/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content

A CASE STUDY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

IN A HIGH PERFORMING URBAN CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL

by

Jolie Renée Pickett

__________________________________________________________________

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

August 2007

Copyright 2007 Jolie Renée Pickett

ii

Acknowledgments

This is perhaps the most time-consuming academic challenge I have
undertaken. It comes close to the challenge presented to me by Master Lee,
although completely devoid of the physical and spiritual challenge. Many people
have influenced me to start or continue this journey and I would like to
acknowledge them. For without them, I would not have taken the first step or
desired to complete this goal. My thanks and gratitude to the following people:
Bill, Nancy and Michelle Pickett for always supporting me in this and any
other goal I have ever set for myself.
Master Lee for helping me to develop the self-discipline to focus,
persevere and ultimately complete any challenge I set for myself.
Mr. LeRoy Dotson for urging me to pursue my administrative credentials
and doctorate and for supporting me.
Dr. Shirley Peterson for taking me to a USC recruitment gathering, which
started me in this program over 11 years ago.
Dr. Kimiko Fukuda and Ms. Wilma Kozai for their years of professional
and personal support, mentoring and friendship.
Dr. Stuart Gothold for responding with open arms to my email request to
return to USC after a 10-year hiatus and offering to assist.
Drs. Rudy Castruita and Carl Cohn for agreeing to assist me, which
allowed my initial acceptance back into graduate school.

iii

My committee members, including Chairperson Dr. Stuart Gothold, Dr.
Dennis Hocevar, and Dr. Kathy Park-Stowe for their time and assistance.
Mr. Joe Hernandez and Mr. Bud Goodpasture for allowing me the ability
to return to the doctorate program because I knew I could take the necessary time
off and leave Garfield High School in capable hands.
Ms. Michelle Wong for providing that ever-so-needed moral support day-
in and day-out.

iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................ii
Table of Contents................................................................................................iv
List of Tables.....................................................................................................vii
List of Figures...................................................................................................viii
Abstract ..............................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1: The Problem.......................................................................................1
Introduction..............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................4
Research Questions ..................................................................................4
Significance of the Study..........................................................................4
Methodology............................................................................................6
Assumptions.............................................................................................7
Delimitations and Limitations ..................................................................8
Key Terms and Definitions.......................................................................8
Organization of the Study....................................................................... 11

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ................................................................... 13
Introduction............................................................................................ 13
The Evolving Role of the High School: A Historical Perspective............ 13
High School Reform Efforts................................................................... 21
Student Engagement and Disengagement in U.S. High Schools.............. 27
The Nature and Importance of Student Motivation and Engagement....... 29
The Conditions of Student Engagement.................................................. 32
Engagement of At-Risk Students............................................................ 37
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 39

Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................... 42
Introduction............................................................................................ 42
Background of the Study........................................................................ 43
Research Questions ................................................................................ 44
Conceptual Framework and Model......................................................... 45
Research Design..................................................................................... 46
Population.............................................................................................. 49

v

Sample ................................................................................................... 51
Lee Continuation High as a High Performing High School ......... 51
Lee High School as an Urban School.......................................... 55
Lee High School Staff and Programs .......................................... 57
Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 58
Document Review ...................................................................... 59
Observation ................................................................................ 60
Teacher Survey........................................................................... 62
Staff Interviews .......................................................................... 63
High School Survey of Student Engagement............................... 63
Data Collection ...................................................................................... 65
Validity and Reliability .......................................................................... 68
Document Review ...................................................................... 69
Observation ................................................................................ 70
Teacher Survey........................................................................... 72
Staff Interviews .......................................................................... 72
Data Analysis......................................................................................... 74

Chapter 4: Presentation of Data.......................................................................... 77
Introduction............................................................................................ 77
Overview of Case Study......................................................................... 77
Summary of Findings by Instrument....................................................... 77
Findings of Document Review.................................................... 78
Findings of Observation.............................................................. 88
Findings of Teacher Survey ...................................................... 101
Findings of Staff Interviews...................................................... 106
Findings of High School Survey of Student Engagement .......... 119
Comparing Student and Teacher Survey Findings..................... 124
Emergent Themes................................................................................. 125
To Achieve Great Things, Find (and Develop) Great People..... 125
Everyone’s Accountable, All of the Time (Whatever It Takes).. 127
Organize Around A Purpose (and Always Use Data) ................ 129
Maslow Was Right: Recognition of Social-Emotional Needs.... 131
Summary of Findings by Research Questions....................................... 134
Discussion of Findings ......................................................................... 138
Respect, Responsibility, Renewal ..............................................l39
“It’s Not Just Words”................................................................ 140

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion ................................................................. 142
Introduction.......................................................................................... 142
Analysis of Findings............................................................................. 143
Implications for Practice....................................................................... 144
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................ 148

vi

References ....................................................................................................... 150

Appendixes...................................................................................................... 152
A. Observation Template...................................................................... 157
B. Teacher Survey of Student Engagement........................................... 158
C. Interview Instrument of Student Engagement................................... 159
D. Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research .................................. 160

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Number and Values of Teacher Survey .............................................. 104
Table 2: Frequency of Values for Teacher Survey............................................ 105

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of High Performing High Schools.......................... 46
Figure 2: Creswell’s Six-Step Process................................................................ 76

ix

Abstract

This dissertation examines the impact of student engagement on student
achievement in a high performing urban continuation high school. Current
research indicates that despite years of reform efforts, U.S. high schools have
made limited gains in student achievement. Dropout rates are extremely high, as
students have become completely disengaged from their schools, especially in
urban high schools where dropout rates as high as 50 - 80% have been reported.
Although current research indicates that student engagement is identified as
contributing to achievement, what is not known is whether student engagement
creates a difference in achievement levels. This case study sought to identify the
level of engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school and to
identify the key programs and practices that contribute to student engagement and
high academic performance. It was one of a series of case studies conducted by a
thematic dissertation research team at schools in a Los Angeles high school
district, which was designated high-performing due to its increase in API scores
district wide. The study was conducted using a qualitative mixed methods case
study design, which included document review, observation, teacher surveys, and
staff interviews. Additionally, quantitative data was utilized from a secondary
data analysis from the High School Survey of Student Engagement, a survey
developed by Indiana University and administered to over 300,000 students
throughout the United States over the past three years.

1

Chapter 1
The Problem

Introduction
High schools are under intense pressure to improve student performance.
Nationwide, they have not made academic improvements, despite years of reform
efforts. In fact, high schools continue to have high dropout rates and poor
academic achievement. Urban high schools fare even worse with higher dropout
rates and worse academic achievement. According to the National Center for
Education Statistics (2005), 32% of high school students drop out. This rate
increases for urban high schools to more than 50% with some cities documenting
up to 70% of students dropping out (National Center for Education Statistics,
2005).
Students who do not graduate from high school typically do not contribute
as positively to society as do their graduated peers. Dropouts are more likely than
their peers to be arrested and jailed, smoke, drink, and use drugs (National Youth
Employment Coalition, 2004). Each one of these jailed dropouts will cost society
at least $20,000 per year for an annual total of $40 billion (Cohen, 2005).
Dropouts are also 72% more likely to be unemployed than their peers who
graduate (National Youth Employment Coalition, 2004). In urban and minority
populations, only 42% of the dropouts become employed (Harris, 2005), and
those who do will find themselves much worse off than dropouts 30 years ago.

2

A current day dropout earns a median salary of $15,334 as compared to a 1970s
dropout who earned a median salary of over $30,000 (Greene, 2002). These
employed dropouts will also earn $252,000 less than a high school graduate over
a 30-year period (Greene, 2002). With more than 50% of urban students
disengaging and dropping out of school and with less than half of these dropouts
becoming employed, the negative impact on the students themselves and society
is enormous.
According to Marks (2000), dropping out of school is the ultimate
symptom of disengagement. A profile of over 300,000 students nationwide
indicates that high school students are disengaged from school (High School
Survey of Student Engagement, n.d.). According to McCarthy, in Viadero (2004),
and Yazzie-Mintz (2007), the former and current directors of the High School
Survey of Student Engagement, if student engagement is improved, student
learning and academic achievement will improve. Engagement is indeed one of
the factors identified as contributing to academic achievement and is the focus of
extensive research conducted by Indiana University. This research has involved
the administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement to more than
300,000 high school students nationwide in a series of studies that started in 2004.
This research suggests that a key factor related to high school academic success is
student engagement.

3

Statement of the Problem
Research on high schools indicates that despite years of reform efforts,
high schools have made limited gains in student achievement. There is a need to
determine what high schools can do to increase student achievement. With rare
exception, high schools have not made academic progress nor have they made
gains in narrowing the achievement gap. However, despite the low performance
of high schools nationwide, there are some isolated high schools that are high-
achieving, with students outperforming their peers from neighboring or similar
high schools. Additionally, there are the rare instances in which an entire school
district has managed to develop a high number of high performing schools. One
such district is District J in Los Angeles, California.
What is yet to be identified is what factors contribute to the high
achievement of these high schools. Although student engagement is identified as
contributing to achievement (What we can learn, 2005), it is not yet known
whether student engagement creates a difference in achievement levels. By
looking at the key practices that make a positive impact on student engagement at
these high performing high schools, factors may be identified that increase student
engagement and ultimately, student achievement. Considering the demand to
identify practices that will reform high schools to increase student achievement, it
was important to determine if student engagement was a factor in the increased
achievement of students at high performing high schools.

4

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent student
engagement is a factor in student success at a High Performing Urban High
School. Additionally, this study sought to identify the factors that engage students
and contribute to their academic success.

Research Questions
Three research questions were developed by the members of a thematic
dissertation group in order to address the purpose of the study:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a High Performing Urban High
School (HPUHS), as measured by the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE) and how does it compare to the national average?
2. What programs and practices contribute to student engagement in a
HPUHS?
3. What programs and practices contribute to high performance in HPUHS?

Significance of the Study
This case study provided an in-depth look into student engagement at one
high performing high school. Because it was a case study of one school, no
generalization can be made to other schools. However, its significance lies in the
fact that it was one of a series of several studies; all together these studies may
show a trend. Additionally, this study is significant for the reason that there are

5

very few case studies conducted on student engagement at high performing
continuation high schools.
When considered with the other case studies on student engagement
conducted by the thematic dissertation group and with the studies being
conducted nationwide by the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE), this case study may contribute some valuable insight into student
engagement that may assist school districts in developing programs and practices
that serve to promote student engagement and increase student achievement.
Although its findings may not be generalized, this study may also influence an
individual school, similar to the case study school, to re-evaluate its own
programs and practices that effect student engagement.
With increased accountability in schools due to the Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and the lack
of performance and progress by high schools, there is a need to determine what
high schools can do to increase student achievement. If this case study can
determine that student engagement contributes to student achievement and can
identify what programs and practices increased that student engagement, then
further replication of this type of study may be in order. Additionally, policy
makers and districts may be informed as to a need to promote and fund those
programs and practices that may be identified as increasing student engagement.
Increased accountability for high schools and their lack of progress in
student achievement makes it necessary to understand the factors that contribute

6

to student achievement at the high school level. Academic gains and progress in
elementary and middle level schools have not been replicated thus far in high
schools. There is reason to attempt to identify the factors that engage students at
the few high schools that are high performing.
Methodology
This study was conducted by a thematic dissertation group, which
consisted of six members. The thematic group agreed that the research questions
would serve to help discover insight about the topic being studied. The study was
conducted using a mixed methods qualitative case study design and included
document review, observations, teacher surveys, interviews, and secondary data
analysis from the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE). The use
of mixed methods in a case study is thought to increase its validity and
generalizability (Creswell, 2003).
This study was one of six conducted through a group thematic dissertation
process. The design of the study along the purpose, research questions,
methodology and instrumentation were developed by the group and were common
in all six studies. The framework the group used that assisted in sorting
information was Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames. This framework helped
to make sense of and evaluate information gathered. It was thought that the
similar findings of the six studies would increase the ability to generalize and the
significance of those findings.

7

The use of a case study served to bring the information gathered about
student engagement out of a real-life natural setting, rather than a manufactured
one. The researcher could fully understand and explain in detail the development
of an in-depth and detailed story from the participants’ point of view.
Furthermore, the selection of a qualitative design best fit the research questions
posed, which sought to get after the collective perspectives of the participants.
Although the majority of the study utilized a qualitative methodology, the
use of a student survey introduced quantitative data. The quantitative data served
to expose themes discovered from a large number of participants, from which the
qualitative design was used for further investigation of those themes. The
qualitative methods used were document review, observation, teacher survey and
interviews.

Assumptions
In this study, it was assumed:
• Documents reviewed were accurate.
• Persons interviewed were honest and forthright.
• The views of the persons interviewed were representative of the staff.
• Data provided were accurately recorded.

8

Delimitations and Limitations
The following were the delimitations of the study:
• This study was confined to a single high performing urban high school.
• Most of the case study was conducted over the course of two full days.
• The school selected met the stated requirements of a high performing
school.
The following were limitations of the study:
• The findings were limited to one school and cannot be generalized.
• The case study limited the ability to compare and contrast two or more
similar schools.
• The sample size of interview participants was limited.
• The interviews of staff members at this school may not be similar in other
high performing schools.
• The case study is representative only of the time in which the study was
conducted: it was a snapshot of time.
• The multi-method qualitative design of this study could subject the
findings to multiple interpretations.

Key Terms and Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Academic Performance Index (API): The primary accountability system from
California’s Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Its purpose is to measure

9

the performance and growth of schools and is based upon a numeric index that
ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. Schools are expected to maintain an
API of at least 800 to be considered at an expected performance level.
Achievement Gap: The differential performance between subgroups of students
on standardized tests.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Part of the State of California’s accountability
system mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. AYP is indicated
with a “yes” or “no” whether a school or local educational agency made adequate
progress toward four areas: participation rate and percent proficient in both
English Language Arts and mathematics, API, and graduation rate.
Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM): An alternative accountability
system for continuation and alternative schools, which monitors growth in set
criteria.
At-risk: Refers to students who are designated as being at risk of dropping out of
high school. These students are frequently credit-deficient and experience social-
emotional issues that negatively interfere with their schooling. They are typically
referred to and enrolled in continuation or alternative schools.
Dimensions of Engagement: A multi-dimensional, research-based conception of
student engagement utilized by Indiana University in reporting High School
Survey of Student Engagement results with three major components:
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement, Social/Behavioral/Participatory
Engagement, and Emotional Engagement. These dimensions are designed to

10

capture a variety of ways in which a student may be engaged in the life and work
of school.
High Performing High School: A school that is out-performing a similar school; it
must have a similar school ranking of 7 or higher for three or more consecutive
years. A continuation school is a High Performing High School if it qualifies as a
Model Continuation High School in the State of California for three or more
consecutive years.
High School Reform: The efforts, practices and programs implemented to bring
about improvement and change to that which is unsatisfactory in U.S. high
schools.
Motivation: The precursor to and reason for student engagement; however, it may
be used interchangeably with engagement.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): A required report from every
California school, which publicizes school demographics, resources, safety, and
performance data.
School Culture: Refers to the values, norms and beliefs as evident in routine
practices and social interactions on a school campus.
Student Engagement: Behaviors (persistence, effort and attention) and emotions
(enthusiasm, interest and pride) that involve a student with their schoolwork.
Student Disengagement: Behaviors and emotions that remove a student’s
involvement in their schoolwork.

11

Urban School: School in which there is a concentration of one or more of these
characteristics: socio-economically disadvantaged students as measured by free
and reduced lunch, English language learners, or non-Caucasian students.

Organization of the Study
Chapter One presents an overview of the study and includes the following:
Introduction, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Research
Questions, Significance of the Study, Methodology, Assumptions, Delimitations
and Limitations, Key Terms and Definitions and the Organization of the Study.
Chapter Two presents a review of the relevant literature. It includes the
following: Introduction, The Evolving Role of the High School: A Historical
Perspective, High School Reform Efforts, Student Engagement and
Disengagement in U.S. High Schools, The Nature and Importance of Student
Motivation and Engagement, The Conditions of Student Engagement,
Engagement of At-Risk Students and Conclusion.
Chapter Three presents the conceptual framework of the study. It includes:
Introduction, Background of the Study, Research Questions, Conceptual
Framework and Model, Research Design, Population, Sample, Instrumentation,
Data Collection, Validity and Reliability, and Data Analysis.
Chapter Four presents the findings of the study including: Introduction,
Overview of the Case Study, Summary of Findings by Instrument, Emergent

12

Themes, Summary of Findings by Research Questions and Discussion of
Findings.
Chapter Five presents the analysis and discussion including: Introduction,
Analysis of Findings, Implications for Practice and Recommendations for Future
Research.

13

Chapter 2
Review of the Literature

Introduction
Student engagement has long been identified as an issue in schools. The
purpose of this study was to determine to what extent student engagement is a
factor in student success in a high performing urban high school. This section
presents a review of the literature of the role of the U.S. high school, the reform
efforts that have come about in response to that changing role, student
engagement in U.S. high schools, the nature and importance of student
engagement, the conditions of student engagement, and the engagement of at-risk
students.

The Evolving Role of the High School: A Historical Perspective
The role of the U.S. high school is quite different today from its role at its
inception. When Thomas Jefferson called for the creation of publicly funded
schools in the early 1700s, he was seeking a system to turn the vast range of New
Americans into citizens (Mondale & Patton, 2001). At this time, towns in the
northern British colonies supported short-term elementary schooling for ten to
twelve weeks per year. More boys than girls were allowed to attend and parents
paid fees as the costs were not fully covered by the town itself. It wasn’t until the
mid-1800s that schools looked more like the modern day school system. They

14

were called common schools, were funded by local property taxes, charged no
tuition, were governed by local school communities and were subject to state
regulation. They were open only to white children.
Schooling for the purposes of learning a viable trade to earn a living was
less important at this time as it was later in an industrial society since most of the
society was agricultural. The families, churches and neighbors learned work on
the farms and plantations. Schooling beyond learning work from the family itself
involved hiring tutors, paying for subscription or dame schools, or sending
children to mission or charity schools. All of these options were tied to wealth,
race, and gender, and therefore, the total number of children being formally
educated was small. During this time though, the requirements in the work world
were fairly modest and schooling was not a divisive issue.
The pressure for more formal schooling and literacy developed out of
several social forces. The Protestants began to encourage popular literacy and
commercial cities developed and along with this development, a cash economy
emerged, necessitating more skill. As political and economic tensions with
England increased, the colonists read more English and writings on the nature of
republics and of balanced governments. Newspapers and political fliers
developed. At the time of the American Revolution, literacy levels had been
established; however, this meant only that a person could sign his name.

15

The notable leaders during the late 1700s, including Thomas Jefferson,
Benjamin Rush and Noah Webster, were concerned about the uneven spread of
education. They argued that for the new nation to prosper, its citizens would need
to be able to understand public issues and know how to select virtuous public
leaders. They advocated for a widespread educational system that was publicly
supported. In 1789, a law was established in Massachusetts mandating elementary
schools. This legal mandate had little effect and the colonists continued to educate
just as they had been doing. By the 1840s, with the advent of the industrial
revolution, the swell of large cities, the building of railroads and canals, and the
surge of immigrants, a plethora of new social problems emerged and with that, the
need for and the preconditions for a more systematic public school system
developed.
By the 1900s, the high school served as a preparation for the colleges,
which set and controlled the standards and curriculum of the high school.
Although overall schooling rates were high, less than 10% of students actually
graduated from high school (Goldin, 1999). Despite the fact that the U. S.
educational system was based upon the idea that everyone should received a
common or equal education through about the eighth grade, there were distinct
differences in who was educated beyond that level. Issues of race, immigrant
status, and economic level influenced the amount and quality of education
received (Goldin, 1999). It was an elite few that attended and graduated from high
school.

16

Secondary school attendance and graduation rates increased greatly in the
United States from 1910 to 1940 (Goldin, 1998; 1999). The need for immigrants
to work in mass production led millions of people to move from farms into cities.
This vast increase in poorly educated immigrants during the first two decades of
the century changed the role of the high school. There was now a great demand
placed upon the formerly elite secondary schools to prepare the masses of people
for assembly and factory work, which required literacy at about the 8th grade
level. During this time, the labor unions combined with businesses to create trade
and vocational schools modeled after the British mechanics institute. This type of
school prepared youth for skilled trades.
During this same time period, the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test was
developed in an attempt to determine the mental age of children. Despite the
recognition by the pioneers of this test that it would not measure the inborn
quantity of intelligence, it became widely accepted as an indicator of inherited
ability. The IQ test became an organizing mechanism for the schools and
developed into a tracking system that educators used to classify and sort students.
The lowest tracks were presumed to be for the least intelligent and poorest
performing students. The lack of educational performance by these students was
thought to be an issue of heredity, not an issue of poor schooling (Institute for
Research in History, 1984).
The postwar years saw an increase in the birthrate and schools had to
accommodate the increased population. The different educational institutions that

17

had developed combined together under one roof with the objective of providing
something for everyone in one comprehensive high school (Powell, A. G., Farrar,
E., & Cohen, D. K., 1985). The thinking behind forming comprehensive high
schools was based on a Carnegie-funded study in the late 1950s, which concluded
that large institutions could draw better-prepared teachers (Conant, 1959).
Although it offered something for everyone, this comprehensive school
was based upon the premise that only a few students were capable of serious
academic success. It was during this time in the mid-1950s that public schools
became a battleground for equality among minorities and women. There were
essentially three tracks: an academic track for the few to pursue a baccalaureate
degree and move into professional and leadership positions in society; a skilled
trade track; and the lowest track offering basic literacy for factory and office jobs.
The small percentage of the population that was expected to go on to work
requiring serious academic preparation could take advantage of the academic
track. For others, high school would be the place to acquire the practical skills
they would need in labor or trade, once obtained in the trade and vocational
schools. For the remaining, the high school could provide the practical knowledge
of becoming a factory worker, office worker or homemaker by learning about
personal health, home finance and citizenry.
The expectation at the comprehensive high school was that a limited
number of students would achieve a lot academically and the majority of students
would achieve very little but would contribute to society in a skilled, labor or

18

service area. At this time, the term dropout didn’t exist because only a few
students were expected to be educated in the academic track. Everyone else only
attended up to the junior year of high school, making a high school diploma a
mark of distinction. Additionally, at this time, the ability to move into the nation’s
business world and higher social strata without a college degree became much
more difficult.
Following the launching of Sputnik in 1957, the federal government took a
greater role in schools. Provoked by the embarrassment of the U.S.S.R. beating
the U.S. into space by the launch of the world's first artificial satellite, the security
of the nation and the intellectual capacity of U.S. students were questioned
(Marzano, 2003). The rigor in U.S. schools was criticized and the number of
students who dropped out was now published. Prior to 1960, only the number of
students who graduated was published without reference to those who dropped
out (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). With the demand to better
educate all U.S. students, there was greater interest in knowing how many
students were not completing high school.
Also in this decade, the federal government created aid for the
disadvantaged. Although segregated schools had been abolished a decade earlier,
the belief, as with the IQ tests, resurfaced that children with problems or lack of
intelligence, rather than poor schooling, was the reason for poor educational
performance (Marsh & Codding, 1999). During President Johnson’s War on
Poverty, the Commissioner of Education conducted a landmark study specified by

19

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This study assessed the availability of educational
opportunities of over 640,000 students nationwide and resulted in the Coleman
report, Equality in Educational Opportunity (Marzano, 2003). The study reported
that a child’s academic achievement was determined by background and home
environment, and that education reform and schools could do little to improve a
student’s academic outcome or to lessen the achievement gap (Marzano, 2003).
Subsequently, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education created Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which gave money to
schools with economically disadvantaged children.
By the 1970s, the high school diploma became a certificate for those who
attended, with no regard for actual performance (Marsh & Codding, 1999).
Graduation rates peaked during this time before declining slightly in the late
1970s and early 1980s (Goldin, 1999). Through the next two decades, vocational
and trade programs, once chosen specialties, became dumping grounds for
students who were not performing academically (Marsh & Codding, 1999).
In the 1990s, even highly touted academic programs seemed to falter
(Marsh & Codding, 1999). The best schools represented a small proportion of all
high schools. Educators felt under pressure to push students through classes,
regardless of their achievement. According to Tucker, in Marsh & Codding
(1999), students in this decade went through the motions and oftentimes did just
enough to get by rather than work hard to excel. Even the college-bound students
would go through the motions to complete courses that rarely pressed for deep

20

understanding and performance, but rather would accept book knowledge and
routine academic work. Tucker concluded that rarely would a course apply
knowledge to something viewed as useful or particularly interesting (Marsh &
Codding, 1999).
The change in the role of the U.S. high school came about over time with
the change in society’s needs and social and political issues. The national
economy and the jobs required of the work force to support that economy
changed and required higher academic abilities. There became fewer jobs for the
non-fluent readers and writers or for those who could only function with basic
arithmetic.
Of all educational institutions, the high school seems to be the most
resistant to change in order to meet the increased needs of society (Reville, 2005).
It still organizes itself to serve twentieth-century American society, rather than the
current times. The fundamental premise of the comprehensive high school no
longer holds true; all students need to be prepared with high academic skills, not
just a few. The U.S. workforce needs workers at all levels that can think, reason
and problem-solve. Although not all students will necessarily go to college, they
need to be prepared for this option. Each generation has defined how schools
should help develop the nation’s people and in turn how an evolving nation
should develop its schools. What was once an opportunity for the elite few to
graduate from high school, attendance and graduation from high school is now an

21

expectation for all U.S. children (U.S. Department of Education, No child left
behind, n.d.).
Despite this expectation, the current U. S. high school has shown itself to
be very ineffective. According to the National Center for Education Statistics
(2005), an appalling 32% of youth in U.S. public schools will drop out. For low-
income youth that rate climbs to more than 50%. In some cities, that rate is at
70%. Equally as bleak are the prospects for dropouts to become employed in a
labor market that has gradually required more training. The unskilled are at their
lowest level of employment in 57 years in the U.S. (Harris, 2005). According to
census statistics, a limited number of those without a high school diploma
continue on to be positive contributing members to society; only 44% of dropouts
were employed in their early twenties and by their late twenties that rate remained
below 50 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). As compelling of a case as this is
for high school reform, an educator would be hard-pressed to say that U.S. high
schools have lacked reform efforts.

High School Reform Efforts
Over the course of the history of U.S. high schools, reform efforts have
attempted to respond to the changes in society and the evolving role of the high
school. The 1950s reform effort from the Carnegie study resulted in defining
academic achievement through the Carnegie unit (Marzano, 2003). Research in
the 1960s and 1970s emphasized the dominant influence of social background on

22

student achievement. This emphasis was on the heals of Sputnik and the Equality
in Educational Opportunity study, which gave little hope that schools could do
anything to change a student’s academic achievement (Newmann, 1992). This
report served to demoralize educators who questioned the reason to put energy
into educational reforms if the efforts truly had no effect.
If indeed it was the student’s economic and social background that
determined his academic achievement, then it was reasoned that evening the
playing field would raise academic achievement. It was at this time that Title I
monies attempted to do just this by giving additional federal monies for students
from lower economic areas. Money was haphazardly poured into the latest
innovation with the assumption that something would work to improve the
schools. After the disappointing results of implementation studies, which
suggested no improvement, there was a period of stagnation. During this time
educators lost confidence in their ability to make worthwhile changes in the
educational system (Fullan, 1993).
In the 1970s, research on effective schools identified some variables
which increased student achievement on standardized tests; some of variables
included strong administrative leadership, a school-wide instructional focus,
continuous monitoring of student progress and high expectations by teachers. The
increase in achievement was seen primarily in middle-and-upper-income students
(Newmann, 1992). This research allowed educators to regain confidence that
change could occur and schools could make a difference, even under trying

23

conditions that were beyond their control. The growth of in-service and staff
development demonstrated the notion that competence could be developed and
could make a difference.
Despite some successes on a small scale, the public had lost confidence in
the educational system and in 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in
Education published A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.
This report brought to light the large number of illiterate people in the United
States and criticized the nation’s educational system as being in complete
disrepair (National Commission on Excellence, 1983). The response was large-
scale governmental action, which implemented structural solutions in a top-down
fashion. A surge of reading programs were developed and implemented along
with mandated curricula, and specified student and teacher competencies. The
effects of this report carried over into the next decade.
In 1985, just two years after A Nation at Risk was released, a movement
called restructuring began. Restructuring involved decentralization, including
school-based management of educational issues with enhanced roles for teachers
and administrators. Despite the enormous activity created in response to A Nation
at Risk, including the restructuring efforts, the nation’s schools did not improve
(Hirsch, 1996). That same year, the federal government funded research of
effective schools at both the elementary and secondary levels. This research
indicated that the most critical issue for school improvement had been neglected:
student engagement.

24

In 1990, the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce first
proposed a Certificate of Initial Mastery in the landmark report America’s
Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! The Commission proposed having every
student meet a specific standard of academic excellence. Significant reform of
high schools did not begin until 1994. Congress passed Goals 2000: Educate
America Act, which gave money to states for grants to develop new academic
standards and examinations. That same year, the School-to-Work Opportunities
Act also passed, giving grants to develop skills training for students not going to
college.
In 1995, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, known as
TIMSS, was released. This report accentuated how poorly the nation’s high
school students were doing when compared to more than 40 other nations (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1998).
Although elementary and middle level students performed similarly to students
from other nations, U.S. high school students performed horribly in comparison
(U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1998).
The National Science Foundation responded and this led to math and science
reform.
In 1996, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future
published, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. This publication
offered that the single most important strategy to improving student achievement
involved recruiting and developing excellent teachers (National Commission on

25

Teaching, 1996). That same year, the National Association of Secondary School
Principals (1996), in conjunction with the Carnegie Foundation, published
Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. This report on the high
school for the 21st century made six major recommendations with 81 specific
suggestions to reform the U.S. high school to better prepare students. The
overriding theme was that high schools become much more student-centered. The
major recommendations included: personalization; abolishing the notion that seat
time is equated with learning; making learning applicable; developing technology
plans; requiring the principal to be an instructional leader; and requiring every
student, teacher and principal to have a personal plan. This report called for
teachers to use instructional strategies that would better engage students in their
own learning.
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was introduced. This reform act
touted greater accountability for student test results by schools. Sanctions were
developed for schools that did not meet set levels of accountability scores and
parents were given the choice of enrolling their children in schools that met set
scores. A component of No Child Left Behind was the Comprehensive School
Reform Program. Although it started in 1998, it was not authorized and signed
into law until 2002, as Title I, Part F of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. This Act supported the implementation of school reforms that were based
upon scientific research and practices (U. S. Department of Education,
Comprehensive school reform program, n.d.).

26

Despite decades of reform efforts, U.S. high schools continue to be under
fire for inadequately educating youth and for producing low-achieving graduates.
The Department of Education reported that nearly one-third of all 12th grade
students do not understand the basics of the U.S. political system, and fewer than
half of high school seniors have a basic understanding of their nation's history
(U.S. News and World Report, 2001). According to The Condition of Education
2006 report by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education
Statistics (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006), U.S. high school
students are consistently outperformed by their peers from other countries. U.S.
elementary age students, by comparison, score as well or better than their
international peers. Only 24% of U.S. seniors write at or above a Proficient level
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). To make matters worse, the
lowest performing students’ scores actually decreased since 1998 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2006). This means that the most academically at-
risk U.S. high school students are doing worse today than almost one decade ago.
From 32% – 70% of our nation’s students, depending upon the area and school,
become dropouts. This means that one-third to almost three-fourths of our
nations’ students have completely disengaged from school. Engaging students is
indeed one of the key factors critical to academic success (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005).

27

Student Engagement and Disengagement in U.S. High Schools
Although lack of achievement is a multi-faceted issue, studies indicate that
a large number of students are not engaged in their schoolwork (Lowe, 2003;
Newmann, 1992; Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1995). In fact, for more than 30
years, researchers have documented the problem of student disengagement
(Cusick, 1973; Goodlad, 1984; Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985; McNeil, 1986;
Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, & Cusick, 1986; Eckert, 1989; Weis, Farrar, & Petrie,
1989; Weis, 1990; Fine, 1991; Newmann, 1992, 1995; Lowe, 2003; Kuh, Kinzie,
Schuh, & Whitt, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The Federal research
project by the National Center on Effective Secondary Schools announced in
1985 that student engagement was the number one problem for students
(Newmann, 1992). Despite years of reform efforts, both engagement and
achievement remain low in the nation’s high schools.
Although the engagement and achievement of students is the
responsibility of both educators and families, teachers are expected to motivate
and engage students as a part of their work. Most states clearly articulate that
engagement is a responsibility of the teacher. For example, the California
Department of Education (1997) lists “Engaging and supporting all students in
learning” as its first standard to which teachers are held responsible. Although
engaging students is clearly an expectation of teachers, researchers offer a variety
of definitions of student engagement and oftentimes do not clearly articulate how
to achieve engagement.

28

Student engagement is a term used to describe a student’s relationship
with school. Most student engagement definitions involve motivation as related to
schoolwork and linked to academic growth and achievement. According to
Newmann (1992), student engagement is “the student’s psychological investment
in and effort directed toward learning, understanding, or mastering the
knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to promote” (p. 12),
rather than simply an investment to accomplish task completion. According to
Marks (2000), engagement is “the attention, interest, and effort students expend in
the work of school” (p. 155). In an analysis of teaching and learning processes,
Middlecamp (2005) described engagement as “an act of promising, committing,
becoming engrossed, occupied… or otherwise involved” (p. 17). Simons-Morton
and Crump (2002) used the term student engagement to name the students’
academic motivation, as measured by their attentiveness in class and desire to do
well academically. Manlove (1998) operationalized student engagement to be
defined by the number of hours spent doing schoolwork, and the students’ grades
and test scores. Ryan and Patrick’s (2001) definition of student engagement
included the issues of self-regulated learning such as checking schoolwork, and
disruptive behavior including disturbing the class and not following instructions.
Finn (1993) defined student engagement as academic participation and
identification with school, including variables such as attendance, arriving
prepared, and the student-teacher relationship.

29

According to Libbey (2004), Kalil and Ziol-Guest’s definition of student
engagement involves the students’ affect from likes, dislikes and frustrations
about school. Libbey (2004) further categorized student engagement as one of
nine constructs related to school connectedness, which addresses the extent to
which students are motivated to learn, make progress and do well in school.
Disengagement, on the other hand, involves superficial participation, apathy and
lack of interest and has been linked with lack of achievement (Frederick, 1977;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
In essence, student engagement is the student’s relationship with the
following: the school community, including the adults and peers; the structures of
a school including the rules, policies, procedures and schedules; the curriculum;
the pedagogy; and opportunities as related to activities and programs. The
student’s degree of engagement is dependent upon the quality, depth, and breadth
of the student’s relationship with these factors (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007).

The Nature and Importance of Student Motivation and Engagement
Student engagement and its relationship to learning is not a new concept.
Nearly a century of literature on sociology, psychology, and social and business
organizations has been the basis for the research on student engagement. In 1914,
John Dewey suggested that increasing student involvement in school was
beneficial for learning (Dewey, 1916). During the Progressive Movement in the
1920s, many educators felt that students needed to actively participate in school.

30

Over the following several decades, student engagement focused on the student’s
voice and ability to participate in the decision-making at their schools. Student
engagement in their academics was not so much of an issue in earlier times when
secondary schools served a more select population of students. Additionally,
engagement became more of an issue as schools took on more responsibilities,
adjusted to an increased culturally diverse student body, and were expected to
meet the individual needs of students with disabilities and social-emotional needs
that taxed the educational system and individual educators. These issues also
competed for the students’ attention.
In 1985, the federal government funded a project on effective schools,
known as the National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. This project,
which operated from 1985 through 1991, reported that student disengagement was
the most ignored issue in school improvement (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran,
1995). According to Newmann, the director of the project, the fundamental
problem for high school improvement was figuring out how to engage students.
Newmann’s 1995 presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association on student engagement emphasized that in
order to increase achievement educators must first learn how to engage students.
Newmann explained:
Students cannot be expected to achieve unless they concentrate, work, and
invest themselves in the mastery of school tasks. This is the sense in which
student engagement is critical to educational success; to enhance
achievement, one must first learn how to engage students…(p. 4)

31

In the decade following the project by the National Center on Effective Secondary
Schools, research from the Center on the Organization and Restructuring of
Schools also suggested a significant relationship between student engagement and
achievement (Lowe, 2003).
According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), who researched student
development for over three decades, student engagement is critical to learning.
They concluded from their research that a student’s effort and involvement in the
academic and extracurricular offerings at their school are the critical determinants
of the student’s learning. Frederick (1977), found that high-achieving students
were academically engaged for 24% more of the time than low-achieving
students. According to Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh and Whitt (2005), student engagement
is “ a key to student success” (p. 3). Bowen (2005) reported that engagement of
students almost certainly assures some degree of learning.
Wehlburg (2006) reported that revising coursework to more fully engage
students would improve student learning. Marzano (2003) recommended that
coursework include long-term projects designed to tap into students’ passions in
order to actively engage students. The National Association of Secondary School
Principals (1996) devoted one of their six major recommendations to “Engaging
Students in Their Own Learning” (p. 21) for more effective student learning.
Rock (2005) found in a seminal investigation that students who increased their
engagement not only increased their academic performance but also decreased
disruptive behaviors.

32

The Conditions of Student Engagement
Studies clearly indicate that being motivated and engaged in learning is
critical to accelerating learning (Frederick, 1977; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh & Whitt,
2005; Lowe, 2003; National Research Council, 2004; Newmann, 1992; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005). There are even certain elements or conditions of student
engagement that have been identified that address the underlying psychological
variables related to motivation, including competence and control, beliefs about
the value of education, and a sense of belonging (What we can learn, 2005;
Newmann, 1992).
The need for competence is cited as one of the primary conditions behind
motivation and human action, and students’ engagement in their academics
(Newmann, 1992). When efforts yield competence, feelings of success generate a
continued desire to invest more effort. Students’ perceptions about their
competence affect motivation to learn (Dweck, 1986). Within a classroom, these
perceptions about competence can be affected by specific classroom activities,
which can either influence a student to invest more effort and engage in the work
or withdraw effort and disengage (Stipek, 1986; Wehlburg, 2006).
Based upon the body of literature and research on student engagement,
Newmann, Marks & Gamoran (1995) concluded that student engagement resulted
from three primary factors: the student’s need for feeling competent; the degree to
which a student feels they have membership in their school; and the authenticity
of the academic work the student is asked to complete. The U.S. Department of

33

Education (Comprehensive school reform program, n.d.) concluded that there
were four dimensions to student engagement: rigor, thought, self-expression and
authenticity.
The National Center on Effective Secondary Schools identified conditions
of engagement as: the need for competence; school membership, including clarity
of purpose, fairness, personal support, success and caring; and authentic work,
including extrinsic rewards, intrinsic interest, sense of ownership, connection to
the real world, and fun (Newmann, 1992).
Students will engage themselves in schoolwork if they perceive it as
authentic and therefore legitimate and worthy of their effort (Newmann, 1992).
Authentic work is meaningful and significant and oftentimes connected to ones
life so it feels worthy of effort.
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded that if engagement is a critical
determinant of learning, then schools should focus on ways to promote student
engagement within their academic, interpersonal and extracurricular offerings.
The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), of which this study
was a part, attempted to identify the conditions and the practices that schools
could put in place to engage their students and increase achievement. The HSSSE
assessed the extent to which various pedagogies were used in high performing
high schools across the nation. It was the largest study of high school student
engagement in the nation. For the first three years of the study, from 2004 to
2006, it surveyed nearly 300,000 students in more than 300 high schools across

34

29 states (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007; High school survey, n.d.). The paper-based survey
looked at various elements of student engagement and their effect on student
learning and preparation for college-level academic work.
Research by the HSSSE (n.d.) identified the following elements of student
engagement as conditions or experiences that contributed to student learning:
student interaction with teachers, including discussions of progress and receiving
prompt feedback on assignments; class assignment and discussion involvement
including rigorous assignments, and active participation in classroom and small
group discussions; quantity of writing; discussion of class work with peers outside
of class; experiences with diversity; view of school including feeling respected
and being socially involved; having a voice in school including feeling supported
and respected by teachers, feeling safe, knowing what is learned is useful and
taking pride in school work; and positive attitude about learning, grades and
school work.
The first two years of the study concluded that high school students were
not engaged in their schooling (What we can learn, 2005). Students who devote
time to their schooling are more engaged and achieve more. How they spend their
time, both in and out of class, has a direct effect on their achievement. The
HSSSE discovered that 69% of high school students spent 5 or more hours per
week socializing and 57% spent 5 or more hours watching television; yet only
49% spent that same amount of time preparing for their classes. Almost half of all
students spent no time in school-sponsored activities.

35

How students interact with their teachers also affects student achievement.
Students who feel supported by their teachers show increased learning and more
positive attitudes toward school (National Research Council, 2004). The HSSSE
(n.d.) found that more than half of the student respondents never discussed their
coursework, including grades or assignments, with their teacher outside of the
class time. More than half of the students responded that the school did not
provide enough information on student performance and half responded that they
never or only sometimes received prompt feedback from teachers on assignments
or coursework.
Students who contribute to class discussions feel they have a voice in
classroom decisions, take pride in their schoolwork and value learning more than
students who do not contribute to discussions (National Research Council, 2004).
According to the HSSSE (n.d.) only 3 of 5 students indicated that they frequently
contribute to class discussions. Additionally, students engage themselves and
benefit more academically when their assignments are challenging (National
Research Council, 2004). The HSSSE (n.d.) found that 42% of high school
students only sometimes or never did a class assignment using several sources and
less than half of students frequently had to present their thinking and assignments
to others.
The amount of writing students perform plays a strong role in their
engagement in school and in academic achievement. In fact, the relationship of
student engagement and the amount of writing in a class is stronger than the

36

relationship of engagement with any other characteristic (Light, 2003). The more
writing required the more time students must commit. Students related an
increased requirement in writing with an increased intellectual challenge. They
also reported substantially higher levels of engagement in courses with increased
writing requirements (Light, 2003). The findings from the HSSSE (n.d.) revealed
that 36% of students had not written anything longer than five pages and only
39% had written more than three papers 3-5 pages in length in their current school
year.
Despite the fact that 9 of 10 students said they planned to continue their
education beyond high school, their habits did not support their preparation for
college (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006). Although most students spent less than 3 hours
per week preparing for their classes, doing homework, completing reading
assignments or studying, they thought more time devoted to their schooling was
unnecessary and felt they were adequately prepared for college work. This
illusion did not support the fact that only 27% of 9th-graders completed their
sophomore year of college (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006).
Despite an intuitive sense and some initial research findings that engaged
students achieve more than disengaged students, a clear connection between
student engagement and achievement has yet to be fully demonstrated. The
National Academy of Sciences stated there was not sufficient available evidence
on student engagement and recommended more research, especially in the urban
high school with economically disadvantaged students (National Research

37

Council, 2004). Although the HSSSE (n.d.) to date has been the most
widespread research on student engagement, the population consisted of
primarily Caucasian students in Midwest states. Additionally, there is a
significant body of research suggesting that students from different cultural
backgrounds perceive the role of school in different ways and that these
perceptions are the most important factors affecting their engagement in school
(Newmann, 1992).
Although schools cannot control all of the factors that detract from
engagement in school, they can create an engaging school community. This
community, including high academic standards, best teaching practices, and
student support systems can serve to lessen the disadvantages of students and
enable them to pursue their educational and career goals. According to Marzano,
Waters and McNulty (2005), these are some of the factors of an effective school,
which can contribute greatly to a student’s academic success. In their research,
effective schools had a 44% higher test pass rate than ineffective schools
(Marzano, 2003). Effective schools employed techniques that motivated students
to become more engaged in their academics than ineffective schools (Marzano, et
al, 2005).

Engagement of At-Risk Students
According to the National Research Council (2004), dropping out is the
final step in a long process through which students have become increasingly

38

more disengaged from school. Marks (2000) identified dropping out as the
ultimate symptom of disengagement. The at-risk students who are so named
because they are at risk of dropping out. Re-engaging the at-risk student then,
becomes one of the greatest challenges of schools.
Although engagement is important for all students, the consequences of
disengagement vary substantially when comparing advantaged and disadvantaged
students. Disengaged students from advantaged backgrounds usually get
additional opportunities to re-engage themselves, and achieve enough to graduate
and pursue post-secondary educational opportunities (National Research Council,
2004; Lewis, 2004). Students from disadvantaged backgrounds in lower socio-
economic urban high schools do not fare as well. According to the National
Research Council (2004) and the National Center for Education Statistics (2006),
when at-risk students become disengaged, they are much less likely to graduate
let alone pursue post-secondary education. Additionally, they are much more
likely to face unemployment, poverty, and involvement in the criminal justice
system (2006). More than half of inmates in correctional facilities enter as
dropouts (National Research Council, 2004). The National Youth Employment
Coalition reports this rate as closer to 86% (2004).
The modern-day student who disengages enough to drop out faces much
more serious consequences than those students who dropped out 30-50 years ago.
Manufacturing jobs with good wages that were available to dropouts in the 1950s
are no longer available to the unskilled. Currently, only 15% of available jobs can

39

be filled with unskilled workers compared to 60% in 1950 (National Youth
Employment Coalition, 2004). In the 1970s, dropouts earned a median salary of
over $30,000 whereas the current median earnings for dropouts is only $15,334
(Greene, 2002).
Although schools cannot control all of the factors that detract from the at-
risk students’ engagement in school, they can create an engaging school
community. This community, including high academic standards, best teaching
practices, and student support systems can serve to lessen the disadvantages of
students, including those at risk, and enable them to pursue their educational and
career goals. Unfortunately, at risk students are the least engaged of all high
school students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).

Conclusion
The high school has evolved from an institution that was expected to teach
an elite few to an institution expected to prepare all students with high academic
skills. Over the course of U.S. history, there have been reforms coupled with the
high school’s evolving role. All reforms attempted to deal with the issue of
academically unprepared students, from reforms that focused on the economically
deprived student to reforms that looked at classroom instruction. Despite best
efforts by educators, problems still plague the high school. The national
graduation rate is an appalling 68% and an even more appalling 50% for youth in
high-poverty urban districts (Harris, 2005). One problem that continually

40

surfaces, despite efforts by educators to increase student achievement, is that of
the lack of student engagement.
Studies indicate that being motivated and engaged in learning is critical to
achievement. Students are more likely to be engaged in academic work when their
need for competence, school membership and authentic work is fulfilled. Given
this, schools need to design experiences that will fulfill the students’ engagement
needs and accelerate their academic success. The National Research Council
(2004) indicated that research in this area of student engagement is essential to
improving learning.
Although there is over 30 years of research identifying the problem of the
lack of student engagement, just recently there is research that has looked at
specific student behaviors and school features that can be changed to improve
engagement. However, there is limited research on this topic in urban schools.
There is even less research with at-risk students in urban continuation high
schools. According to Clark (2002), there is much to be learned about the
academic lives of at-risk urban youths, especially those who are academically
successful. Despite the fact that the HSSSE has involved nearly 300,000 students
attending 190 high schools across 29 states, its schools were primarily in the
Midwest with Caucasian students (High school survey, n.d.). A limited number of
the schools were urban high schools. None were continuation schools with at-risk
students.

41

The lack of student engagement research in this area presents some
questions yet to be sufficiently addressed: To what extent is student engagement a
factor in student success in an urban continuation high school? What are ways
that continuation high school students are engaged at school? Do at-risk students
experience the same engagement issues as regular high school students? What
continuation school practices promote student engagement? What leadership
practices promote student engagement at a continuation high school? How does
the school culture affect student engagement at a continuation school? What
effect do teacher instructional practices have on student engagement at a
continuation school? What do high performing continuation schools do that others
do not?
There is a need to study student engagement at high performing
continuation schools in order to identify those components of engagement that
help accelerate achievement of our nation’s most at-risk students. With this in
mind, it would be useful to determine to what extent student engagement is a
factor in student success in a high performing urban continuation high school
where there are economically disadvantaged non-Caucasian students.

42

Chapter 3
Methodology

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if high performing urban high
schools have higher student engagement than other high schools and if so, to
identify those factors that promote higher student engagement. This study
examined the practices that promote student engagement at a high performing
urban continuation high school, Lee High School. The specific practices
examined were school climate, instructional practices, and leadership practices.
The high performing urban continuation high school selected for this case study
was one school in an entire school district of five comprehensive high schools and
one continuation high school, all of which were included in a series of case
studies by a thematic dissertation team.
The entire district was selected for the case studies because its student
body was consistent with the characteristics of an urban population with ethnic
diversity, a large second language population and a lower socio-economic status.
Additionally, according to a local newspaper article and the district’s website, the
state superintendent designated the entire district a high performing district due to
its Academic Performance Index (API) growth of 17 points in 2005-06; the state
average growth was 12 points. Additionally, the district had the largest year-to-

43

year gain in Los Angeles County and it also placed at the 89
th
percentile in growth
nationwide.
A qualitative mixed methods case study was conducted to explore the
factors of student engagement. The research team decided upon a qualitative
study so that student engagement could be studied in its natural environment: at
the school and in the classroom. The research team determined that a case study
would best provide the in-depth detail needed to answer the research questions.
This case study can offer some understanding as to the application of
factors that may affect student engagement. It may also provide insight to
educators in a similar setting. Document review, observation, teacher surveys and
interviews were used to collect data in order to determine whether student
engagement is a factor in achievement. Additionally, quantitative data from the
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) were collected from
student surveys.

Background of the Study
This study grew out of a thematic dissertation research team that
developed research questions out of an interest in the existing nationwide study of
high school student engagement conducted by Indiana University. The nationwide
study, the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), was conceived
after the culmination of Indiana University’s extensive study of student
engagement of college students. The purpose of the HSSSE was to identify the

44

level of engagement of high school students as determined by their participation
in various school-related activities. The results indicated specific areas of
engagement for different subgroups of students.
The dissertation team decided to look at student engagement at high
performing high schools with the desire to add to the research on the relationship
between student engagement and academic performance and the factors that may
contribute to that increased performance. The team met and communicated
regularly from May 2006 to April 2007 and developed the research questions,
which were designed to elicit detailed descriptive information about the practices
that positively impact student engagement at the high schools of study.
Additionally, the research instruments were developed, resources were shared, the
study was designed, a timeline for the research was developed, and the findings
were evaluated. Each case study, however, was developed and conducted
individually with unique results for each school. The presentation of the results as
a group provided insight into any common themes that developed across the entire
school district. Individual presentations provided insight unique to each case
study.

Research Questions
This study was one of six case studies in which teachers, support staff
members, and students from a high performing urban continuation high school

45

were observed, surveyed and interviewed to explore the following research
questions that focused upon student engagement of high school students:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a High Performing Urban High
School (HPUHS), as measured by the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE)? How does it compare to the national average?
2. What programs and practices contribute to student engagement in a
HPUHS?
3. What programs and practices contribute to high performance in a
HPUHS?
The research questions helped to explore the identified school in depth. By
observing, surveying and interviewing the staff and students at the school, an in-
depth study of student engagement in its natural context was plausible. The results
yielded the perspective of the participants involved with the phenomenon of
student engagement. The findings were narrowed to three key areas: school
climate or culture, instructional practices and leadership practices.

Conceptual Framework and Model
The key areas of the research questions can be illustrated as components
of a conceptual framework or model (Figure 1), which depicts additional various
factors that may contribute toward high performing students and ultimately,
schools.

46

Figure 1. High Performing Urban High School

Research Design
This case study was designed to identify themes and best practices surrounding
the issue of student engagement. It was conducted at a single continuation high
school using a mixed methods qualitative case study design and included the
examination of school and district documents, observation of school activities,
teacher surveys, and interviews of staff members. A secondary data source in this
study consisted of student survey data collected from surveys administered to the
high school students. These surveys were part of the nationwide High School
Survey of Student

47

Engagement (HSSSE) research and were analyzed by a research team at Indiana
University at Bloomington. The purpose of the HSSSE survey was to discover
themes from a large number of participants, which could provide a framework for
and validate data collected through the qualitative methods employed.
The selection of the qualitative case study design was guided by the nature
of the research questions in order to provide detailed in-depth descriptive data,
which could be best analyzed within the context of the quantitative information
collected. This design allowed the researcher to study, portray and interpret
student engagement in its the natural context. The researcher was able to present
reality and catch complex and situational behaviors. According to Merriam
(1988), insight and discovery of some phenomenon is best achieved by
interpreting data within context; it is only within context that the interaction of
some factors significant to the phenomenon can be fully identified and
understood. Yin (1984) identifies the case study as being most suited to situations
in which it is not advisable or possible to separate the variables of the
phenomenon being studied from within their context.
Within this natural context, the research team could provide a dense, rich
and detailed story from the participants’ perspectives. The strength of qualitative
research lies in its narrow, detailed focus, which can provide a wealth of
information about a small number of people or cases (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2000). According to Gall, Gall & Borg (2003), a qualitative approach is

48

beneficial in order to bring alive a phenomenon because of its intensely rich
description.
The case study is strong in reality although its strength is also its weakness
in that it’s difficult to organize and generalize; whereas, other research designs
may have strength in organization of data but they can be weak in reality (Cohen,
Manion & Morrison, 2000). Additionally, the case study can identify unique
features that may hold the key to truly understanding the situation being studied
(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). These key features can be lost in larger scale
data. The uncovering of these unique features oftentimes has to do with the
interactions of significant factors that provide descriptions and explanations.
To enhance the validity of these descriptive findings, it is beneficial to use
multiple methods to collect data (Gall et al., 2003). This use of multiple methods
may also increase the validity and generalizability of the case study (Creswell,
2003). Additionally, this case study was one of a series of six case studies
conducted by the thematic dissertation research team, which also served to
validate the findings.
The development of this research design began with a literature review of
student engagement and relevant issues by the thematic dissertation research team
in May 2006. In August 2006, the research team utilized their findings from their
literature review to develop the research questions, a conceptual model and the
design methodology. The purpose, research questions, methodology and
instrumentation were the same throughout the six case studies. Additionally, all

49

six studies utilized Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames as a means to provide
a framework by which information could be collected and sorted.
During the development of the research design, the principal investigator
established contact with the superintendent of the district in which the study was
ultimately conducted. Additionally, monetary resources in the way of a grant were
investigated and secured for the costs involved with the secondary data source.
In November 2006, the thematic dissertation research team met with and
ultimately obtained permission from the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board for institutional approval of the study. Each team
member was then assigned a school site for each case study and contacted the
principal of the site to receive permission to conduct the study. The district in
which the study was conducted made arrangements for the secondary data source
survey to be administered to students in January 2007. During February, this case
study was conducted at the school.

Population
The population selected for this thematic group dissertation was high
performing urban high schools. The high schools selected were in a single
California high school district, District J, located in a suburban community of
over 265,000 residents in Los Angeles County. District J serves a diverse student
population of over 11,000 students who come from one of five feeder elementary
school districts. These students ultimately attend one of the seven schools in the

50

district, which is comprised of five comprehensive high schools, one independent
study high school and one continuation high school.
District J has experienced significant student academic growth across all
schools, as measured by meeting or exceeding target growth on the Academic
Performance Index (API) and/or Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In 2006, the
California State Superintendent, Jack O’Connell, singled District J out as a high
performing district. According to a local paper, this designation was due in part
because it made a year-to-year increase on the 2005 Academic Performance Index
of 454 points, the largest gain in Los Angeles County. Additionally, in 2006,
more than 99 percent of the district’s students passed the California High School
Exit Exam, which surpassed the state average of 91 percent.
According to the district records, in 2005-06 alone, District J’s API scores
rose by 17 points giving them a total score of 694. This growth is above the
State’s average growth of 12 points. This growth also placed the district at the
89th percentile in growth nationwide. The district showed improvement in all
student groups including a 25 point increase among Caucasian students, an 18
point increase in Hispanics, a 17 point increase in economically disadvantaged
students, a 15 point increase for Asian students, a 12 point increase in English
learners, and a 16 point increase in special education students.
The student population of the district studied has the demographics of
urban communities by sharing similar risk factors such as low-income levels and
a large English language learner population. For the purposes of this study, an

51

urban school was identified as a school with a significant percentage of the
student body having one or more of the following characteristics: socio-
economically disadvantaged, English language learners or non-Caucasian.

Sample
The sample used during this study was a single continuation high school,
Lee High School, located in District J. The sample was selected because it is one
of the six schools within the district, which was designated as a high performing
district by the State Superintendent.

Lee Continuation High as a High Performing High School
Meaningful data from standardized test scores is difficult to ascertain at
continuation schools where students typically enroll in their junior and senior
years. By Education Code, students must be at least 16 years of age to attend a
continuation high school. At Lee High, only 50 student scores comprised the
Academic Performance Index (API) and since over half of the total students were
seniors, they did not participate in the state-mandated assessments. Additionally,
many of the eleventh graders were not even enrolled in the district for the
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS).
Because of the difficulty of attaining meaningful standardized test
information to determine the performance level of a continuation high school,
other data were considered in addition to the statewide assessments, including

52

school site assessment, Alternative School Accountability Model (ASAM) data,
and program and academic growth as recognized in a statewide recognition
among all continuation high schools.
The entire District J was named high performing by the state
superintendent due to the district-wide gains in test scores, including a year-to-
year increase on the 2005 API of 454 points. Lee High School realized a 169-
point increase on the 2005 API, according to their School Accountability Report
Card (SARC). Although No Child Left Behind (NCLB) set accountability
measures for regular comprehensive schools with API and Average Yearly
Progress (AYP), continuation schools are expected to meet a yearly AYP but not
an API, despite the fact that they are still issued API scores. Lee High School met
its 2004-05 AYP, which is reported in their 2006 Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA).
In recognition of the focused population of at-risk students sent to
continuation and alternative schools, California developed an alternative to the
accountability system used for regular comprehensive schools. This alternative
accountability system is the ASAM in which criteria are set and monitored for
growth. Lee High’s state-defined ASAM indicators were attendance and academic
progress, as outlined in their 2005 SPSA. Lee’s improvement in these areas has
earned them Sufficient Standard progress according to the State of California.
According to Lee High’s SPSA, since 2002, the school’s attendance rate has
increased from 62% to 84% with an increase each year with the exception of 2005

53

when the percent dipped by 1%, from 85% to 84%. The other ASAM indicator
outlined in the SPSA, student academic progress, has increased from 26 average
credits earned per year in 2002 to 45 average credits earned in 2005. Once again,
there was a gain each year except 2005, which saw a slight dip of 3 credits earned,
from 48 to 45 credits.
Another ASAM criterion for which the Lee High staff monitored was the
graduation rate. The graduation rate at Lee High has increased over the past seven
years from 27% in 1999 to 83% in 2005, according to the school’s SPSA. Each
year realized an increase with the exception of the year 2002. However, despite
the dip to 38% in 2002, the year 2003 saw an increase beyond that of 2001 when
the rate jumped from 59% in 2001 to over 68% in 2003. Additionally, each year
since 1999, with the exception of 2002, has seen a decrease in the total number of
dropouts, which ranged from a high of 168 students in 1999 to 22 students in
2005.
Lee High also performed well in the state-required CAHSEE. According
to the school’s model school application, the average growth score on the
CAHSEE of repeat test-takers of Lee High students as compared to all other
students in the district was 6 -15 points higher. A 2007 letter to the school from
the WASC Commission Chair announced the gaining of a six-year term of
accreditation for Lee noting “many laudable aspects of the school” and
“congratulations on the quality of instruction being offered.”

54

Additionally, Lee High has been designated a Model Continuation High
School by the California Department of Education three times, with a term of
three years for each designation (California Continuation Education Association,
2007); in total, it has been a Model school from 1999 up until the current year. It’s
current designation will last until 2009.
The Model Continuation High School Recognition Program is sponsored
by the California Department of Education with the Special, Alternative, and
Continuing Education Division, and in cooperation with the California Continuation
Education Association. Approximately 20 continuation schools from the 522
continuation schools statewide are selected for this honor on a yearly basis
(O’Connell, 2004). These schools must demonstrate excellence in program
effectiveness, school management, curriculum, instructional strategies,
assessment and evaluation, school climate, and support systems such as guidance
and counseling to a panel of state representatives from the California
Continuation Education Association (O’Connell, 2004). This panel recommends
recipients of this title to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for model
school status (O’Connell, 2004). This program commenced in 2002 for
continuation schools, which were established in 1919 to meet the needs of
students, ages sixteen through eighteen who are deemed at risk of dropping out of
school. More than 68,000 California high school students attend 522 continuation
schools throughout the state (O’Connell, 2004).

55

Lee High showed gains in not only state assessments but also site-
administered assessments; students have made yearly gains in the STAR
Renaissance Assessment for all but one of the past six years, according to the
school’s SPSA. In summary, in addition to being a school within a high
performing district and being designated a statewide model continuation school
continuously since 1999, Lee High School has made great gains in several areas
over the past several years including in attendance, academic progress and
graduation rates.

Lee High School as an Urban School
Lee High School is considered an urban school because it is comprised of
a majority of non-Caucasian, socio-economically disadvantaged and second
language students. It is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the heart of
Los Angeles at the site of a traditional high school that closed in 1969. Lee High
shares the current facilities with an independent studies school, an infant
development center and an adult school. Numerous district programs and
administrative services also operate from this site, including a vocational
transition program for special education, the severely handicapped program,
maintenance and operations division, reprographics department, food services,
transportation, and the district’s administrative offices. Additionally, various
community-based organizations share these facilities.

56

According to the school’s Single Plan for Student Achievement and the
October 2005 CBEDS data, the total Lee High student population was 644 with a
majority of students qualifying as socio-economically disadvantaged. Socio-
economically disadvantaged criteria is established by qualifying for the California
Free and Reduced Meal Program, which is available to families with low-income
earnings established at $34,873 per year for a family of four. More than 72% of
Lee High students qualify for free or reduced-price meal as compared to only
36% of students qualifying throughout the state of California.
Demographic information indicates that a minority population represents a
greater percent of Lee High students than that of the average California school.
According to the school’s 2006 Single Plan for Student Achievement, 86% of Lee
students identify themselves as Latino or Hispanic, which is more than double the
average in other California schools. The other populations include 10% European
American or Caucasian; 3% African-American; and 1% American Indian, Asian
and other. Approximately 26% of Lee High students are English language
learners with 100% of these students indicating that they primarily speak Spanish
at home. Lee is comprised of mostly boys at 66% of the population and only 34%
girls. Nearly 73% percent of the students’ parents graduated from high school and
26% attended at least some college.

57

Lee High School Staff and Programs
The Lee High teaching staff is currently comprised of 18 teachers of
which approximately 76% are fully credentialed, according to the latest School
Accountability Report Card (SARC); the remainder of the teaching staff holds
probationary or intern credentials. This percent of fully credentialed teachers is
lower than that in the county or state, which average 84% and 90%, respectively.
The average years of teaching experience of Lee High teachers is 14 years, which
is slightly higher than the county or state averages despite the fact that 24% of
Lee High teachers are working without full credentials; this compares to a
statewide average of 10%, according to the SARC. Nearly 38% percent of Lee
High teachers have over 25 years of teaching experience, 11% have 15-25 years
experience, 34% have 5-10 years experience, and only 17% have less than five
years of experience, also according to the SARC. The teaching staff is similar to
the student body in gender distribution: 74% of Lee High’s teaching staff is male
and 26% female, according to the School Plan for Student Achievement. That
distribution is more balanced when considering the entire staff which is
comprised of 55% female and 45% male.
Lee High School offers a variety of programs at the school or at the
facilities the school shares with adult education programs and the district offices.
Programs offered at the facilities, but not exclusively part of Lee High, include an
independent studies program; adult school; Career Connections, which is a
vocational transition service program for special education students; two job

58

placement and career planning programs; a severely handicapped program; an
infant development center; and some community-based organizations. Although
these services and programs are offered to all students in the school district, the
Lee High students benefit from having these programs available at their school
site facilities. Additionally, programs and services available specifically for Lee
High students include a library, a computer lab, advisory classes and a probation
officer.

Instrumentation
The instruments used for this study were selected and developed by the
research group during the months of May through November 2006 and were
identified to enable the collection of data from multiple sources, including
document analysis, observation, teacher surveys, and interviews. All research
instruments were supported by findings in current literature. Although the
research team worked collaboratively to identify and develop the instruments used
to collect data for this research, each researcher conducted her case study
individually. Collectively, the researchers hoped to identify some commonality in
their findings.
A secondary data analysis was obtained from the results of the High
School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE). The Lee High School HSSSE
data were compared with the national data and served to identify themes from the

59

entire student body, which could validate the data collected from document
review, observation, teacher surveys and interviews.

Document Review
The thematic dissertation team determined that a document review would
provide an overview of the school and an ability to put collected data into proper
context. The documents collected were from a variety of sources including
federal, state, district and school websites; and school and district produced
publications and memorandums.
The websites reviewed included the California Department of Education,
and those of the school and school district in this study for the Academic
Performance Index (API), Average Yearly Progress (AYP), and standardized test
data, California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) Report, California High
School Exit Exam data, the Model Continuation High School Recognition
Program application for Lee High, Single Plan for Student Achievement, School
Accountability Report Card for 2005-2006 (reported in 2006-2007), and the Lee
High School Professional Development Plan 2005-2006.
All website information was reviewed prior to visiting the school to get an
overview of the school being studied. These website documents reviewed
included information on student demographic and achievement data including
attendance, a-g completion rates, graduation rates and subgroup information.
Graduation and required tests such as the California High School Exit Exam were

60

reviewed to understand student achievement. Lee High’s Model Continuation
High School application was reviewed to determine the school’s areas of strength
and areas in need of growth. Teacher information was also reviewed including the
qualifications of the staff.
School-provided documents reviewed included: school map, daily bell
schedule, master schedule, school staff telephone directory, school calendar,
master calendar, daily bulletin, sample transcript evaluation form, student center
documents, teacher-produced documents, school conceptual model, WASC letter,
email correspondences, school-produced CAHSEE planning sheet and other
district-produced documents such as district newsletter and instruction guide
brochure. These documents were reviewed to validate school vision, focus,
values, priorities and areas of concern by providing information on the
coursework, a-g completion rates, daily routines, the level of participation in a
rigorous curriculum, support systems, and site and district staff relations and
expectations.

Observation
Observation was conducted for 15 hours over a two-day period in a variety
of settings including in classrooms, offices, the lunch court, at a faculty meeting,
and throughout the campus facilities. The researcher observed in each of the 14
rooms where classes were being held anywhere from a few minutes to 45 minutes
with 25% of the classrooms observed for more than 30 minutes. Other rooms such

61

as the infant lab, library, computer lab, student center, and interior offices were
also observed in times spanning a few minutes to 45 minutes.
Environmental and human factors in school activities and in personal
interactions were observed in these settings. The Observation Template
(Appendix A) was developed to assist the researcher in organizing the
information collected during the observation. The categories used on the
instrument to sort the observation data were those that were identified by Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames: Structural, Human Resources, Political and
Symbolic. The Four Frames were developed as a model for organizational theory,
which can be utilized to make sense of and to assess the situations that occur
within an organization.
The Structural Frame deals with having a common vision and goals and
defining roles as part of the process in schools. Analysis and design is the
emphasis of this frame including structure, strategy, environment,
implementation, experimentation and adaptation. These areas of focus would be
evident in a leader, which could be any staff member, who emphasizes these
elements.
The Human Resources Frame pertains to the relationship between people
and the organization, including the needs of the staff, students and community. It
also deals with the atmosphere or environment. This frame may manifest itself in
a leader who is supportive, an advocate and empowering. This person may be

62

highly visible and accessible, supportive, and move the decision-making into and
throughout the organization.
The Political Frame deals with the concept of power and the struggles with
power that can lead to conflict. During times of change, limited resources, or
major differences of opinion, power is perhaps the most important resource. The
concepts of this frame may be visible in the leader who is an advocate, builds
relationships with stakeholders and uses persuasion and then negotiation in
building the organization. Coercion is used only when necessary.
The Symbolic Frame looks at symbols, meaning and faith as pertaining to
rituals and ceremonies. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), strength in this
area can cultivate a strong sense of commitment and loyalty and can infuse a
school with life. A leader strong in this area is inspirational and may use symbols
and visionary talk to capture attention and garner support.

Teacher Surveys
Surveys were conducted with teachers at a single faculty meeting. The 20-
question survey pertained to the teachers’ perceptions of issues about student
engagement and achievement. The survey provided teacher views from all
departments and served to validate the other data collected from the observation
and interviews. The statements of the survey were designed to parallel those in the
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) but were worded to reflect
the teacher’s point of view. The alignment of the survey statements served to

63

allow comparison of the teacher responses with those of the students. Four of the
20 items in the survey corresponded with items in the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy
Scale developed at Ohio State University to measure teacher efficacy (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). An additional four items were parallel with
statements that appear in both the HSSSE and the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy
Scale.

Staff Interviews
Interviews were conducted with staff members including one
administrator, five teachers, two counselors, and three classified employees. Each
interview involved a single meeting with three questions and a series of sub-
questions. The length of time for the interviews ranged from 10-38 minutes. The
questions pertained to factors that contribute to student engagement and
achievement.

High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)
A secondary data source, the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE) was used to identify themes from a large number of participants. This
survey was developed by Indiana University and has been administered to over
300,000 students throughout the United States in just the last three years. The
survey seeks to determine the levels and dimensions of student engagement in
high schools. It is built upon a multi-dimensional, research-based conception of

64

student engagement and contains three major components. The first component is
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement as described by the work students
do and the ways in which students do that work. The second component is
Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement, which describes the ways in which
students interact with the school community. The third component is Emotional
Engagement, which describes how students feel pertaining to school and their
progress. In general, the survey is designed to determine how students engage in
the life and work of high school.
In January 2007, all students at Lee High School were invited to
participate in this anonymous survey, which gathers information about student
behaviors and feelings as related to student engagement. Of the 643 students
enrolled in all programs at Lee High School, 272 participated in the survey.
School site personnel administered the HSSSE, which took approximately 30
minutes to complete. Surveys were collected and sent to Indiana University where
the responses were complied and analyzed. The results were then sent to the
District J office in late April 2007. A copy of the data was then sent to the
researcher. The data were presented by grade level, school-wide, and as a
nationwide statistical comparison to other high school students participating in the
survey.
To compare the results to other students nationwide, the researcher
identified the items that were statistically significant. These items were

65

interpreted with regards to why the students responded as they did. These
quantitative data were then compared to the qualitative data collected.
A comparison of similar items on the Teacher Survey and the HSSSE was
conducted. Sixteen of the teacher survey items were similar to HSSSE items but
were reworded to match the teacher’s perspective. For example, item #1 on the
Teacher Survey, “My students attend class with readings and/or assignments
completed” corresponded with item #7i on the HSSSE, which stated, “During this
school year, how often have you done each of the following?” followed by the
statement “Attended class with all assignments completed.” Item #2 on the
teacher survey, “My students take pride in their schoolwork” corresponded with
HSSSE item #8h, “I take pride in the quality of my school work.” Each of the
first 16 items was matched with the like HSSSE item and results were compared.
The last four items in the survey corresponded with items in the Teacher’s Sense
of Efficacy Scale developed at Ohio State University to measure teacher efficacy
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). After comparing the like items on
the HSSSE and the teacher survey, the researcher grouped the items by the four
frames and then into Dimensions of Engagement as reported in the High School
Survey of Student Engagement School Report for Lee High.

Data Collection
Data collection took place over a period of eight weeks and involved
document review, observation, teacher surveys and interviews. Document review

66

took place throughout the eight weeks. Websites were accessed prior to visiting
the campus and more documents were obtained and reviewed once the campus
was visited. The observation, teacher surveys and interviews took place over two
full days at the campus of the school.
The researcher began with a document review to gain an understanding of
the school and to be able to put what was observed into context. The documents
reviewed revealed the school’s vision and mission statements, values,
organizational plans, meeting and professional development plans,
communication methods, priorities, strengths and areas of concern for the school.
The documents also provided data on student achievement and growth in
academics, attendance and social-emotional adjustment.
Observation was conducted for 15 hours over the course of two days in
February 2007 and data were written on lined tablet paper and later sorted into the
categories as outlined on the Observation Template (Appendix A). All areas of
the school and activities were observed at least once over the course of two days;
most activities were observed two or more times. The areas of the school
observed included the parking lot, main office, attendance office, classrooms,
lunch court, infant lab, and nearby adult facilities, which are located at the same
complex. The school times and activities observed included before school, after
school, passing periods, lunch time, nutrition break, a staff training, after-school
lab, Student Center, infant lab facilities, teaching, faculty meeting, a baby shower

67

party for a staff member, a campus tour conducted by a student, a visitation by the
district superintendent, and other general activities.
Teacher surveys were conducted at a single staff meeting. The school
principal had prepared the staff ahead of time regarding the study and the survey
and there was time allotted in the staff meeting for their participation. The
researcher briefly reviewed the purpose of the study and Teacher Survey of
Student Engagement (Appendix B) and then each teacher received a Consent to
Participate in Research letter (Appendix D) to participate in the survey. Copies of
the consent form were later made available. Teachers were reminded that their
participation was voluntary. A copy of the teacher survey was given to each
teacher; most respondents completed the survey within ten minutes. There was no
identifying information on the survey instrument and the confidentiality of the
participants was preserved. The surveys were then collected by the researcher
who gave each participant a lottery ticket as a small token of appreciation for their
time and thoughtfulness in completing the survey.
The interviews were conducted and digitally recorded with one
administrator, five teachers, two counselors, and three classified employees over
the course of a two-day period in February 2007. Those interviews were later
transcribed. All interviewees were read a script from the Interview Instrument of
Student Engagement (Appendix C) introducing the researcher, describing the
purpose of the study and the interview. The researcher also advised the
interviewees that the interview was optional and that they could skip any question

68

to which they did not want to respond or could stop the interview altogether. A
letter of consent to participate was signed and copies were later made available.
All those interviewed were given the same script and same interview questions as
developed by the research team. All digital recordings, the computer on which the
recordings were transferred, and transcriptions were maintained in a secure
manner at the researcher’s home. Confidentiality was maintained by a coding of
recordings and transcriptions.
Throughout and at the end of each research day, the researcher examined
and accounted for all materials collected and secured them in her possession or in
her home. Interviews recorded were transferred throughout the day onto the
researcher’s laptop and were deleted from the mobile digital recording device in
order to create memory space for subsequent interviews.

Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are considerations of concern, particularly in a
qualitative study. Although validity, reliability and generalizability in a qualitative
study do not have the same connotations as they do in quantitative research
(Creswell, 2003), the use of data from multiple sources through data triangulation
serve to support and validate the findings of a study. The use of triangulation in a
case study is considered a useful technique and can lead to more valid and reliable
data (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000; Smith, 1975). The triangulated data in
this study included the data from the document review, observation, teacher

69

surveys, and interviews. Additionally, the use of the quantitative data from the
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) provided validity and
reliability to this qualitative case study. The mixed methods case study was
deemed the best strategy by the dissertation team to answer the research questions
proposed in this study.
The validity and reliability of this case study was further strengthened by
the dissertation team, which involved researchers who concurrently investigated
high performing urban high schools with similar methodology. By comparing
results and looking for consistent emergent themes across the case studies, the
team sought to develop some level of reliability. Although the team could
generalize some facets of multiple case analyses (Yin, 1989), there is a lack of
generalized concepts and procedures and the findings may not be replicable.
However, it is possible to assess the typicality of a situation and to determine how
data might translate into a different setting (Cohen, et al, 2000). To achieve this
possibility the researcher sought to provide a thick, rich, detailed and in-depth
description so that others could decide the extent to which the findings might
generalize to another situation.

Document Review
The data collection began with a thorough document review. It was
presumed that the information in the documents reviewed was accurate. Any
inconsistencies of consequence were noted.

70

Observation
Some of the threats to validity and reliability for observation include the
researcher being unaware of important prior events; those observed could be
unrepresentative of the sample of the study; the researcher’s presence may bring
about atypical behaviors; and the researcher may become too attached to the
group to be an objective observer (Cohen, et al, 2000). To establish reliability and
validity for the observation, the observation time was prolonged and repetitive,
rather than broken up into small time periods. When possible, events were
observed more than once to establish reliability in the observational data.
To address the potential problem of being unaware of significant prior
events, the researcher conducted a thorough document review prior to observation
in order to have an understanding of the long-term and more immediate history of
the school. Additionally, the researcher emailed and spoke with the school
principal several times prior to any observation to gain a sense of significant
issues at the school. Acknowledging that anything observed has contextual
relevance, socio-cultural knowledge from participants was elicited, when
appropriate, in order to develop accurate meaning from all observational data.
Due to the small size of the school and staff, the researcher was able to
observe the entire grounds and all areas of gatherings by staff and students. This
ensured that observational data representative of the school were obtained.
Although the impact of the presence of the researcher was not fully known, the
school staff was accustomed to visitors on the campus and the researcher worked

71

in a continuation school similar to Lee High and was therefore comfortable
around the students and staff. Due to these issues, the researcher’s presence was
not unusual and therefore did not likely bring about atypical behaviors. Lastly,
although the observation time was sufficient, the overall time was not so
expansive so as to allow the researcher to develop significant attachments to those
being observed; in this respect, the researcher did not jeopardize validity or
reliability by developing attachments and reducing objectivity.
The researcher observed the school activities for a substantial period of
time in order to reduce any reactivity effects and to be able to see how the daily
events evolved over time. The dynamics of situations, contexts and personalities
of the staff and students were recorded along with general observations of plant
facilities. The researcher was immersed in the school context a sufficient amount
of time to allow the salient features of the school to emerge, which allowed the
creation of a thick and rich description of the school.
The observation description included the jotting of key words, detailed
writings, reconstructions of conversations, and notes made on the pre-determined
themes as identified by Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames so as to provide
some systematic way of ultimately categorizing the data. Notes made at the end of
each day after some elapse of time were also used. It was hoped that the thick,
rich detail of the context of the setting would provide sufficient information for
others to determine the degree to which the study could be generalized.

72

Teacher Survey
To address possible concerns of validity and reliability pertaining to the
teacher survey, the researcher did several things to help ensure the greatest
number of respondents and to ensure the respondents answered honestly. To
reduce the possibility of non-response, the researcher arranged with the principal
to build time into the teachers’ pre-scheduled school activities to complete the
survey. The researcher informed the respondents of the ease and minimal amount
of time needed to complete the survey, which was approximately 5-10 minutes.
Since a time was provided for the teachers to complete the survey, all teachers
present responded. Additionally, the researcher offered a token of appreciation for
their time, in advance to filling out the survey, in the form of a California State
Lottery Ticket. This excited the teachers and they expressed appreciation when
the researcher noted that she understood their time was valuable. All of these
factors controlled for the validity issues of non-response and sampling because it
resulted in a 100% response. Additionally, because the survey was anonymous, it
encouraged honesty. The questions asked were also not of the sensitive nature,
making the survey a relatively simple and even enjoyable task.

Staff Interviews
Validity and reliability in interviews can be problematic. Studies indicate
that the cause of invalidity is bias, oftentimes a persistent tendency to err in the

73

same direction by overstating or understating the true value of an attribute (Cohen
et al., 2000). One way of validating interview measures is to compare the results
with another measure that has already been shown to be valid. The researcher
sought to increase validity by triangulating the data with the multiple measures.
Additionally, the questions on the interview were not of the sensitive nature and
posed no threat to those being interviewed. In fact, the questions looked at
positive attributes of the school and this encouraged the interviewees to see the
interview as a positive experience that validated their work.
The researcher sought to control for reliability with the interviews by
having a structured interview with the same format and sequence of words and
questions for each respondent. Oppenheim (1992) and Silverman (1993) argue
that wording is an extremely important factor in attitudinal questions because it is
important for each interviewee to understand the question in the same way.
Alterations to wording, procedure, sequence, and rapport can change the
interviewees’ understanding of the question because it can change the context and
emphasis (Oppenheim, 1992; Cohen, et al., 2000). With this in mind, the
researcher was consistent in questioning technique across all interviews but
provided clarifying statements or reworded the question if needed for a clear and
consistent understanding of the questions being asked.
Another issue of bias in interview questions can be the questions
themselves. Leading questions make assumptions about the interviewees and can

74

influence the responses (Cohen, et al., 2000; Scheurich, 1995). The interview
questions were written and asked with every attempt to make the meaning clear.
The issue of power is also potentially a significant bias factor in interviews
because an interview in not simply a data collection situation but also a social and
sometimes political situation (Cohen, et al., 2000; Scheurich, 1995). The
researcher sought to limit the effects of the issue of power by having the
interviewees set the interview time and place and by maintaining a relaxed
atmosphere prior to and during the interview.
The researcher also acknowledged the significance of the non-verbal
aspects of an interview (Cohen et al., 2000; Miller & Cannell, 1997) by holding
all interviews in person. People are more likely to disclose their thoughts and
feelings in an interpersonal encounter where they are at ease, than they would in a
less personal situation such as in a telephone interview (Cohen, et al., 2000). The
telephone interview has essential social elements absent which can undermine the
validity and reliability of the interview (Miller & Cannell, 1997).

Data Analysis
Data were collected and triangulated using the document review,
observation, surveys and interviews. The analysis of data was guided through
Creswell’s Six Step process (Creswell, 2003). The first step involved organizing
and preparing the data for analysis. The next step involved sorting the data and
reading through it all to gain a general sense of the meaning of all the information.

75

The researcher sought to identify themes that emerged from the organized data
and did this by highlighting and marking with post-it notes the major themes and
most pertinent data on the collected documents and data notes.
All collected documents were retained together within a notebook and
several folders. Documents were marked with highlights and post-it notes to
identify and easily locate data of interest. That data were then transferred onto a
word-processing document, which ultimately integrated data of interest from the
other data sources.
Highlights from written observation notes were transferred from the lined
tablet paper directly into a word-processing document and sorted according to
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames on the computer.
Interviews were transcribed from the digital recordings onto a word
document. Interesting quotes, slogans and pertinent themes were noted with
highlighting and sorted into the Four Frames (Bolman & Deal, 2003) and were
transferred onto a word-processing document.
The next step involved describing the data according to the identified
themes and then describing the themes in great detail. This description involved
detailed rendering of the collected data, complete with quotations and specific
evidence. Lastly, the data were interpreted and new questions were raised for
possible future studies. Figure 2 outlines Creswell’s Six Step process utilized by
the researcher.

76

Figure 2. Creswell’s Six-Step Process

Organize and Prepare Data
⇓
Read All Data
⇓
Analyze in Detail
⇓
Describe in Detail
⇓
Write Narrative
⇓
Develop Interpretation

77

Chapter 4
Presentation of Data

Introduction
This chapter summarizes the findings of the case study. The chapter
consists of four major sections: Overview of the Case Study, Summary of
Findings by Instrument, Emergent Themes from Instruments, Summary of
Findings by Research Question and Discussion of Findings.

Overview of the Case Study
A case study was conducted at Lee High School located in southern
California to determine if high performing high schools have higher student
engagement and if so, to identify those factors that promote higher student
engagement. The school was selected because it met the criteria of a high
performing school, as defined by a thematic dissertation research team. The
researcher conducted the study over an eight-week period during which time
documents were reviewed, observation was conducted, surveys administered and
interviews conducted.

Summary of Findings by Instrument
The summary of the findings from the document review, observation,
surveys and interviews was presented and summarized within Bolman and Deal’s

78

(2003) Four Frames: Structural, Human Resources, Political and Symbolic.
Although many of the findings could be presented in more than one of Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames, the researcher selected the most obvious or best
fit for the factor involved. The purpose of this organization served to assist with
ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the findings and allowed the emergence
of concepts and themes. Next, the findings of the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE) were presented. Emergent themes were identified and the
research questions were addressed. Finally, a discussion of findings presented the
uniqueness of this case study.

Findings of Document Review
There were numerous documents used to gather information pertaining to
the research questions of this case study. The primary documents reviewed
included: School Accountability Report Card (SARC), master schedule, school
calendar, staff directory, daily bell schedule, school map, Model Continuation
High School Recognition Program application, Professional Development Plan,
the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) and various memos and
correspondences. Websites reviewed included the California Department of
Education, and those of the school and district pertaining to this case study.
The documents reviewed were initially used to support the identification
of Lee High School as a high performing continuation high school. The district’s
website and newsletter referred to the entire district being named high performing

79

by the state superintendent due to the district-wide gains in test scores. Lee High’s
increase in test scores was outlined in their SPSA, which showed yearly gains in
the STAR Renaissance Assessment for all but one of the past six years. The SPSA
also indicated that the school met its 2005 AYP, which is reported in 2006. The
announcement of a six-year term of accreditation for Lee High along with a
notation of “quality instruction” was outlined in a 2007 WASC letter sent to the
district and school from the WASC Commission Chair. The website of the
California Continuation Education Association and the school’s website confirm
the school’s recognition for the past six years as a Model Continuation High
School in the State of California.
The documents reviewed were also used to support any themes that
emerged from the data collected from the other instruments, including the
observation, teacher surveys and interviews. Additionally, the document review
allowed the researcher to understand the beliefs of the district and the school and
their approaches to issues affecting student engagement, such as organization and
structure, expectations, and course and activity offerings.
Structural frame.
The review of documents indicated that the school utilizes structures and
strategies to facilitate engaging students in their learning. The researcher found
that the organizational elements were developed and implemented out of a
strategic design, rather than by happenstance.

80

Inspection of a district-produced instructional brochure states District J’s
vision along with steps to be taken by each school in order to achieve that vision:
[District J] will provide all students with an engaging, quality, standards-
driven instructional program delivered by a well-trained staff resulting in
improved student achievement.

The features involved in the vision include: (a) Common Instructional Materials;
(b) Site Based Interim Assessments; (c) District-wide Quarterly Common
Assessments; and (d) Implementing the Pyramid of Interventions.
Lee High’s website and posters hanging in some of the classrooms declare
its mission needed in order to meet the district-wide vision. It emphasizes a secure
environment with the recognition that the at-risk students will need additional
support in learning how to be students and in developing basic academic skills:
At Lee High School, we shall:
1. Provide a safe and secure environment in which every student’s
potential is maximized as he/she develops competencies and skills.
2. Teach students how to learn and how to work with others while
encouraging the individual expression and stimulating their creativity.

A statement in Lee High’s 2005 Model Continuation High School
application co-written by two teachers attests to the structures strategically
designed and put in place to benefit students:
Two practices set Lee High apart from many of its peers. First, through
careful experimentation, testing and observation [Lee High] has developed
a means of grouping students into classes according to past performance
and identified gaps in their learning. This careful grouping of students
raises the comfort level of students, facilitates directed teaching and
cooperative learning, and enhances learning opportunities for students.
Additionally, this grouping has prevented the higher-level student from
“taking the easy way out” through not extending themselves in their
classes---something that was often occurring before this practice began.

81

The school calendar reflects short, four-week sessions titled Intensive
Curriculum Blocks (ICBs). These are month-long, two-hour classes designed to
focus intensely upon a subject. There are also two-month-long, one-hour core
classes such as English and algebra offered simultaneously in trimesters.
According to the Model Continuation High School application, the three
trimesters and five ICBs were designed in response to the poor passage rate on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The staff analyzed student data
and determined that students performed better in intensive study just prior to the
exam. Each ICB taught the standards of one of the CAHSEE strands. Students
who performed poorly in the probability and statistics in the math CAHSEE were
scheduled into the ICB teaching those standards. The Lee High staff has credited
the increased CAHSEE passage rate with this strategic scheduling. A school-
produced document for students titled, My Personal California High School Exit
Exam History is utilized by students in preparing for CAHSEE and is an example
of one of the strategies designed to engage students in their academic work.
The daily bell schedule shows students attending classes that are either
approximately one-hour or two-hours in length for either a morning or afternoon
schedule. Students who attend a morning schedule from 8:00 – 11:45 a.m. may
elect to utilize an after school lab to move ahead in their coursework. Conversely,
students on the afternoon schedule from 12:09 – 3:09 p.m. may utilize the lab
before their school day to move ahead in their coursework. The afternoon
schedule is designed for students who have not shown success in attending or

82

performing in the morning schedule. Attending the morning schedule is
considered the most desirable and the afternoon schedule is utilized as a
consequence for poor attendance in the morning schedule.
According to school-produced documents, credits are earned and grade
report periods occur at the end of every term for both the ICBs and the trimesters,
which occur for a total of eight times per year in the extended year schedule.
Following the change to an extended school year calendar student achievement
increased as documented by increased student productivity rates and attendance.
The curriculum in each class is one unifying subject curriculum despite
the fact that students within the class may be earning different credits. Students
are scheduled into classes according to their current skill level so the unifying
curriculum addresses the academic needs of the students in the class. The limited
number of simultaneous course offerings is due to the small number of students
needing each course and has led to this system of integrated coursework with a
cross section of standards. The Lee High staff decided that this was the best way
to address the academic needs of the students while maintaining a standards-
based, direct instruction curriculum. This calendar of learning units requires that
the teachers design standards-based one-month courses with different thematic
topics.
A site-designed transcript exemplified one example of the staff’s use of a
networked database to develop a product that not only analyzes student progress
but also facilitates communication among the students, staff and parents.

83

Additionally, these user-friendly transcripts, which are reviewed with students in
advisory classes every three weeks, assist students in keeping up with their work
and in taking responsibility for their education. The transcripts, originally
designed exclusively for the continuation school, print a Productivity Rate and
Attendance Percent. The Productivity Rate is the relationship between the number
of credits earned per week as compared to the number of credits that would be
earned at a traditional school when passing all classes. A Productivity Rate of
100% is the equivalent of passing a full schedule of classes at a traditional school.
Productivity Rates from schools attended prior to Lee High are also printed so
students may compare their improvement while at Lee High and learn that their
efforts produce results. The strategy of using this highly informative and simple-
to-use transcript provides motivation to the students.
According to the Lee High website, the school has introduced yet another
program in an effort to increase communication between the classroom and the
home: an internet-based, automated phone system that allows the teachers to
program messages about individual student progress. These messages are then
delivered to the home and can be delivered in the language of preference.
The documents reviewed also revealed that Lee High is proactive and
develops its own research in a quest to find better ways of engaging students to
improve student achievement. For example, as reported in the 2005 Model
Continuation High School Recognition Program application for Lee High,
teachers participated in an action research project involving single-gender classes.

84

Initial data indicated increased academic performance and a comparison study
followed the initial research project. Another project took a look at motivational
strategies.
Human resources frame.
The documents from the school site depict a small school community as
reflected in the staff list of a total of 34 teachers and support staff. The school
map shows a school that consists of only three rows of classrooms with an open
courtyard area utilized for lunch. This small community provides an opportunity
to develop close relationships among the staff and students. The Model
Continuation High School Program application revealed that Lee High emits a
warm and caring atmosphere and a safe school environment. The maintenance of
a zero-tolerance policy with regards to fights and an open-door policy for students
and staff help to support and maintain this relaxed and safe atmosphere. The
written policy of the closed campus states that students and staff are protected
from any outside influences that could compromise their security. An orientation
class for all new students to familiarize themselves with the school and staff is
also noted in the Model Continuation High School Program application.
A quote from a community member in the Model Continuation High
School Program application attests to the emphasis placed by the Lee High School
staff in developing relationships with the students, families and community:
What has been instrumental in developing this relationship has been the
[Lee High] staff who recognizes needs beyond the classroom and school
setting. Their willingness to engage in community service and in finding

85

solutions to many issues has been something, which made [Lee High] a
unique continuation school. When an issue arises, I feel confident I can
call a counselor, teacher and outreach staff to discuss the topic and how it
impacts the students who are members of this community. They also
reciprocate this confidence and call us when something is happening
which needs community action and service.

School-provided documents were all very student-oriented. The Student
Center, a room dedicated to student activities and staffed with a classified student
advisor, distributes information on these activities including guitar classes,
recording and production classes, student of the month celebrations, and college
representative speakers. One of the Student Center handouts for students and staff
had printed pictures of students involved in various activities and recognition
programs. A separate flyer showed a picture of the students who earned the most
credits in a trimester. Another handout of a conceptual model of Lee High School
portrayed all the human and structural resources available to the student who was
depicted as a star in the center.
The district demonstrates its commitment to support the Lee High staff in
developing the skills to do whatever it takes to assist students. According to the
Model Continuation High School application, the district provided 19 district-
wide curriculum and staff development days in one school year for various
curricular and staff groups. These days covered training and time in curriculum
alignment, conflict resolution, intervention methodology, and data teamwork.
Additionally, in a desire to increase student achievement district-wide, the
district acknowledged that the state standards in a course included more standards

86

than could be effectively taught in a school year. This acknowledgment, printed in
a district-produced instructional brochure, gave the staff throughout the district,
including those at Lee High, permission to develop more realistic and rigorous
outcomes for students. The outcome of this is reflected within the course syllabi
and schedules. Perhaps the district has adopted the concept that it is better to go a
mile deep than a mile wide. In fact, the district has identified from the state
standards the content and skill areas that appear most frequently in standardized
assessments and that are most essential for progressing to the next level. District J
has urged their schools to emphasize these standards and has, in essence, given
their teachers permission to de-emphasize and even omit those standards that are
not as critical for student growth in the area of assessment and course completion.
Political frame.
The documents reviewed displayed a staffing structure organized around
general job duties: administration, guidance, support staff and teaching. The
Model Continuation High School Program application indicated that all staff
members maintain an open-door policy, including the principal. This document
further indicated that school policies and procedures are discussed and revised,
when needed, by the staff. Lee High maintains the typical decision-making
groups, including School Site Council, Associated Student Body (ASB), and
Principal’s Advisory Committee; additionally, the school has a School
Improvement Crew and Tuesday Team. These groups examine current
educational practices and plan improvements.

87

Symbolic frame.
The documents reviewed revealed that Lee utilizes various rituals,
symbols and visionary talk, some of which were developed by the district, to
encourage more student engagement. The district has a slogan, Whatever It Takes
taken from the National Education Services book Whatever It Takes: How
Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don't Learn (DuFour,
Eaker & Karhanek, 2004). A district-produced instructional brochure, which
includes in its title the Whatever It Takes phrase, clearly states a vision and an
emphasis by the district of instructional excellence in order to improve student
achievement. The vision states the district, “…will provide all students with an
engaging, quality, standards-driven instructional program delivered by a well-
trained staff resulting in improved student achievement.” The steps to take in
realizing the vision are clearly outlined in the pamphlet and involve district-wide
use of common instructional materials and books, site based interim assessments,
district-wide quarterly common assessments and implementing the Pyramid of
Interventions, a model of intervention outlined by Dufour, Eaker and Karhanek
(2004). Additionally, the brochure provides a collaborative assessment conference
protocol for the district staff to utilize while discussing assessments. This
protocol, which was adapted from Harvard University, truly provides a user-
friendly format for analyzing assessment, providing even the time frame of
approximately one hour for a typical assessment conference.

88

According to the brochure, the district-wide quarterly common
assessments are used to identify academic growth problems with all students
before the students fall behind. Individual sites must utilize interim assessments
every three weeks to closely monitor students and guide daily instructional
decisions. The Pyramid of Interventions as interpreted by District J states:
The expectation is that as schools intervene in a more timely manner,
require rather than invite students to participate in interventions, provide a
systematic next step for students who are not successful, more and more
students will be “on target,” meet A-G requirements, and graduate from
high school. In other words, all students will succeed.

The vision is founded in the culture that the district employees must commit
themselves to do Whatever It Takes to ensure students achieve academically.
The document review also indicated that Lee High maintains some rituals
with the staff including providing t-shirts to promote school spirit, student thank-
you letters, teacher-of-the-year recognition, advisory awards and activity
assemblies to recognize staff.

Findings of Observation
There were 15 hours of observation time during this study. It was the
intent of the researcher to gain an understanding of the organization, structure,
culture, routines and interactions of the school, students and staff. Additionally,
the observations served to substantiate or refute the data collected in the document
review, teacher surveys and interviews. The observation time included observing
throughout the campus, in classrooms, and participating in a school tour, which

89

was common practice with visitors to the campus. The researcher also met various
people on campus who engaged her in un-elicited conversation including the
district superintendent, a parent, students, and staff members.
The Lee High School campus is small. It has shared facilities with the
district offices and other programs, but the school has its own section of the
complex, which can be viewed in its entirety from one vantage point. The school
campus can be walked from end-to-end within about one minute; however,
despite its small size in square feet, the school offers a multitude of programs and
activities.
The researcher arrived one morning at 6:45 a.m., well before the 8:00 a.m.
start of the school day. It was rainy and quiet. Only a handful of maintenance
workers were present and appeared to be working on some outside hall lights. A
community member parked in the lot and jogged on the adjacent field. There was
little activity until about 7:30 a.m. when a handful of about 10 students appeared
on campus. By 7:45 a.m. about 20 or more students were readily visible outside.
The researcher was informed that there were late buses so many students would
be arriving late that morning.
Structural frame.
A strategic organization and structure at the school was very apparent.
Systems and routines were observed that organized the school, maintained a safe
and relaxed environment, and projected a unifying vision and mission. Everything
appeared to be pre-planned. Supervision staff had stations they routinely reported

90

to throughout the day and utilized radios to communicate. The principal was
visible during passing periods, before and after school, and at lunch and nutrition
breaks to greet students. He described the school routine activities as “fluid” and
acknowledged a handful of students. Many of the students behaved as if they still
did not know him well; the researcher presumed this was because he had been
recently hired as principal.
Expectations were clearly visible in the behavior of staff as they verbally
urged students to get to class on time and they all modeled being in the
appropriate place at the appropriate time. For example, despite the fact that it was
raining one morning, the neighborhood traffic lights were out and a car accident
occurred on the same block, the staff was observed to be in the appropriate places
on time and ready to begin the day. Despite the efforts by the staff, many students
still did not portray any sense of urgency in getting to class on time and in fact,
after arriving late, some students went to the adult education cafeteria for food
before going to class. Within about 20 minutes after the start of the school day,
the campus was cleared and straggling students were in class. Students appeared
ready to work and most had backpacks.
A mural recently completed by the art students displayed the Lee High
School logo with the words, “Respect, Responsibility, Renewal.” As the
researcher admired it, one of the art students who had worked on the mural
walked by and shared, “I did that!” The Lee High School Mission Statement was

91

also displayed in various locations on the campus and was observed hanging in
some classrooms.
Although staff members and students had clear roles, they all seemed to
collectively share in a common role. Everyone appeared to be comfortable in
sharing office and classroom space, as staff members walked freely and
comfortably through various rooms and offices. Job duties, although defined,
were shared to some degree. Staff members seemed to wear several hats when it
pertained to their role in assisting students.
Human resource frame.
A relaxed and caring, yet professional and secure atmosphere was
observed throughout the campus and at activities. The principal’s open door
policy brought many staff members into his office with brief questions or
salutations. People politely walked in and felt comfortable interrupting in a
respectful way. The principal eagerly introduced the researcher to all passing staff
members who all responded in kind. Each staff member acknowledged knowing
about the researcher’s visit.
The supervision staff greeted or acknowledged, in some way, each student
or each group of students who walked by them. The principal pointed out that he
makes sure that he acknowledges some students with attendance problems, “I’m
happy to see you today!” Once school started, the gates directly in front of the
school were locked and secured to help control the access to the campus. The

92

campus was still accessible though from the other part of the complex, which
houses the district offices and programs.
The staff appeared to look a lot like the students ethnically, either
Hispanic in heritage or Caucasian, although the teaching staff appeared mostly
Caucasian. The staff as a whole appeared to work with the students in many
capacities although their roles were clearly defined. For example, teachers
conversed with students during their non-teaching times. The attendance office
personnel teased, in a friendly manner, and bantered with late students in a way
that let the students know they cared and they were happy to see them but yet
wanted them to be on time. The students responded positively, oftentimes with a
smile or giggle, before heading off to class. A parent who was walking by the
principal during the student lunch break stopped to thank him for allowing his son
to enroll. The grateful parent shook the principal’s hand and then walked over to
the researcher and shook her hand.
An Associated Student Body (ASB) student took the researcher on a tour
of the campus, as is common practice with visitors, and talked eagerly about her
experience at Lee High School. She said that she had lost her hope and interest in
school prior to enrolling at Lee High. Once she started attending Lee High she
said the staff knew her by name and she didn’t feel so insignificant. She said the
small size concerned her at first but it ended up being one of the things that got
her interested in school again. She expressed that she now had goals and she knew
exactly where she was with her school work due to the transcripts they receive on

93

a frequent basis that print their attendance and productivity rate. She explained the
entire schedule and system to the researcher. Due to the small size of the campus,
it took less than 30 minutes to enter into each room. Prior to entering almost every
room, the student exclaimed, “Oh! This is a really good teacher!” before going
into detail about what made the teacher another one of her favorites.
The students appeared comfortable on campus and as if they took some
ownership and pride in their school. After the lunchtime, a student who did not
have a class, was attempting to throw some trash into a trash can and missed;
despite the fact that there was no one around to see him, he walked over to pick
up the trash and threw it away. For some students their day ended after the
lunchtime. They can go home at this point but many students were observed
getting their lunch from the nearby cafeteria that serves the adult education
program and then walking back on campus to eat their lunch, bypassing benches
that were closer to where they purchased their lunch.
The open door policy is extended to students, as well as staff, who are not
expected to have appointments to see a counselor. However, despite this
openness, once classes were in session, students were expected to use passes.
Restrooms appeared to be used freely during class time, but students were
observed with passes.
The researcher also observed the induction of the staff to a new copy
machine. The staff seemed excited and one staff member asked, “Is there still a

94

50-page limit?” All staff members were required to see the secretary for training
and they were heard throughout the day asking when they could be trained.
Just prior to a staff meeting, a brief surprise celebration with gifts and cake
was held for a counselor whose wife was going to have a baby. One colleague
teased him, “Oh but daddy, I love him!” The counselor later commented to the
researcher how a surprise party like this never would have happened at his
previous school.
The after school staff meeting had a typical agenda covering various
operational issues including tagging, referrals, disaster plan and lock down drills,
dress code, attendance, Individualized Educational Plans, and CAHSEE testing.
Only a few were discussion items. At the start time of the meeting only seven
teachers and various other staff were in the room, mostly seated in the back, and it
took several people to verbalize “shhhh!” throughout the beginning of the meeting
for the staff to settle down and pay attention to the principal. One staff member
groaned that the meetings were too long, and several others were heard insinuated
this throughout the day. This particular meeting lasted one hour.
Most of the agenda items were informational and involved a brief
announcement. Although the issues discussed were fairly typical compliance
issues, the reality of the social issues the Lee High students face and with which
the staff works on a daily basis was brought out with the talk about tagging, gang
affiliation and a student who had recently been shot. An issue regarding who
needed to supervise the students sent out of the classrooms on referrals brought

95

discussion. The office staff complained that they ended up being the ones
responsible for watching the students for up to two hours. The question of what to
do with the students was not resolved and the principal offered that he would get
back to everyone.
The meeting continued and a question was brought up regarding the dress
code and as to whether or not students could wear jerseys. The issue was not
completely clarified. Some items were brought up as discussion items for another
group meeting, such as the emergency disaster plan, which was to be discussed at
a team leader meeting. The staff was informed that to make the Academic
Performance Index (API) for the number of students needing to be tested, they
would have to test 24 out of the 25 students. Concerns were brought up regarding
those students who were not attending regularly; the principal said that the staff
might need to go to their houses to pick them up. The staff was reminded by the
principal, “Whatever It Takes!”
Other items were mentioned at the meeting including the upcoming field
trips that reward the attendance and productivity of students and the issue of the
lab students hanging around on campus. A staff member later mentioned to the
researcher that the faculty meeting is where school procedures are clarified. The
principal quickly moved through the entire agenda, apparently being mindful of
the complaint regarding long meetings. He later asked the researcher, “I did pretty
good, right? I kept it to an hour.”

96

The morning after the recognition of a staff member’s upcoming baby, a
security staff member’s birthday was recognized with a small celebration with
homemade food in the office. The researcher was invited to partake.
The classrooms observed had an average of 15-20 students in attendance.
In one classroom there were 15 students of which 13 were boys. Of the 15
students, 12 were Hispanic. This classroom had standards posted, student work
posted under an “Are You On Target?” sign, a California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) poster, a college pennant and a poster outlining the elements of
writing a paragraph. The mission statement of the school was also displayed at the
front of the class.
The 15 students were quietly taking a mock CAHSEE prep test. The
teacher reprimanded a few students for talking. For 20 minutes most of the
students worked quietly as the teacher occasionally interrupted with comments
like, “I need you to be completely quiet. You can give me 20 minutes” and “I
appreciate those of you who are really trying on this.” The teacher appeared to be
trying to motivate the students and yet had a tinge of frustration in her voice. One
student mumbled, “This is a lot of reading.”
Toward the end of the 20-minute time, the teacher called for an escort for
a student who had been sent out of class the previous day but didn’t make it to the
office. Within a minute, a security staff member came in and took the student,
who was waiting outside, away from the classroom. The student did not return to
the class that period. The teacher announced to the rest of the class, “You have

97

five more minutes. You should be able to get one more story done.” The teacher
transitioned out of this part of the class by passing out an expectation letter, which
had to be signed by parents. The researcher was unclear regarding the purpose of
the letter. The teacher then moved into a guided reading lesson and appeared to be
strong in instructional strategies.
During the 45 minutes in the classroom, the researcher observed 8-10
students leave, with permission, to use the restroom. Another student, one of the
two girls in the class, was then sent out of class. The teacher instructed her, “Go
outside.” As the researcher was leaving the room, she passed by the security
person who was walking with the girl back towards the classroom and questioning
her. The girl complained, “She doesn’t like me” to which the security responded,
“I doubt she just sent you out.” The girl replied, “Yes she did!”
Another classroom of 20 students was observed for 30 minutes during
which time the researcher observed the teacher engaging the students in a jigsaw-
like activity. The students were assigned into groups of three and each group was
responsible for a chapter in a book. The groups were then expected to report back
to the entire class on their section of the book. Although students did not have to
be in a group, the teacher encouraged working together. By working alone, the
student would have to read all the chapters. All but one student appeared to take
advantage of participating in a group.
The students appeared comfortable with the routines in this teacher’s
classroom and all the interactions were very relaxed and yet energetic. The

98

students behaved as if they really liked, were comfortable with, and respected this
teacher and they all followed her directions. English standards were displayed and
three bulletin boards were blank; however, they appeared to be readied with new
backgrounds for displaying papers. Two students left the room to use the restroom
during the 30 minutes and it appeared that all students were working well together
as they were reading their assigned portion of the book.
In another classroom, which was observed for approximately 20 minutes,
each one of the 17 students in class appeared to be of Hispanic heritage and the
teacher shared that of the eight females in class, six of them were mothers. The
atmosphere was relaxed and the teacher did not seem as concerned about time-on-
task as the previous two teachers. The teacher and students interacted easily with
each other and conversed about a variety of topics including the previous night’s
American Idol contestants. The teacher said he was giving the students a break
that day and they were going to play math bingo. This particular class did not
appear to be planned out and the teacher seemed to decide at that moment what he
would have his students do.
Various posters were displayed in the room including: “Order of
Operations”; “Three Elements of Excellent Instruction: Rigor, Relevance,
Relationship”; Nikes’s “Just Do It”; and one declaring, “Hope Is Not A Plan.”
The Essential Standards co-developed with other district staff were prominently
posted in the front of the room. From inside the room, a student outside was heard
yelling to another student, “You got kicked out?”

99

Political frame.
The principal shared that he was working to change the culture of the way
the special education students were serviced at Lee High. The special education
students were no longer sent out of the classrooms to the special education
teacher; instead, the special education teacher went to the students.
While on the campus, the superintendent, whose office is in the same
complex as the high school, was introduced to the researcher. The superintendent
expressed that it was the staff that made the school and that the employee union
supported the district in the hiring of “good people.” She shared an incident in
which the union complained that a principal had been too lenient on an employee
regarding poor performance. The superintendent further elaborated that the union
supported letting go of incompetent employees because they valued developing a
strong and professional work force. She expressed how pleased and fortunate the
district was to have such a progressive union with which to work. The
superintendent had a friendly, down-to-earth, and professional disposition and
was described by many staff members as friendly and approachable.
Symbolic frame.
Lee High serves students who need an alternative setting.
Acknowledgment of this was observable and symbolized in various ways
throughout the campus. Lee High does things just a little different. For example,
the “Hats Allowed” signs were the first this researcher had seen in schools.
Despite the different approach, rules were still in place to maintain proper

100

security. For example, although hats are allowed, they can only be of solid colors
or with logos from a district school. An occasional orange shirt on campus was a
visual reminder of a violation of the dress code and the regularly scheduled
college shirt day symbolizes an educational vision for these students to be, for
most of them, first generation college students.
Some of the staff members appeared to utilize various methods to capture
their students’ attention and garner their support and willingness to work.
Inspirational posters were displayed throughout the campus including such
sayings as “Just Do It” or “Hope Is Not A Plan.”
In general, the observations showed a relaxed and caring yet organized
environment. The teaching styles, as with most schools, ranged and there
appeared to be a variety of strengths among the staff. The classes were smaller in
student count than most schools and consistent in count with continuation schools.
Even teachers who did not appear to be well planned or appeared to be frustrated,
seemed to display a lot of care for their students. One teacher who didn’t appear
to have a teaching plan for the class was one that was pointed out by the student
who toured the researcher as one of her favorite teachers. She said that he
involved himself with his students and got to know them and that he did a lot of
extra things for the student body. This relationship appeared to have positively
impacted at least this student.

101

Findings of Teacher Survey
A 20-item Teacher Survey of Student Engagement (Appendix B) was
included in this study to compare teacher perceptions to the student perceptions of
like aspects on the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE).
Additionally, the surveys served to support any themes that emerged from the
data collected from the document review, observation and interviews. Each of the
15 classroom teachers in attendance at the school filled out and returned a
completed survey. The questions from the teacher survey were evaluated by
giving number values to each of the responses on a Likert-type scale. Responses
of “strongly agree” were assigned a value of 4 points, responses of “agree” were
assigned a value of 3 points, responses of “neutral” were assigned a value of 2
points, responses of “disagree” were assigned a value of 1 point, and responses of
“strongly disagree” were assigned a value of 0 points. The point values were
totaled from all the surveys returned and divided by the total number of surveys
returned. Table 1 shows the number (n) and values for the survey items. The
researcher also looked at the frequency of marks in each category to get a sense of
where most teachers were in agreement, as shown in Table 2.
The teacher survey yielded a majority of “agree” selections. Of the 20
survey items, 15 were marked most frequently in the “agree” and “strongly agree”
categories. Of particular interest were item numbers 10 and 15, which stated, “My
students are challenged to do their best at school” and “If students in my class are
struggling, I have the necessary skills to increase their achievement.” Statements

102

such as these that pertained to teacher skills and expectations were scored the
highest by the teachers. Statements that dealt more directly with student
responsibility and self-motivation scored the lowest. For example, a statement
pertaining to coming prepared for school, “My students attend class with readings
and/or assignments completed” scored the lowest mean value at 1.93. Statement
numbers 6 and 7, “My students care about their school” and “My students place a
high value on learning,” scored the next lowest mean values, with mean scores of
2.00 and 2.07, respectively.
Structural frame.
The survey statements most pertaining to vision, goals, and environment
were item numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19. Rating high on these
survey items may indicate that the teachers believe the students have common
visions and goals for their academic aspirations as do the teachers. For example,
“My students think it’s important to make good grades” may indicate an
agreement with the teachers that grades are important, assuming, of course, this is
what the teachers believe. The survey indicated that the teachers rated the students
between “neutral” and “agree” on this statement with a mean value of 2.52. Of
interest was the higher rating of 3.13 for the statement, “My students value the
rewards (grades, awards, etc.) that they get at school for their work.” Perhaps the
teachers believe the students place a higher value on the awards and rewards
rather than the grades themselves. The survey items listed above were rated by the
teachers from a low of 2.00 to a high of 3.27, which indicates a range of “neutral”

103

to slightly above “agree.” Nearly 45 percent of the mean scores of these items
were at 3.0 or above, which corresponds to “agree.”
Human resources frame.
The survey statements most directly related to the relationships between
the people and the organization were item numbers 1, 3, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 20. For
example, “I have enough time to get to know the personal characteristics and
interests of all my students” may speak to the value the teacher places upon
building relationships with the students. All of these items pertain to the needs of
the staff and students, the atmosphere and environment, and empowerment. The
survey indicated that the items in this frame scored a range of mean values from
1.93 to 3.13 with 71% of the mean scores of these items in the “neutral” category.
Symbolic frame.
Although many of the survey items could fall under the Symbolic Frame,
they most closely and primarily fit under another category.
Political frame.
The survey statements that closely aligned within the Political Frame were
item numbers 8 and 16. These items dealt directly with power and advocacy. For
example, item number 8 states; “My students have a voice in classroom
decisions.” The items had mean scores of 2.53 and 3.40, which correspond to
between “neutral” and “agree” to between “agree” and “strongly agree.”

104

Table 1. Number and Values of Teacher Survey

Valid

Missing

Mean

1. My students attend class with readings and/or assignments
completed.

14

1

1.93

2. My students take pride in their schoolwork.

15

0

2.27

3. My students have the skills and abilities to complete their
assignments.

15

0

2.67

4. My students value the rewards (grades, awards, etc.) that they
get at school for their work.

15

0

3.13

5. My students think it is important to make good grades.

15

0

2.53

6. My students care about their school.

15

0

2.00

7. My students place a high value on learning.

15

0

2.07

8. My students have a voice in classroom decisions.

15

0

2.53

9. My students put forth a great deal of effort when doing their
schoolwork.

15

0

2.13

10. My students are challenged to do their best work at school.

15

0

3.20

11. I am able to influence the attitudes my students have about
school.

15

0

3.00

12. I am able to help students care about their schoolwork.

15

0

2.93

13. I have enough time to get to know the personal characteristics
and interests of all of my students.

15

0

2.67

14. If students stop trying in my class, I have the capacity to
motivate them to start trying again.

15

0

3.13

15. If students in my class are struggling, I have the necessary skills
to increase their achievement.

15

0

3.27

16. Resources and assistance are available to students to meet their
personal and academic needs.

15

0

3.40

17. I can get through to the most difficult students.

15

0

2.47

18. I can help my students think critically.

15

0

2.87

19. I can foster student creativity.

15

0

3.00

20. I can assist families in helping their children do well in school.

15

0

2.53

105

Table 2. Frequency of Values for Teacher Survey

SA

A

N

D

SD
1. My students attend class with readings and/or assignments
completed.

0

2

8

3

1

2. My students take pride in their schoolwork.

0

6

7

2

0

3. My students have the skills and abilities to complete their
assignments.

3

6

4

2

0

4. My students value the rewards (grades, awards, etc.) that they
get at school for their work.

4

9

2

0

0

5. My students think it is important to make good grades.

2

6

5

2

0

6. My students care about their school.

0

4

8

2

1

7. My students place a high value on learning.

0

3

10

2

0

8. My students have a voice in classroom decisions.

2

6

5

2

0

9. My students put forth a great deal of effort when doing their
schoolwork.

0

6

6

2

1

10. My students are challenged to do their best work at school.

3

12

0

0

0

11. I am able to influence the attitudes my students have about
school.

3

9

3

0

0

12. I am able to help students care about their schoolwork.

2

10

3

0

0

13. I have enough time to get to know the personal characteristics
and interests of all of my students.

2

8

4

0

1

14. If students stop trying in my class, I have the capacity to
motivate them to start trying again.

4

8

2

0

0

15. If students in my class are struggling, I have the necessary
skills to increase their achievement.

4

11

0

0

0

16. Resources and assistance are available to students to meet
their personal and academic needs.

7

7

1

0

0

17. I can get through to the most difficult students.

2

4

8

1

0

18. I can help my students think critically.

1

11

3

0

0

19. I can foster student creativity.

2

11

2

0

0

20. I can assist families in helping their children do well in school.

3

5

5

1

1

106

Findings of Staff Interviews
A total of 11 interviews were conducted with staff members including one
principal, two counselors, five teachers, one security aide, one special education
instructional assistant and one general secretary. The interview component was
included in this study to identify themes related to those of the High School
Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE). Ideas and pieces of data were clustered
into Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames to assist with bringing out any
emerging themes. The frequency of similar ideas was noted and the relationships
between the pieces of data were identified.
The staff members interviewed identified multiple issues that contributed
to their success in engaging students. A teacher noted, “I think that it’s just a
combination of a lot of things here. If it was just one thing, I think we would all
do it.” Despite the belief that multiple factors contributed to their success, some
factors emerged more frequently than others.
One individual was identified in 8 of the 11 interviews as the catalyst for
the dramatic changes started in the school approximately nine years earlier. The
general secretary recalled a conversation about the school and this individual, a
former principal, “We used to talk about it being a garden and pulling all the
weeds, because she got rid of all the old methods, brought in all the new, even
changed a lot of the staff.”

107

Structural frame.
This frame includes issues pertaining to common vision, goals, roles,
design, structure, strategy, environment and implementation. Each person
interviewed talked about at least two issues which fit into this frame and that they
thought significantly contributed to student engagement including: programs and
activities, size of school and classes, program design and scheduling, role of staff
members, tools and technology, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation,
assessment, and vision and focus.
Programs and activities were cited by all 11 interviewed as a significant
contributor to student engagement at Lee High. One teacher likened the multitude
of programs at Lee High to that of a regular school, “It’s an alternative education
environment that’s more like a comprehensive high school.” Programs and
activities were the most cited structural contributors to student engagement.
The use of tools, such as user-friendly transcripts and computer
technology, was the next highest cited structural factor contributing to student
engagement. Of the 11 persons interviewed, 9 mentioned these tools. The
availability of a computer lab for students to work ahead was cited as an integral
part of the Lee High program.
The small school and class size was the next most frequently sited
structural factor contributing to student engagement with 7 of those interviewed
stating it contributed to student engagement. One teacher said, “Smaller
classrooms definitely, although I wish that they were even smaller than we have,

108

assist in the students getting more engaged in work.” A smaller school and class
size was credited with allowing the staff members more time to get to know each
student. One teacher brought up small size three separate times during the
interview commenting that the small size was what “attracted me to this school
when I first started” and “just having the smaller class size enables the teacher to
get to know the kids a little bit better.” Later in the interview he mentioned that
the small staff size gave everyone an “equal chance to contribute.” One of the
counselors interviewed noted:
I know that a lot of kids get really, really surprised when I’m sitting out
there and I try to rush them to class and I call them by name and they kind
of do a double take. At that point they react and they notice
that…somebody actually knows who they are. It serves a purpose to let
them know that somebody’s actually, you know, someone actually cared
enough to learn their name and to know that whatever it is that they do do
on campus, they will be held accountable…

Another teacher brought out the extent to which the staff makes use of
personalization: “It’s almost as if everyone here has an IEP.”
Of the 11 staff members interviewed, 6 said that scheduling and master
calendar design contributed to student engagement. One teacher explained, “We
have some creative ways in addressing students’ needs through our schedule.”
The principal discussed teacher collaboration and professional development in
relation to the schedule design and the district’s expectations:
I think we have an exceptional amount of teacher interaction. Just the
schedule that we have, the nature of the school is that teachers have
collaboration time. We have a schedule that opens up in the afternoon
when teachers can meet and talk together…they…push and give us every

109

opportunity to have more collaboration. And as a district---all the schools-
--we’ve reworked our schedules. And ours is in place. There’s time in the
afternoon for collaboration.

One teacher discussed the staff’s thinking in the design of approximately 8-week
classes into trimesters:
One of the things we found is that the students perform better when they
are at the beginning of a class. There was this motivation, “I’m at the
beginning of this class; I’m going to make something happen!” And we
found that the productivity skyrocketed when we went to the year-round
schedule.

Another teacher discussed the work that was done district-wide developing
essential standards to address the issue of depth of coursework as opposed to
breadth. She felt that this reconfiguration of the courses “made the standards
doable because particularly for English, it is incredible.”
Although only 2 of the 11 staff members interviewed mentioned
assessment and data as a reason for student engagement, others mentioned it in
the context of the development of programs, and in reference to tools they utilize
to engage students. One teacher talked about the motivating factor the up-to-date
data on the user-friendly transcripts provided for the students, “the students know
where they are academically and they…can make some sort of short-term goals.”
This teacher also discussed the use of assessment in determining student academic
need:
I think that the latest piece that has made our school and school district
very successful is assessment and looking at frequent assessment so that
we can determine where the students are, what they know and what they
don’t know.

110

The principal brought up the school’s utilization of data to make informed
programmatic and curricular changes. He commented, “We make decisions based
on data and a lot of data…”
Of the 11 people interviewed, 3 discussed the impact of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) legislation on the ability of the Lee staff to engage students. All
three felt it helped the school become better in a variety of ways. One teacher
explained it as the better training of teachers coming from the university teacher
training programs, “Most student engagement is the fact that the teacher knows
what they’re doing now…you don’t become a teacher anymore because you don’t
know what else to do.” This teacher continued, “When you compare my teaching
strategies with that of one of the veteran teachers, it’s not the same, but it’s just,
it’s just, takes a little bit further as far as engagement goes.” A second teacher felt
that the increase in all schools’ accountability, including that of continuation
schools, has led to more district support and equity of continuation schools.
Those interviewed expressed a specialized, yet collective sense of the role
of the staff members at Lee High. A teacher said, “Everybody has their own little
nitch.” and another teacher said, “We wear many hats.” A third teacher
commented, “ I think that there’s a go to in almost every area of concern, whether
it’s academic, social, elective, counseling, um, law enforcement…We’re very,
very resourceful and professional and yet, we have a good time.” When asked
who the leaders on the campus were, the principal expressed, “Gosh, I could

111

almost just go down the list of staff!” A security aide echoed the same sentiments:
“It’d be hard not to name them all.”
The role of the staff member and the mission as expressed by the principal
exemplifies a common sentiment expressed by the staff: “The idea is that the
professional community---is that everybody---has their chores and everybody is
responsible to do whatever it takes to get the kids there.” This collective sense of
responsibility emerged throughout the interviews as a site and district expectation.
In addition to this collective role, several names came up frequently as
having the role of a leader on the campus. Of notable interest, the teachers named
teachers as leaders of the school; only one of the teachers mentioned a classified
employee as being a leader of the school. Conversely, the principal, counselors
and classified named a wide range of staff members as leaders of the school,
including teachers, classified and administration. Of the 11 staff members
interviewed, 8 identified the leadership of a former principal as a primary reason
for the school’s turnaround.
Human resources frame.
Human resources pertain to relationships between people and the school
organization, the needs of the staff and students, and the atmosphere and
environment. The culture of the school also falls in this category. The staff
members themselves and their abilities to effectively work within the school
environment, such as instructional expertise and professional development were
included in this category.

112

The Lee High staff itself was a factor brought up by all 11 of those
interviewed as being a primary contributor to the student engagement. It was the
most talked about factor overall and several persons brought it up multiple times
throughout their interview. One teacher summarized the staff’s feelings towards
the students, “We have a staff that’s really interested in them and in their success.
So, I think that kind of breeds the student engagement.”
Some of the staff members talked about the need to first have a staff with
special skills to work effectively with a focused group of at-risk students at a
continuation school. A counselor said:
We have this staff that really, really cares about these kids and wants to
work with this particular population because, you know…not everybody
can work with this particular population because they’re difficult to work
with. I mean, I’ve had kids sit in my office and tell me they hate me and
I’m the worst person on the face of the earth on multiple occasions but I
continue to work with them and don’t hold that against them.

A security aide explained his affinity for the continuation school students, “I used
to work in a regular school, a very distinguished school, and I wouldn’t trade this
place for nobody or nowhere else…the real kids are here.” This staff member felt
he had something special to offer these students because of his own background
and expressed a sense of duty to give back to them as a teacher once did for him:
We’re not counselors, we’re not administrators, but we know how the kids
are. We came from the neighborhoods that these kids are coming from and
we used to be like these kids…I probably would have been in a
continuation school had it not been for one teacher who woke me up as a
junior.

113

Each person interviewed brought up the caring and willingness of the staff to do
whatever it takes to assist the students. One teacher commented, “The teachers
will jump up and down here. And we will fight for student advocacy or we will
stand up to stop student enabling.” Another teacher brought up the ability of the
staff to get students to work:
I think that the teachers here care a lot, ah, about the kids; not only on the
academic level but who they are as people and who they are becoming as
people. Um, and I think that um, when kids know that you care they are
willing to work for you. And I think that’s one of my biggest strengths.
You could line up every kid I’ve ever had in front of me and I could tell
you his name. I say “hi” to every kid on campus and they appreciate that.
And they like it.

A teacher commented about the caring culture of the staff:
These kids love to talk and spew and share! I see a lot of them and they
weren’t as engaged or whatever we want to call it at their comprehensive
high schools and they come here and we kinda have to re-teach them. And
we kinda let them know, ‘it’s okay; you’re here now. Let’s make a go.”

A counselor also mentioned the notion that the school staff let the students start
anew: “The culture of this school is you’re coming with a clean slate.”
After naming programs that helped to engage the students, one of the
counselors couldn’t get away from the impact of the staff on their students’
engagement: “It’s not a program or anything but just that one-on-one
relationship.” One teacher expressed his willingness and desire to be involved
with his students; “I like being involved with as many of the extracurricular
activities as possible, as long as my wife lets me!”

114

Many of the staff members also mentioned how well the staff worked
together for the students. An instructional assistant noticed, “Secretaries, the
attendance clerks keep an eye out, call the parents…Where are your kids? So it’s
a constant working together. We know that we’re here for these kids.” A security
assistant said, “I think it’s just the jelling of the teachers, office staff, the
administrator staff, including the security.” A teacher said, “The teachers here are
a special bunch and they, as a group, raise each other up.” One of the counselors
summed up the staff’s feelings, “Everything we do here I bring back to the staff
because they’re the ones who make it go and all the staff here goes the extra
mile.”
Of the 11 interviewed, 5 staff members brought up instructional ability
and expertise as a contributing factor to Lee High’s success in engaging students.
Five staff members also felt that the role of professional development was critical
in the success of the school. In all, seven people interviewed spoke of either
professional development or instructional ability as a contributing factor to
student engagement.
One teacher discussed at length the school’s involvement in the
development of Essential Standards, a district-wide effort to streamline course
standards to increase student achievement. This scaled-down approach literally
made her sigh a sigh of relief when discussing the concept with this researcher as
it allowed teachers to focus on fewer standards per course.

115

Political frame.
Issues pertaining to power fall into this category. Because the power base
for a school district lies with the district office, all issues pertaining to the district
office and district superintendent were best placed into this category, despite the
fact that many of the staff comments regarding the district could easily fall into
the Human Resources Frame.
Of the 11 staff members interviewed, 8 brought up the support provided
by the district office as a contributing factor to Lee High’s success as a school.
The support these staff members discussed included support in the areas of
finances, organization, vision and expectations, professional development, and
professionalism. Four staff members interviewed compared their positive
experience at Lee High and District J with that of their previous school district.
One counselor explained, “With [District J] as a whole, it’s a family
atmosphere…” He elaborated about his experience at a previous district:
If you went in to the district office it was like, “Hello?... Hello?... Hello?
…Hello?” And then finally, someone with a bad attitude would come to
the front desk…But really, here, from day one, the ladies in
personnel…are really professional and very nice…If I ever had any issues
that I needed help with I felt comfortable going to them and talking with
them.

The principal discussed the power base of the district as being one that is
infused throughout the schools. This distribution of power, however, comes with
the expectation of collaboration and outcomes and doing whatever it takes to
achieve high performing students. The principal noted the district’s intertwined

116

approach in the areas of distribution of power, support and expectations: “There’s
this appreciation that we need to be the ones to push things that happen; that we
need to be the ones to be the movers and the shakers and they let us do that.” He
elaborated, “And you know, the very fact that they understand that and they give
us that…the support…it’s huge.” He matter-of-factly stated, “They put their
money where their mouth is.” The principal further noted the culture created by
the district with this example:
When I’m in the meetings, when we’re discussing at length about different
approaches and it’s really funny…you can see that we hang around
another 10 or 15 minutes after the meeting’s over clarifying among
ourselves what that person said, instead of just shooting the breeze or
something. There are always three or four side conversations during the
break talking about that; somebody says something in the meeting, I’ll
make a note and I’ll catch them and I’ll wave at them from across the table
and I’ll say, “I need to talk to you about that.” That goes on, on a regular
basis. That’s something that’s very, very precious. It’s regarded. And the
culture is and that’s how the culture is that… [Superintendent] and the
cabinet, they value what we say. There’s a lot of questioning, “How do
you think, what do you think about this?”

Although not all those interviewed seemed to fully understand the
workings of District J, they all seemed to sense its leadership and support. One
aide said, “I’m not sure about what goes on when they have their meetings, but I
know they have a good rapport with the district office. They take care of us.
When we have questions, they answer them.” One teacher expressed, I’m sure
they do more than I realize sitting in my classroom.” He was the only one to
express a feeling of inequity:
I still feel like the ugly stepchild. You can even look at the green fencing
going up around the whole site and then look outside at our fence and it’s

117

still the same old ugly grey fence and it just makes me laugh. I mean come
on! Just finish the job!

He spoke more positively about the superintendent, “She really does, I think, have
a desire that all the schools do well, that all the schools get taken care of.” Of the
11 staff members interviewed, 5 elaborated about the positive role of the
superintendent, who they referred to by first name. A teacher commented, “It’s
just weird here at this school district; I feel I can talk to my superintendent…” A
counselor mentioned, “…we’re always on her calendar…” when talking about her
campus visits. Another teacher mentioned, “I like that our superintendent really
does appreciate what we do so, and she stops in whenever she wants and none of
us feels intimidated by that.” Another teacher summed up the general feeling of
the superintendent and district:
She is down to earth, really believes in teachers. You can tell that just
from talking to her and, um, it’s not just words. You can just tell, you
know, the way that the district recognizes teachers and provides for
training, listens to teachers. For example, when we hired our principal, the
last decision was the teachers from this staff. We had the last word on the
final decision. I think she really values, you know, our opinion and
recognizes us for the hard work that we do, constantly compliments us,
provides us with the tools to do the work that we have to do.
Symbolic frame.
This frame covers the symbols, rituals, slogans, and ceremonies that add
loyalty, commitment and life to a school. Many of the teachers mentioned the
sayings, Best Practices and Whatever It Takes within their interviews. Best
Practices were mentioned most often when discussing the collegiality and sharing
of strategies, such as by this teacher, “We do share a lot in our staff meetings. We

118

have opportunities to share Best Practices, so I think that also translates,
hopefully, into more student engagement.” One of the counselors said,
One of the things…that we do is Best Practices. And anything that a
teacher finds that is working for them, um, they then share it with the rest
of the staff... And that’s one of the things that I really enjoy about this staff
is that they’re willing to share their resources and their knowledge with
everybody else. It’s not like, “Oh, I’m doing this and this is mine and
nobody else can do it.” They’re willing to share for the benefit of the
students.

The district’s adoption of the saying, Whatever It Takes seemed to express itself
in the staff’s thinking even if only 2 of the 11 interviewed actually said the words
during their interview.
There were two celebrations that were expressed as being a fabric of the
school, in an attempt to gain higher student attendance and course completion,
included the yearly attendance and productivity field trips and the student-of-the-
month celebrations. A counselor noted that someone might never know what will
spur a student to become motivated. If the school has something in place,
motivation may occur when it might not have otherwise. He exemplified his view
by a description of a student who didn’t care about the attendance reward field
trip to Disneyland and was falling behind in attendance. The counselor described
the scenario with the student:
He became infatuated with a female student and he all of a sudden felt
love and now he noticed---he knew---that his girlfriend was going to be
able to go to Disneyland and he needed to make up some hours. So, at that
point he got into the computer lab and he was making up hours left and
right and then he got to the point where he was able to go…we did have
some help in that particular situation!

119

Findings of High School Survey of Student Engagement
A secondary data source in this study consisted of student data collected
from surveys administered to the high school students. These surveys were part of
the nationwide High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) research
and were analyzed by a research team at Indiana University at Bloomington. The
purpose of the HSSSE survey was to discover themes from a large number of
participants, which could provide a framework for and validate data collected
through the qualitative methods employed.
The HSSSE had 34 questions, many of which required multiple responses
to statements under a single question. In all, the survey had 142 different response
items. The purpose of the HSSSE was to determine the level of engagement of
high school students as determined by their responses to questions pertaining to
their participation in various school-related activities. The survey was developed
on a research-based conception of student engagement with components of
academic, participatory and emotional engagement. The HSSSE was also
included in this study to compare student perceptions as reported through the
HSSSE with teacher perceptions on like items on the Teacher Survey of Student
Engagement.
The HSSSE results were reported by grade levels, total students, and by
Engagement Dimensions in which survey items were clustered into three related
dimensions: Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement,
Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement, and Emotional Engagement. It is

120

important to note that the sample of HSSSE students is an aggregate of students
that differed greatly in demographic characteristics from Lee High. Lee High
students were much older than the HSSSE average. Almost 55% were seniors,
whereas nationwide, seniors only comprised 19% of the respondents.
Additionally, 44% of the Lee High respondents were 17 years of age versus only
23% of the nationwide respondents. Due to credit deficiency, a 17-year old
student at Lee High may only be a 10th

or 11th grader, whereas nationwide, most
17-year olds are in 12th grade.
Also of interest, nearly 80% of Lee High respondents did not start
attending the school until 11th or 12th grade as opposed to only 4% of the
nationwide respondents. So while Lee High students had attended the school
either only one or two years and had enrolled at 16 or 17 years of age, students
nationwide had typically attended three or four years and enrolled at 14 years of
age.
Lee High has nearly 65% male students versus the nationwide respondents
of 48% males. Twice as many of the Lee High respondents were special education
students, at 6%, as compared to only 3% of students nationwide. Nearly 60% of
the Lee High students surveyed identified their race or ethnic origin as Hispanic
versus only 7% nationwide. More than twice as many Lee High students as the
students surveyed nationwide indicated that a language other than English was
spoken most often in the home. Additionally, more than twice as many Lee High

121

students than the students nationwide indicated they qualified for free and reduced
lunch.
The results of the HSSSE indicated that Lee High students are not more
engaged than other students and in fact, they are significantly less engaged in the
overall Engagement Dimensions of Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement,
Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement and Emotional Engagement. All
grade levels indicated less engagement in each dimension except 9
th
and 10
th

graders in the Emotional Engagement Dimension. They indicated a similar level
of engagement as 9
th
and 10
th
graders nationwide.
Although the HSSSE data did not indicate higher levels of engagement for
Lee High students than students nationwide, when taken in conjunction with the
qualitative data, the HSSSE data suggested a dramatic increase in student
engagement over the past several years. When considering the possible increase in
student achievement at Lee High, there were responses on the student survey that
stood out, especially when taking into account the population of highly at-risk
students. For example, 17% of Lee High students indicated that they had
considered dropping out of school “many times” and 28% considered “once or
twice” as opposed to only 7% of students nationwide considering dropping out
“many times” and 15% “once or twice.” In all, 45% of Lee High students had
considered dropping out as compared to 22% of students nationwide. The most
cited reason for considering dropping out was “I didn’t like the school,” followed
by “I didn’t see the value in the work I was being asked to do,” followed by

122

“family issues.” Despite an indication by almost half the Lee High students that at
one time they were almost completely disengaged to the point of dropping out,
their engagement levels on the HSSSE were certainly not to the level of complete
disengagement. It is presumed that these students were referred to Lee High at
that point they were at risk of dropping out.
It appears that Lee High engaged the students enough to get them
attending and increasing achievement. In the absence of several year’s of HSSSE
data from Lee High, the researcher concluded that taking the HSSSE data in
isolation of the qualitative data that exposed the engagement and growth of the
students and the school over time did not bring out the picture of an increase of
student engagement and achievement over several years. This researcher
concluded that student engagement increased from an extremely low level of
almost complete disengagement, to a level that is still lower than students
nationwide but was high enough to produce dramatic student achievement
increases.
There were some specific areas in which Lee High students indicated
significantly more engagement than students nationwide. Lee High students
indicated they volunteered significantly more than students nationwide at almost
double the amount at an average of about 2.5 hours per week. Additionally, Lee
High students watched significantly less television, played fewer video games,
surfed and chatted online less, and participated in less hanging out or socialized
with friends outside of school.

123

Lee High students indicated that within the classroom they were
significantly more engaged in teacher lectures than the students nationwide and
significantly less engaged with group projects. Additionally, 47% of Lee High
students indicated they either “sometimes” or “often” discussed ideas from their
readings or classes with their teachers outside of class; whereas, only 39% of
students nationwide indicated the same. Seventy-two percent of Lee High
students indicated with an “agree” or “strongly agree” that they were motivated
by a desire to learn; 66% of students nationwide indicated the same. When asked
if they had ever been bored in class in high school, 29% of Lee High students
indicated this occurred every day whereas 50% of students nationwide indicated
the same. Over 20% of Lee High students indicated taking a college course while
in high school and only 12% of students nationwide indicated the same.
Over 80% of Lee High students responded that they “agreed” or “strongly
agreed” that they were treated fairly at Lee High. Nationwide, 71% of students
indicated they were treated fairly at their school. While slightly less than 4% of
students nationwide selected “strongly disagree” when asked to respond to the
statement, “I feel good about who I am as a person,” nearly 11% of Lee High
students indicated the same. An additional 8% selected “disagree” to the same
statement so that in all, 1 out of every 5 students at Lee High indicated they did
not feel good about themselves. Nationwide that amount was almost half that of
Lee High.

124

The HSSSE data overall indicated that the Lee High students were much
older than the students nationwide and behind in school by 1 to 2 years. Although
these students were less engaged overall than students nationwide, there were
some areas in which the Lee High students indicated more engagement than
students nationwide: they are consistently less bored in class, more interested in
school for learning itself, more likely to enjoy a teacher’s lecture, and more likely
to discuss the course work with the teacher outside of class. Despite this, many
more of the Lee High students had considered dropping out of school, most likely
prior to enrolling at Lee High. These students felt they were treated fairly at
school but they were also much less confident as their peers nationwide as young
adults and indicated they do not feel good about themselves.

Comparing Student and Teacher Survey Findings.
The results from the HSSSE and the Teacher Survey of Student
Engagement indicated that students and teachers appear to be somewhat in
agreement on various issues of student engagement. For example, item number 9
on the teacher survey states, “My students put forth a great deal of effort when
doing their schoolwork.” The mean value of teacher responses was 2.13, which
corresponds with “neutral.” On the HSSSE, this statement corresponds with item
number 8c, “I put forth a great deal of effort when doing my school work.” The
mean value of student responses was 2.75, which falls between “disagree” and
“agree.” For this question, “disagree” was assigned 2 points and “agree” was

125

assigned 3 points. On most items it appears that the student perceptions were very
similar to that of the teacher perceptions. Whereas most teacher responses on the
teacher survey fell within the higher end of “neutral” to the “agree” category on
the 5-point scale, student responses fell within the “disagree” to lower end of
“agree” on the 4-point scale. In general, both the teachers and the students
indicated that the students are not particularly prepared for school, nor do they put
forth tremendous effort in their schoolwork.

Emergent Themes
The data obtained from the four instruments used in this study were
triangulated to discover factors that intertwined and ultimately helped to identify
themes that emerged as major contributors to the success of Lee High. Using this
process, several themes emerged from the data: outstanding leadership, a culture
of accountability for student achievement and growth, a culture of strategic
growth, and recognition of social-emotional human needs.

To Achieve Great Things, Find (and Develop) Great People
According to the data collected, the credit for Lee High turning around as
a school rests in the leadership. A former principal was frequently named as the
person who started the changes at this continuation school. One teacher talked
about the leadership with regards to the school’s changes:

126

[Former principal] in the past and now our new principal now has a lot to
do with the success of the school…I know we wouldn’t be here. [Former
principal] got things up and going and [current principal] is stepping in
and trying to keep things going...

Another teacher stated:
When our former principal, [former principal], came in, she really played
a pivotal role in turning the school around and really making it worth
noting…she came in and really had a vision, and really had some great
skills and really was able to create programs…
The superintendent, the current principal, and the entire staff were credited
with continuing the work started by the former principal. The leadership
throughout the entire district was a theme that kept emerging from the document
research, observation, and interviews as a critical one in the development of the
high performing school. These findings revealed that a formal leader was needed
to begin the dramatic changes at the school. This person coordinated the work of
the district and the union leadership to support the hiring and training of
appropriate staff members. The “dead weight” was disposed of and even the
leadership of the union realized their benefit in supporting the hiring and
development of an excellent work force. Ultimately, it took the daily work of the
staff to embrace the vision and move the school forward. This succession of
events contributed to creating a culture of professionalism and a collective focus
on doing Whatever it Takes to increase the academic achievement of the students.
A uniqueness noticed about the leadership at the district level that affected
Lee High was the willingness of the district to boldly take political risks. For
example, for years teachers have recognized that in some subjects the multitude of

127

standards to be covered is too expansive for the timeframe allotted. Teachers have
regularly adapted by either speeding quickly through the standards to cover a
wide breadth of material or they have simply omitted some standards to be able to
cover others to a greater degree. For a district to admit and put in a publication
that there are too many state-mandated standards and then collectively develop
and implement an approach to deal with that issue appears highly unusual.
Everyone’s Accountable, All of the Time (Whatever It Takes)
At Lee High, everyone’s accountable, all of the time. A culture of
responsibility for student achievement and growth is portrayed by the slogan,
Whatever It Takes and the data indicated that the site and district staff acts
accordingly. In fact, the staff itself was the most frequently talked about factor in
the interviews contributing to the student engagement and achievement at the
school. Many of those interviewed mentioned the staff several times throughout
their interview. This factor had a high degree of triangulation with all instruments
including the document review, observation, teacher surveys and interviews.
Having the proper staff members who wanted to work with at-risk
students and who were skilled enough to do so was seen as a critical component
in the school’s success. In referencing the way the school used to be prior to a
former principal taking over, one teacher stated:
It used to be a dumping ground around here. It used to be a place where
the teachers that couldn’t handle it at the regular schools or the regular
schools just wanted to get rid of them, but…wouldn’t let them. And there
were quite a few of them when I first started here, have left. They’ve
either retired or transferred somewhere else. [Former principal] did a great

128

job of hiring teachers that were young and motivated, well not all young,
but who were motivated and wanted to teach and for one reason or another
[Lee High] was appealing.

A counselor hired after the change of staff occurred stated:
We have this staff that really, really cares about these kids and wants to
work with this particular population because…not everybody can work
with this particular population because they’re difficult to work with.

These findings revealed that not only was formal leadership needed, but effective
staff members, as far as ability and desire, were needed to work with the at-risk
students. One counselor stated, “everything we do here I bring back to the staff
because they’re the ones who make it go and all the staff here goes the extra
mile.” The staff truly seemed passionate about their school and students. One
teacher summed it up, “Yea, I love these kids!”
The tremendous organization, expectations, and support from the district
office helped the Lee High staff develop a “can-do” and “must-do” attitude. Partly
because of this, the staff holds high professional expectations and an attitude of
collective ownership. The data from the instruments indicated that the staff has
the belief that they can make a difference and that they can control whether a
student does well. This was evident in both the teacher surveys with regards to
teacher instructional expertise and in the interviews with regards to the students’
academic and social-emotional needs.

129

Organize Around A Purpose (and Always Use Data)
The next theme that emerged was that of a culture of assessment and a
data-driven system with accountability organized around one purpose: increase
student achievement. Lee High School is data-driven; it has an on-going system
for assessing needs and developing and revising plans of action to address the
needs of the students. The use of numerous and on-going assessments along with
standardized tests to track student growth and inform the staff of instructional and
social-emotional needs drives how they structure and develop their programs and
services. All the organizational structures, programs and systems created are
based off of data collected about issues needing improvement in order to increase
student achievement. The staff actually utilizes data throughout and ingrained in
their work. For example, the teachers use Interim Assessments every three weeks
to determine and reassess student placement and progress. Adjustments, either
instructionally or programmatically, are made based off of the data collected to
better suit meeting the student’s needs.
Additionally, tools created from collected data, such as the user-friendly
transcripts, which quantify attendance and productivity and outline requirements
and deadlines, are used as motivational devices and to help instill responsibility in
the students. These transcripts, a creation of the former principal, are a foundation
for discussions with students and families. Students look forward to the
computation of their latest productivity and attendance rates and discussions
develop out of students comparing and questioning their rates. The reporting of

130

productivity rates from students’ previous high school years up through the
present time helps to build and sustain student effort, motivation and engagement.
Also pertaining to the data collection around a goal of student
achievement was that of instructional expertise and professional development and
support. Schools set meaningful annual goals around improving student
achievement and must document that these goals have been met. The district
provides support with training and daily assistance and the site is expected to
develop structures to support teacher and staff collaboration. Perhaps the
uniqueness of the training is the clear district-wide focus and true support in
providing resources. The principal gave an example of the district’s committed
assistance when he was unable to quickly locate and process some data prior to a
staff meeting. He walked next door to the district office and returned minutes later
with his data. He felt fully supported. “She printed this up for me. I would have to
look forever to find this…so she got that for me in just a matter of minutes…”
This culture of assessment is truly integrated into the daily life of the Lee
High staff and students. It is developed and maintained by the district leadership,
which expects all district schools to work with data and develop programs that
produce real results. The schools are held accountable for these results but are
supported with their needs in order to meet their goals. In fact, the district expects
outcomes as documented by the site’s yearly report.

131

Maslow Was Right: Recognition of Social-Emotional Needs
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs asserts there are some basic needs that must
be met before others can be addressed. The recognition of social-emotional needs
emerged as a theme out of the factors identified in the data as contributing to the
success of Lee High: the small size of the school and classes, the desire of the
staff to work with at-risk students, and the development of organizational
structures and programs designed to meet the needs of at-risk students. The staff
members felt it was part of their job to work with the students beyond the
academics and so as a school they also attempt to address the social-emotional
issues so problematic at continuation schools, which serve the most at-risk
students in the district. In fact, the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE) indicated that a large number of the students do not feel good about
themselves as young adults.
The social-emotional needs of the at-risk student with which the staff must
address are those that extend beyond the academics, simply knowing a few
students’ names, or helping out with the occasional emotional turmoil of teens. It
involves the teacher recognizing that if a student’s friend was shot to death the
previous night, something other than math may be on the student’s mind. It
involves the development of programs for girls who are still children themselves
and are single parents. It involves the anger issues of the student who has been
kicked out of every other high school in the district. The staff recognizes that
although these are issues in all schools, they are daily issues at Lee High and they

132

must deal with the daily turmoil these at-risk students face and embrace it as part
of their work. Without this recognition, the academic achievement will not occur.
Simply put, the staff makes the time to get to know their students and their needs.
One teacher said, “I say ‘hi’ to every kid on campus and they appreciate that.”
A counselor mentioned that students got used to being just a face in the crowd at
their previous school:
A lot of the kids get really, really surprised when I’m sitting out there and
I try to rush them to class and I call them by name and they kind of do a
double take…somebody actually knows who they are.

The wide range of programs and activities available to the students was
evident and emerged as a factor that supported student engagement and
achievement by helping to meet social-emotional needs. The programs and
activities that Lee High students can take advantage of include those offered, not
only at the school itself, but also those at the educational complex, which includes
the adult school, vocational services, an independent study school, ROP and an
Infant Development Center. At Lee High itself, some of the notable programs and
activities include the orientation class, the Student Center, guitar and recording
classes and student-of-the-month celebrations.
The structures and program designed for the school were developed out of
a strategic assessment of need. The data indicated that all the structures serve a
clear purpose and make sense for the needs of the students. Structures such as the
ICBs, trimesters, lab sessions, and teacher schedules were designed after
assessing data collected pertaining to specific needs. Some structures, such as the

133

morning and afternoon lab sessions serve several purposes including
accommodating student’s personal schedules, such as for teen mothers; providing
a way for students who want to work ahead in their academics; structuring teacher
collaboration and professional development time; and providing a consequence
for students who do not attend the morning session regularly. The computer lab
also serves to meet social-emotional needs as explained by a counselor:
It allows students that are here enrolled in the afternoon to come in the
morning and do extra work and things of that nature, make up any hours
that they’ve been absent. And then in the afternoon it gives students from
the morning a place to be because you know, a lot of these students would
rather be here than wherever else they could be at any given time. So you
know our kids hang out and they go to the computer lab. And you know,
once they’re there [staff members] do a good job of, “So while you’re
here, you might as well work.” And you know, they start doing work.

Problems inherent in many continuation schools, such as the constant and
daily influx of new students, are proactively addressed at Lee High. The integrity
of the classroom and instructional continuity is maintained by structuring the
intake of new students at strategic times, such as at the beginning of each of the
class sessions. The district supports this structural component, which is not
always the case at some alternative and continuation schools. The findings from
the data revealed that an intelligent design and creative use of scheduling
contributes to the student engagement and achievement at Lee High by addressing
their needs.

134

Summary of Findings by Research Questions
Research Question #1: What is the level of student engagement in a High
Performing Urban High School (HPUHS), as measured by the High School
Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) and how does it compare to the national
average?
The results of the HSSSE indicated that Lee High students are not more
engaged overall in their school than other students nationwide. Furthermore, the
results of the HSSSE indicated that Lee High students are significantly less
engaged in the areas of Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement,
Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement and Emotional Engagement.
However, on some individual items, Lee High students were significantly more
engaged that students nationwide. Lee High students volunteered more, watched
less TV, played fewer video games, surfed and chatted online less and socialized
less with friends outside of school. Additionally, Lee High students were much
less bored in class, were more likely to discuss school work with a teacher outside
of class, were more motivated by a desire to learn and were more likely to enjoy a
teacher’s lecture. Lee High students were almost twice as likely to have taken a
college course and Lee High students were more likely to feel they were treated
fairly. However, Lee High students felt much worse about themselves as people
and had thought much more frequently about dropping out.

135

Research Question #2: What programs and practices contribute to student
engagement in a HPUHS?
The results indicated that there are a variety of programs and practices that
contribute to student engagement in a High Performing Urban High School. The
factors that emerged most prominently through the instruments included the staff,
personalization, creative program design and scheduling, and programs and
activities.
The staff itself was credited with engaging the students. Their
personalities, knowledge, skill and desire to work with at-risk continuation
students were the reasons cited. Additionally, the district’s and the union’s
support of hiring and maintaining skilled staff members was credited with
contributing toward the building of an appropriate and skilled staff.
The staff perceived the small school size and classes as allowing them to
develop a culture of personalization to meet the social-emotional needs of the
students. This notion, along with the staff itself, was thought to be a major
contributor to engaging the students. All the students are known by the staff and
are assisted and held accountable as students and young adults. From the student’s
first experience at Lee High in the orientation program to the personalized
transcripts received on a bi-weekly basis, the student has their own up-to-date and
active educational plan and is known by name by several staff members. Simply
walking from class to class, a student is recognized and acknowledged by the staff

136

members. The personalization extends from the academic to the social-emotional
lives of the students.
The staff also credited the creative program design and scheduling for
engaging the students. The program design was developed to provide structures
that individualize a student’s academic program and yet require rigorous
coursework through the district-developed Essential Standards. The creative
designs were all developed out of data and assessment.
The staff identified the programs and activities as contributing to student
engagement. There was not a single-most contributor but rather the variety and
options available that engaged students. Some of the programs offered were those
that met social-emotional and daily needs for the at-risk students such as the
Infant Development Center for young mothers and the Student-of-the-Month
celebration for students, many of whom have never before been recognized for
any achievement.
As one teacher said, “It’s just a combination of a lot of things here. If it
was just one thing, I think we would all do it.” It seemed to be the “small” things
or the details of the day that the staff thought engaged the students within the
well-developed programs: the recognition of a student by name, the field trip
reward for perfect attendance to Disneyland, the personalized transcripts that give
up-to-date assessments of work in progress and the daily opportunities to be safe
and secure at school while moving ahead academically in the computer lab.

137

Research Question #3: What programs and practices contribute to high
performance in HPUHS?
The results indicated that the programs and practices that contribute to
high performance in a High Performing Urban High School include: leadership;
professional development, support and teacher collaboration; and a data-driven
system with accountability.
The theme of leadership at both the district and at the site level emerged as
being very prevalent and significant in Lee High’s initial changes and on-going
growth into a high performing continuation high school. The staff felt confident in
their own abilities and in the district’s commitment to help them to become even
better as a staff and as a school. The staff indicated that the district acknowledged
the needs inherent in a continuation school, partly due to the previous principal
being a district office employee. The staff also indicated that one individual truly
made a difference in turning around the school, but it was the staff that supported
and carried on with the school’s quest to do Whatever it Takes to develop and
maintain a high performing high school. The results indicated that the leadership
from the district in setting the expectation that the school would do Whatever it
Takes to raise student achievement with provided supports, indeed helped to raise
student achievement.
The results indicated that a culture of professional development and
support and teacher collaboration was developed by both the school and the
district and contributed to the high performance of the school. The staff indicated

138

that the expectations from the district and their support in providing whatever was
needed, helped drive the school to develop the strategies and structures to support
student achievement. Structures such as the common preparation time in the
afternoon for all teachers allows for daily collaboration. The inclusion of the
continuation school staff in all expectations and supports of the district is
appreciated by the staff. This inclusion was not common practice in the past and it
was only recently that the staff felt fully included in all district functions.
The results indicate that the school truly operates as a data-driven system.
Systems, procedures and programs are put in place after a need is identified and
studied. The creation of the ICBs for students was one example of identifying and
studying a problem, identifying possible solutions and designing and
implementing a structure that makes sense to focus efforts on an issue. In this case
the issue was a low pass rate on the CAHSEE.

Discussion of Findings
The secondary data from the HSSSE indicated that overall engagement for
Lee High students is not higher than that of students nationwide. However, this
does not mean engagement is not a significant factor in the Lee High student’s
achievement. There were several areas in which Lee High students were
significantly more engaged than students nationwide. Few would debate that an
engaged student will perform better than a disengaged student. There were other
factors to consider when looking at this high performing school, which takes in

139

students who are almost completely disengaged from school. The findings suggest
that the student engagement level does indeed increase once enrolling at Lee
High, which contributes to increased achievement. As Lee High has made
dramatic changes within the school staffing, structures and programs over the past
several years, student achievement has dramatically increased school wide. It is
likely that the changes made at the school that were cited as engaging the students
have contributed to the school’s increased achievement.

Respect, Responsibility, Renewal
The Lee High School mural that so prominently displays these words
accurately describes the culture of the school and school district, which contribute
to Lee High’s success as a continuation school. A counselor described the respect
for the at-risk students who arrive with a lot of emotional baggage “[They’re]
coming with a clean slate.” The respect the district displays for the site staff is
indicated by the principal, “…they value what we say. There’s a lot of
questioning…what do you think about this?” Along with the respect comes the
responsibility. The district expects real outcomes from the school and the school
in turn supports the students to create those outcomes. The renewal comes in the
second chance these at-risk students have at completing their high school diploma
and starting anew.
The themes that emerged through the qualitative data may very well be
those factors that contribute to the school being high performing: effective

140

leadership which is systemic; a culture of collective responsibility for student
academic growth; a culture of a data-driven system; and a recognition of social-
emotional needs.
These themes must be taken in the context of the school and its students.
Students are sent to Lee High because they are at risk of dropping out, the
ultimate of disengagement. Most have been sent there as a junior or senior, so Lee
High takes the students in at the age of 16 or 17 with substantial academic and
skill deficits. Lee High now has only one-to-two years of time during which those
deficits must be made up along with making grade-level growth. Essentially, the
school starts with older students with significant academic gaps and will have
them less than two years. The regular school starts with students in the normal
range of age and abilities and has them for four years. Perhaps due to the disparity
between the regular and continuation school populations, the level of engagement
for Lee High students measured significantly less than that of the students
nationwide. However, Lee High students enrolled at the lowest level of
engagement, as students at risk of dropping out. It is likely that school wide
engagement levels, despite being low, are actually higher than what they were
with these students prior to enrollment at Lee High.

“It’s Not Just Words”
The success of Lee High may be attributed to a multitude of factors but
certainly a uniqueness of this school is its relationship with the district and the

141

effectiveness of the district and site leadership. While many districts and schools
pay lip service or marginally address educational jargon such as Best Practices or
in the best interest of the students to maintain political correctness, District J
seems to actually walk the talk. District J has found a way to support and propel
its schools by developing and finding great leaders, holding everyone accountable
for achievement, utilizing data throughout daily routines, and taking care of the
needs of the staff and students. Lee High, in turn, displays the same attributes
modeled by their district.
The culture of Lee High itself has changed over the past several years due
to strategic risk-taking with leadership that holds everyone responsible for taking
care of the students, knowing them by name, and having systems in place that are
developed out of identifying and studying problems. The ultimately goal is
increased student achievement. A staff member summed up the real support from
the district, “It’s not just words.” It is the interplay of factors that this researcher
believes accounts for the increase in student engagement of at-risk students,
which has led to the increase in academic performance at Lee High School.

142

Chapter 5
Analysis and Discussion

Introduction
This case study was one of six in a thematic dissertation research team. Its
purpose was to determine to what extent student engagement is a factor in student
success in a high performing urban continuation high school. Additionally, this
study sought to identify those factors that promote higher student engagement by
examining quantitative and qualitative data obtained from one high performing
high school in Los Angeles. A model conceptualized the factors that may
contribute to high student engagement and performance as those that pertain to
programs, practices, culture and leadership.
Multiple methods were used to collect data to enhance the validity and
reliability of the descriptive data. The qualitative data were obtained from
document review, observation, teacher surveys, and staff interviews. The
quantitative data were obtained from the High School Survey of Student
Engagement. The findings of all qualitative data were presented through Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames to provide a framework by which information
could be collected and sorted. The data analysis and interpretation were
completed through the use of Creswell’s (2003) Six Step process, which allowed
the identification of emergent themes and concluded with an interpretation of the
data.

143

In this chapter the findings of the case study are analyzed and discussed.
Emergent themes are noted and discussed within the context of the student
engagement and academic performance. The chapter concludes with implications
for practice and recommendations for future research.

Analysis of Findings
Several factors emerged from the triangulated data collected from the
document review, observation, surveys and interviews. It appeared that there were
multiple factors contributing to student engagement at Lee High and that student
engagement was due to an intertwining of those factors. However, the
quantitative data collected from the High School Survey of Student Engagement
(HSSSE) did not initially appear to support the qualitative data. According to the
HSSSE results, students were not highly engaged, nor were they more engaged
than other students nationwide. However, the qualitative data supported a
significant increase in student achievement over the past several years, which this
researcher concluded was due to an increase in student engagement. Factors as
suggested by the conceptual model that could contribute to student engagement
pertaining to programs, practices, culture and leadership all were strategically
developed over the past several years at Lee High school and coincided with the
increase in student achievement.
The themes that emerged as contributing to the student achievement were:
outstanding leadership, a culture of responsibility for student achievement, a

144

culture of a data-driven system with accountability organized around a common
goal, and the addressing of social-emotional needs. The uniqueness of this study
pertained to the at-risk population at the school studied and the district in which
these students attend.

Implications for Practice
It may be said that the mark of a good district is how well they serve the
students most at-risk. If so, then this case study suggested that there are ways a
district and school can support the academic achievement of their most at-risk
students. The school studied was a continuation school, which has unique needs
inherent to the student population. The social-emotional needs of the students are
much more severe than that of the regular population and they must be taken into
account when considering how to engage students and increase academic
achievement.
The results of this study indicated that the staff at Lee High seems to have
a clear understanding of this need and a desire to work with these highly at-risk
students. The teacher hired for work at a continuation school needs to be willing
to address not only academic needs but also the social-emotional needs of
students, which cannot be isolated to exist only outside the classroom. Teachers,
along with counselors and support staff must be willing to consider the impact
these needs have on the student when designing academic programs and
coursework. Districts and unions should collectively support the hiring of the very

145

best staff for the population most in need. Discussions between districts and their
union representatives should explore the benefits to all in developing flexible
hiring procedures and incentives to draw the best teachers available.
The small school environment and the reduction of class size are
imperative to allow the time for personalization to occur between teacher and
student. Additionally, according to the teacher surveys, even with the greater
amount of time allowed per student, the teachers were much more confident in
their instructional abilities than in their ability to affect their students’ values and
habits. Despite the teachers’ sometimes observable and articulated frustrations,
they were all willing and wanting to help the students. Training for work with at-
risk students within the context of the classroom would be worthwhile for a
continuation school to fund.
The data indicated that expectations, accountability and support are
systemic within District J. The responsibility for student achievement appears to
run district-wide. The union plays an unusually supportive role in the district,
which appears to assist in creating a unifying feeling. This common focus and
support district-wide that extends from the union to the district and site leaders,
and to the teachers and support staff creates a unifying feeling with one focus:
raise student achievement. This spread of accountability was apparent as many
support staff members were named as leaders in the school in addition to the usual
leaders such as the principal and department chairs. The inclusion and the feeling
of being valued by the district was an important factor for the staff. It validated

146

their work and supported them in their struggles. The district-wide call to do
Whatever It Takes also seemed to give a collective sense of focusing on student
achievement. Districts would benefit from articulating and supporting a common
district-wide focus with assessment systems in place that provide assistance in the
day-to-day work with students.
Engaging students entails addressing both their social-emotional and
academic needs simultaneously. Addressing only the social-emotional needs will
not produce academic results and conversely, addressing only the academic needs
will not produce results with a student who is not emotionally prepared for
academic study. It becomes necessary then, to address both needs simultaneously
to engage students. Continuation school at-risk students require more social-
emotional needs than the general population at a regular school. This may
necessitate more training in this area and the realization that more time may be
needed to reach academic goals.
The development of a close-knit relationship between the school site
personnel and that of the district office serves to create trust and more efficient
working relationships. Perhaps it would be advisable to create a career path in
which highly successful principals step into a district role that closely serves the
schools.
With regards to the purpose of school, the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE) suggests that the Lee High students along with students
nationwide are attending school primarily to simply earn a diploma rather than for

147

learning. However, Lee High students were much more likely to consider learning
a reason for going to school. Perhaps the focus of getting the diploma has
overshadowed a passion for learning. If there’s no focus on learning itself, then
the student is not interacting with their learning or developing a quest for more
exploration to propel them to pursue a higher education. Schools need to explore
the question of the purpose of schooling and consider the ways in which they may
be supporting going through the motions to get a diploma.
Additionally, perhaps schools should consider different ways of handling
truancies and non-attenders who are the most at risk of dropping out. It may be
beneficial to talk with the student as to why they are skipping school rather than
assigning a consequence.
Although Lee High students indicate a slightly higher interaction with
teachers than students nationwide, increasing those interactions are important for
increased learning. Since one third of students have limited or no interaction with
the teacher, a large portion of the student body is missing those learning
experiences.
Additionally, the students are bored with their classroom experiences with
the top reason selected being finding the material uninteresting. If students are not
interested in the material they are less likely to learn it. Nationwide, 3 out of 4
students say they’re bored due to the materials. At Lee High, 2 out of 4 students
assert this. The relevancy and interest level of materials should be considered

148

when making text and material selections. Support to schools in this area is
usually minimal. Districts may need to consider more resources in this area.
The data indicated that although some themes emerged as contributing a
great deal to student achievement, it seemed to be a multitude of factors and their
interplay that created an overall culture that supported the achievement of highly
at-risk students. The results of this study suggest practices that may be considered
to increase student engagement and achievement.

Recommendations for Future Research
There exists a body of research that indicates student engagement is an
issue in schools. High schools are failing and the students are disengaged. This
research sought to identify those factors that promote student engagement by
looking at a high performing continuation high school. The researcher wanted to
determine if the school studied had high student engagement, and if so, what
those factors were that contributed to that engagement. Although the findings
suggested overall low student engagement levels, they also suggested an increase
in student engagement levels over the past several years, which may be
contributing toward the increase in the achievement at this continuation high
school. Some themes emerged as contributing to the school’s high performance
including leadership, a culture of responsibility, a data-driven system with
accountability organized around a goal, and the recognition of social-emotional
needs.

149

The following recommendations for future research are based on the
issues that emerged while conducting this study:
1. Future research should look at replicating this type of study to compare
the engagement of at-risk students at other continuation urban high schools.
2. Similar case studies should be conducted containing interviews with
students to gain the perspective of the student beyond that obtained in a multiple-
choice survey. Students are typically very candid and their insight could be very
enlightening, much like the single qualitative question on the HSSSE.
3. Future research should seek to identify the years during which students
become disengaged and attempt to identify those factors leading to that
disengagement.

150

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and Leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: are we all on the same page? Peer Review,
1-4. Available from Amazon Website, http://www.amazon.com

California Continuation Education Association. (2007). California Department of
Education Model Continuation High Schools. Retrieved February 4, 2007,
from http://cceanet.org/modelsch.htm

California Department of Education, Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
(1997, January). California Standards for the Teaching Profession.
Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ps/tel

Clark, R. (2002, December). Building student achievement: In-school and out-of-
school factors [Electronic version]. In NCREL Policy Issues (OERI
Publication No. ED-01CO-0011, pp. 11-18). Naperville, IL: NCREL.

Cohen, M. A. (2005). The costs of crime and justice. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education
(5
th
ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.

Cusick, P. A. (1973). Inside high school: The student’s world. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.

Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn.
Bloomington: National Educational Servies.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning [Electronic
version]. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.

151

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high
school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high
school. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Finn, J. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.

Frederick, W. C. (1977). The use of classroom time in high schools above or
below the median reading score [Electronic version]. Urban Education,
21(4), 459-465.

Fullen, M. (1993). Change forces. Levittown, PA: Falmer Press.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: an
introduction (7th ed.). San Francisco: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldin, C. (1998). America’s graduation from high school: The evolution and
spread of secondary schooling in the twentieth century [Electronic
version]. Journal of Economic History, 58(2), 345-374.

Goldin, C. (1999). A brief history of education in the United States
[Electronic version]. NBER Working Paper No. 119 (August).

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Greene, J. P. (Revised 2002, April). High school graduation rates in the United
States. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved January 18,
2007, from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm#03

Harris, L. (2005, July-August). What’s a youngster to do? The education and
labor market plight of youth in high-poverty communities [Electronic
version]. Clearinghouse Review, 126-134.

High school survey of student engagement. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2007, from
Indiana University School of Education Website:
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New
York: Anchor Books.

152

Institute for Research in History. (1984). History of education. New York:
Haworth Press.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to
enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement
and success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewis, A. C. (2004). Schools that engage children. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 483-
84.

Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment,
bonding, connectedness, and engagement. [Electronic version]. Journal of
School Health, 74(7), 274-275.

Light, R. J. (2003). Writing and students’ engagement [Electronic version]. Peer
Review, 6(1), 28-31.

Lowe, M. A. (2003). Inside taylor high: the phenomenology of student
engagement during high school restructuring. Baltimore: PublishAmerica.

Manlove, J. (1998). The influence of high school dropout and school
disengagement on the risk of school-age pregnancy. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 8(2), 187-220.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years [Electronic version]. American
Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.

Marsh, D. D., & Codding, J. B. (Eds.). (1999). The new American high school.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

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

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that
works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

McCarthy, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Are students ready for college? What
student engagement data say [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan,
87(9), 664-669.

McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school
knowledge. New York: Routledge.

153

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.

Middlecamp, C. H. (2005). The art of engagement [Electronic version]. Peer
Review, 7(2), 17-20.

Miller, P. V. & Cannell, C. F. (1997). Interviewing for social research. In J. P.
Keeves (Ed.). Educational research, methodology and measurement: an
international handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd., 361-70.

Mondale, S., & Patton, S. B. (Eds.). (2001). School: The story of American public
education. Boston: Beacon Press.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks:
Changing an American institution. Virginia: National Association of
Secondary School Principals.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education statistics
tables and figures. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05_tf.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The condition of education 2006.
Retrieved August 5, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.

National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters
most: Teaching for America’s future. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from
http://www.teaching-point.net/Exhibit

National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school
students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.

National Youth Employment Coalition. (2004, April 29). Testimony on funding
for youth employment/development programs House Appropriations
Committee. Washington DC: National Youth Employment Coalition.
Retrieved January 18, 2007, from
http://nyec.org/Testimony04_29_04.html

154

Newmann, F. (Ed.). (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American
secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Newmann, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy and student
performance. Available from Amazon Website, http://www.amazon.com

O’Connell, J. (2004, June). Model Continuation High School List. Retrieved
February 4, 2007, from the California Continuation Education Association
Website:
http://www.cceanet.org/ModelSchools/modschlst2004_Article.htm

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude
measurement. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: a third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school:
Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Reville, S. P. (2005). High school redesign [Electronic version]. Voices in Urban
Education, 8, 1-6.

Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic
engagement, productivity, and accuracy of students with and without
exceptionalities [Electronic version]. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 7(1), 1-16.

Ryan, A. M., & Patrick H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes
in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.

Scheurich, J. J. (1995). A postmodernist critique of research interviewing.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 239-52.

Sedlak, M. W., Wheeler, C. W., Pullin, D. C., & Cusick, P. A. (1986). Selling
student short: Classroom bargains and academic reform in the American
high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.

155

Simon-Morton, B. G., & Crump A. D. (2002). The association of parental
involvement and social competence with school adjustment and
engagement among sixth graders. Journal of School Health, 73(3),
121-126.

Smith, R. W. (1975). Strategies of social research: the methodological
imagination. London: Prentice-Hall.

Stipek, D. (1986). Children’s motivation to learn. In T. M. Tomlinson & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Academic work and educational excellence: Raising
student productivity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing
an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005, December). 2000 census of population and housing,
public use microdata sample [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Census Bureau.

U.S. News and World Report. (2001, April). 130 (17).

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Comprehensive school reform program.
Retrieved June 24, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). No child left behind. Retrieved June 25,
2006, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml#

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1998).
Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. twelfth-grade mathematics and
science achievement in international context. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Viadero, D. (2004, January 21). New inquiry to measure student engagement.
Education Week, 23(19), 9.

Wehlburg, C. M. (2006). Meaningful course revision: enhancing academic
engagement using student learning data. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing
Company, Inc.

Weis, L. (1990). Working class without work: High school students in a
decentralized economy. New York: Routledge.

156

Weis, L., Farrar, E., & Petrie, H. G. (1989). Dropouts from school: Issues,
dilemmas, and solutions. Albany: State University of New York Press.

What we can learn from high school students. (2005). Retrieved July 13, 2006,
from Indiana University School of Education Website:
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/hssse_2005_report.pdf

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006
high school survey of student engagement. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from
Indiana University School of Education Website:
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

157

Appendix A

OBSERVATION TEMPLATE
ORGANIZED BY FOUR FRAMES
(BOLMAN & DEAL, REFRAMING ORGANIZATIONS, 1997)

The use of this Observation Template will assist the observer in organizing
information collected in observations. The information collected may be used to
validate other data obtained through interviews and questionnaires. (The actual
Template is one sheet per frame).

Structure
(Consider: Interaction between staff and
administration, familiarity with school vision,
recognition programs for staff and students,
leadership style, selection of substitutes, visible
standards, visible agendas and objectives, student
work displayed in classrooms, instructional
practices, levels of questioning, types of
assessments utilized to evaluate student work)

Human Resources
(Consider: Level of teachers engaged in school
activities, interaction of administration with students
and staff, environment in staff meetings, how or if
organization is tailored to people, use of conflict
management, empowerment of employees)
Political
(Consider: Cleanliness of campus, display of
student work and important events, sense of safety
and security, students on task with or without
visitors)

Symbolic
(Consider: School spirit among staff and students;
interaction between community, parents, staff and
students; visibility of administration throughout
campus; friendliness of office staff with visitors;
learning and social events are evident and celebrated
by rituals and events)

158

Appendix B

Teacher Survey of Student Engagement
This survey asks you to respond to statements about your students and your interactions with them. The
information you provide will help with a case study of student engagement at your school. Thank you for
your thoughtful responses. Please indicate the content area(s) in which you teach:

 Career/Technical  English  History  Math
 PE  Science  Visual/Performing Art

Instructions: Read the statements below and
place checkmarks in the appropriate columns.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. My students attend class with readings
and/or assignments completed

2. My students take pride in their schoolwork.

3. My students have the skills and abilities to
complete their assignments.

4. My students value the rewards (grades,
awards) they get at school for their work.

5. My students think it is important to make
good grades.

6. My students care about their school.

7. My students place a high value on learning.

8. My students have a voice in classroom
decisions.

9. My students put forth a great deal of effort
when doing their schoolwork.

10. My students are challenged to do their best
work at school.

11. I am able to influence the attitudes my
students have about school.

12. I am able to help students care about their
schoolwork.

13. I have enough time to get to know the
personal characteristics and interests of all
my students.

14. If students stop trying in my class, I have
the capacity to motivate them to start trying.

15. If students in my class are struggling, I
have the necessary skills to increase their
achievement.

16. Resources and assistance are available to
students to meet their personal and
academic needs.

17. I can get through to the most difficult
students.

18. I can help my students think critically.

19. I can foster student creativity.

20. I can assist families in helping their
children do well in school.

159

Appendix C

Interview Instrument of Student Engagement

Interview Script

Investigator: Hi. My name is Jolie Pickett. I am here to conduct a study that
looks at the characteristics of your school that have made it successful. I'd like to
ask for your thoughts on that topic. Any information you provide will remain
confidential. If at any point during our conversation you would prefer to not
answer a question, just let me know and we will move on to the next question.

Interview Questions

1. Your school has been identified as a high performing urban high school.
What school factors do you think contribute to this identification?

2. What school factors contribute to student engagement at this school?
(Define student engagement if necessary)

(a) Are there specific programs that this school has in place that contribute
to higher student engagement?

(b) Are there specific teacher practices that contribute to higher student
engagement?

(c) Are there any aspects to the school culture or school atmosphere that
contribute to higher student engagement?

(d) Who are the formal and informal leaders at your school?

(e) What do both the formal and informal leaders at the school do to
contribute to higher student engagement?

3. Does the central or district office play a role in your school being a high
performing urban high school? If yes, please describe how.

Thank you for participating in this study.

160

Appendix D

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

A Case Study of Student Engagement in a
High Performing Urban Continuation High School

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Jolie Pickett, B.A., M.A., Investigator, and
Stuart Gothold, Ed.D., Principal Investigator and Faculty Advisor, from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. This study is being completed as part of a thematic dissertation team
researching student engagement in all the schools in your district. The schools in your district were identified
to participate in this study, in part, because the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell,
gave your district special recognition for outstanding progress in increasing the achievement of students. You
were selected as a possible participant in this study based on your status as an employee at Frontier High
School. All teachers at Frontier High School, along with some additional Frontier High School staff
members, are being asked to be a part of this study. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below and ask questions about anything you do not understand before deciding whether or not to
participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to determine whether high performing urban high schools have higher levels of
student engagement and if so, to determine what those school factors are that contribute toward that
engagement. The focus is to identify what programs, and what leadership and school culture factors
contribute to increased student engagement and achievement.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do one or more of the following:

Participate in a Teacher Survey of Student Engagement, which asks you to respond to 20 statements about
student engagement. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete.

Participate in a recorded interview, which may take from 10 to 30 minutes to complete. The interview
questions will focus on the school factors that contribute to student engagement and student achievement. It
should be noted that the researcher is focusing on positive school factors that have helped make your school
successful.

Additionally, the investigator will conduct field observations on site, gather information and record notes.
She may observe some classrooms, faculty meetings and campus activities.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Any discomforts you may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering these
questions. The interviewees will not be identified in any part of the interview by name.

161

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit from your participation in this research study. However, it is hoped that the results may
lead to a better understanding of the relationship between student engagement and high performing high
schools and the school factors that contribute toward student engagement and achievement. These results
may also provide insight into practices and strategies that may prove successful in other schools, which in
turn may benefit the students at those schools.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive compensation for participation in this study other than a California lottery ticket.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. When the results of the
research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your
identity. Audio recordings will be secured and stored in the office of the investigator and destroyed one year
after the completion of the study. You have the right to review and/or edit your transcript in the presence of
the investigator. Personal information, research data, and related records will be coded, stored, and secured in
the home of the investigator. Only the investigators will have access to the data. All remaining data will be
destroyed three years after the study has been completed. Your name will not be recorded at any time.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at
any time without consequences of any kind. You may also decline to answer any questions you don’t want to
answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Jolie Pickett at
jpickett@sandi.net and/or Dr. Stuart Gothold at gothold@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not
waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study. If you have
questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office for the Vice
Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272
or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a potential subject in a
research study involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree
to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
_____I agree to be audio recorded _____ I do not agree to be audio recorded
_______________________________ _____________________
Name of Subject Date

Signature of Subject

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject, and answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she
understands the information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
__________________________________ ________________________
Name of Investigator Date

Signature of Investigator

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines the impact of student engagement on student achievement in a high performing urban continuation high school. Current research indicates that despite years of reform efforts, U.S. high schools have made limited gains in student achievement. Dropout rates are extremely high, as students have become completely disengaged from their schools, especially in urban high schools where dropout rates as high as 50 - 80% have been reported. Although current research indicates that student engagement is identified as contributing to achievement, what is not known is whether student engagement creates a difference in achievement levels. This case study sought to identify the level of engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school and to identify the key programs and practices that contribute to student engagement and high academic performance. It was one of a series of case studies conducted by a thematic dissertation research team at schools in a Los Angeles high school district, which was designated high-performing due to its increase in API scores district wide. The study was conducted using a qualitative mixed methods case study design, which included document review, observation, teacher surveys, and staff interviews. Additionally, quantitative data was utilized from a secondary data analysis from the High School Survey of Student Engagement, a survey developed by Indiana University and administered to over 300,000 students throughout the United States over the past three years.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

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

A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban high school: the relational pattern between student engagement and student achievement in a magnet high school in Los Angeles

PDF

Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability

PDF

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

PDF

Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs

PDF

Outperforming nontraditional urban school: a high school case study

PDF

Student engagement in an outperforming urban school as measured through cognitive, behavioral, and emotional indicators

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

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

PDF

Promising practices in preventing bullying in K-12 schools: student engagement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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