time to discuss, share practice, and negotiate
solutions. Accurate and current student data are a requisite for collaborative analysis of
problem and resulting solutions. Three to 4 full days each year for each content area, in
addition to shorter collaboration times through regular bi-weekly meetings, provided
sufficient time in this study school to build trust and engage in transparent conversations
about student achievement. Each school must determine the amount of time and
167
frequency required to accomplish the goal. DuFour et al. (2006) have provided practical
recommendations for establishing efficient and effective collaborative teams.
Middle school students, teachers, and parents will benefit from implementation of
SBG. SBG provides an accurate and meaningful picture of the student’s ability level in
relation to content knowledge. SBG empowers the student, parent, and teacher with
frequent and accurate feedback about the child’s learning.
All students would benefit from the above recommendations but EL students in
particular would benefit from implementation of effective school-wide instructional
practices that are supported by research. The school should provide training in effective
strategies designed for EL students, such as Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
(SIOP; Echevarria et al., 2008) and Thinking Maps (Hyerle, 1995) and ongoing coaching
and feedback from peers, as well as administrators, to ensure that these strategies are
implemented.
Recommendations for district practice focus on actions that will empower the site
leader to communicate a clear mission, share leadership, promote powerful instruction,
and lead analysis of data to align practice with standards. The district should provide
professional development and mentoring in specific skills such as data analysis, EL
instructional strategies, or effective instructional supervision. The district should support
the principal’s autonomy in selection of staff and implementation of collaboratively
determined site decisions to address learning needs of students.
Recommendations for changes in policy focus on changes in assessment policies
for EL students. A policy for using alternative tests to CST (California Alternative
168
Performance Assessment and California Modified Assessment) as criteria for designating
a student as fluent in English should be established to ensure that Special Education
students who are actually fluent in reading, writing, and speaking English at their
developmental level could have a means of exiting the EL program. Policies should
change the definition of adequate progress from 5 to 7 years to align with research
concerning the length of time needed to acquire English (Cummins, 1981). Furthermore,
implementation of a growth model, rather than the current model of evaluating progress
as measured by CST, gives a more accurate picture of a school’s impact on learning.
Implications for Further Study
The original intent of the study was to study LTEL students and identify factors
that limit progress in achieving proficiency by examining a school that has been
successful in supporting attainment of English proficiency. This study examined factors
that a successful school was implementing for all students and for EL students as a group,
but a thorough analysis of factors affecting the subgroup LTEL students requires further
investigation. A thorough gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2002) would inform schools with
LTEL students of the factors that might be implemented to increase their academic
achievement and English proficiency.
With the exception of the mission, school culture norms such as collaboration or
shared leadership in this study could have been referred to as practices instead. At what
point does a practice become a cultural norm? What percentage of the staff are necessary
to create a “critical mass” of teachers engaging in a practice to have the practice become
a cultural norm? How does an effective leader create a critical mass of personnel to
169
establish a cultural norm rather than a practice? A study of these questions will provide
information that may help schools to sustain achievement that results from specific
practices or programs.
A dynamic in this study resulted from the original principal’s social justice frame.
The staff that she hired and their values and beliefs that were reflected in the mission of
the school are still evident in the school culture and still influence instructional decisions.
A longitudinal study of the impact of the principal’s autonomy in selection of staff versus
district-assigned staff might reveal productive information about the relationships among
hiring practices, sustaining school culture, and teacher commitment.
Conclusion
I spent an amazing 4-month period gathering data at MMIS observing teachers
who were passionate, skilled, and willing to learn and improve on their craft. I met with
and observed administrative and counseling staff who were committed to maintaining a
safe, caring, college-bound, rigorous learning environment. I interviewed a principal
who was dedicated to doing what is right for her students, who was unafraid to ask
difficult questions of her staff, and who was equally demanding of herself. I observed
classrooms in which instruction was effective, extended to increase time in math and
English, and implemented school wide to guarantee specific strategies for all students.
Repeated throughout the data gathering process were statements of belief in the potential
of MMIS students, the sense of purpose and efficacy of the staff to prepare students for
academic success, and the expectation that teachers would work collaboratively to ensure
that students’ full potential would be realized.
170
One afternoon at the school, I walked into a lunchtime meeting in which students
listened to a representative from a private preparatory school, recruiting eligible MMIS
students who were interested in attending the small but elite high school. Among those
who were listening were some EL students—shy, not asking questions but listening
raptly and taking notes by the method they had been taught (Cornell style). I saw in their
eyes what I felt at 13 when my orchestra teacher took me backstage to meet a famous
composer: possibility. The memory makes me smile as I complete this dissertation for a
doctoral degree from the University of Southern California. I want to tell the students,
“The sky’s the limit!” But that isn’t necessary; their teachers have already told them.
171
REFERENCES
Achievement College Test (ACT). National profile report. Retrieved from http://
www.act.org/news/data/09/index.html
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban
school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283-300.
Asher, C., & Maguire, C. (2007). Beating the odds: How thirteen NYC schools bring low-
performing ninth graders to timely graduation and college enrollment. New York,
NY: Brown University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
August, D., Hakuta, K., & Pompa, D. (1994). For all students: Limited English Proficient
students and goals 2000. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (1997). Developing literacy in second-language
learners: A report of the National Literary Panel on Language-Minority Children
and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 1, 237-269.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.
Barton, P. (2006). “Failing” or “succeeding” schools: How can we tell? Washington,
DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2008). Windows on achievement and inequality. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org
Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2009). Parsing the Achievement Gap II Policy Information
Report. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/
PICPARSINGII.pdf
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive
domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Borman, G., Hewes, L., & Overman, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and
achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125-230.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
172
California Department of Education. (2001). Taking center stage: A commitment to
standards-based education for California middle grades students. Sacramento:
CDE Press.
California Department of Education. (2008). Taking center stage. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.gov
California Department of Education. (2009). Testing and accountability. Retrieved from
http://www.ced.ca.gov/ta/
Capps. R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind
Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Carroll, T., Fulton, K., Abercrombie, K., & Yoon, I. (2004). Fifty years after Brown v.
Board of Education: A two-tiered system. Washington, DC: National Commission
on Teaching and America’s Future.
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cobb, C. (2004). Improving adequate yearly progress for English language learners.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
College Board. (2009). A report to the nation. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard
.com/html/aprtn/report.html
Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, National
Center for Education.
Collier, V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority
student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2), 187-
212.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2003). Towards a sociology of just practices: An analysis of
plural conceptions of justice. In C. Vincent (Ed.), Social justice education and
identity (pp. 15-29). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles.
CA: National Dissemination Center.
Curran, B. (2005). Graduation counts: A report to the National Governors’ Association
Task Force on State High School Graduation Rates. Retrieved from http://
www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9123e83a1f6786440ddcbeeb501010
173
Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. Banks & C.
Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural handbook (pp. 465-483).
New York, NY: MacMillan.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
Darling-Hammond L. (2007). Evaluating ‘no child left behind.’ Retrieved from
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond
Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise, A. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and
school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 85, 315-336
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPoint, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leader-
ship study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University,
Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008) Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Retrieved from https://www.edsource.org/
Elmore, L. (2004). The accountable leader. Educational Forum, 69, 134-142.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden
of acting White.” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to
reach limited-formal schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fullan, M. (2005a). The intriguing nature of sustainability. In M. Fullan (Ed.),
Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action (pp. 13-29). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2005b). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 174-181.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity
and diversity in American education. Education Policy, 18(1), 71-94.
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7
th
ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gandara, P. (2006). Where California’s English learners attend school and why it matters.
Newsletter, UC Linguistic Minority Institute,.15(2), 1.
174
Gandara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009) Latino education crises: Consequences of failed
social policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English Learners
in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
Gardner, J., Holmes, B., & Leitch, R. (2009) Assessment and social justice. Retrieved at
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Assessment_Social
_Justice_Review.pdf
Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R.
(2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in
the elementary grades: A practice guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
publications/practiceguides
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Gordon, E. W. (1995). Toward an equitable system of educational assessment. Journal of
Negro Education, 64, 360-372.
Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence. (2007). Students First: Renewing hope
for California’s future. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Guryan, J. (2003). Desegregation and Black dropout rates. Retrieved from http://
faculty.chicagobooth.edu/jonathan.guryan/research/guryandesegregation.pdf
Haertel, E., & Herman, J. (2005). Historical perspective on validity arguments for
accountability testing. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles,
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Hanushek, E. (2001). Black-White achievement differences and governmental
interventions. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 24-28.
Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2006). Teacher quality. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.),
Handbook of the economics of education, 2, 42. Washington, DC: National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.
Hill, N., & Tyson, D. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 45(3), 740-768.
Hoxby, C. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from
population variation. Quarterly Journal of Economics November, 115(4).
Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/
003355300555060
175
Hoxby, C. (2008, March 18). How can the achievement gap be closed? New York Times
[electronic version]. Retrieved from http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/
2008/03/18/how-can-the-achievement-gap-be-closed-a-freakonomics-quorum
Hyerle, D. (1995). Thinking maps: Tools for learning. Carey, NC: Thinking Maps, Inc.
Johnson, L. B. (1963). 5/30/63, remarks by Vice President, Memorial Day, Gettysburg,
Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/
speeches.hom/630530.asp
Kaplan, E. (1999). “It’s going good”: Inner-city Black and Latino adolescents’ percep-
tions about achieving an education. Urban Education, 34(2), 181-213.
doi:40916372.
Katz, S. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers and
structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809-840.
Koehler, P. (2004a). California’s graduation rate: Hidden crises. Retrieved from
www.wested.org
Koehler, P. (2004b). Student achievement in California: Steady progress made, more
improvement needed. Retrieved from www/wested.org
Krashen, S. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London, UK:
Prentice-Hall International.
Krueger, A., Hanushek, A., & Rice, J. (2002). The class size debate. Washington, DC:
The Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://edpro.stanford.edu/
hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/classsizedebate.full%20volume.pdf#page=46
Ladson-Billings, G. (2007). Pushing past the achievement gap: An essay on the language
of deficit. Journal of Negro Education, 76(3). Retrieved from http://findarticles
.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200707/ai_n21280208/?tag=content;col1
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97, 47-68.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York, NY:
Oxford Press.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Lehr, C. A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2004). Addressing student engagement
and truancy prevention during the elementary years: A replication study of the
Check & Connect model. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 9(3).
doi:10.1207/s15327671espr0903_4
Lichten, W. (2007). Equity and excellence in the college board Advanced Placement
program. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
176
Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth annual report of Horace Mann as Secretary of Massachusetts
State Board of Education. Retrieved from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/
facts/democrac/16.htm
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that work, from
research to results. Aurora, CO: MidContinental Research for Education and
Learning.
Mendez v. Westminster School District, 64 F.Supp. 544 (C.D. Cal. 1946), aff'd, 161 F.2d
774 (9th Cir. 1947) (en banc).
Mitchell, K., Shkolnik, J., Song, M., Uekawa, K., Murphy, R., Garet, M., & Means, B.
(2005). Rigor, relevance, and results: The quality of teacher assignments and
student work in new and conventional high schools. Washington, DC: American
Institute for Research.
Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. Future
of Children, 5(2), 113-127.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1990). Reading report card, 1971-1988.
Princeton, NJ: Author.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). The condition of education report
2000–2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/list/i3.asp
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Education Programs (NCELA). (2006). Frequently asked questions. Washington,
DC: George Washington University.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/appenda.html
National Head Start Association. (2009). About the National Head Start Association.
Retrieved from www.NHSA.org/about_nhsa
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6301 et seq. U.S.C. (2002).
Odden, A. (1990). Class size and student achievement: Research-based policy alterna-
tives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2). Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/1163634
Ogbu, J. (1992). Adaptation to minority status and impact on school success. Theory Into
Practice, 31(4), 287-295.
177
Okagaki, L. (2001). Triarchic model of minority children’s school achievement.
Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 9-20.
Ovando, C., & Collier, V. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in
multicultural contexts (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Padilla, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2001) Academic performance of immigrant and U.S.-born
Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual/ESL
instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 727-742.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative designs and data collection (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Payan, R., & Nettles, M. (2008). Current state of English language learners in
California. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem
.c988ba0e5dd572bada20bc47c3921509/?vgnextoid=36f4bc0473678110VgnVCM
10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=19e5be3a864f4010VgnVCM10000022f
95190RCRD
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of social justice. Boston, MA: Belknap Press.
Reed, D. (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: Its impact and what is left undone.
Retrieved from www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF23A.pdf
Rice, J. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Rumberger, R. W., & Gandara, P. (2005, Winter). How well are California’s English
Learners mastering English? UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute
Newsletter 14(2), 1-2.
Rumberger, R.W., Gándara, P., & Merino, B. (2006). Where California’s English
Learners attend school and why it matters. UC Linguistic Minority Research
Institute Newsletter, 15(2), 1-2.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on
future students academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee
Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Schmoker, M. (2003). Planning for failure? Or for school success? Education Week,
22(22), 39.
Schools to Watch. (n.d.). Schools to watch: Taking center stage. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolstowatch.org/ StateProgram/California/tabid/133/Default.aspx
Schwartz, W. (2001). Closing the achievement gap: Principles for improving the
educational success of all students. New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Urban Education.
178
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education.
Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Solórzano, D. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the
experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. Qualitative Studies in Education,
11(1), 121-136.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). Social capital framework for understanding the socialization
of racial minority children. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Teske, P., & Schneider, M. (1999). The importance of leadership: The role of school
principals. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www
.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/Import_of_Leadership.pdf.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_understanding.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). State of California consolidated state application
accountability workbook for state grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110). Retrieved
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Condition of education: 2009. Indicator 20:
Status dropout rates. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
2009/pdf/20_2009.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2010). Overview of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/coord/
titlevi.php
Verdun, V. (2005). Big disconnect between segregation and integration. Negro
Educational Review, 56(1), 67.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published
1934)
Welch, F., & Light, A. (1987). New evidence on school desegregation. Washington, DC:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
WestEd. (2004). Student achievement in California: Steady progress made, faster
improvement needed. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/753
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., Reardon, S., Woody, E., Henne, M., Levine, J., &
Levine, R. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do
better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income
students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Witte, G., & Henderson, N. (2004). Wealth gap widens for Blacks, Hispanics. Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40455-2004Oct17.html
or: http://tinyurl.com/yaxokd
179
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for aca-
demic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.
American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
Zirkel, P. (2001). Decisions that have shaped U.S. education: Educational leadership of
education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
180
APPENDIX A
ALIGNMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS WITH DATA COLLECTED
Data Collection
Instruments
RQ1: What are
the cultural
norms that have
been employed
by the school
that have
allowed them to
close the
achievement gap
and sustain
success?
RQ2: What are the
practices that have been
employed by the school
that have allowed them
to close the
achievement gap and
sustain success?
RQ3: What are the
programs that have been
employed by the school
that have allowed them
to close the achievement
gap and sustain success?
General Data
Collection
• SARC
• Meeting notes
and agendas
• AVID
• Professional
Development
• Other documents
X
Interviews
• Face to face
interviews with site
administrator, non
math teachers, most
math teachers, and
new teachers
X
X
X
Observation Survey
• Teachers,
School
Administrators
• Researcher’s
Observations
X
X
X
Teacher Survey X X X
Classroom
Observations
X
X
Schoolwide
Observations
X
181
APPENDIX B
THE STAFF INPUT SURVEY
Your school was chosen for this study based on the success and sustainability in
student achievement. The purpose of this study is to identify your school’s cultural
norms, practices and programs that contributed to the closing or narrowing of the
achievement gap. The results of this study could be useful to schools with a similar
student population. Your input on this survey is anonymous. This research project is
being conducted by a doctoral student from the University of Southern California. The
survey will take about 10-15 minutes to complete. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please circle the appropriate response:
1. The school supports collaboration among teachers.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree e) Strongly Disagree
2. The teachers at this school believe that students can achieve at high levels.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree e) Strongly Disagree
3. School administration creates a positive school culture for teachers and students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
4. Leadership is shared among school personnel.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
5. Teachers collaborate to discuss student data to improve student learning.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
6. The school addresses the needs of struggling students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
7. School administration conducts classroom observations frequently.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree e) Strongly Disagree
182
8. The school has a systematic process for identifying and assisting struggling
students.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree e) Strongly Disagree
9. School administration communicates vision and goals to the staff.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
10. School administration ensures the analysis of student assessment data.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
11. School administration provides support for implementation of new instructional
practices.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
12. School administration provides ways to improve instructional strategies to meet
the needs of students with diverse backgrounds.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
13. CST scores and District Assessments are used to plan your instructional program.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
14. Student data is used to identify the instructional needs of my students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
15. You utilize the California State Standards to plan and deliver instruction.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
16. You provide differentiated instructions to meet the needs of all students.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
17. School administration initiates programs that promote student achievement.
a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Somewhat Disagree e) Strongly Disagree
18. The school utilizes a specific program to analyze student data.
a) Most of the time b) Sometimes c) Rarely d) Never
183
Please circle all that apply:
19. Who leads the collaboration sessions?
a) Teachers b) Administrators c) Counselors d) Coaches e) Other:_____________
20. What topics are discussed in the collaboration sessions?
a) Curriculum b) Instruction c) Intervention d) Data Analysis e) Operation
f) Standards g) Other: _____________________________________________
21. How does the school make collaboration possible?
a) Substitute release time b) Minimum Days c) Partial Day Release
d) After School Time e) Bank Time Activity f) Staff Meetings g) Preparation
Periods h) Other: ___________________________________________________
22. What type of intervention practices are used for struggling students?
a) Peer Tutoring b) After School Tutoring c) In-class intervention
d) Pull-Out Intervention e) Homework Assistance f) Summer School
g) Off-Track Classes h) Other: _______________________________
23. Who organizes professional development sessions related to intervention programs?
a) Teachers b) Administrators c) Department/Grade Level Chairs
d) Coaches e) Other: ___________________________________________
24. Rate the following instructional strategies you used to enhance student learning.
Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not Important
___ Direct instruction ___ Guided practice
___ Pre-teaching ___ Re-teaching
___ Visual aids/graphic organizers ___ Note-taking
___ Summarizing ___ SDAIE Strategies
___ Cooperative grouping ___ Peer tutoring
___ Individual instruction ___ Higher Order Thinking Questions
___ Scaffolding ___ Using Prior Knowledge
___ Metacognitive Skills ___ Other (please list) ________________
184
25. What specific program does the school use to promote collaboration?
___________________________________________________________________
26. What intervention program(s) at your school have contributed to closing the
achievement gap?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
27. What instructional programs do you use in your classroom that has helped close the
achievement gap?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
28. Comments about the role of intervention in closing the achievement gap at your
school:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
29. Comments about the role of data analysis which helped close achievement gap at
your school:
___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
30. Comments about the role of school leadership which helped close the achievement
gap at your school:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
31. Comments about the role of collaboration which helped close the achievement gap at
your school:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
185
32. Comments about the role of your classroom instruction which helped close the
achievement gap at your school:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Even though this survey is anonymous, please provide the following information:
Your position at the school:
For Elementary Schools -- Administrative Team Teacher Grade level Chair
For Secondary Schools -- Administrative Team Teacher Department Chair
Number of years as an educator: ________________________________
How long have you worked at this school?: ________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey. Your responses are appreciated.
186
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION TOOL
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Focus: Factors Narrowing the Achievement Gap with Sustained Success in Urban
Schools
Date:_______________________ Page ____of_____
Time: ___________
Type of Observation(Circle One): School Class Leadership Meeting
Observation Log
First Impression
Condition of Surrounding
Neighborhood
Approach to School
§ Exterior condition of
structures
§ Plants and foliage
§ Bus turn-arounds, parking
lot: teachers and students
§ Supervision around and in
front of the school
The Office
§ Entrance/security
§ Condition of office
compatible with exterior?
§ Staff interaction, with
guest, parents, community,
and peers
187
Initial Meeting
§ With whom? Principal,
Asst. Principal…
§ Restrictions on access?
§ Staff traffic to
administration, open door
or appointments
Staff
§ Designated representatives,
restricted choice, or free
access to staff
►Teacher leaders
►Empowered/Figure
heads?
►Emergent leaders of
formal structures of
leadership
§ Collaboration?
►Structured, non-
structured?
►Common assessments,
formative, summative
Students
§ Student-centered culture?
§ Connection with staff at all
levels? Any levels?
188
Levels of Curriculum Curriculum
§ ESL
§ SDAIE
§ SPED
►RtI
►SDC
►ED/SED
►SH
Standard Levels
College Prep
Advanced Placement
International Baccalaureate
Open Access or restricted
entrance
Support Programs
§ AVID
§ Credit Recovery
§ Concurrent Enrollment
with junior college
§ Distance Learning Credit
189
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Collaboration:
a. What does collaboration look like at this school?
b. Who leads the collaboration sessions?
c. With whom do you collaborate? How often?
d. What are the outcomes for student learning?
e. What programs, practices, and cultural norms does the school have in place to
ensure that students achieve?
2. School Leadership:
a. What is the school mission and vision?
b. What is the primary goal for this school?
c. How is the mission/vision/goal communicated?
d. Who is the school leader? Why?
e. How does the leadership foster or help student learning?
f. Is the leadership shared among the various school personnel? How?
g. How does the leadership meet the needs of at-risk populations?
h. Are school decisions based upon student needs? Give an example
3. Program Implementation
a. What programs have been employed that have allowed the school to close
the achievement gap?
b. Are there programs that have improved attendance? And how is this
affecting achievement?
c. What programs have improved the school climate?
d. What programs have improved content learning for all students but
specifically for students with diverse needs?
e. What programs have improved student achievement in literacy skills?
f. What programs have improved student achievement in mathematics?
4. Data Analysis
a. How is data used to support student learning?
b. Who is responsible for dissagregation, dissemination, and review of data?
c. How is this information shared among the various school stakeholders?
d. Does your school utilize a specific data analysis program? If so, which
program?
e. How often is data analyzed at your school site?
190
5. Intervention:
a. What are the supports that are in place for students and their families?
b. Who determines which students get support?
c. How are supports implemented and monitored?
d. What is intervention is offered to students who are underperforming
academically?
e. How are these implemented? Who is involved?
f. How do you make sure that every student has his or her academic needs met?
g. What is the way things are done that supports learning in student groups that are
traditional underperforming?
6. Practices that Support Closing the Achievement Gap:
a. What are the school-wide practices that support student learning?
b. Who determined that this practice happens?
c. How is effectiveness measured? Or what data is collected?
d. How do you know that it is successful?
e. Has this practice been modified since the beginning?
• How do you know that all (EL, low SES, Special Ed, African American,
Hispanic) students have access to these practices?
• How do you know students are appropriately placed in classrooms or
courses?
f. What are the departmental or grade level practices that support student learning?
7. Classroom Instruction
a. What are the classroom practices that support student learning?
b. What are teachers supposed to know and be able to do?
c. How do you know that they have done it?
d. How is classroom instruction differentiated to meet the needs of all students? List
some classroom examples.
8. Professional Development Practices that support closing the achievement gap:
a. What are the professional development opportunities available to teachers?
b. What is the role of the teacher in professional development?
c. What is the role of the administrator in professional development?
d. How do you know that teachers are utilizing skills learned?
e. In the classroom? In specific content areas?
9. Sustainability
a. Have you sustained success?
b. How have you sustained success?
c. What advice would you give to other schools that want to emulate your cultural
norms, programs and practices to close the achievement gap?
Do you have anything you would like to add to this interview in terms of closing the
achievement gap and sustaining success?
191
APPENDIX E
DOCUMENT REVIEW MASTER LIST, CATEGORIZED
District
1. Textbook adoption list
2. Modified or year-round school
3. Board policy
4. Vision statement
5. Mission statement
6. Staff development plan to meet the needs of diverse learners
7. LEA Plan
8. District policy for ELM placement
9. District policy for SEI placement
10. LEA code of conduct policy
11. LEA discipline policy
12. LEA drug/alcohol use prohibition policy
13. LEA firearms/weapons policy
14. LEA Gun-Free Schools Act policy
15. LEA plan describing availability of Tobacco Use Prevention Education services
16. LEA policy regarding tobacco use
17. Full desegregation
18. District-established criteria/procedures for reclassification
19. LEA catch-up plan for monitoring and overcoming any academic deficits
20. District policy on qualifications for instructional aides
School level artifacts
1. Meeting schedules
2. Staff Development plan/School site plan
3. Instructional minutes/Master Schedule
4. Assessment tools
5. Preschool availability or pre-kinder offerings
6. Literacy programs
7. Character education
8. SST
9. RTI
10. Tutorial programs
11. Saturday school
12. Interventions during the school day
13. Summer school
14. Student-parent handbook
15. Discipline assembly
16. Vision statement
17. Mission statement
18. Staff development plan to meet the needs of diverse learners
19. Equitable groupings of minority students in classrooms
20. Parent Involvement Policy
192
21. School Accountability Report Card
22. Teacher and paraprofessional assignments
23. Student profile data
24. Counseling availability and function
25. Entitlement funding ie Title I funding
26. School-parent compact for NCLB/Title I
27. Public reports of suspension, expulsion, and truancy rates from Uniform Management
Information and Reporting System
28. Safe school plan (including disaster procedures, crisis management, or emergency plan)
29. Attendance reports
Instructional
1. Department meeting notes
2. Common planning/Common Assessments
3. Classroom Objectives or standards posted in rooms
4. SMART goals or action plan documents
5. Teacher lesson plans
Differentiated or special services
1. Re-classification of LEP
2. Descriptions of English-language mainstream program
3. Descriptions of structured English immersion program design
4. English learner program evaluation report
5. GATE student identification criteria
6. GATE teacher specifications
7. Analysis of California Healthy kids survey (CHKS) core module data
8. Analysis of CHKS resiliency and youth development module
9. California Healthy kids survey
10. Physical education instructional minutes report
California Department of Education website
1. School data to analyze student proficiency (CST and CELDT)
2. School demographic data
3. School data on Program Improvement status ie: AYP and API information
Pertains to High Schools only
1. College prep/AP/IB offerings
2. School data to analyze % of students in CP/AP/IB/Honors courses
3. Freshman advisory
4. AVID
5. Freshman assembly/freshman first day
6. Student placement criteria into CP/Honors/AP/IB
7. CST data, CAHSEE, AP, and college-bound statistics
8. District career technical education plan and course offerings
9. Work Experience Education District plan
10. Process for adding new courses
11. Description of alternative programs
193
APPENDIX F
ALIGNMENT OF DATA NEEDS, SOURCES, AND INSTRUMENTATION
RQ 1: What are the cultural norms that have been employed by the school that have
allowed them to close the achievement gap and sustain success?
Data Needs Data Sources Instrumentation
Teacher Collaboration—
common planning, common
assessment, data review
• Dept. meeting notes
• Meeting schedules
• Staff development
plan/school site plan
Document Review
Challenging, rigorous
curriculum
• Textbook adoption list
• College prep/AP/IB
offerings
• Instructional minutes
• Assessment tools
• School data to analyze
% of students in
CP/AP/IB/honors
courses
Document Review, survey
Preventions for at-risk
populations
• Preschool availability
• Literacy Programs
• Pre-kinder offerings
• Character education
• Freshman advisory
• AVID
Interviews, document review,
observations
Interventions for at risk
population and whole school
• SST
• RTI
• Tutorial Programs
• Saturday School
• Intervention during
the school day
• Summer school
• Modified year-round
school
Document review
Behavioral Expectations • Character education
• Student-parent
handbook
• Board policy
• Discipline assembly
• Freshman assembly/
freshman day
Document review,
observations,
194
Leadership--Vision for
success with high
expectations
• Vision
• Mission statement
• Teacher evaluations
• Assessment tools
Document Review
Professional
development/Staff
development focusing on at-
risk and ethnic minority
students
• Staff development
plan to meet the needs
of diverse learners
Document review, surveys,
interviews
Data-driven decision making • SMART goals
• Assessment tools
• School demographic
data
• Student profile data
• Student placement
into CP/AP/IB/ honors
classes
• CST data, CAHSEE,
AP, and college bound
Document review, surveys,
interviews
Recognition of diverse
student population
• Re-classification
• Equitable groupings
of minority students in
classrooms
• Full desegregation
• Counseling
• Entitlement funding
Document review, surveys,
interviews
Standards are key to
curriculum and instruction
• Textbook adoption
• Standards posted in
every room
• Teacher lessons
• Assessment tools
Document review,
observations, surveys
195
RQ 2: What are the practices that have been employed by the school that have allowed
them to close the achievement gap and sustain success?
Administrative leadership on
instructional practices of
teachers
Teacher’s observation
student performance data
Teacher interview, teacher
survey
Instructional practices of
teachers
Classroom observation
Teachers practice in
Professional development
PD records, PLCs Teacher interviews,
observations during PD
meetings
Response to Intervention School data Documents; Interviews
Classroom organization on
SLC, class size, block
schedule
Schoolwide record Master schedule, observation
ELD CELDT scores, course
placement
Course placement,
benchmarks
Documents; interview,
observations
School safety, student
behavior Emergency
Suspension records Interventions
RQ3: What are the programs that have been employed by the school that have allowed
them to close the achievement gap and sustain success?
Information on the program:
How program
works/description of the
program
Who is involved in the
program
Length of program
Goal of program
Level of implementation
Key players/Stakeholders:
Start up sources/
Implementation
Questions on
Interviews/Survey
Assessments: Test scores;
CST Benchmarks District
Wide Assessments (DWA)
Test scores/assessments
CDE / Benchmark
data system
School Artifacts:
Attendance,
Agendas/minutes:
Agendas/minutes/student
and teacher attendance
List of documents
that are being
reviewed
Professional Development
Who
Material
What type: trainer of
trainer/facilitator
Program Environment
Observations
Classroom
observation forms
196
APPENDIX G
STAFF INPUT SURVEY RESULTS, QUESTIONS 1-15
Survey question
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Q1 – The School supports collaboration
among teachers
61.7%
(29)
36.2%
(17)
0% 2.1%
(1)
Q2 – The teachers at this school believe
that students can achieve at high levels.
61.7%
(29)
34%
(16)
4.3%
(2)
0
Most of the
Time
Sometimes Rarely Never
Q3 – School administration creates a
positive school culture for teachers and
students.
70.2%
33
27.7%
(13)
2.1%
(1)
0%
Q4 – Leadership is shared among school
personnel.
60.9%
(28)
39.1%
(18)
0%
0%
Q5 – Teachers collaborate to discuss
student data to improve student learning.
69.6%
(32)
28.3%
(13)
2.2%
(1)
0%
Q6 – The school addresses the needs of
struggling students.
78.7%
(37)
21.3%
(10)
0% 0%
Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Q7 – School administration conducts
classroom observations frequently
19.1%
(9)
63.8%
(30)
17.0%
(8)
0%
Q8 - The school has a systematic process
for identifying and assisting struggling
students.
36.2%
(17)
61.7%
(29)
2.1% 0%
Most of the
Time
Sometimes Rarely Never
Q9 – School administration
communicates vision and goals to the
staff.
80.9%
(38)
19.1%
(9)
0% 0%
197
Q10 – School administration ensures the
analysis of student assessment data.
71.7%
(33)
28.3%
13
0% 0%
Q11 – School administration provides
support for implementation of new
instructional practices.
53.3%
(24)
37.8%
(17)
8.9%
(4)
0%
Q12 – School administration provides
ways to improve instructional strategies
to meet the needs of students with
diverse backgrounds.
51.1%
(23)
40.0%
(18)
6.7%
(3)
2.2%
(1)
Q13 – CST scores and District
Assessments are used to improve
instructional strategies to meet the needs
of students with diverse backgrounds.
87.0%
40
10.9%
5
0%
2.2%
(1)
Q14 – Student data is used to identify
the instructional needs of my students.
80.4%
37
19.6%
9
0% 0%
Q15 – You utilize the California State
Standards to plan and deliver instruction.
95.7%
(44)
4.3%
2
0% 0%
Q16 – You provide differentiated
instruction to meet the needs of all
students.
68.9%
(31)
31.1%
(14)
0% 0%
Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Q17 – School Administration initiates
programs that promote student
achievement.
50.0%
(22)
45.5%
(20)
2.3%
(1)
2.3%
(1)
Most of the
Time
Sometimes Rarely Never
Q18 – The school utilizes a specific
program to analyze student data.
90.7%
(39)
9.3%
(4)
0% 0%
198
APPENDIX H
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES DEFINITIONS
Cornell Notes Developed at Cornell University to assist students in note
taking; AVID program has adopted this method that teaches
student to organize notes and to formulate questions about the
notes. Notes are made on the left 2/3 of the page and questions
on the right third of page
Graphic Organizers Sometimes referred to as "Thinking Maps" or mind maps.
Students organize thoughts using various graphic models such
as ven diagram.
SQ3R Summarize, Question, Read, Recite, Review; A literacy
method that helps students tackle complex text such as grade
level textbooks.
Pre-Teach Vocabulary Students are introduced to vocabulary and terms that are
unfamiliar prior to teaching the lesson that includes the
vocabulary.
Positive Classroom
Environment
Refers to intentional design of the classroom that promotes
learning of content. It includes the physical such as bulletin
boards, desk arrangements, technology that enriches learning,
and includes the non-physical such as tension, interactions
between students and teacher.
Think 'A Loud (TA) Modeling the thinking process for students by saying out loud
what the teacher is thinking as she/he works through a
problem or thinks about a situation that requires a decision or
solution.
Word Walls A method to teach vocabulary by posting significant words
and definitions to scaffold vocabulary learning.
Writing-Across-the-
Curriculum
Collaborative approach to increase student writing ability by
designating a common standard or expectation for writing,
then each department reinforces that standard through
assignments specific to their curricular content area.
Reciprocal Teaching A collaborative literacy method in which four students work
together to teach each other about a written piece that all have
read. Each member of the group has a specific role,
Summarize, Question, Clarify, and Predict.
Prior Knowledge Utilization of what the child already knows about the content
to acquire new learning.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Urban schools that have narrowed the achievement gap: middle school math achievement in an urban setting
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of an urban school
PDF
Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs
PDF
Factors that contribute to narrowing the achievement gap for elementary age students: a case study
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
PDF
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
Organizational structures and systems in high-performing, high-poverty urban schools: the construct of race and teacher expectations as mediating factors in student achievement
PDF
Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District
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
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
Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Flores, Patricia Arleen
(author)
Core Title
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/14/2010
Defense Date
02/25/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement gap,EL students,English learner,equity,high expectations,intermediate school,leadership,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,school culture,school factors,school mission,school practice,teacher collaboration,urban school
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee chair
), Hocevar, Dennis J. (
committee member
), Rueda, Robert S. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
paflores@usc.edu,paflores602@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2918
Unique identifier
UC167602
Identifier
etd-Flores-3506 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-318157 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2918 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Flores-3506.pdf
Dmrecord
318157
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Flores, Patricia Arleen
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
achievement gap
EL students
English learner
equity
high expectations
school culture
school factors
school mission
school practice
teacher collaboration
urban school