University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN HIGH-PERFORMING URBAN HIGH SCHOOLS:
A CASE STUDY

by

Amy Lambert

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 Amy Lambert
ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Tim McLellan, and my parents,
Neil and Merrilyn Lambert.
I am very blessed to have Tim McLellan as my husband, best friend, and
partner in life. His belief in my abilities has helped me accomplish more than I ever
thought possible. He’s the best confidence builder and cheerleader anyone could
have. He knew I could run marathons before I did. He knew I could finish this
doctoral program before I did too. I am truly thankful that I have a partner who
believes in me and encourages me to pursue my dreams. I am looking forward to our
next great adventure.
I appreciate more and more each day the tremendous gift my parents gave me
by providing me with a secure childhood. I realize now that I was a truly fortunate
child with parents who loved one another and sacrificed for my benefit. If I have
achieved any level of success, I owe it to the sacrifices they made for me. There are
so many ways in which my parents supported my personal and academic growth that
I cannot mention them all here; however, a key area I will mention is the value they
placed on learning and reading. They not only read to me by the hour, but they also
loved books and read a great deal themselves. They also made sure I took advantage
of every opportunity to participate in academic or musical enrichment, and they were
never too tired for lengthy conversations about current events or things I found
interesting.
iii

My father, Neil Lambert, has been gone since 1993, but he is still very much
a part of my life. Not a day goes by that I don’t think of him, and I know he would
have enjoyed seeing me complete this doctoral program. Fortunately, my mother,
Merrilyn Lambert, is still with me; and I treasure my time with her. She is one of the
classiest ladies I have known. I hope to one day have a fraction of her gracefulness
and strength.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A mere “thank you” is not enough to express my appreciation and heartfelt
gratitude for all the support and encouragement I received from special individuals
throughout my doctoral journey at the University of Southern California.
First, I would like to thank Dr. Stuart Gothold, my dissertation chair. He was
able to help me understand what I needed to do every step of the way while keeping
the big picture in view. Throughout this project, his guidance and succinct feedback
helped me continue to move forward, and his personal concern and “Fight On”
emails motivated me to finish this work.
I want to thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar who was also on my dissertation
committee. He provided specific input on the study design and instrumentation that
helped improve my research. This benefited me greatly when I wrote up the results. I
would also like to thank Dr. Kathy Stowe for serving on my dissertation committee.
She provided important input on relevant research to include in the literature review,
and her positive demeanor helped minimize the terror of the defense meeting.
I want to thank the members of our thematic dissertation team. They are
living proof of that old TEAM acronym – Together Everyone Accomplishes More.
They were a wonderful source of moral support, but none more so than Jolie. I really
appreciated having a partner to work with when I got toward the end of this project. I
especially valued her many emails with comments like “We’ll get through this,” and
“We’ll make this work.” They were the positive affirmations I needed.
v

I owe the staff members at my anonymous case study school a huge thank
you. They were so generous with their time and willing to be open and honest with
regard to their work and experiences as educators. I cannot name them here, but I
hope they have an opportunity to read this study and recognize themselves and their
excellent work with students.
I would also like to give a special thank you to my many friends and
colleagues who preceded me in the completion of their Ed.D. programs. They
provided a rich source of inspiration and encouragement. It was very helpful to be
able to talk about my study with people who were truly interested and not just asking
about it to be polite. They gave me the sympathetic ear and advice I needed to push
on when I got frustrated; and having traversed the same trail, they were also able to
understand the significance of each milestone. Dr. Susan Liberati was especially
helpful in reminding me to get back on track when I had sat out for too long. I am
most grateful for her persistent nagging.
I must thank my big sister, Tammy, for her understanding and support when I
was often unavailable for family time. I appreciate how often she checked in with
Mom and made sure I knew what was going on with the family while I was at my
writing desk. Her many acts of love and thoughtfulness have not gone unnoticed.
Lastly, I would like to thank my running buddies, John, Forrest, and Bob –
(and my husband Tim too) for being awesome role models of strength and
determination. I thought of so many running analogies as I was working on this
project. Attitude and effort are truly everything, and the tough parts of any endeavor
vi

are just hills you conquer one step at a time. Thank you for helping me to remember
that there is a finish line.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………….…...ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………........iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………….…….vii

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………..…....ix

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………....….x

CHAPTER I………………………………………………………………….………1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………….…1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….…4
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………......…...5
Research Questions……………………………………………………………...…....5
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………..........5
Methodology…………………………………………………………………….……7
Assumptions…………………………………………………………………….……8
Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………….…….9
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………11
Organization of the Study…………………………………………………………..12

CHAPTER II………………………………………………………………………..14
Historical Perspective of High Schools………………………………………….….14
Accountability and Reform…………………………………………………………18
Achievement of High School Students and Achievement Gaps……………………25
Student Achievement and Progress…………………………………………………29
Student Engagement………………………………………………………………...31
Self-Efficacy Factors Contributing to Higher Engagement…………………………36
Instructional Practices Contributing to Higher Engagement………………………..38
Extra Curricular Activities Contributing to Student Engagement…………………..44
Organizational Structures Contributing to Student Engagement……………………46
Leadership Practices Contributing to Student Engagement ………………………..49
School Cultural Factors Contributing to Student Engagement……………………..50

CHAPTER III……………………………………………………………………….54
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….54
Conceptual Base…………………………………………………………………….55
Figure 1 Conceptual Model…………………………………………………………57
Research Questions………………………………………………………………….58
Research Design…………………………………………………………………….59
viii

Population and Sample……………………………………………………………...61
Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………..64
Data Collection……………………………………………………………………...68
Validity and Reliability ……………………………………………………………..70
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………..71

CHAPTER IV……………………………………………………………………….72
The Findings………………………………………………………………………...72
Background of “Central High School”…………………………………………...…73
A Typical Day at Central High School……………………………………………...76
Summary of Strategies ……………………………………………………………...83
Findings by Research Question……………………………………………………104
First Research Question…………………………………………………………..104
Discussion of the First Research Question……………………………………..115
Second Research Question………………………………………………………..117
Discussion of the Second Research Question……………………………….….125
Third Research Question………………………………………………………….127
Discussion of the Third Research Question……………………………….……136
Themes……………………………………………………………………………..137

CHAPTER V………………………………………………………………….…...143
Overview…………………………………………………………………….…….143
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………….………143
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………….….144
Research Methodology…………………………………………………………….145
Summary…………………………………………………………………………...146
Conclusions………………………………………………………………….……..146
Recommendations………………………………………………………………….148

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………….………150

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………….……….158
A. Interview Instrument…………………………………………………….……..158
B. Observation Instrument………………………………………………….……..159
C. Document Review Instrument…………………………………………………160
D. Teacher Survey Instrument…………………………………………….………161

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Marzano School Leadership Model…………………………………50

Table 2. School API Scores ………………………………………………….63

Table 3. Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement…………….………105

Table 4. Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement………………….…..106

Table 5. Emotional Engagement…………………………………………….107

Table 6. HSSSE Responses…………………………………………………109

Table 7. Teacher Perceptions of Student Engagement……………….……..114

Table 8. Teacher Perceptions of Efficacy……………………………….…..122

Table 9. Bell Schedule…………………………………………………..…..123

Table 10. First Semester/Second Semester Grade Comparison………….…..134

x

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to determine whether high performing urban
high schools have higher levels of student engagement and if so; what school factors
contribute toward that engagement. The school factors examined in this study were
leadership, instructional practices and culture.
A high-performing urban high school in the Los Angeles County area of
California was selected for the study. The school was selected because it was part of
a high school district singled out by the State Superintendent of Instruction for
special recognition as a result of increased student achievement by California’s
Academic Performance Index (API) and its particular success with targeted subgroup
populations.
The case study was completed using a mixed-method qualitative research
design. Methods of data collection included observations, surveys, interviews and
document analysis. A concurrent research study conducted at the school site by
Indiana University as part of the High School Survey of Student Engagement was
also utilized as a secondary data source. Instruments to gather multiple methods of
data collection supported triangulation of the data.
Analysis of the data indicated that effective leadership, instructional
practices, and culture were factors impacting student achievement and student
engagement; but the findings from the High School Survey of Student Engagement
indicated minimal or moderate levels of student engagement. Responsibility for
xi

student achievement throughout the school organization, concern for students, use of
data to guide decision making, and effective leadership emerged as predominant
themes impacting student achievement and student engagement.

1

CHAPTER ONE

Background of the Problem
Throughout the United States, educators are under increasing pressure to
improve the achievement of students. Reform efforts driven by public concern and
accountability legislation have centered on high stakes test results and the subsequent
identification and improvement of underperforming schools. The No Child Left
Behind Act mandating annual yearly progress of all students and negative
consequences for underperforming schools is one of the most far-reaching pieces of
federal legislation impacting public education. Schools that fail to meet their
adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets face increasing sanctions up to and including
takeover by the state. In addition, states have implemented their own accountability
legislation requiring schools to show continued progress in student achievement on
high stakes standardized tests.
Some have argued that the accountability movement and related
concentration on standards based instruction has increased the focus on learning for
administrators and teachers; and the negative consequences for students who fail to
meet the expected levels of proficiency provide an incentive for students to try
harder. Others have argued that a concentration on standards based instruction has
resulted in unintended negative outcomes that have diminished student achievement.
Critics of the concentration on a standards based instructional program to the
exclusion of other educational activities argue that it has resulted in the following: a
2

narrowing of the curriculum; a loss of inspiring and imaginative teaching, a decrease
in the number of elective opportunities for students, a focus on test preparation that
ignores student’s affective needs, boredom, and a pushing out of underachieving
students (Lewis, 2004). What is not being argued is the reality that educators today
are being challenged to raise the achievement of all students; and the performance
levels of schools continues to be of local, state, and national importance in the
political, social and economic arenas.
While efforts to improve education have resulted in significant improvements
in student achievement, high schools have not kept pace with the improvements of
students in lower grades. There is also a persistent achievement gap between upper
and middle class high school students and their minority and economically
disadvantaged counterparts. Discussion and debate about why the achievement gap
has been so difficult to narrow at the high school level has included consideration of
social issues such as crime and poverty; economic issues related to equity and access
to educational resources; and educational issues related to quality teaching, rigor and
expectations for students (Bainbridge, Lasley & Sundre, 2003).
Permeating the discussion about the difficulties educators encounter in trying
to improve the achievement of high school students is the problem of disengagement.
High school students report the least orientation toward school as measured by
academic success and student feelings of alienation (Marks, 2000). Dropping out of
high school, an action described by Lehr, Sinclair & Christianson (2004) as “the
most severe and overt symptom of disengagement from school and learning” (Lehr,
3

Sinclair & Christianson, 2004, p. 280), has surfaced as a national concern and is
being presented as further evidence that public schools are failing. While the
enormity of the dropout problem varies according to statistical measures, some
reports indicate that nearly one-third of all public high school students do not
graduate, and only 50% of African American, Hispanic, or Native American students
graduate with a regular diploma (Bridgeland, Dilulio, Morison, 2006).
In spite of the inability of high schools to narrow the achievement gap, some
schools are making significant improvement and are performing well above the level
of other schools with similar students and barriers to achievement. Engaging students
in their own learning has been identified as one of the success strategies in high
schools that have been successful in narrowing the achievement gap for minority and
economically disadvantaged students. Conversely, a lack of engagement among high
school students has been identified as one factor in determining why many high
school students are struggling. The level of student engagement among high school
students across the nation is the focus of a study being conducted by Indiana
University. The study, consisting of an anonymous survey that has been administered
to more than 220,000 students in grades nine through twelve, suggests that high
school students are not engaged in the types of rigorous school activities that will
prepare them for success in college (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006).
Additional research on the subject of student engagement suggests that
student engagement is positively correlated with student achievement; and furthering
interest among educators in the topic of student engagement, is evidence that
4

suggests educators can improve the engagement level of students by addressing
specific instructional, leadership, and cultural practices.
While much is known and understood about the impact of student
engagement on student achievement, what is not understood is how student
engagement impacts the achievement of students in high performing urban high
schools. In addition, more information is also needed to understand how instructional
practices, leadership and school culture impact the engagement and achievement in
these high performing urban high schools

Statement of the Problem
With limited exception, high schools have been unable to narrow the
achievement gap for poor and minority students even though significant gains have
been made in elementary and middle schools. However, there is a narrow group of
high schools that have been able to increase student achievement for the most
challenging students in urban schools. We do not fully understand the factors that are
impacting the increase in student achievement at these particular schools that are
outperforming their peers. In addition, we know that engagement is necessary for
student achievement, and that student achievement is positively correlated with
engagement. Another area that we do not understand fully is the relationship between
high student engagement and other school factors that may contribute to high student
achievement within the setting of a high performing urban high school.

5

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine whether high performing urban
high schools have higher levels of student engagement and if so; what school factors
contribute toward that engagement.

Research Questions
This study focused on answering the following questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high school as
measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement? How does it compare
to the national profile?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing urban
high schools?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?

Significance of the Study
This study is significant because it increases understanding of the relationship
between student engagement and high performing high schools and the school
factors that contribute toward student engagement and student achievement. This
topic is important for educational practitioners and researchers because with limited
exception, high schools have been struggling to close the achievement gap for
minority and economically disadvantaged students. Information on practices that are
being successfully implemented in urban high schools contributes to the ongoing
6

research and dialogue about strategies and related issues that support the continuous
improvement of schools.
Although this is a case study of a single high school, and the findings cannot
be generalized, the study was completed as part of a thematic dissertation team and
can be examined as part of a series of six case studies about the high schools in a
single school district. As with all case studies, the findings are limited to the actual
case; but when examined collectively, they can provide insight into practices and
strategies that may prove successful in other schools. They also contribute to the
body of knowledge within the educational field by highlighting efforts that show
promise and are worthy of additional research.
In addition, the specific issue of high school dropouts and the related broader
issue of student disengagement from high school is considered to be a critical issue
jeopardizing the social and economic well being of the country. Increased
understanding of the practices that are able to promote the engagement of urban high
school students and potentially recover students who are disengaged addresses an
issue of vital importance for educators who are struggling to find effective
interventions.
Lastly, this study recognizes the achievements of educators at the specific
school selected for the case study. The study is a factual description of the behaviors
and perceptions of the school population and describes in detail the practices of the
educators that contribute toward the success of the school. In so doing, it
acknowledges the worthy accomplishments of the school community. With many
7

headlines focusing on the negative aspects of public education, acknowledging the
schools that are able to increase the achievement of students is important for
sustaining the momentum of educators continuing to push for improvement.

Methodology
This case study of a particular high achieving urban high school was
completed using a mixed-method qualitative research design. The qualitative
approach, utilized to understand the relationship between student engagement and
high performing high schools and the school factors that contribute toward student
engagement and student achievement, provided a wealth of information that yielded
a thick story like description of the behaviors and perceptions of the population at the
school site. Multiple methods of data collection provided insight into the varied
perspectives of the school population and supported triangulation of the data
(Creswell, 1997). Methods of data collection included observations, surveys,
interviews and document analysis. The research observation instrument was also
developed utilizing the “Four Frames” categories developed by Bolman and Deal
(1997). Their descriptions of the political, structural, symbolic and human resource
lenses through which behavior and interaction can be categorized provided a
framework for sorting the observation data.
Adding to the data collected by the researcher was the use of an important
secondary data source consisting of survey information on the behaviors and
perceptions of the high school students at the selected school site regarding their
8

engagement in school. During the same time frame as this case study, Indiana
University administered the student survey as part of their national study titled, “The
High School Survey of Student Engagement.” The researcher received statistical
results from the student responses and information from the national profile for use
in comparing data gathered at the school site.
The data analysis activities followed the six steps of data analysis and
interpretation as outlined by Creswell (1997). The careful review and “chunking” of
the vast amounts of information collected in the study contributed to the depth of the
analysis and interpretation of the data.
This case study was one of six studies of the schools located in a single high
school district that were completed simultaneously by a thematic dissertation team.
As part of the thematic dissertation team process, the group members collectively
created the research design, research questions, and research instruments, and
provided a resource for review and reflection throughout the process that lasted ten
months. Although this study of a single high school is not generalizable and stands
alone as an individual case, when reviewed as part of a series, it contributes to the
factors present in an entire school district.

Assumptions
In conducting this study, the researcher assumed the following:
• The school site selected for the study was accurately identified
as a high achieving urban school.
• The Academic Performance Index (API) scores achieved by
the school were valid and not manipulated.
9

• The findings would be limited to the single school site
selected for the case study.
• The participants in the study would give honest answers and
responses.
• The respondents would have sufficient knowledge about the
activities and students at the school site to provide
knowledgeable answers.
• There is a relationship between student achievement and
student engagement.
• There were factors at the school site impacting student
achievement and/or student engagement. The factors included,
but were not limited to, school culture, leadership, and
instructional practices.

Limitations and Delimitations
The following were the limitations of the study:
• The study was limited to a single urban high achieving high
school in Los Angeles County.
• The findings are not generalizable to other schools and
districts.
• The observation data was limited by the viewpoint of a single
researcher.
• The brief time period covered during the study may not be
reflective of the school characteristics exhibited over a longer
period of time. The study represents a snapshot in time.
• All participation in the study was voluntary and some
members of the school population elected to not participate in
the study.
10

• Collection and analysis of the data was subject to the skill
level, personal interpretation, and bias of the researcher.

The following were the delimitations of the study:
• The study was delimited to a single high performing urban
high school that met the criteria of high performing and urban
as defined by the thematic dissertation team.
• The study was delimited to the research instruments developed
to focus on the areas of school culture, leadership and
instructional practices in relationship to student achievement
and student engagement.
• The study was delimited to the five full days of field research.

11

Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): A system of ranking California schools
according to the achievement of their students on standardized tests. The
comparative scores are scaled from 200 to 1000 points, with 800 being the target
performance score for all schools.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The federal measure of performance evaluation
mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. School districts and schools are required
to meet specific growth targets in the following areas: Reading/Language Arts,
Mathematics, and graduation rates (for high schools) or attendance rates (for
elementary and middle schools).
Achievement Gap: The differential performance between subgroups of students on
standardized tests.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): An examination that tests student
proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics; and high school students are
required to pass this examination in order to receive a high school diploma.
California Standardized Test (CST): A standardized assessment instrument that
measures the performance of California students on the state adopted academic
standards.
Culture: The traditions, norms and values that permeate an organization and
influence behaviors and beliefs of the members.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act: The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965. In an effort to increase student achievement and
12

accountability in schools, this federal legislation created performance measures and
related consequences for schools failing to meet performance goals.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): Each school in California is required to
summarize in report format and make public specific data about performance, school
environment, resources and demographics. These reports can be used to compare
schools.

Organization of the Study
Chapter one of the study has presented the background of the study, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions to be
answered, the significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology, the
assumptions, the limitations and delimitations of the study, and the definitions of key
terms.
Chapter two has presented a review of the relevant literature. It addresses the
following topics: history of high school education, the accountability movement,
school reform, the achievement of high school students and the achievement gap,
schools bridging the achievement gap, student engagement, self-efficacy,
instructional practices, extra-curricular activities, organizational structures,
leadership practices, and school culture.
Chapter three has presented the methodology used in the study, including a
brief introduction, a conceptual base, a conceptual model, the research questions, the
research design, the population and sample, the instrumentation, the data collection
13

methods, how the study addressed issues of validity and reliability, and the strategies
used for data analysis and interpretation.
Chapter four has presented the findings of the study.
Chapter five has presented an overview of the study, a summary of the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

14

CHAPTER TWO

Review of Related Literature

How to improve urban high schools and increase the achievement of their
students continues to be at the forefront of public discourse involving educators,
policy makers, the media, and the community at large. This literature review will
examine research on the status of an emerging area of study – high school student
engagement as a means of increasing the achievement of high school students. In
addition, it will provide a framework for public concern about the status of American
high school education and related improvement initiatives.

Historical Perspective of High Schools
Public high schools were introduced in the United States in the late 1800’s,
and by 1890 their numbers exceeded 2500. While earlier schools focused on
preparation of primarily elite students bound for college, a growing number of
students entering high school were considered working class. Due to an increasing
immigrant population, enrollment in public high schools doubled during the decade
between 1890 and 1900 (Krug, 1964). To meet the needs of two divergent types of
students, the United States public high school organizational model evolved to meet
two purposes: 1. To prepare the majority of graduates for employment in factories
and hierarchically structured organizations and 2. to sift and select a smaller number
15

of graduates for continuing education. (Krug, 1964; Deschenes, Cuban & Tyack,
2001).
This efficiency model was designed to leave students behind, and only a
small number of students matriculated through high school. As Deschenes, Cuban &
Tyack reveal, “At the top of the nineteenth century arch of urban schooling was the
meritocratic and graded high school. Tests to enter the high school were often very
difficult and flunking rates high. Far from defining failures in these examinations as
a problem, many educators saw them instead as a sign that academic standards were
being maintained” (Deschenes, Cuban & Tyack, 2002, p.5). Nationwide data for city
schools in 1906 show that for every 1,000 students entering first grade, 263 students
entered the eighth grade, and only 56 students (or 5.6%) entered the high school
senior class. In Tennessee in 1906, approximately 150,000 students entered the first
grade, 10,000 students entered the eighth grade, and 575 students (or .38%)
graduated from high school. A significant achievement gap for minority students
was also evident as 75 percent of black students in Memphis, Tennessee were held
back (Deschenes, Cuban & Tyack, 2002).
Not all students were dismissed from school. Many left voluntarily to work at
menial labor in factories because their families could not keep them in school, and
because the educators and the school environment subjected them to humiliation. A
survey conducted in 1909 of children working in factories between the ages of 14
and 16 indicates that the children preferred the factory jobs because they found the
16

way they were treated in school to be demeaning and frustrating (Deschenes, Cuban
& Tyack, 2002).
As the United States evaluated its World War II effectiveness in the 1950’s,
public debate surfaced about the rigor of high school academic standards. Many felt
that progressive education and child-centered approaches used at the time did not
adequately prepare a sufficient number of students for advanced studies in math and
science. The Cold War and the Soviet space race made rigorous academic standards
and related changes in education a national security interest with the passage of the
National Defense Education Act of 1958 that emphasized math, science and foreign
language (Bybee, 1997).
Concern about the performance of schools as a national security interest
again became the focus of public discourse and political scrutiny in the 1980’s after
the release of a public policy paper entitled, A Nation at Risk. Hentschke (1997)
writes,
The pervasive sense of dissatisfaction with the efficiency of public
school efforts, especially in America’s urban centers, has given rise to
a cacophony of efforts to improve or “reform” schools. Since the
alarm about the “rising tide of mediocrity” in our schools was first
cited in A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence,
1993), a veritable explosion of initiatives have been launched to
address one or more of the central problem areas of American
schooling, including academic achievement in the basic subject areas
relative to students in other countries, functional literacy, preparation
for future employment, mastery of higher-order skills and even
preparation for citizenship (Hentschke, 1997, p. 474).
A report titled, “America’s Choice – High Skills or Low Wages” released in
June 1990 again drew attention to the inadequacy of American education as a
national interest. The report stated, “The United States must produce a more ‘highly
17

educated workforce’ in order to improve productivity in a ‘third industrial
revolution’ that industry is undergoing and to keep the United States globally
competitive” (1990). Among the key recommendations in the report were changes to
the way high school curriculum was organized and presented to students in order to
connect academic content from the classroom to its applications beyond school. The
report suggested that education needed to be modified to be more relevant and to
create relationships between what students are learning in school and their
employment outlook resulting in higher achievement of students and a more
thoroughly prepared workforce.
The status of American education as a national interest was again brought to
the forefront with results from a Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMMS) report showing the United States Students lagging behind their
counterparts in other countries in math and science (Atkin & Black, 1997). Results of
the study were widely debated with some using the results to demonstrate the gross
inadequacy of public schools. Others more critical of the statistical comparisons used
the results to show that the top American students fared as well as their peers in other
nations, but noted that the United States included middle and lower achieving
students in their data while other countries used only their top students in the
assessment (Bracey, 2001).

18

Accountability and Reform
Uniform curriculum standards, high stakes student assessments, and the No
Child Left Behind federal legislation enacted in 2002 were measures state and
federal policy makers initiated to improve schools and to make them more
accountable to the public tax payer and their students.
The nationwide drumbeat for reform, begun in the 1980’s had gained
volume by the 1990’s as alarm grew over poor student test scores and
their implications for 21
st
century workforce demands. In the
intensified push for change, policy makers got an ominous message:
reform or lose public education. The response was a sweeping
movement across the states to shift from a focus on ensuring schools’
compliance with rules and statues to holding schools accountable for
student results. (WestEd, 2004, p.1)

In response to more rigorous demands on students, increased graduation
requirements, and rising expectations about student outcomes, education reform
efforts sought to increase student achievement. At the center of the reform efforts
was a shift from the evaluation of school processes to an evaluation of student results
with sanctions and punitive measures for schools not meeting established criteria for
improvement and performance levels. Earl and Fullan write,
Data has become the vehicle of choice for ensuring accountability.
Government mandated reform is spearheaded by a focus on results,
with demands for evidence firmly embedded. Nations, states,
provinces, and school districts have implemented large-scale
assessment systems, established indicators of effectiveness, set
targets, created inspection or review programs, tied rewards and
sanctions to results and many combinations of the above (Earl &
Fullan, 2000, P. 384).

The public reporting of test scores and other quantifiable evidence of student
achievement – or lack of achievement – has become the central focus of work to
19

improve schools. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is a
national assessment of students in a wide range of school subjects including reading,
writing and mathematics. It is authorized by Congress and administered by the
Department of Education though a grant with a private non-profit organization. A
nationally representative sample of students at ages nine, thirteen, and seventeen are
tested every two years. Because of the sampling method utilized to select
participants, it does not track student progress through grade levels, but provides
comparison data on students at the same grade level from year to year. Data based
on the NAEP results is another example of school accountability and related public
scrutiny from single source summative assessment results. This increases pressure on
school sites to have students perform well on specific tests (Guthrie, Schaeffer &
Huang, 2001).
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires that school sites, school
districts and entire states meet specific performance levels for student achievement in
accordance with adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals to achieve a federal mandate
for all students to be proficient by the year 2014. The performance criteria also
stipulates that defined subgroups categorized as disabled, ethnically and racially
diverse, English language learners and low socio-economic students meet required
testing and performance criteria for performance. NCLB also requires that high
schools report and improve their graduation rates. The accountability and related
consequences for states to meet NCLB requirements and ultimately have all of their
20

students proficient by the year 2014 has added another layer of pressure on schools
and the students they teach.
Standardized summative assessments that provide the basis for accountability
programs, commonly referred to as “high stakes tests,” are a priority for the majority
of school administrators, teachers, and students. A report in 2000 by the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) reveals that every state had a minimum of one
accountability report tied to high stakes tests; and 46 states reported student
achievement at the District level, and 40 states reported student achievement at the
school site level.
In California, the state adopted academic content standards beginning in
1997, and the legislature adopted the Public School Accountability Act in 1999. The
accountability process included the adoption of specific grade and content area
standards, statewide testing of the standards, and subsequent rewards or sanctions for
performance results. The state academic performance index (API) score is widely
recognized as the statewide measure of achievement. Individual schools receive a
score ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 with 800 as a target score. The
score is based on a combination of the Standardized Testing Reporting System
(STAR), which includes the California Standards Test (CST) and the California
Achievement Test (CAT-6), and the California High School Exit Examination
(CAHSEE) for high schools. The STAR tests are criterion referenced tests that
designate students as either advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, or far below
basic in their mastery of state standards. The CAT-6 is a norm-referenced test that
21

compares students to other students in the nation. The CAHSEE examination tests
student proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics; and high school
students are required to pass this examination in order to receive a high school
diploma. Implementation of the CAHSEE as a graduation requirement was to begin
with the graduating class of 2004, but due to political opposition, legal battles, and
general concern that students had not been sufficiently prepared for the exam,
implementation was deferred until the graduating class of 2006 (EdSource, 2002).
Increased student achievement on school API scores is tracked with growth
targets requiring improvement in increments equaling a minimum of 5 percent of the
distance between the current API and the 800 target score. For a short time, schools
meeting their growth target were rewarded monetarily until state budget shortfalls
halted the bonus program. Schools failing to meet the growth target and/or in the
bottom half of statewide scores fell under an intervention program titled the
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program which included
consequences up to and including state takeover or closure for ongoing failure to
improve. Schools in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program
became eligible to receive additional monetary assistance in the High Priority
Schools Grant Program (WestEd, 2004; EdSource, 2002). API information on
individual schools is disseminated in the press with comparisons to previous scores
and neighboring schools. Annual increases, dips and fluctuations in these scores have
significant influence on public opinion about the quality of local schools,
communities, and real estate markets although important information about API
22

scores and the dynamic nature of statistical data is generally not presented as part of
news reports (EdSource, 2002).
Proponents of accountability measures that include high stakes tests argue
that the pressure of high stakes testing and accountability systems are responsible for
increasing efforts by educators and students to work harder and perform better
(DeMoss, 2002). They believe that educators need to be accountable to the taxpayers
who support education, the parents who entrust their children to the public education
system, and to the students who attend public schools. The criterion referenced tests
used in accountability systems have also exposed the limitations of prior norm-
referenced tests and areas where students were not achieving at acceptable levels.
Haycock states:

The old norm-referenced systems were once used by virtually every
state and sent a message to most schools – and more parents and
students – that things were just fine. By comparing students with one
another, rather than with a standard, we told the majority of schools
and students in the middle two quartiles that they were doing okay.
The new assessments and accountability systems based on them are
designed to tell students, and their teachers and parents, whether they
know what they need to know. They are also designed to signal
educators and the public about where they need to target their efforts
to improve (The Education Trust, 2001, p. 113).

Proponents of accountability systems also believe that accountability
measures with financial rewards and sanctions are appropriate because education
23

utilizes a significant portion of public tax revenue. Jeanne Allen, President of the
Center for Education Reform writes,
The standards debate of the 1980’s was driven in a large part by the
public’s dissatisfaction with business as usual, and focused on
measuring how well schools did by the amount of money and
resources they had. However, when research proved that little or no
correlation exists between the inputs (spending) and outputs (results)
was widely publicized, the debate shifted focus to performance only,
adopting the theory that any monetary rewards for schools should be
based on achievement, and consequently, that monetary punishment
should follow poor performance (Allen, 1994, p. 14).

Opponents of the accountability measures that focus on high stakes tests
claim that these efforts to improve student achievement disregard the uniquely
individualized and human nature of the education process and hinder the work that is
most essential in providing quality education. They believe an emphasis on
accountability systems and testing is counter-productive to the types of activities
necessary for success with the lowest performing students and produces many
unintended negative outcomes including the narrowing of the scope of instruction
and a reduction in the types of in-depth learning activities beyond rote memorization
(DeMoss, 2002). Reports of other unintended negative outcomes of accountability
measures like NCLB include a reduction in the amount of instructional time
available for arts, career education, social studies and other elective courses. Anne
Lewis writes,
NCLB proponents are right in arguing that the goals of the law are not
in conflict with the other purposes of schooling. However, they ignore
the reality that test-based accountability, as interpreted by educators
today, can’t help but encourage competition rather than collaboration,
24

can’t help but narrow learning experiences for students rather than
deepen them, and can’t help but foster superficial learning that could
ultimately alienate students further from their schools (Lewis, 2004,
p. 484).

Emphasis on standardized achievement tests and academic accomplishment
can also reduce support for student affective needs by increasing competition and
minimizing collaboration among students. Studies suggest the resulting sense of
competition can undermine efforts to increase student achievement by advancing
student feelings of isolation and alienation and diminishing student engagement
(Boaler, 2004; Osterman, 2000).
A decrease in the motivation of teachers is another negative outcome of
highly regulated and standardized government accountability systems according to a
study of the relationship between teacher motivation and their implementation of
government driven accountability reforms. Leithwood, Steinback, and Janttzi write,
We do not interpret this disappointing evidence to mean that
initiatives such as these have no potential. Rather, we argue that
without active advocacy, support, contextual refinement, and further
development by educators at the local school level, there is little
chance of these initiatives enhancing the educational experience of
children…. Because it is teachers, ultimately, whose practices must
change in response to accountability initiatives, at least not eroding
their confidence in themselves as valued professionals is of obvious
importance (Leithwood, Steinback, & Janttzi, 2002, p.115).

One of the most widely heard arguments against accountability systems that
apply sanctions to underperforming schools is that these systems penalize teachers
who work with the neediest students in the most difficult conditions. When policy
makers adopt accountability systems that view education merely as a system of
25

inputs and outputs, they fail to acknowledge the importance of teacher/student
interactions and the highly specialized skills required to be a successful classroom
teacher in a low performing school. With many areas reporting shortages of highly
qualified teachers, those with adequate skill levels can choose to teach in higher
performing schools and districts; while the sanctions, disapproving feedback and
negative working environments common in low-performing schools present barriers
to attracting and retaining the professional high quality teachers low performing
schools need most (EdSource, 2002; Darling-Hammond & Ifill-Lynch, 2005; Black,
Harrison, Marshall & William, 2004). As educational practitioners are struggling to
meet the increasing requirements of the accountability movement as outlined in the
previous paragraphs, strategies to improve the achievement of underperforming
students are becoming more critical. The engagement of students, as an area of focus
to improve student achievement, relates to the accountability movement in that it
provides another means by which educators can meet the accountability
requirements and empower students to share responsibility for their success.

Achievement of High School Students and Achievement Gaps
While these reform efforts have brought about increases in achievement for
many students, gaps in the achievement of students in minority and economically
disadvantaged subgroups highlight the need for continued improvement in urban
high schools. There is general agreement that high schools have been affected the
26

least by these reforms and there is a need to create a more appropriate accountability
system specifically for high schools. Reville writes:
The case for reform is compelling. High schools have indeed been
slow to reform. They continue to fail badly with certain populations
especially low income, urban youth. They inadequately prepare
significant numbers for higher education and employment; for
instance, approximately 40 percent of graduates reported key gaps in
their preparation in a recent poll. And they are generally organized in
ways that better serve the interests of early-twentieth-century
America, rather than the world of today (Reville, 2005, p. 1).

One of the most critical issues in the area of urban high school improvement
is an alarming number of high school dropouts. The NCLB legislation included a
requirement that school districts report their high school graduation statistics because
of a concern that testing and accountability would cause low-performing and at-risk
students to be pushed out of the system (The Civil Rights Project, 2005). The rates
that school districts then reported for their graduation statistics were higher than
other independent studies, and this lead to increased concern about the status of the
dropout problem (Education Trust, 2005). Barton writes:
During the last two decades, complacency has set in as reports from
the U.S. Census Bureau’s household survey suggested that high
school completion among young adults was approaching 90 percent,
the goal set by the first National Education Summit in Charlottesville
Virginia in 1989. The long-dormant concern about dropouts revived
several years ago, however, when half a dozen independent
researchers in universities and think tanks began publishing estimates
of high school completion rates that contradicted the official rates. As
a result, the issue of high school dropouts has returned to the front
burner (Barton, 2006, p. 14).

One of the challenges in addressing the dropout problem is a lack of
consensus among educators and policy makers on the scope of the problem due to a
27

lack of concrete data on the number of dropouts and the wide variance in statistical
estimates. Because students do not have fixed identification numbers and they leave
schools for a variety of reasons including transferring to other public schools,
enrolling in private schools, and moving to different states and countries, it is
difficult to differentiate between student dropouts, transfers and others who leave
school for a period of time and then re-enroll (Bridgeland, Dilulio & Burke
Morrison, 2006).
Estimates using census data show a national average graduation rate of
69.6% for public and private high school students. The Civil Rights Project estimates
the national graduation rate for high school students at 68% (Barton, 2006; The Civil
Rights Project, 2005). California statewide graduation rates vary greatly depending
on the methodology used. The enrollment method of calculation shows a graduation
rate of 67% to 68.9%, WestEd’s (2004) calculation shows a graduation rate of 70%,
and the National Center for Education Statistics shows a graduation rate of 86.7%
(Barton, 2006).
The graduation statistics for low socio-economic, racially segregated, and
inner city schools is another indicator of the spreading achievement gap. A study of
California high schools shows that in racially segregated districts, only 65% of
students graduate; and in socio-economically segregated districts, 58% of students
graduate. In addition, one third of African-American and Latino students attend a
high school where graduation rates are 40% or less (The Civil Rights Project, 2005).
28

Student dropouts can be correlated with student background factors such as
socio-economic status, ethnicity, and family structure; student academic background
such as test scores, and retention; and academically related behaviors such as
engagement with school, course completion, grades, truancy, and disciplinary issues
(Lee & Burkam, 2000). Some view the dropout problem as a lack of responsibility
by the student to exert the necessary effort to succeed academically. Others view the
dropout problem as a failure of the school system to provide students with the
academic skills they need to be successful in school and an outcome of a larger
achievement gap (Haycock, 2001; McCarthy & Kuh, 2006; Barton, 2006).
During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the achievement gap between middle-class
white students and low-income minority children narrowed; but gaps have been
growing since the 1990’s as overall test scores of all students have increased while
test scores of low-income minority children have remained stagnant. As an example
of this disparity in scores, the reading and math levels of eighth grade white students
are at the same level as African-American and Latino students in twelfth grade. A
review of standardized achievement test data shows that the national average scores
for sixth grade African-American students are more than two years behind white
sixth grade students in reading, mathematics, and writing; and this disparity
continues and widens in subsequent school years (Cotton 2006; Education Trust,
2005).
Child advocates, policy makers, and many educators cite poverty, crime,
inadequate nutrition, lack of healthcare, family status and poor school conditions as
29

reasons for the achievement gap and suggest that these social and economic
conditions must be remedied with other school reform measures in order for students
to perform adequately in school (Children Now, 2001). Others place more
responsibility on the educators by explaining the achievement gap as a result of
differences in the quality of instruction students receive (Haycock, 2001).
Research of schools successfully educating minority students from low socio-
economic backgrounds contradicts earlier research conclusions that socioeconomic,
demographic and parent background are stronger determinants of student
achievement than factors controlled by the school (Alson, 2003; Cotton, 2006).
Haycock writes, “The American education system has been in thrall to a myth for
more than 30 years. The myth says that student achievement has much more to do
with a child’s background than with the quality of instruction he or she receives”
(Education Trust, 2001, p. 3).

Student Achievement and Progress
Many urban schools are making significant gains in closing the achievement
gap. Policy papers developed by The Education Trust spotlight high-performing
high-poverty urban schools that are outperforming their counterparts on test scores
and graduation rates. Reviews of NAEP scores also reveal significant differences in
the scores of subgroups within states making it possible to find schools that are
succeeding with high poverty minority students. It is important to note that in these
schools that are succeeding with these subgroups, gaps are being narrowed by
30

increases in minority scores while the scores of white students are also increasing
(Education Trust, 2001).
Research shows that variations in student achievement on standardized tests
can be attributed to school practices and the efforts of students, parents, and teachers.
In one study, 51% of the variation in student test scores was accounted for by the
actions of school staff and family supporting activities; and student ethnicity and
parent socioeconomic level were found to have almost no influence on student
achievement when variations in instructional practices were accounted for in the
analysis (Clark, 2002, p. 17). “Essentially, family background factors do not appear
to be independently or primarily responsible for variations in student achievement
levels. Rather, student achievement scores on standardized tests are most
consistently and powerfully associated with the behaviors of students, teachers, and
parents” (Clark, 2002, p. 17).
Differences in instructional practices that are thought to impact the
achievement gap are related to teacher expectations and access to rigorous and
demanding course work that prepares students for college level work. Haycock
writes:
“The effect is clearest in high school, where students who take more
rigorous coursework learn more and perform better on tests. Indeed,
the more they take the better they do. In mathematics, for example,
students who complete the full college prepatory sequence perform
much higher on the NAEP than those who complete only one or two
courses… The result is a system that, by and large, doesn’t ask much
of most of its students. And you don’t have to go very far to find that
out: ask the nearest teenager. In survey after survey, these young
people are telling us that they are not being challenged in school
(Education Trust, 2001, p. 12-14).
31

Research suggests the following schooling practices are effective in
supporting urban minority students: Strong administrative leadership; Teacher
responsibility and sense of self-efficacy; High expectations; Safe, orderly, well-
disciplined environments; Teaching adapted to different student needs; Provision of
incentives, reinforcement, and rewards; Regular and frequent monitoring of student
learning progress and provision of feedback; Staff development programs focused on
school improvement; Use of school resources in support of priority goals; Parent
involvement; and Coordination among staff of different programs serving the same
students (Cotton, 2006).

Student Engagement
While reform efforts by politicians and the public at large have sought to
correct “failing schools” through measures affecting the school system from the
outside in; a growing number of educational practitioners and researchers are
concentrating on the central figure of the educational process by seeking to
understand the relationship between student achievement and the student’s
involvement in their own learning.
“While the link between engagement and achievement may seem
obvious, this issue frequently slips through the cracks in discussions
about reform and improvement. As schools focus on helping all
students achieve high standards, however, reaching out to disengaged
and discouraged learners becomes increasingly important. Clearly
students who are not motivated to engage in learning are unlikely to
succeed” (Brewster & Fager, 2000, p. 11).

32

Research suggests that engagement is a cyclical process related to motivation
and academic achievement (Guthrie, 2001), and engagement is considered to be one
of the most robust predictors of student achievement (Klem & Connell, 2004).
Engagement promotes a higher quality of learning and is an essential prerequisite for
the development of understanding (Voke, 2002). Engagement is correlated with
affective factors of how students feel about the school environment and relate to their
peer group (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006). Research also suggests that engagement is
correlated with positive school associations, and willingness to seek independent
learning opportunities (Voke, 2002). Engagement is also a prerequisite of school
completion (Lehr, Sinclair & Christenson, 2004). Conversely, student disengagement
is related to students dropping out of school, withdrawal, poor attendance and
unsuccessful school experiences (Lehr, Sinclair & Christenson, 2004). Research
suggests that disengagement also increases as students progress to high school, and
40 to 60 percent of high school students can be categorized as chronically
disengaged (Klem & Connell, 2004).
In McCarthy and Kuh, Newman defines engagement as, “the students’
psychological investment in learning, comprehending, and mastering knowledge or
skills” (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006, p. 665; Newman, 1989). Engagement is defined by
Marks as “a psychological process, specifically, the attention, interest, investment,
and effort students expend in the work of learning” (Marks, 2000, p. 154). Vokes
defines an engaged students as, “one who is intrinsically motivated to learn – that is,
motivated from a desire for competence and understanding, or simply from a love of
33

learning, rather than a desire for a good grade, a teacher’s approval, or getting
accepted into a good college” (Voke, 2002, p.1). Klem and Connell define student
engagement as having behavioral, emotional and cognitive components. The
behavioral components include time on task, concentration, effort, willingness to
persevere through difficulties, reaction to challenge and willingness to show
initiative. The emotional components include positive feelings and emotion in
completing activities, enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity and interest. The cognitive
components include perceptions about the importance of school (Klem & Connell,
2004).
Research on the achievement gap between white, Asian, African-American,
and Hispanic secondary students and factors related to engagement and motivation
suggests that there are no differences in motivation to succeed among students of all
races taking the same classes (Ferguson, 2002). However, research suggests that time
use and time on schooling tasks account for differential achievement between
students of different races. In studies of student time use, high achieving students
spent less time engaged in unstructured after school and weekend activities than low
achieving students; and high achieving students spent more time in both in school
and out of school learning activities than lower achieving students (Clark, 2002).
Therefore, time use as a component of student engagement appears to be an
important factor in closing the achievement gap. “The engagement premise appears
simple, even self evident. Under the right conditions, the more students do
something, the more proficient they become” (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006, p. 665).
34

Because of the link between student effort, time on task, and student
achievement, studies of the level of student involvement in their high school and the
factors that contribute toward increased student engagement are the subject of
ongoing studies. One such study called the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE) conducted by the School of Education at Indiana University is
seeking to understand what students do in relation to time and energy devoted to
educationally purposeful activities and what schools can do to implement effective
educational practices to induce students to be productive (HSSSE, 2005).
The study is being conducted as an anonymous survey of students in 9
th
thru
12
th
grades; and students are asked to report on their time use, aspirations, and
attitudes about their schooling and educational experiences. Schools participating in
the study receive individualized reports on their students by grade level, instructional
track, race and gender. The data can be used to determine levels of engagement by
specific subgroups and to determine if areas need improvement and intervention
(HSSSE, 2005).
National HSSSE findings from 2005 of more than 10,000 students show that
students are spending little time out of school engaged in educational activities. 80%
of students reported they spend three hours or less per week reading assigned
material. These findings suggest that high school students are not prepared for the
extensive reading required in college. Discrepancies between the writing
assignments given to high school students and college students also suggest that high
school students are not being prepared for the types of writing assignments they will
35

encounter in college. 24% of high school seniors reported that they had not written
any papers more than five pages long, but 36% of college freshmen at four-year
schools reported having to write at least five papers that were five to nineteen pages
in length (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006).
Another revealing aspect of the study is students’ perceptions about teacher
respect and support. The percentage of students who indicated that they strongly
agreed that they felt supported and respected by teachers was correlated with student
feelings of pride about school work, attitudes that school was relevant, opportunities
to ask teachers about their school work, and a belief that they are challenged to do
their best work in school. Conversely, the percentage of students who indicated that
they strongly disagreed with the statement that they felt supported and respected by
teachers was correlated with feelings that they did not take pride in school work,
school was not relevant, they did not have opportunities to ask teachers about their
work, and they were not challenged to do their best work at school (McCarthy &
Kuh, 2006).
Another study of engagement and its relationship to school reform initiatives
reviewed urban schools with high minority populations. Results from the study
indicated that high school students report the least orientation toward school as
determined by low levels of academic success and comparatively high levels of
alienation. Orientation towards school and alienation significantly influenced student
engagement positively or negatively for elementary, middle, and high school, but
had the highest degree of influence on high school students (Marks, 2000).
36

Another important finding of the study is that the opportunity for students to
do authentic work and receive systemic social support within school canceled out
variables related to student personal background. “Notably, race and ethnicity did not
differentiate the levels of engagement in instructional activity that students
experience in their classrooms. Social class, although a factor in the engagement of
middle school students, did not contribute to the engagement of their elementary and
high school counterparts. In addition, students’ prior achievement did not affect
their levels of engagement” (Marks, 2000, p. 174).

Self-Efficacy Factors Contributing to Higher Engagement
Student resiliency, motivation, and beliefs about self-efficacy can be
categorized as internal motivational factors that contribute toward high levels of
student engagement. Bandura defines self-efficacy beliefs as, “people’s judgments of
their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain
designated types of performances” (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000; Bandura, 1996, p.
391). Vacca defines self-efficacy as an, “I can belief attitude in oneself that leads to a
sense of competence” (Vacca, 2006, p. 56). Marzano links motivation to self-
efficacy and describes motivation as “how much students are interested in learning
the content presented in school and their self-efficacy in terms of learning that
content” (Marzano, 2002, p. 4).
Linnenbrink and Pintrich associate self-efficacy with specific situational
judgments and capabilities and describe it as a “key to promoting students’
37

engagement and learning” (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000, p. 119). Student beliefs
about their own abilities are associated with engagement because students will not
exert effort unless they believe that they will be successful (Black & William, 1998);
older students are also less likely than younger students to engage in an activity or
take risks if they are not confident in their ability to succeed, and students are less
likely to seek help if they do not believe in their own abilities (Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2000; Brewster & Fager, 2000). Student self-efficacy beliefs can also
override student’s actual abilities and skill levels in their motivating or demotivating
influence. Even if students are capable of completing a task successfully, they may
not persevere if they do not believe they will be successful. “Self-efficacy beliefs are
positively related to students’ behavioral engagement. Students who are not
confident in their capabilities are much less likely to try hard and more likely to give
up easily at the first sign of difficulty or try to get help that completes the task
without helping them learn or master the task” (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, p. 129).
Positive beliefs about personal ability influence student achievement because they
are also associated with cognitive engagement, increased depth in processing
strategies, and meta-cognitive strategies (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000).

38

Instructional Practices Contributing to Higher Engagement
Studies suggest that self-efficacy can be improved through instructional
practices that help students experience a stable connection between their behavior
and the outcomes of learning and achievement. Students who believe factors out of
their control instead of their own efforts determine the outcome of a situation are
subject to a pattern of “learned helplessness.” To avoid having students fall into this
pattern, failure needs to be attributed to behaviors the student has control over like
effort or developable skills instead of fixed causes like aptitude or intelligence
(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000). Other research suggests that providing students with
opportunities to develop their sense of competency and beliefs that their own efforts
will produce positive results promotes student engagement in learning (Brewster &
Fager, 2000; Tomlinson, 2000).
Research suggests that instructional strategies emphasizing the involvement
and contribution of all students in classroom activities promote increased student
engagement. The Stanford Mathematics Teaching and Learning Study, a longitudinal
study funded by the National Science Foundation, suggests diverse students of mixed
ability levels can become highly engaged in high school math when teachers use
specific methodologies to create specific group interactions (Boaler, 2004). Teachers
in the study who were successful in engaging students facilitated involvement by
assigning students to specific roles in the lesson, fostering appreciation for a variety
of mathematical skills beyond the traditional emphasis on procedure and execution,
and assuring that all students had success in some of the skills and tasks. The
39

teacher’s deliberate assigning of competence was achieved by highlighting and
praising all students publicly for their contributions and fostering the students sense
of value in the class. In addition, the class structure, grading practices, and
instructional activities encouraged students to be responsible for other students’
learning. The instructional practices that emphasized the justification and
explanation of all answers reinforced the learning of all students by allowing the
entire class to hear the explanations and understand the thought processes used by
others (Boaler, 2004). Activating students as resources for one another and
connecting all students to the learning community have also been linked to increased
student engagement (Leah, Lyon, Thompson & William, 2005; Tomlinson, 2001).
A specific classroom emphasis on student effort coupled with a diminished
emphasis on student innate ability has also been linked to the development of a
learning environment where students are more likely to persevere and struggle with
difficult material (Boaler, 2004; Black, Harrison, Marshall & William, 2004).
Teacher questioning techniques that include all students, not just volunteers with the
right answer, and expand on students partial answers or wrong answers also validate
the importance of effort (Leah, Lyon, Thompson & William, 2005). Helping
students take ownership of their own learning through meta-cognitive, mindful, and
reflective practices, and the utilization of self-talk and problem framing strategies
also contribute to increased student engagement and increased time spent on
challenging work (Boaler, 2004; Black, Harrison, Marshall & William, 2004; Leah
& Lyon, Thompson & William, 2005). Boaler notes the importance of developing
40

perseverance in students for their success in educational and overall achievement.
“But the students do not only come to believe that they can be successful, they
develop an important practice that supports them in that – the act of persistence. It
could be argued that persistence is one of the most important practices to learn in
school – that is strongly tied to success in school as well as in work and life” (Boaler,
2004 p. 12).
The types of instructional activities that students are given can also increase
the likelihood that students will be engaged. Research suggests that connecting the
material to students in a meaningful and relevant way can be motivating for high
school students (Tomlinson, 2002). Teachers can help students perceive that material
is relevant by showing how it relates to their students’ present or future lives or can
be applied in an authentic manner (Brewster & Fager, 2000; Klem & Connell, 2004).
Matching course content with student interests, culture, experiences or social
environment helps students become engaged in topics and has been shown to be a
successful strategy to engage students and close the achievement gap for poor and
minority students (Bell, 2001). Giving students the opportunity to select their own
project or instructional activity from a variety of choices and allowing self-
expression are ways teachers can use autonomy to foster student engagement and
student control over their own learning (Brewster & Fager, 2000; Vacca, 2006). The
use of authentic, hands-on, or community based projects increases the likelihood that
students will be interested and engaged (Tatum, 2006; Cushman, 2006; Marks, 2000;
Brewster & Fager, 2000). Students can also become motivated to be successful in
41

school when they are given opportunities to interact with positive role models such
as community members and professionals with whom they can relate to on a
personal level (Tatum, 2006).
The role of the teacher is of key importance in instructional strategies that
promote student engagement. Studies suggest that the ability of the teacher to convey
the belief that their students are capable of learning while demonstrating concern and
support for individual students is an important factor in motivating students to
succeed. Students need to feel accepted, and physically, emotionally, and
intellectually safe in the classroom and in their relationship with their teacher (Klem
& Connell, 2004; Tomlinson, 2002). Research suggests that the belief on the part of
the student that their teacher is fair, supportive and encouraging is even more critical
in helping African-American and Hispanic students succeed (Ferguson, 2002).
Teacher attitudes in their interactions with students can influence the attitudes of
their students. “Adult attitudes about what goes on in the classroom also determine
whether students feel like partners or prisoners there” (Cushman, 2006, p. 36).
Teacher support for students requires that they have a sufficient level of
personal knowledge about each student and the opportunity to interact with them on
an individual basis (Tomlinson, 2002). Knowledge about individual students is also
required for teachers to help students progress academically. Individualized
instruction that moves students to the next attainable challenge is referred to by
Tomlinson as addressing the “evolving readiness” of each student (2002). Grading
practices and related feedback have also been related to the engagement level of
42

students (Tomlinson, 2001). When students are encouraged to utilize the information
provided from precise teacher feedback, they can be motivated to use day-to-day
formative assessment to improve their own learning and increase student
achievement (Black, et. al., 2004; Chappuis & Stiggins, 2002). The type of precise
teacher feedback that increases student achievement is timely, specific, descriptive,
understandable to the receiver, and informs the student about what they are doing
correctly and how they can continue to improve (Black & William, 1998; Chappuis
& Stiggins, 2002; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005).
In addition, grading and scoring practices that encourage students to improve
must allow for self-adjustment on the students part and reflect the most recent level
of student achievement (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). Grading and scoring practices
that focus on the negative aspects of student performance can have a negative impact
on student engagement. Clark describes how the wrong type of teacher feedback can
further alienate students. “Pupils who come to see themselves as unable to learn
usually cease to take school seriously. Many become disruptive; others resort to
truancy. Such young people are likely to be alienated from society and to become
the sources and the victims of serious social problems” (Clark, 2002, p. 14).
Sagor believes that in order for academic scores to be motivating to students,
they should be communicated in the same way that a coach might communicate with
an athlete about their current ability level by giving the student data and then
pointing out how they can improve. In this manner, the current level is perceived as a
descriptor of a formative state rather than as a summative descriptor of the student
43

themselves (Sagor, 2002). McTighe and O’Connor (2005) describe how
opportunities to resubmit work or receive credit for additional learning motivate
students to improve. “Evidence of new achievement needs to replace older evidence
in order for students to be motivated to continue working and improving their skills.
Grades should represent what students now know rather than when they learned
something” (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005 p. 16 ).
Studies on how testing and assessment have impacted student motivation and
engagement in the learning process suggest that increasing student anxiety about
high stakes tests and comparing students with more successful peers do not motivate
low performing students to do better (Black et. al., 2004; Chappuis & Stiggins,
2002). This negative outcome of large scale, external assessment is described by
Black. “Many assessment and instructional practices reinforce the beliefs in low
achieving students that they lack the ability to learn. Instructional climate that
fosters competition is harmful to low achieving students because they view
themselves as losers and fall into a cycle of learned helplessness” (Black et al., 2004,
p. 18). While the prevalence of high stakes tests is unlikely to subside, the additional
use of effective and frequent formative assessment to guide instruction can lessen the
emphasis on high stakes standardized tests (Black et al., 2004).
The research suggests that an emphasis on extrinsic motivation in general,
diminishes intrinsic motivation. Brewster describes extrinsic motivation as engaging
in an activity, “purely for the sake of attaining a reward or avoiding some
punishment” (Brewster & Fager, 2000). School practices that rely on extrinsic
44

motivation include: public recognition for academic achievements; rewards such as
stickers or candy; and the removal of privileges, such as recess, on the basis of
students academic performance (Brewster & Fager, 2000). Brewster and Fager
describe the negative consequences of focusing on extrinsic rewards. “Students who
are motivated to complete a task only to avoid consequences or to earn a certain
grade rarely exert more than the minimum effort necessary to meet their goal. And,
when students are focused on comparing themselves with their classmates, rather
than on mastering skills at their own rate, they are more easily discouraged and their
intrinsic motivation to learn may actually decrease” (Brewster & Fager, 2000, p. 4).

Extra Curricular Activities Contributing to Student Engagement
School based programs, clubs, extra-curricular activities and community
programs can be categorized as external factors that contribute towards higher levels
of student engagement. Research on the influence of motivation and involvement in
extracurricular activities on classroom practice and school structure suggests that
extracurricular activities appeal to adolescent student interests by promoting the
development of a positive connection with school for marginally involved students.
Research suggests that providing students with a broad selection of activities to
choose from increases the likelihood that students will become more involved
because there is a greater opportunity for an activity to meet individual needs and
interests (Holloway, 2002).
Research also suggests that school based programs and extracurricular
45

activities encourage positive peer interaction by providing opportunities for
previously marginalized students to interact with students who have more positive
attitudes toward school. This type of peer interaction also promotes cooperation and
instills a less competitive focus through which feelings of alienation are diminished
(Holloway, 2002).
In addition, the research suggests that school based programs and
extracurricular activities build student-adult relationships, provide structure and
challenge, and connect students to school. Student investment in their own schooling
and motivation to excel academically are strengthened when students participate in
structured activities supervised by positive adult role models. Increased interest in
science by all students and to a greater extent, minority and females students is an
additional benefit of student involvement in school based programs and
extracurricular activities (Holloway, 2002). One of the concerns about
extracurricular activities is that it reduces the amount of time that students have to
devote to academic studies. However, a study of students involved in athletics
suggests that participation in extracurricular activities is not considered a barrier to
academic success. The study also suggests that participation in extracurricular
activities promotes student learning and development in the areas of lifelong
learning, personal effectiveness, and life roles (Silliker & Quirk, 1997).

46

Organizational Structures Contributing to Student Engagement
Organizational structures in the school system can promote and sustain
higher levels of student engagement through systemic support and the allocation of
resources. As a result, the ways in which high schools can be organized to positively
impact student achievement is a predominant issue in the dialogue about school
reform (Rothman, 2005). “Redesigning high schools so that they work effectively for
all students takes more than changing a few schools, as difficult as that might be. It
requires developing a system that ensures that every young person has an
opportunity to pursue an engaging learning experience” (Rothman, 2005, p. 1).
The large size of typical urban high schools has been considered a barrier to
student achievement and engagement. Raynor summarizes the criticism of large high
schools as an ineffective organizational structure.
“The evolution of small high schools and small learning communities
within high schools over the last ten years has given fertile ground for
discussion about the nature of ‘small’ and its advantages for school
improvement and student achievement. Much of our thinking and
practices rest on the belief that large comprehensive high schools are
outmoded models that can no longer serve students well. In fact, we
are left wondering if they ever served us well at all” (Raynor, 2005,
p.1).

Results of related studies on the impact of high school size on student
achievement suggest that medium or small size high schools have fewer instances of
students dropping out of school. However; the studies also suggest that other factors
associated with smaller school size may contribute towards improved student
achievement and engagement; and small school size alone cannot be considered a
causal factor (Raynor, 2005; Lee & Burkam, 2000). High schools of all sizes must
47

also address how they are arranged in terms of social structures to decrease the
alienation and lack of inter-personal connection prevalent in large high school
organizations (Lee & Burkam, 2005). In developing effective school organizational
practices, the social and collaborative aspects of education identified as critical
factors in the work by Vygotsky and Dewey need to be addressed (Osterman, 2000).
Studies of high school students enrolled at schools where high numbers of students
drop-out before graduating emphasize the importance of inter-personal relationships
in influencing student engagement and disengagement. Lee and Burkam describe the
social structures important in engaging students.
“School size, per se, is unlikely to directly influence the probability
that students will drop out of high school. Rather, there are likely to
be other organizational features that accrue to students and staff in
smaller high schools. One of those organizational features is how
school members – particularly teachers and students – relate to one
another… We also suggest … other social features that accompany
smaller size – including organizational trust, members’ commitment
to a common purpose, more frequent contact with people with whom
members share their difficulties, uncertainties, and ambition.” (Lee &
Burkam, 2000, p. 25, p.10).

Because the constraints of educational resources makes the creation of new
high schools unfeasible for many school districts, the creation of small learning
communities within a school has become a prevalent option for the restructuring of
large urban high schools. Among the central features of small learning communities
are the aspects of personalization, positive interaction, and sense of community
(Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Raynor, 2005; Osterman, 2000). The United States
Department of Education, in efforts to expand the number of schools restructured
into small learning communities, has established structures and strategies for small
48

learning community development. In addition, government grants and major
foundation funding initiatives, such as the Carnegie Corporation, have promoted
small learning communities by providing the fiscal resources for these projects.
Some small learning communities have organized groups of staff and students
around themes, pathways, or areas of study. This type of focused curriculum can
make school more relevant and engaging by providing students with the opportunity
to select their area of interest while accessing a full curriculum (Raywid, 2006).
The success of small learning communities as a strategy for improving
student achievement has been well documented (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). A
commitment to building a learning community was identified as one of three
overarching principles critical to the success of high performing high poverty (HP2)
schools identified in a study of California schools that overcame challenges
associated with high poverty demographics to surpass the state’s accountability
requirements. The other two overarching principles identified in the study were the
strength of the school’s site and district leadership and their understanding of
research-based principles regarding how children learn. In addition, the staff in HP2
schools identified in the study viewed student motivation as a pre-requisite for
learning and supported a relevant learning environment throughout the learning
community (Bell, 2001).

49

Leadership Practices Contributing to Student Engagement
Leadership practices by individuals at a variety of levels throughout the
school system can promote and sustain student engagement. Studies suggest that
school organizational conditions and instructional quality can be directly impacted
by school site leadership (Youngs & King; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Smylie & Hart,
1999). As noted in previous sections, organizational structures and instructional
practices can influence the engagement level of students.
The role of site level administration as an effective and conscientious
instructional leader has been identified as an important component in school
improvement. Site level expertise about teaching and learning, and according to
Shmoker, the “willingness to monitor, critique, and confront when necessary”
(Shmoker, 2006, p. 29) is required to support viable and engaging classroom
instruction (Schmoker, 2006). Individualized instruction, a specific instructional
practice that supports student engagement referenced in the section on instructional
practices, was identified by 84% of site level principals as an area of influence that
they are emphasizing at their schools in a study of 118 schools in the Central Valley
Education Research Consortium (Bushman, Brown-Welty & Dorn, 2001).
The Marzano (2002) model, “What Works In Schools,” has become an
important reference for school leaders because the components identified in the
model describe success strategies for school leaders. In highlighting the essential
areas leaders should address in Marazano’s model below, student motivation is
identified as one of the eleven components necessary for successful schools.
50

Marzano suggests that school leaders can directly impact student motivation by
directing and connecting efforts by the school community to engage students
(Marzano, 2002).
Table 1.
Marzano School Leadership Model
School Teacher Student
Guaranteed and viable
curriculum
Instructional strategies Home environment
Challenging goals and
effective feedback
Classroom management Learned intelligence
Parent and community
involvement
Classroom curriculum
design
Background knowledge
Safe and orderly
environment
Motivation
Collegiality and
professionalism

School Cultural Factors Contributing to Student Engagement
School culture can enhance student engagement and student achievement by
influencing the behavioral norms and unwritten rules of students and adult
practitioners. Defined by Bolman and Deal (quoting Deal and Kennedy) as, “the way
we do things around here,” school culture consists of shared values and beliefs
(1997). Studies of successful professional learning cultures suggest they have a
shared sense of purpose and values; norms of continuous learning and improvement;
common commitment to and sense of responsibility for the learning of all students;
and a collaborative, collegial culture (Cosner & Peterson, 2003).
In a study of the effectiveness of a truancy intervention program, Lehr,
Sinclair & Christianson (2004) highlight school climate as one of the essential
51

school-level variables along with structure, academic curriculum, and positive
student-teacher relationships that contribute toward increased student engagement. In
the same study, Lehr et al. (2004) highlight McPartland’s (1994) four broad
intervention components of effective school engagement and completion programs
which includes the creation of a caring and supportive environment in addition to
providing opportunities for success in schoolwork, communicating the relevance of
education to future endeavors, and helping with students’ personal problems.
School culture can also shape the way students determine whether or not they
are cared for and valued in the learning community. In a study of factors that
contribute to school disengagement and students dropping out of high school, Lee &
Burkam (2000) identified school climate and the interaction between students and
teachers (as perceived by the students) as the most important finding in their study.
“Although schools themselves have little ability to influence who attends them, we
believe that the adults who work in schools (teachers and administrators) have the
ability to consciously alter how they interact with their students” (Lee & Burkam,
2000, p. 26).
The concept that a negative school culture can impede student engagement,
and in some instances, push students out of school has been addressed by Barth
(2002). “Unhealthy school cultures tend to beget at-risk students – students who
leave graduation with little possibility of continuing learning” (Barth, 2002, p. 11).
Barth also cautions against using threats, fear, and other negative forms of extrinsic
motivation. “An immense challenge to the instructional leader – and to our
52

profession is to find ways to uncouple learning and punishment. We must change the
message to students – ‘Learn or we will hurt you’ to ‘Learn or you will hurt
yourself” (Barth, 2002, p. 11). Efforts to dismiss negative reinforcement with an
academic culture that encourages students to become intrinsically motivated is also
advised by Darling-Hammond and Ifill-Lynch (2005).
“…punishment merely confirms students’ view that they cannot
succeed. Unfortunately struggling students know what the experience
of failure is like and they have learned to survive it. In many cases,
accepting failure has become a strategy for not having to try. A more
difficult but effective approach is to create a strong academic culture
that changes students’ beliefs and behaviors, convincing them to
engage with their schoolwork.” (Darling-Hammond & Ifill-Lynch,
2005, p. 1).

While much is known and understood about the impact of student
engagement on student achievement, more information is needed for school
practitioners on how they can utilize instructional practices, leadership practices and
school culture to support and sustain high levels of student engagement among high
school students. As described in previous chapters, the accountability movement and
related legislation has placed increasing pressure on school practitioners to increase
student achievement. Recently, pressure has become even more concentrated on
high schools where research suggests that they have made limited gains in student
achievement and are lagging behind other schools in improvement efforts. Adding
additional pressure is a mounting public concern about the rate of high school drop-
outs in some urban high schools. However, many urban high schools are
53

demonstrating that the achievement gap for impoverished and minority children can
be narrowed.
It has been established in the previous paragraphs that 1.) student engagement
in school has been associated with higher levels of student achievement; and 2.)
increased student achievement has been noted in some urban high schools; and 3.)
higher levels of student engagement has been noted in a limited number of urban
high schools. What has yet to be studied is whether high performing urban high
schools have higher levels of student engagement and if so; what school factors
contribute toward that engagement.

54

CHAPTER THREE

Introduction
The purpose of the study was to determine whether high performing urban
high schools have higher levels of student engagement and if so; what school factors
contribute toward that engagement. A high achieving urban comprehensive high
school was selected for the case study as part of a thematic dissertation team study of
an entire high school district that included five comprehensive high schools and one
continuation high school. The district was selected because it was located in a large
urban city with an ethnically and socio-economically diverse student population
consistent with the educational literature on urban schools. The U.S. Census Bureau
(2000) described the city the school resides in as being in the “Urban Fringes of
Large City”.
The district qualified for the designation as a high performing district by the
thematic dissertation team because all schools in the district have had marked
improvement in their API scores over the past five years. In 2005, the district API
score rose 454 points representing the largest year-to-year gain in Los Angeles
County. The District also had a 99% passage rate on the CAHSEE for 2006.
This case study was one of six in a thematic dissertation group. The group
members met regularly from May 2006 through April 2007 to share resources design
the study and research instruments, meet benchmarks for study approval and
55

completion, evaluate findings, and compile team results. Each study was an
individual effort and stands alone as an individual case with findings unique to each
particular school site. However, if all studies were reviewed collectively and
presented as a group, they could potentially provide insight into the relationship
between student engagement and high performing high schools and the school
factors that contribute toward student engagement and student achievement from the
perspective of an entire school district.
The thematic dissertation team wanted to understand student engagement and
student achievement in the context of an urban high school. A mixed-method
qualitative case study methodology was selected in order to focus on descriptive in-
depth understanding of phenomenon in a natural context from the perspective of
participants (Borg & Gall). In addition, the thematic dissertation team approach
could allow for the discovery of themes and relationships beyond a single school
site.

Conceptual Base
The thematic dissertation team study derived from a group interest in a
national study of high school student engagement conducted by Indiana University
called the, “High School Survey of Student Engagement.” The purpose of this
national study was to determine the extent to which high school students are engaged
in school related activities and complete rigorous school work,
56

and to identify specific areas of engagement and disengagement among subgroups
(HSSSE, 2005). The thematic dissertation team considered the value in
understanding the relationship between high school student engagement and high
performing urban high schools as a means of adding to the research base on the
relationship between student engagement and high school performance, and the
school factors that contribute to increased student engagement and increased student
achievement. The dissertation team was also interested in providing, where possible,
practical information to the field on replicable best practices to potentially increase
the engagement and student achievement of students in other urban high schools.

57

Figure 1

Conceptual Model
This conceptual model (Figure 1.) depicts the conceptual base that student
engagement contributes toward increased student achievement, school factors
contribute toward student engagement and high performance, and schools with
higher performance may have identifiable and replicable factors that contribute
toward student engagement.

58

Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high school as
measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement? How does it compare
to the national profile?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing urban
high schools?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?
These research questions aimed at providing descriptive information about
the status of student engagement, and the practices and factors occurring at a
particular high performing urban high school were addressed to better understand
how the issues related to student engagement and high performing schools connect.
The research questions were developed by a thematic dissertation team that met over
the course of 10 months. Furthermore, to provide educational practitioners with
practical tools to support best practices, the team collected research on the factors
that impact student engagement of high school students and high performance, and
narrowed their findings to the following three key areas: leadership practices, school
climate and instructional practices.

59

Research Design
The study used a mixed-methods qualitative case-study research
methodology as the purpose was to inform practitioners about best practices
involving relationships between student engagement, student achievement and high
performing high schools. The mixed-methods methodology description refers to the
variety of data sources utilized to gather information. In this study, the methods of
data collection included observations of individuals and activities at a select school
site, interviews with school staff, questionnaire surveys from faculty members, and
the examination of school and district office related documents to present a broad
spectrum of information from a variety of stakeholders.
The data sources in this study also included a secondary data source
consisting of student survey data by a separate research team from Indiana
University as part of the nationwide High School Survey of Student Engagement.
The case-study methodology description refers to the small scope of the study
restricted to a single high school site (Gall & Borg, 2003). A purposive sampling
technique was used as the school site selected for the study met the criteria
established by the thematic dissertation team to qualify as a high performing urban
high school. The qualitative methodology description refers to the predominance of
qualitative narrative information collected in the study. Although some quantitative
information was included in the study to clarify the prevalence of specific responses
and present connections between student and teacher survey responses, the majority
60

of data in the study reflected personal responses, evaluations and reflections of
events and information (Merriam, 1998).
A descriptive, qualitative research methodology is characterized by Maxwell
as having an inductive approach, a focus on situations and people, and an emphasis
on words instead of numbers (1996). The strength of qualitative research as a means
of understanding a topic in depth is described by Patton. “Quantitative methods
typically produce a wealth of detailed work about a much smaller number of people
and cases. Qualitative data provides depth and detail through direct quotation and
careful description of program situations, events, people, interactions, and observed
behaviors” (Patton, 2002, p. 227). According to Merriam, the case study approach
allowing for the researcher to seek insight, discovery, and interpretation of a
phenomenon is defined with the use of Cronbach’s 1975 terminology as,
“interpretation in context” (Merriam, 1998, p.29 ). Merriam adds, “By concentrating
on a single phenomenon or entity (the case), the researcher aims to uncover the
interaction of significant factors characteristic of the phenomenon. The case study
focuses on holistic description and explanation” (Merriam, 1998, p.29). As Yin,
(1994) quoted in Merriam observes, “Case study design is particularly suited to
situations in which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables from their
context” (Merriam, 1998, p.29).
In laying groundwork for the study, the thematic dissertation team began
reviewing literature in June 2006 on student engagement, related school factors, and
historical and environmental issues impacting contemporary high schools. In August
61

2006, the thematic dissertation team utilized findings from the literature review to
develop the conceptual model for the study and to create the research questions. The
thematic dissertation team chairperson made initial contact with the superintendent
in the district selected as a potential site for the study in August 2006. The
chairperson established dialogue about the possibility of this study and investigated
grant resources for implementation of the secondary data source survey. The
superintendent reviewed information about the study and potential value to the
district resulting in the authorization of district funds for the secondary data source
survey. In November 2006, the thematic dissertation team met with the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) staff to complete paperwork
for institutional approval of the study. Permission by IRB was obtained prior to
conducting the study. The district made arrangements for the secondary data source
survey to be administered in January and February of 2007. In January 2007, the
thematic dissertation team divided the school sites so each team member had a
school site for their individual case study. The researcher then contacted the school
principal and received permission to conduct the study. The principal was supportive
of the study and looked forward to receiving study results.

Population and Sample
The study focused on one urban high school that met the following
established criteria of an urban and high achieving high school as determined by the
thematic dissertation team:
62

1. The urban high school criteria stipulated that the school reside within a large,
densely populated urban area and have a diverse student population as evidenced by
a high number of students in ethnic and socio-economic subgroups.
2. The high achieving high school criteria stipulated that the school demonstrate high
levels of student achievement as evidenced by marked improvement in API scores
over the past five years.
“Central High School” serves 2494 students from a city described by the U.S.
Census Bureau (2000) as being in the “urban fringes of a large city,” approximately
ten miles from the center of Los Angeles. The city encompasses approximately 42
square miles and has a population of 83,680 residents. Demographic information for
the area shows the population is 63.2 % white; 55.9% Latino/Hispanic, 3.3% Asian,
1.2% African American, 1.3% Native American, .2 Pacific Islander, 25.9% other,
and 5% of two or more races. The median annual household income is $49, 256
(U.S. Census Bureau).
Demographic information shows that the students at Central High School
represent more minority students than are represented in the overall population of the
community. 84% of students were classified as Latino/Hispanic, 13% of students
were classified as White/European/Other, 1% of students were classified as African
American, and 1% of students were classified as Asian American/Pacific Islander.
While 87 % of the students are designated as English proficient, the remaining 13%
of English language learners are predominantly Spanish speakers. 99% of the
school’s English language learner population speak Spanish at home. Central High
63

School has a high percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged students. The
California Free and Reduced Meal Program is available to low income families that
meet the low income criteria calculated as earnings of $34,873 for a family of four.
According to the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), 53% of the students at
Central High School qualify as low income and are eligible to participate in this
program.
In the 2004/2005 school year, the school district selected for the study had
the highest API growth of all 81 school districts in Los Angeles County with a gain
of 454 points. Central High School lead the district in API growth with a gain of 73
points. This API gain capped a five year growth of 122 points. The Chart below
tracks Central High API scores.
Table 2.
School API scores from 2001/2002 through 2004/2005.
School Year API Score Point Change From
Prior Year
Subgroup
Target
Met
Similar
Schools
Ranking
2004/2005 682 73 Yes 7
2003/2004 609 {7} No 3
2002/2003 616 30 Yes 5
2001/2002 586 26 Yes 3
2000/2001 560 24 (from 536) Yes 5

Central High School has 96 certificated teachers (full time equivalent) with a
wide variance in years of teaching and certificated qualifications. While the average
number of years of classroom teaching experience among the teaching staff is 10
64

years, 17% of the teaching staff have been in the classroom for two years or less.
83% of the teachers are fully credentialed, 10% of the teachers are trainee credential
holders, and 7% of the teachers have emergency teaching permits. 14% of the
teaching staff fails to meet the federal NCLB requirements as a Highly Qualified
Teacher (SARC).

Instrumentation
The use of multiple forms of data or triangulation was used to validate the
results of the study. In keeping with the goal of data triangulation, research
instruments were designed to support confirmation of the findings (Creswell, 2003).
This study used the following forms of multiple data: observations, surveys,
interviews and document analysis. In addition, a secondary data source of student
survey responses was utilized.
The research instruments were also developed to sort responses into the
categories developed by Bolman and Deal’s (1997) four frames. Bolman and Deal
use the concept of frames or lenses as a means through which behavior can be
attributed to specific areas of human interaction within an organizational context.
The Political Frame can be used to categorize human interaction in terms of behavior
that relates to differences in objectives and the use of resources. The efforts of a
teacher union to support or resist efforts to reorganize a school site into small
learning communities is an example of behavior that can be categorized as belonging
to the political frame. The Symbolic Frame can be used to categorize human
65

interaction in terms of behavior that relates to the culture and symbolism associated
with the values and beliefs of the organization. The prevalence of school colors and
the display of school banners is an example of behavior that can be categorized as
belonging to the symbolic frame. The Structural Frame can be used to categorize
behavior that relates to the goals, specialized roles, and formal relationships derived
from behavioral science and management theory. The systems and bureaucracies that
enhance and/or diminish efforts to meet the needs of individual students within an
educational organization can be categorized as belonging to the structural frame. The
Human Resource Frame can be used to categorize human interaction in terms of
behavior that meets the following assumptions: organizations and people need one
another; organizations exist to serve human needs; and the fit between the
organization and the individual can be mutually beneficial or cause problems for one
or both parties. Teacher observations for evaluative purposes is an example of
behavior that can be categorized as belonging to the human resource frame (Bolman
& Deal, 1997).
The research instruments were developed by the parallel dissertation team,
and were supported by findings in the current research literature. The interview
questions (Appendix A) were developed from the research questions for the study.
The related interview follow-up questions were developed to allow the researcher to
probe specific responses in more depth while staying within the parameters of the
study. The interview questions were designed as open-ended responses to give the
66

participant the opportunity to respond to the question without the constraints of a
fixed list of response options.
The thematic dissertation team determined that the following documents
(Appendix C) should be reviewed to provide an overview of the school setting and to
understand the following specific information:
• Website information was reviewed prior to visiting the school to give an
overview of the specific school being studied.
• Student data, demographic information, and teacher information was
reviewed to learn about student achievement, subgroup achievement and the
qualifications of staff.
• The master schedule and a-g completion rates were reviewed to identify the
courses students were taking and the level of student participation in a
rigorous curriculum.
• School publications, school and district websites and internal memorandums
were reviewed to validate the schools values, priorities and areas of concern.
• Graduation rates and California High School Exit Examination data was
reviewed to understand student achievement.
• The school’s accreditation self-study and follow-up reports was reviewed to
determine where the school was being successful and where they were
addressing areas of growth.
The Observation Template (Appendix B) was developed to assist the
researcher in organizing information collected in observations. In addition, the
67

information collected in the template was used to validate other data obtained
through interviews and questionnaires. The categories in the template were derived
from Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Model for understanding phenomenon
through the four lenses of organizational structure, human resources, political
environment and symbolism (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
The teacher questionnaire (Appendix D) was developed to gain the teacher’s
perspective of student engagement at the school site and teacher efficacy with regard
to engagement and motivation. The questions were developed to parallel those in the
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) and were worded to reflect the
viewpoint of teachers. This allowed the researcher to compare teachers’ responses
with those of the students. It was developed to be administered to the entire faculty.
In addition to the data collection instruments described above, a secondary
data source was used to provide additional information. In January 2007, all students
at the high school were invited to participate in an anonymous survey about their
behaviors and feelings related to student engagement conducted by Indiana
University as part of a nationwide study of student engagement titled the “High
School Survey of Student Engagement.” Responses were compiled and presented as
both grade level and schoolwide statistical results; and the school also received
statistical comparisons to the national profile of high school students participating in
the study across the United States.

68

Data Collection
Data collection took place at the school site over a period of eight weeks. The
researcher began the data collection activities with the document analysis to provide
the researcher with an overview of the school site. The documents reviewed
included: API and statewide standardized testing data, the school SARC, student
attendance and Student Attendance Review Board reports, a-g course completion
rates, the master schedule, information about the school and district on the California
Department of Education website, the school district and adjoining school websites,
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) reports, school publications,
school newsletters, district office newsletters and reports, the school mission
statement, public correspondence, graduation rate data and California High School
Exit Examination data, the last WASC self-study and visiting committee report, and
internal memorandums and notices.
Interviews were conducted with the principal, and nine additional staff
members from a variety of certificated and classified positions. Interviewees were
given a copy of the interview questions prior to the interview. In compliance with
IRB guidelines, a letter of consent to participate was signed and a copy was given to
each participant. Interviewees were advised that participation in the interview was
entirely optional, and they could elect to skip any question or stop the interview at
any time. Interviewees were all given the same interview questions and follow-up
questions from the established interview script. All interviews were tape recorded
and later transcribed for analysis. All tape recordings and transcriptions were
69

maintained in a secure manner at the researcher’s home. Confidentiality of the
participants was maintained by a letter coding of tapes and transcriptions.
Observations were conducted on five occasions, and each observation session
lasted from 60 to 90 minutes in length. Particular care was given to schedule the
observations at a variety of times in order to observe a wide range of behaviors and
participants. The researcher utilized the observation template (Appendix B) to
categorize the behavior and activities of the participants according to the Four
Frames model by Bolman and Deal (1997).
The teacher survey instrument was administered through schoolwide mail,
and every teacher received a copy of the survey in their mailbox. Participants also
received a corresponding letter of explanation from their principal and were
reminded that completion of the survey was entirely optional and they could elect to
leave all or portions of the survey blank. The teachers were asked to place all
surveys, completed or not, in a box near the teacher mailboxes. A basket containing
“Payday” and “One Hundred Thousand Dollar Bar” candy-bars was placed by the
survey receptacle for participants to take as they dropped off their surveys. The
candy bars were both a small thank your for the participant’s time and an incentive
for the completion of the survey. As there was no identifying information on the
survey instruments, the responses were given anonymously, and the confidentiality
of the participants was assured. A total of 30 completed surveys were returned to the
researcher representing a return rate of 31.25% of the 96 teachers on staff.
At the end of each research day (five full days), the researcher examined all
70

materials collected during the day and secured them in the researcher’s home.
Interview participants were routinely contacted by phone to verify specific
statements made during interviews.

Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are important considerations in a qualitative case
study. The validity and reliability of this study was assured through the triangulation
of the data and the implementation of data analysis in accordance with Creswell’s six
steps of data analysis (1997). In keeping with Creswell’s position on validity and
reliability within the context of a qualitative study, the issues of validity and
reliability were addressed by assuring the accuracy of the research through the
behavior of the researcher rather than the generalizability of the findings. The
accuracy of the findings was further validated by the depth of the dissertation team’s
review of current research and the group development of the study instruments,
which were closely aligned to the research questions.
Furthermore, the validity and reliability of the secondary data source of high
school survey information from researchers at Indiana University is validated as a
national study involving 220,000 participants (HSSSE).

71

Data Analysis
The data analysis activities utilized the following six steps of data analysis
and interpretation as outlined by Creswell (1997).
1. The researcher organized and prepared data for analysis utilizing methods
appropriate for each data type.
2. The researcher read through the data to get a broad view of responses and a
sense of the major themes.
3. The researcher used a color coding method to chunk the data into identifiable
areas.
4. The researcher generated detailed descriptions and themes from the chunks or
identifiable areas.
5. The researcher created a qualitative narrative from the themes that addressed
the perspective of the participants studied.
6. The researcher interpreted the data and drew conclusions from the findings
that addressed the research questions, confirmed connections to the previous
research literature and lead to suggestions for further study.

72

CHAPTER FOUR
The Findings
The purpose of the study was to determine whether high performing urban
high schools have higher levels of student engagement and if so; what school factors
contribute toward that engagement. This chapter presents the findings from the case
study at Central High School and discusses how the school factors associated with
leadership, instructional practices, and school culture contributed to student
engagement and student achievement. The data collection and analysis were
completed to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high
school as measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement? How
does it compare to the national profile?
2. What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing
urban high schools?
3. What school factors contribute to high performance?
The data consists of qualitative and quantitative data obtained by the researcher
from document reviews, observations, interviews, and teacher surveys. In addition,
high school student survey data was obtained from a secondary data source as part of
the High School Survey of Student Engagement conducted by Indiana University.
73

Background of “Central High School”
Central High School is the oldest of five comprehensive high schools
in a high school district located approximately ten miles from the center of Los
Angeles. Although the residential neighborhood it resides in can be considered more
suburban than urban by many standards, the student demographic information
suggests that it faces the same challenges and risk factors as many urban inner-city
schools. Most significant is the ethnicity data showing that 85% of the student
population are Hispanic and slightly more than 50% of students are designated low
income by family qualification for the free and reduced lunch program. Enrollment
has grown by more than 700 students over the last ten years, and enrollment is now
at 2494. This has allowed the school to add additional staff and programs. As the
first school built in the district in 1900, the campus is a cluster of historic buildings
and a source of both nostalgia and pride for residents who either attended the high
school or know someone who did. Alumni, school staff, and community members
often mention the rich history and sense of tradition associated with a high school
that is more than 100 years old. The opening page of the school website highlights
the school history.
The Cardinal legacy continues to inspire the teachers and staff of
[Central] High School to maintain the hundred-year tradition of
excellence. We strive to provide our students with a comprehensive
program that develops both mind and body, while ensuring a safe and
secure environment where everyone can feel a sense of belonging. We
are committed to providing our students with the best possible
education to help them develop the skills required to be successful
citizens of this new century.

74

Unfortunately by the year 2000, pride in the school had begun eroding because of
declining test scores and concerns about student behavior. The school’s status within
the community had slipped, and alumni were worried about the state of their alma
mater.
Due to low levels of student achievement, the school was placed into
Program Improvement status as part of the California state accountability movement
in 2002. Ironically, this occurred right after the school received a six-year WASC
accreditation from their 2002 Focus on Learning self-study and accreditation visit.
This mixed message did not bring about immediate changes in leadership or
instructional practices at the school. However, as a result of the Program
Improvement designation, the California Department of Education selected the
school for an academic audit in October 2002. The state found many areas requiring
corrective action, and subsequently, the school entered into a Joint Intervention
Agreement with their school district office and the California Department of
Education.
As part of the Joint Intervention Agreement, the school was required to
address 37 specific recommendations from five general program improvement areas.
To monitor this improvement, the CDE required the school to submit comprehensive
quarterly reports describing their progress on the 37 specific recommendations. After
each of these quarterly reports was submitted, representatives from the CDE made
two-day site visits to observe classes, meet with staff, and validate progress.
75

Prior to the beginning of the 2002/2003 school year, the existing principal
retired, and a new principal was hired from outside the school. In addition, the
balance of the four-person administrative team at the school was changed as a
deliberate strategy by the district office to meet the improvement targets. By 2004,
the school had met all of its AYP growth targets and was removed from Program
Improvement status. By May 2004, the school had demonstrated sufficient growth in
their improvement areas, and the CDE released the school from the Joint
Intervention Agreement making the school the first high school in the state to be
released from such an agreement.
The school has continued to show dramatic improvement in student
achievement and as part of a district-wide commendation, they received special
recognition from California State Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, for
their increased API test scores and their particular effectiveness with minority
subgroups. In 2005 the school district had the highest API growth in Los Angeles
County with an overall API gain of 454 points. Of the schools in the district, Central
High School had the highest API gain of 73 points and has had a total API gain of
122 points over the past five years. In addition, the Association of California School
Administrators named both the principal of the school and the superintendent of the
school district as annual region award winners. Many positive local newspaper
headlines about the school indicate that community pride for the school has returned.
76

A Typical Day at Central High School
The following narrative describes a hypothetical school day based on a
conglomeration of actual events and observations.
It is 7:00 a.m. and the student Senate committee, a student service
organization made up of upper grade level students who provide support for students
in lower grades, discusses the transition of new replacement members for the
following year. Recommendations are also made about strategies that could be used
to encourage more of the younger students to become connected to their school by
participating in clubs, organizations, sports, and performing arts programs. Their
school pride is evident, and the members demonstrate concern about the performance
level of their entire school.
Many more students are beginning to enter campus from various entrance
points thirty minutes before the tardy bell is scheduled to ring. It appears that most
students walk to school or get a ride as the student parking spaces are not
overflowing with cars. From the tunnel area, students are congregating to talk before
many disappear under a busy thoroughfare to another separate area of campus. While
the majority of students are of Hispanic origin, there are few conversations in
Spanish. Almost all the students are speaking English with laughter and squeals
interspersed with slang terms. After walking in from the basketball courts and
auditorium area at the opposite end of campus, some students use cement dividers as
a make-shift seating area to share homework answers and to use the last few minutes
to complete their assignments before rushing off to class. There has been a gang
77

shooting at a neighboring high school the night before, but all is peaceful and calm
this morning. There does not appear to be any signs of concern for personal safety on
the part of students or of increased alert on the part of school staff. In fact, only few
students can be heard mentioning the incident as they begin to fill up the campus.
In spite of the early hour, the students look eager to be at school and visiting
with their friends. Most appear to be at school with some educational purpose and
are carrying books and materials for class in their backpacks. Several teachers can be
seen motioning students into their rooms before they close their doors, but the vast
majority of students do not have to be reminded to go to class.
After the bell rings, the campus is relatively quiet with the exception of
construction noise emanating from a large historic building on campus. The building
is undergoing a long overdue renovation with monies from a general bond, FEMA
earthquake repair, and state emergency funds. While it is costly and time consuming
to renovate old buildings to meet modern demands, the historic buildings are on a
campus more than 100 years old; and the beautiful old buildings are part of the rich
tradition of the school and are protected historic sites. In sharp contrast to the
beautiful old buildings, are many portable bungalows that temporarily house a large
number of classes. The bungalows are well worn, but nevertheless there is nothing
shoddy or disheveled about the appearance of the campus. Everything appears well
cared for and clean with very little visible litter or grafitti. In fact, the campus is
remarkably clean, even after the students have passed through on their way to class.
78

During class time, only a few students are visible out of class and walking on
the school grounds. If there are truants, they are not in the halls or the stairwells. The
teachers are observed keeping students on task during class, and the students appear
to share in taking responsibility for their own productive use of class time. One
apparent reason for their willingness to stay on task is the new bell schedule that
provides for an optional tutorial time period at three intervals throughout the day.
This allows teachers to determine which students must participate in the after class
tutoring and which students get to leave. The benefit of being on time and staying on
task is immediate as one teacher is overhead reminding students to promptly turn in
their assignment so they will not have to stay in tutorial to complete it later. Another
teacher is overheard asking two tardy female students why they would prefer to be
five minutes late and having to stay for a 20 minute tutorial instead of being on time
and leaving 20 minutes earlier. In an individual meeting with a student, another
teacher is observed explaining why this particular student will need to stay for
tutorial to improve their grade. This teacher tells the student what section of the
material they will be working on and suggests that he review a handout she gives
him. The student does not look particularly happy, but he appears to understand what
it is he needs to work on. It is apparent that the tutorial requirement for this student is
not a punitive measure for being tardy or late with an assignment, and the teacher
tells the student she knows he can learn this material if he spends the time trying to
do so.
79

Evidence of a high level of concern for student progress can be observed
throughout the school. Various written reports with student achievement data are
visible in administrative offices and in classrooms. Teachers can be heard reminding
students what specific standards and skills they are concentrating on for the day, and
many of their discussions with students about grades include specific information on
the skills students need to work on to improve. Evidence of concern for individual
students is also visible. A special education resource teacher is observed assisting a
student organize their study materials at the close of an English class as the regular
classroom teacher answers questions about an upcoming assignment. After the
students leave, the regular education teachers shares a list of key items that the
special education teacher can use to assist the student in previewing material before
the next chapter is assigned.
Between classes, a math teacher confirms the agenda items for their
upcoming department meetings where they will use the results of their standardized
benchmark assessments to investigate the teaching strategies that have been most
successful and to guide instruction. Data reports from the district office to guide
improvement efforts appear to be frequent and current. On this particular morning,
an office assistant is photocopying data reports on comparative CAHSEE results and
a-g completion for use in an upcoming meeting with staff.
The coordinator of the ELL students and the New Horizons program is in her
office checking a roster of ELL students to see which ones have not yet met specific
testing deadlines. She is also concerned that particular ELL students have not
80

followed through with their college paperwork even though she is certain they have
met the entrance requirements. She schedules appointments to check in with these
students, and it is evident that these are students she knows well and cares about on
an individual basis.
The entire administration team is visible and accessible. Because the Dean in
charge of student discipline is out sick, the assistant principal overseeing guidance is
filling in to handle these student issues. Even with the extra workload, the
administrator is still available to talk to a staff member about student achievement
data. The staff member is concerned that a report shows an increase in truancy
despite their intervention efforts. The assistant principal notes the difference between
single period absences and whole day absences on the report. Overall, the number of
truant students is down from last year. The staff member is reassured and further
discussion ensues about ways to target the most chronic offenders.
Before lunch, the principal participates with a team interviewing candidates
for a teaching position. This interview is part of a long diligent search the
administration is making to add the most qualified staff to their team. The school
added twenty-two new teachers to the staff for this year as a result of increased
enrollment and attrition; and the school is starting again early to find the best
candidates.
After the interviews, the principal joins other members of administration to
monitor lunch. It’s a beautiful day and the students appear to enjoy being outside in
the sunshine. An administrator remarks that the good weather is particularly helpful
81

because the administration and counseling departments are being temporarily housed
in the former multi-purpose room, and there is a lack of shelter for rainy day lunches.
It is apparent that the construction schedule and temporary loss of facilities has not
been without challenges, but the future completion of upgraded buildings gives staff
something to look forward to.
Suddenly all attention is focused across the courtyard as an argument
between two male students threatens to become a fight. The administration and
security staff are quick to intervene. Fights have decreased in the past years, but staff
is mindful of the potential for violence as evidenced by a flyer for a new student
safety hotline program titled, “Students Against Violence,” that is posted on a
bulletin board. This community-based program allows students to report incidents
that could jeopardize the safety of the school community to a hotline where the
information will be shared with a school resource officer. Both students in the lunch
incident insist that the argument was not going to escalate, but the school staff does
not let the students just walk away without intervention. After tempers have
subsided, the two students are counseled separately. One of the students has been
making steady progress academically, but he has an older sibling who has been in
serious trouble with law enforcement. The administrator makes a note to check in
with him on a more regular basis. The other student is part of a group of students
previously identified as not being on target to graduate, and it is noted that he is
enrolled in a reading support class. Attendance reports show he has not been
attending consistently, and he becomes a high priority for truancy intervention.
82

The assistant principal in charge of curriculum spends the afternoon
collecting information to use in a planning meeting to develop their next
accreditation self-study report. This necessitates a quick face-to-face meeting with a
teacher. While he is watching the end of a class period, he writes a quick comment to
the teacher on a standardized “Just Passing Through” notepad reinforcing the
instructional expectations for teachers. On the note, the teacher is advised that their
questioning techniques were effective examples of checking for student
understanding.
As the day draws to a close, the administrative team discusses coverage at the
upcoming sporting events. Because many of the administrators are already planning
to watch the events and join in the excitement with their students, it is not difficult to
find enough administrators to attend. The principal decides to stay at the school and
join the others after the tutorial time, and he finishes returning some phone calls.
With the last period ending, the rush of students exiting the school increases the
volume tremendously. Students again fill a westbound tunnel to capacity as they
cross under a busy street. At street level, students heading eastbound in the opposite
direction are assisted by a staff member who stops traffic in order for them to cross
safely. However, within a short time the students quickly depart, and the volume
subsides.
Inside classrooms, teachers are still working with students during the final
tutorial time of the day. It appears that most of an AP calculus class is getting
assistance during this extra time. The teacher is using every available minute for
83

instruction prior to the upcoming AP examination, and the students demonstrate a
willingness to persevere. In a more personal setting, an English teacher is working in
her room with just a handful of students. The teacher is trying to help students
understand the various components required in a writing assignment. Farther away, a
Spanish teacher is giving a make-up test to another small group of students. In the
parking lot, several groups of students are seen talking and waiting for rides home.
Other small clusters of students can be observed talking and joking with one another
in the quad area as teachers and staff move between buildings and prepare for the
next day of school.

Summary of Strategies
The following is a summary of the strategies impacting engagement and achievement
emerging from the narrative:
1. Attention to attendance
A main goal of the school is a reduction in truancies and tardies. There are
reporting systems to monitor schoolwide achievement toward this goal. There are
also a number of interventions in place to monitor individual student attendance. The
counseling department utilizes a triage type system to meet with the most chronic
offenders first for counseling and parent contact. A Saturday school program is in
place that requires truants to make up their schooling and their schoolwork. School
resource officers have the ability to issue citations to truants, and the school is also
part of a regional Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) that makes referrals to
84

the district attorney as appropriate. On a class-by-class basis, there are immediate
sanctions for tardies with offenders directed to stay for the tutorial period. There are
also a series of senior sanctions in place for twelfth graders who must maintain good
attendance and clear any infractions through Saturday school in order to participate
in senior activities such as prom. The school grants perfect attendance awards and
rewards students with good attendance with the privilege of off-campus lunch
passes. As a result of these efforts, there are incentives for students to attend class
every day on time. The systems by which attendance is monitored can be considered
part of a broader structural frame through which the organization effectively
facilitates intervention systems designed to prevent students from falling through the
cracks. Attention to student attendance and tardies can also be considered as part of a
broader symbolic frame, which shows students that they are valued as individuals
and are important and noticed.
2. Purposeful work in class
Students are attentive in class because teachers use instructional strategies
that require active participation. The staff has been trained in specific engagement
and instructional strategies, and these techniques are reinforced by administration in
part through a written feedback system that allows the administrator to communicate
with teachers about their informal observations. The administration uses preprinted
half-sheet notepads that have the heading, “Just Passing Through,” printed at the top
next to the school logo and a list of specific engagement and instructional strategies
in a checklist on the side. The checklist includes: Structured Student Engagement
85

Strategies (Kinsella); Checking for Understanding; Standards Posted; Daily Agenda
Communicated; and Literacy Strategies Employed. Next to the checklist is a large
area for comments. This teacher feedback can be understood through the broader
Human Resource frame as providing specific and timely feedback from
administration that serves a mutual purpose of reinforcing the desired employee
behavior and informing the employee that their actions matter to the success of the
organization.
Another factor promoting student productivity in class is the new alternative
bell schedule allowing for tutorial time at the discretion of the teacher. The school
leadership went forward with the decision to implement the new bell schedule even
though the percentage of teachers in favor of the new schedule barely made up a
majority of the support needed. The leadership felt that reasons for the opposition
stemmed from a reluctance to change more than a question about how the bell
schedule might negatively impact the instructional program. The decision to move
forward with the bell schedule viewed through a larger political frame can be seen as
a calculated risk on the part of the school leadership. It appears that the risk has
proved beneficial as all but a handful of teachers are utilizing the tutorial period in a
productive manner. Another outcome of the alternative bell schedule as viewed
through the political frame is the new authority that the alternative bell schedule and
tutorial period has transferred to the teachers. The teachers are deciding which
students stay in tutorial and for what purposes. So in effect, the teachers who are
responsible for student learning now have the ability to decide how they will use
86

their new resource of time with the individual students who are most in need. As
viewed from the structural frame, the new bell schedule also provides an effective
linkage of behavior and consequences by which students are able to see the
immediate benefit of staying on task and committing to purposeful work during class
time.
3. Individual attention and concern for each student
Teachers have the use of tutorial time to address the immediate instructional
needs of students and to provide individual attention. The prevalent use of data
provides an opportunity to view classroom and schoolwide reports on the
achievement of all students so that specific needs are more readily identified.
Intervention systems have been initiated to provide more support, and the school’s
intervention pyramid is a visible reminder of the resources and intervention programs
at hand. With the recent addition of increased state funds for counseling and
intervention support, the school has added additional counseling staff. With the
resulting responsibility for student success shared between the student, the teacher,
administration and support staff, the overall team has a greater opportunity to
enhance student learning.
When viewed through the broader lens of the symbolic frame, the concern for
individual students symbolizes the school culture that values the achievement of
every student. The shared responsibility for student outcomes can also be viewed
through the larger political frame as representing an investment and ownership in
student outcomes. Individual attention and concern for each student can also be
87

viewed through the structural frame as the school has many organizational and
operating systems for monitoring achievement and providing the necessary
intervention and support.
4. Use of data
Throughout the school, data is being utilized to determine if students are
being successful and to guide decision making. Where common assessments have
been developed in the math, science and foreign language departments, data is being
used to analyze student achievement of particular units of study by teachers and
class. The English department is currently working to develop similar assessments.
The data is promoting a team approach within departments to address student
achievement as the comparisons between classes and teachers utilizing the same
assessment measures reveal discrepancies that are addressed by the team members.
By examining areas where specific teachers have achieved marked success, the
teams are able to move into discussions about instruction, effective practices, and
what the data says about the teaching that still needs to occur.
The school district also provides important data to the school sites that helps
them understand the achievement level of their students and where they are in
meeting the goals of the district. The use of a new EADMS software system for data
analysis has contributed to the accessibility and usefulness of these reports. In
addition, the district office requires the school to complete an annual report to the
superintendent utilizing data on student achievement to mark progress toward their
annual goals. In this manner, the goals have become more tangible; and because they
88

are monitored over time with room for correction along the way, they have become a
guide for the direction the school needs to take instead of just evidence of what the
school has done in the past.
From a broader political framework, the use of data represents the sharing of
responsibility and ownership of student achievement. The use of data in district wide
reports also fosters healthy comparisons between school sites that are also
motivating. From a broader human resource framework, the use of data in teacher
teams represents collegial support, shared supervision of the instructional program,
and mutually beneficial relationship building. From a broader symbolic framework,
the prevalence of data symbolizes to members of the organization that student
achievement is the priority because that is what is being measured and discussed.
From a broader structural framework, systems put in place to collect, sort and
disseminate the data to the appropriate parties are indicative of the organizational
systems that facilitate data use to improve student achievement.
5. Clean and well maintained facilities
Central High School is more than 100 years old and is the oldest of the
district’s schools. In spite of the displacement caused by the ongoing construction
and number of temporary facilities, the campus is attractive, well cared for, and very
clean. There is very little visible graffiti and trash on the grounds, and the buildings
and classrooms are clean and operational. It is evident that there is adequate
janitorial and maintenance staff to keep the grounds in order, but students and staff
also share in the responsibility for the appearance of their campus. There has been
89

increased supervision to prevent students from throwing trash on the ground, and the
Associated Student Body (ASB) supports school cleanliness through a school pride
focus. The renovations taking place are the last of a series of construction projects
that are part of a long-term investment in the infrastructure of the school. Part of the
funding for the building renovations came from a successful general bond measure.
An active alumni association is also involved in the upkeep of the school. An alumni
group is currently working to repair and reupholster the seats in the historic
auditorium by fundraising and organizing teams to complete some of the labor.
When viewed from a broader symbolic frame, the historical buildings on the
campus are a source of pride, and the investment in the upkeep of the campus
represents the value that is placed on this legacy now being passed to new
generations. Also, the new construction can be interpreted as symbolizing a type of
renewal and concern for progress that is being carried out along with the advances in
student achievement. The cleanliness of the school also has a symbolic meaning as
the timely removal of graffiti shows that the school will not tolerate gang activity.
The area gang problems are pervasive and beyond the reach of the school, however
their ability to keep their campus free from gang graffiti shows that the school is
winning the fight against gangs within their gates. The care and concern about the
facilities is also a symbol that the school district and the community at large care
about the environment in which learning takes place.
In a related area, the funding for the school infrastructure can also be viewed
through a broader political frame. The funding spent on the construction and
90

infrastructure demonstrates the political will in the community to provide for the
necessary educational facilities for their students. General bond measures reflect the
political priorities of the community.
6. Multi-faceted intervention systems
The school has a variety of intervention programs that provide academic and
behavioral support, and the school has identified the key components of their
intervention and support strategies in their “pyramid of interventions.” One of the
programs in the pyramid is called “Bridges.” Incoming freshmen that were not
technically eligible to graduate from eighth grade because of insufficient grades are
placed in this program mandating attendance in a summer school enrichment class
between their eighth and ninth grade year. The class has been expanded and now
continues throughout the entire freshman year. The class provides social support,
tutoring assistance, and instruction in organizational skills and reading skills.
The tutorial period in the new bell schedule is also part of the pyramid of
interventions and provides teachers with the ability to provide immediate
intervention when students require assistance. The school has reading support classes
for students in ninth grade paid for with Title I funding, and math and English
standards review classes for students in grades ten and eleven. The CAHSEE prep
classes in math and English language arts are mandatory for students who have failed
to pass either the math or the language arts portions of the exam. An assistant
principal stated, “Some of our students have an English class, a CAHSEE English
prep class, a math class, a CAHSEE math prep class, and a social studies class. It’s
91

not the most exciting schedule for a high school student, but if they haven’t passed
the CAHSEE, then we have to focus on what’s a priority – and that’s graduation.”
The intervention pyramid also includes a number of community-based
organizations that partner with the school. Many of the organizations address drug
and alcohol issues or psychological or social needs that are beyond the scope of the
school but are adversely affecting students ability to be successful in school.
Counselors and other school staff are able to make referrals, and information is
publicized on the school website and on posters and flyers displayed on the school
campus so students and their families can also contact them directly. One of the
organizations that partners most closely with school is called SPIRITT. It is an
acronym for Skills (for) Prevention, Intervention, Recovery, Individual Treatment
and Training. This organization provides a variety of services including: drug testing,
support groups, parenting classes, anger management, family communication skills,
after-school programs, tobacco education, individual, family and group counseling
and specialized outpatient drug counseling. This organization also has specialized
outreach programs for Hispanic male and female teenagers. The program for males
that includes an after-school and weekend basketball program has an emphasis on
positive role modeling and culturally appropriate support groups to prevent
involvement in gangs, alcohol, drug abuse, premature and/or irresponsible sexual
activity, and teen pregnancy. The program for females offers support groups,
counseling and guidance, and academic, social and recreational activities to promote
cultural awareness, and to address the social risk factors facing female teenagers. In
92

addition, the organization also offers a number of specialized programs that aid
students and their families in crisis. These include individual and family counseling
for children and their parents who have experienced family violence, neglect,
physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
Some of the intervention programs in their pyramid take a more preventative
approach and try to engage students in their schooling before serious problems occur
by helping students understand the connection between their high school experiences
and their future success. These programs are aimed at students who are producing at
a satisfactory level and not failing, and they encourage students to take more
rigorous college preparatory classes. Staff believes that providing support for their
success in more rigorous classes may prevent future disengagement from school. The
New Horizons Program and the AVID Program at the school share this goal. The
school’s New Horizons program provides educational planning and instructional
support with an emphasis on college preparation including college exposure, college
admissions exams, college applications and financial aid advisement. New Horizons
hosts the school college fair and arranges field trips to local colleges and universities.
The AVID Program which stands for Advancement Via Individual Determination
also targets students getting mostly C grades and attempts to increase the likelihood
that they will go to college through support for more rigorous college preparation
courses. An AVID flyer describes the emphasis of the program as “Acceleration Not
Remediation.” Students in the AVID program take an AVID elective class that
93

teaches students organizational and study skills, provides academic support, and
hosts activities promoting college enrollment.
These multi-faceted intervention strategies can be viewed from the broader
structural frame as the school has put systems and structures in place to identify
students who are at risk and/or in need of intervention. Individuals have been
assigned to monitor and check in with students requiring intervention (such as those
not on target to graduate, having issues with truancy, requiring ELL support, or
requiring special education services) as part of their role within the school
organizational structure of departments and areas of supervision. Multi-faceted
intervention strategies can also be viewed through the symbolic frame. The shared
responsibility for student achievement evident in the various roles staff members
play in the intervention pyramid represents an organizational value that every staff
member is responsible for student success.
7. Opportunity to re-learn or make up work
When a student does not perform at the desired level or fails to make
adequate progress, the student is given the opportunity to address the deficiency
through a variety of ways that vary according to the individual circumstances. In one
of the broadest examples at the school, a student who fails to pass the CAHSEE is
enrolled in the appropriate CAHSEE prep class as an elective to work on their
deficiency in skills. In a narrower example, a student who does not complete his
homework assignment or fails a quiz in a particular geometry class can be required
to stay in a tutorial period to complete the assigned work or re-learn a particular unit.
94

These examples vary greatly in their scope, but they both represent the same
commitment to student learning and address the issue of “What happens when
students do not learn?” In attempting to increase student achievement, developing
strategies to address what the school and the student will do if learning does not take
place has been an important area of growth for the school. It is also aligned with the
overall school district theme, “Whatever It Takes.”
Providing opportunities for the student to re-learn or make up work also
supports student engagement and in particular, the area of persistence. In describing
how the tutorial period is viewed by students as more helpful than punitive, the
assistant principal said, “It provides hope because they know they will get help.”
Viewed from the larger symbolic frame, the opportunity to re-learn or make up work
represents a commitment to the success of all students and the belief that all students
can learn. It also symbolizes that what the students learn apart from a score or grade
is important, and that students will not just be passed on or moved out without the
obligation to try again. The school culture reinforcing an obligation to try again has
begun to spread to the staff members as well as the student. The opportunity to re-
learn or make up work can also be viewed from a broader political frame as
representing a shift in the responsibility for student learning placed upon the school
site and more specifically, to the job of the teacher. From a broader structural frame,
the opportunity to re-learn or make up work represents the systems and structures put
in place to address, “what happens when students don’t learn,” and provides students
with the opportunity to catch up.
95

8.) Rigorous curriculum
Increasing the number of students taking a rigorous college preparatory
curriculum has been a main goal identified by the school leadership, and the school’s
progress towards this goal is evidenced by multiple measures including increases in
the number of students in a-g college preparation courses, and AP and honors level
classes. Reports that the school is required to submit to their district office includes
planning and progress monitoring on their achievement towards this goal. The school
has increased access to a-g college preparatory classes and AP and honors level
courses by overhauling its master schedule and offering additional sections of these
courses. This was an important accomplishment, but the school has also worked on
this goal in other ways to ensure that students both enroll and are successful in these
courses.
With the support of the district office, the school has strengthened their
fundamental standards-based curriculum to ensure that students have sufficient
mastery of skills and knowledge to take advanced level classes and be successful. By
improving student achievement in a well planned, sequential, standards based
curriculum, the school has positioned their students for success in more challenging
coursework. One of the challenges facing the school in ensuring all of their students
master core standards is the varied levels of preparation that students receive before
they enroll in the high school. The district’s students matriculate from middle
schools in several elementary districts that are not part of the high school district.
The school must simultaneously address gaps in student’s skills and encourage
96

students to consider college preparation and challenging coursework. While the
number of remedial level classes on the master schedule may appear to be in conflict
with the goal of a rigorous curriculum, the school views the remedial courses as part
of the sequence of courses that meets individual student needs and prepares them for
the next level of their learning.
The school’s AVID, Puente and New Horizons programs described earlier
also help students want to prepare for college and enroll in more advanced level
courses. These programs provide support through study skills classes and workshops,
exposure to college campuses and placement opportunities, visits from motivational
guest speakers, and a peer group of similarly challenged students. Because many of
these program participants may be the first family members to pursue college
degrees, the programs also educate parents on the requirements for college
admissions. The staff hopes that by taking time to educate both parents and students,
they will be able to garner parent support at home for college preparation and
planning.
Viewed from the broader structural frame, the curriculum framework and
subsequent master schedule provides the formalized systems by which students can
be successful in college preparation courses. From the symbolic frame, the master
schedule represents the organizational beliefs about student potential and the value
placed upon opportunities for higher learning. Rigorous courses on the master
schedule and staff encouragement for students to take these courses also symbolizes
a culture of high expectations for students. The issue of access to high-level college
97

preparatory and AP or honors classes for students can also be viewed from a political
frame. Utilization of resources for the placement of students in college preparation
classes requires concerted effort and political will on the part of stakeholders within
the school community. Unlike affluent communities where parental expectations for
equal access to college preparation courses are considered the norm, advocates for
college preparation classes in this school represent the beliefs of educators including
district office leadership and a smaller group of stakeholders striving to secure
equitable opportunities for students to benefit from college preparation options. From
the human resources frame, making access to high-level rigorous coursework
accessible and effective for all students requires that teacher practices are in
alignment with the beliefs of the organization, and that teachers view this access as a
mutually beneficial outcome. Providing all students with an opportunity to benefit
from a rigorous curriculum is not feasible with teachers who do not believe that all
students can learn and view their jobs as being gatekeepers of access to high-level
courses instead of facilitators of success for all.
9. Support for student connectedness
The school has taken steps to promote student connection and involvement
with their school. Future students attend a special orientation for eighth graders every
spring; and in addition, there is a corresponding Future Frosh Parent Night held in
the evening for the parents of current eighth graders. When students enter as ninth
graders, there is a special freshman orientation day prior to the first day of school.
Upper classmen volunteers greet the new ninth graders and help them navigate the
98

campus as they attend an abbreviated version of their school schedule. During this
trial run, the students connect with existing students, meet their teachers, and
participate in class orientations where they are advised of school programs, rules,
and class requirements. The school also holds an organization and activity
promotional day called “Activity Rush” where student organizations and extra-
curricular groups solicit new members.
The school also utilizes their own successful students to inspire and connect
with younger students. The Student Senators is a newly formed group of
upperclassmen that partner with younger students and provide them with assistance
and direction from a positive role model. Students have also been inspired to attend
college through a college wall of fame highlighting former students. The wall has the
names and pictures of graduates along with the corresponding name of the colleges
these graduates are attending posted beneath their pictures.
A cohesive school environment is evidenced by many of the students and
staff attired in cardinal red and the school mascot, a cardinal bird. Student pride is
also evidenced in a large mascot mural on the campus, and banners and team
uniforms visible at sporting events. The staff makes a concerted effort to connect
students to the school and to one another through various clubs, organizations,
athletic teams and extra-curricular activities. In addition to the standard sports,
performing arts, and school leadership organizations, the school has some unique
clubs which include: Aphasia creative writing club, a Ballet Folklorico club, the
Cardinal Computer Academy, and the Urban Art Club. The school hopes that
99

facilitating these positive and appropriate connections for students will provide a
deterrent from negative or destructive influences.
The student body organization, the Student Senators, and various clubs and
organizations provide students with an opportunity to exercise leadership and share
responsibility for the success of the school. One way the students are sharing this
responsibility is through a safety hotline program called, “Students Against
Violence,” through which students and community members can make anonymous
reports of activities that may threaten the safety of their school community.
When viewed from the larger structural frame, the systems in place to support
student involvement in their school represent efforts to proactively direct students
into positive relationships and associations within the school community. The school
colors and mascot are also symbolic of school pride, school spirit, and sense of
tradition.
10. Right staff in key places
Efforts to bring in and utilize staff with the necessary skills have been a
critical component in the schools success. There was a complete change in school
leadership as the district office brought in administration from outside the school
district and from other sites. Staff reported that bringing in leadership from outside
the school and moving administrators around within the district had not previously
been the standard practice. One staff member said the schools success can be
attributed to, “bringing in people that knew what they were doing.”
100

Having instructional leadership within the teaching staff has also been an
important key to success. The school sought out and re-hired a former employee to
serve as the math department chair. Many described this position as a key leadership
role, and an administrator stated that their success has been in part because they have
been, “getting effective people in important positions that are able to convey a
consistent focus and carry that focus throughout the school.”
The school has also taken care to hire new staff members with the skills and
desire to work on continuous instructional improvement. The principal stated, “No
program’s good unless you have good teachers. We have hired very good teachers in
last few years. It’s a time consuming process. We’re being more careful.” The school
hired 22 new teachers for 2006/2007 and 17 new teachers for 2005/2006. That
brought about an overall addition or replacement of 40% of the teaching staff in the
past two years. In describing how the school has improved their interview process,
the principal expressed his admiration of USC football coach Pete Carroll and his
“really positive, really upbeat, really intense” leadership style. In attempting to
emulate that leadership style, the principal stated he is, “willing to look differently at
how things are done and think outside the box.” In particular, the principal wants the
interview process to be, “informative, positive, and upbeat, and to try to sell the
school.”
The principal has also utilized the work of Todd Whitaker to serve as a guide
when preparing interview questions. According to the principal, a Whitaker strategy
for effective teacher interviews is to develop questions that would help differentiate
101

between the best and worst of the existing teachers on campus based only on their
interview responses. As an example, the principal explained how a question about
classroom management and student rapport could be misleading and how this
example has brought about changes in the types of questions now used in the schools
interviews.
“In a typical interview you normally have a question on classroom
management. So I would say, ‘Describe your discipline policy and
how you go about maintaining control of the classroom,’ or
something to that effect. And I started to think about that question in
light of what Todd Whitaker says. And I realized the worst teacher on
my campus could answer that incredibly well because they do it every
single day. They know the discipline policy inside and out; and if you
are chewing gum on a Tuesday and it is your third warning, this is
exactly what happens to you. My best teacher couldn’t answer that
because they don’t have discipline issues. They just inherently, how
they teach and how they interact with kids, don’t have those issues or
they deal with them intuitively. So right off the bat, I thought, in the
past if they could answer that question very well, that would’ve been
a good thing. Now I’m not so sure it’s such a good thing.”

Viewed from the human resource frame, careful attention to hiring the right
staff represents efforts to mutually benefit the organization and the employee. In this
instance a mutual benefit is attained when the employee has the skills and attitudes
that match the needs of the students and the ongoing instructional improvement
efforts of the school.
11. Effective feedback
The use of effective feedback has been another key practice that has helped
the school be successful. The district office written reports and related feedback on
performance has provided guidance for the school leadership. In addition to feedback
on multiple measures of student progress, the district office provides the school
102

leadership with suggestions on how to improve. The principal stated that this type of
feedback has proved more beneficial than the type of feedback that he has received
in other school districts. The principal stated,
“Sometimes you will have school board members, the superintendent,
or other folks say to you as a site administrator that you have to
improve test scores. Which just cracks me up. Because that’s like
going to a little league game, and the pitcher walks two batters and
they yell at him ‘Throw Strikes.’ Well, I know I’m supposed to throw
strikes. That’s not the kinda support that I need. I need, ‘Here’s some
ideas… here’s a program you might want to look at… this has been
effective at other schools.’ And I think this district’s done a nice job
of getting folks together, letting them try different programs,
analyzing the results, finding out what appears to be more effective;
so the rest of us are able to adopt some of those strategies.”

In turn, the school validates good teaching practices and provides timely
information to staff to guide instructional improvement efforts. The school
leadership is able to utilize the data and reports to show the staff members progress
towards schoolwide goals. In addition, administrators are routinely in classrooms
utilizing the “Just Passing Through” notes to teachers as frequent informal feedback
in addition to their more formalized evaluations. Some of the most critical feedback
teachers have received has come from their peers through work within their
individual departments reviewing student achievement data and common
assessments. A staff member describes the challenges associated with this type of
peer interaction. “You have to have people willing to move their peers in the right
direction and being very assertive about that and not necessarily being that popular.
They have to be willing to have difficult conversations with people. With grade
reports, you have teachers talking with teachers about who is having success and
103

why. And discussing with teachers about those that have high percentages of failure.
But that’s what has brought about some improvement.” This type of review of
performance has lead to changes in instruction and a willingness on the part of more
teachers to try different strategies to get more positive results.
The benefits of immediate feedback are also apparent with students. One way
that feedback has become immediate and gratifying for students is through the use of
the new tutorial period where students can be required to stay in class for a longer
period of time if they have been tardy, have not completed work, or have not
achieved a certain performance standard. A staff member describes how the tutorial
period provides students with immediate feedback.
“Tutorial this year has created some motivation for kids. That
incentive is there that I’m doing well in this class. I’ll get a little extra
time. I’ll get a break and be out with my friends. I think on a day-to-
day basis, that’s an immediate feedback, an immediate reward
system. There’s no delayed gratification about it. If you’re doing well
in a class --- you’re going to get that extra break time. More
importantly, if you’re not doing well, there’s now a time and a place
and a real tool for you to get the help you need.”

From the broader symbolic frame, feedback on the things that are measured,
monitored, and rewarded represent the values of the organization in a tangible way.
When teaching practices are monitored and teachers receive feedback on their
teaching, it symbolizes that good teaching is valued. Immediate intervention for
students conveys organizational beliefs that there are high expectations for their
achievement. From the human resource frame, timely and effective feedback meets
the needs of the staff and the organization as staff members receive mutually
104

beneficial information on their performance. Timely feedback validates the essential
nature of good teaching practices. From the structural frame, formalized roles and
systems for providing feedback facilitates meaningful work on student performance
and prioritizes time spent in the classroom for administration, teachers and students.
It also provides a formalized structure through which students can receive immediate
intervention.

Findings by Research Question
First Research Question:
What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high school as
measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement? How does it compare
to the national profile?
The January 2007 High School Survey of Student Engagement results for the
1,967 students at Central High School who participated in the survey suggest that
they are engaged at a similar level to the students in the 2006 national profile. The
2006 national survey was administered to 115 high schools in 30 different states.
Students in the national profile reported that they are in the middle range of scores of
possible student engagement. So with scores similar to those in the national profile,
students at Central High School reported that they too are in the middle range of
possible engagement and cannot be considered highly engaged according to the High
School Survey of Student Engagement.
105

In the area of Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic engagement, the students at
Central High School reported that they are slightly less engaged than the students in
national profile. The Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic engagement category
measured student engagement with specific reference to “engagement of the mind,”
as it is described by the High School Survey of Student Engagement (2007).
Students at Central High School had an average score of 30.24 in comparison with
the average national profile score of 31.43. Out of a possible score of 60 for this
category, the mean for the reported groups was near the middle of reported
responses. In both groups, the ninth grade scores were lowest, and the scores
continued to rise with each successive grade level. However; in comparing the rise in
scores from ninth through twelfth grades, the twelfth grade student mean score
(34.38) for Central High School is slightly higher than the score for twelfth graders
in the national profile (31.43). This suggests that Central High School students enter
school less academically engaged, but leave school more academically engaged than
average twelfth graders in the national profile.

Table 3
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic Engagement
Cognitive/Intellectual/Academic
Engagement
HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
Central High School
Mean Score
9
th
Grade 31.07 29.5
10
th
Grade 31.91 30.95
11
th
Grade 33.02 32.36
12
th
Grade 33.07 34.38
Overall 31.43 30.25

106

In the area of Social/Behavioral/Participatory engagement, the students at
Central High School reported that they are less engaged than the students in the
national profile. The Social/Behavioral/Participatory engagement category measured
student engagement with specific reference to “engagement in the life of school,” as
it is described by the High School Survey of Student Engagement (2007). Students at
Central High School had an average score of 8.18 in comparison with the average
national profile score of 8.70. Out of a possible score of 18 for this category, both
scores were slightly lower than the median score of reported responses. In both
groups the ninth grade scores were lowest, and the scores continued to rise with each
successive grade level. However; in comparing the rise in scores from ninth through
twelfth grade, the twelfth grade student mean score for Central High School (9.26) is
higher than the score for twelfth graders in the national profile (8.93). This suggests
that Central High School students enter school much less socially engaged, but leave
school more so than average twelfth graders in the national profile.

Table 4
Social/Behavioral/Participatory Engagement
Social/Behavioral/Participatory
Engagement
HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
Central High School
Mean Score
9
th
Grade 8.81 7.85
10
th
Grade 8.93 8.31
11
th
Grade 8.99 8.95
12
th
Grade 8.93 9.26
Overall 8.70 8.18

In the area of Emotional engagement, the students at Central High School
reported that they are slightly less engaged than the students in national profile;
107

however reported levels of emotional engagement represented the strongest of the
three types of engagement for both Central High School students and students in the
national profile. The Emotional engagement category measured student engagement
with specific reference to “engagement of the heart,” as it is described by the High
School Survey of Student Engagement (2007). Students at Central High School had
an average score of 23.78 in comparison with the average national profile score of
23.90. Out of a possible score of 37 for this category, both scores were higher than
the median of reported responses. In both groups the ninth grade scores were lowest,
and the scores continued to rise with each successive grade level. However; in
comparing the rise in scores from ninth through twelfth grade, the Central High
School twelfth grade student mean score (25.86) is higher than the score for twelfth
graders in the national profile (24.71). This suggests that Central High School
students enter school less emotionally engaged, but leave school more so than
average twelfth graders in the national profile.

Table 5
Emotional Engagement
Emotional Engagement HSSSE 2006
Mean Score
Central High School
Mean Score
9
th
Grade 24.36 24.32
10
th
Grade 24.35 24.51
11
th
Grade 24.54 24.85
12
th
Grade 24.71 25.86
Overall 23.90 23.78

In comparing a sampling of responses from Central High School with those
from the national profile, it appears that the percentages of combined positive
108

affirmations of student engagement reported in total as, Sometimes and Often, and
Agree and Strongly Agree, are very similar. What are dissimilar between Central
High School and the national profile are the percentages of students reporting in the
most affirmative way as Often or Strongly Agree. When considering only these most
affirmative responses, the Central High School percentage of frequency is less than
the national profile on many items. For example, on the question, “How often have
you: attended class with all assignments completed?” Central High School students
gave the most affirmative response of “Often” 31.27% of the time while 50.78% of
students reported the same on the national profile. In another example, only 23.65%
of students reported in the most affirmative way as Strongly Agree to the statement,
“I place a high value on learning,” while 33.04% of students in the national profile
gave the same response. While the Central High School student responses were more
affirmative to some statements, such as the emotional engagement statement, “I care
about my school,” the disparity in scores suggests that the student population at
Central High School contains fewer students who could be considered very highly
engaged. When this issue is considered in light of the previously mentioned growth
levels between ninth and twelfth grades, it is possible that many students at Central
High School may be arriving at the school at low levels of engagement.
Another area where Central High School indicated stronger levels of
engagement than the national profile is in the area of AP course participation.
35.15% of Central High School students reported that they have taken one or more
109

AP courses, while 30.31% of the students in the national profile reported the same.
Expanding AP course offerings has been area of emphasis for the school.

Table 6
Central High School student’s perception of their level of student engagement and
comparison with the national profile as measured by the High School Survey of
Student Engagement (Indiana University, 2007).

Percentage of
Responses From
Central High School
Percentage of
Responses
From
National
Profile
How often have you: attended class with all
assignments completed?

Never 5.79 3.87
Rarely 17.93 10.43
Sometimes 45.02 34.92
Often 31.27 50.78
I take pride in the quality of my schoolwork.
Strongly disagree 4.99 4.56
Disagree 21.89 19.61
Agree 56.87 54.81
Strongly Agree 16.24 21.02
I have the skills and abilities to complete my
assignments.

Strongly disagree 2.76 2.15
Disagree 8.39 5.52
Agree 56.81 51.62
Strongly Agree 32.04 40.70
I value the rewards (grades, awards, etc.) that I get
at school for my work.

Strongly disagree 6.57 6.54
Disagree 18.20 17.12
Agree 54.33 52.70

110

Table 6 Continued
Strongly Agree 20.90 23.64
I am motivated to work by a desire to get good
grades.

Strongly disagree 4.40 4.39
Disagree 11.68 12.52
Agree 56.75 51.65
Strongly Agree 27.16 34.44
I care about my school.
Strongly disagree 7.14 8.39
Disagree 19.87 21.11
Agree 59.56 58.38
Strongly Agree 13.43 12.12
I place a high value on learning.
Strongly disagree 4.48 3.91
Disagree 13.39 9.59
Agree 58.48 53.46
Strongly Agree 23.65 33.04
I have a voice in classroom and/or school
decisions.

Strongly disagree 7.75 9.85
Disagree 24.35 24.59
Agree 55.37 53.35
Strongly Agree 12.52 12.21
I put forth a great deal of effort when doing my
school work.

Strongly disagree 4.39 4.78
Disagree 22.88 22.50
Agree 56.41 52.32
Strongly Agree 16.31 20.39
About how many of your classes challenge you
academically.

None 6.18 5.83
1-2 18.35 19.67
Some 29.59 28.69
Most 33.30 30.97
All 12.93 14.50

111

Even though moderate levels of engagement for Central High School are
evidenced throughout the survey, results for particular items suggest cause for
concern with regard to the very lowest reported levels of engagement. The survey
results suggest that students at Central High School spend very little time reading
and studying for class. The survey revealed that 51.26% of students at Central High
School reported that they spend only one hour in a typical week reading and studying
for class. Fewer students (42.95% of respondents) in the national profile reported this
same low level of school preparation. In the next category of time spent on studying
and preparation, 25.21 % of students at Central High School reported that they spend
2-5 hours per week reading and studying for class in comparison with 35.03% of
respondents in the national profile.
With respect to extra-curricular activities, students at Central High School
reported less time participating in school-sponsored clubs and activities (athletics,
clubs, student government, etc.) in comparison with the national profile. 44.43% of
students at Central High School reported that they spend no time at all (zero hours
per week) participating in school-sponsored clubs and activities while only 32.20%
of students in the national profile reported the same non-participation. The second
highest level of reported participation in school-sponsored activities was in the 2-5
hour per week category. 20.55% of students at Central High School and 21.43 % of
students in the national profile reported in this category.
With respect to truancy, Central High School students reported they are more
likely to skip school than the students in the national profile. 50.07% of students in
112

the national profile reported that they have never skipped school while only 35.47%
of students at Central High School reported the same. In reporting that they have
skipped school once or twice, the two groups are closer with 35.51% for the national
profile and 37.51% for Central High School. However, 27.01% or more than a
quarter of respondents of Central High School students reported they have skipped
school many times in comparison with the 16.42% of students in the national profile
who reported the same.
Other data sources gathered in the study suggest improved and rising levels
of student engagement at Central High School. These other data sources suggest that
the majority of students at Central High School have become sufficiently engaged to
bring about improved academic achievement as evidenced by increased standardized
test scores, increased participation in a-g college preparation courses and increased
enrollment in AP and honors courses. The 45% of students at Central High School
taking the SAT in 2005/2006 was higher than the district’s 38% participation level;
however, the average score of 885 for students at Central High School was lower
than the district average score of 918 by 33 points.
According to 2004/2005 CBEDS data, 124 or 32.7% of Central High School
graduates met the UC/CSU entrance requirements as compared to 29.3% of
graduates in the District. According to the same CBEDS data for 2004/2005, the
four-year dropout rate for the school at .9% is lower than the district wide dropout
rate of 2.6%. School documents highlighting increased student attendance, decreased
discipline referrals and increased participation in extracurricular activities and
113

student leadership also support at a minimum, moderate levels of student
engagement. In observations of students on campus, it appears that students are
purposefully engaged in their schoolwork and teachers have been able to achieve
improved levels of participation in class.
Interviews with staff also confirm that student engagement has increased
steadily in the past five years with the overall increased student achievement and
rising test score. However, the teacher survey revealed that staff perceptions about
student engagement are less positive than the student responses from the High
School Survey of Student Engagement data. In the area of student preparation for
class, more teachers disagreed (43.3%) with the statement that their students come to
class prepared than the approximate 24% of students who gave a negative response
to a similar question on class preparation. That specific item about class participation
solicited the most negative response from teachers taking the survey along with the
statement about student effort. Only 23.3% of teachers taking the survey indicated
that they agree with the statement that their students put a great deal of effort into
doing their schoolwork.
The most affirmative responses from teachers were in the area of student skill
level and the teacher’s role in challenging students to do their best work. 83.3% of
teachers completing the survey indicated that they agree with the statement that their
students have the skills and abilities to complete their assignments. In addition,
96.6% of teachers completing the survey indicated that their students are challenged
to do their best work at school. The disparity between teacher’s perceptions of the
114

students who do not complete their reading and/or assignments, the beliefs teachers
have about student’s abilities, and the challenge teachers believe they present for
their students, may point to a source of teacher frustration. Another disparity that is
important to note is the difference in teacher’s perceptions about the value their
students place on grades and the value their students place on learning. More than
50% of teachers taking the survey indicated that they agree with the statement that
their student’s value grades and awards, but only 30% of teachers indicated that they
agreed with the statement their students value learning.
Table 7
Teacher’s perception of student engagement as measured by the teacher survey
instrument. (N=30)
Item % Agree % Neutral % Disagree
1) My students attend
class with readings
and/or assignments
completed.
23.3 33.3 43.3
2) My students take
pride in their
schoolwork.
43.3 33.3 23.3
3) My students have the
skills and abilities to
complete their
assignments.
83.3 10 6.6
4) My students value
the rewards (grades,
awards, etc.) that
they get at school for
their work.
50 36.6 13.3
5) My students think it
is important to make
good grades.
56.6 33.3 10
6) My students care
about their school.
40 50 10

115

Table 7 Continued
7) My students place a
high value on
learning.
30 50 20
8) My students have a
voice in classroom
decisions.
60 26.6 13.3
9) My students put forth
a great deal of effort
when doing their
schoolwork.
23.3 50 26.6
10) My students are
challenged to do
their best work at
school.
96.6 3.3 0
Agree category includes responses as reported with Strongly Agree and Agree.
Disagree category includes responses as reported with Disagree and Strongly
Disagree.

Discussion of the First Research Question
The level of student engagement at Central High School can be considered
minimal to moderate with respect to the High School Survey of Student Engagement
data and the national profile. However, without baseline data on student engagement,
it cannot be assumed that the school is not making progress towards engaging their
students at higher levels. The school’s increase in the level of engagement between
ninth graders and twelfth graders that is higher than the same span in the national
profile suggest that students become increasingly more engaged the longer they stay
at the school and/or the very least engaged students leave before twelfth grade. The
small percentage of students that selected the most affirmative responses also
indicates that the school does not have a large group of highly engaged students. It is
116

also possible that the school has made significant strides to engage students in
purposeful learning while they are in school, but that outside influences related to
student demographics and personal situations may limit the students overall
engagement level in schooling. Some of these more challenging issues may include
family dynamics and mobility. Low levels of engagement upon enrollment in ninth
grade may also be a factor.
When reviewed as part of an overall picture with the other qualitative data, it
appears that the engagement level of students at the school is rising along with
efforts to improve student performance. Another related conclusion drawn from the
HSSSE data and the literature is that efforts to support student engagement need to
be continually monitored and personalized for each student because levels of
personal engagement are not fixed. Some students can be described as highly
engaged in all areas of their schooling, but for many students, their level of
engagement fluctuates over time and from class to class. Some of the HSSSE survey
questions could be answered both positively and negatively by the same student
depending on the class or school activity the student was thinking of at the moment
they were answering the survey. For instance, it is not unusual for students to be
highly engaged in one class or school activity and not engaged at all in other aspects
of their schooling.
The literature on direct instruction of meta-cognitive strategies that show
students how to approach problems and persevere when facing adversity could prove
helpful in keeping more students consistently engaged in a wider range of areas in
117

their schooling. The school has already began implementing many of these strategies
with success, and their impact on overall student engagement levels may be greater
over time as teachers become more proficient.
In another related area, the literature emphasizing positive and supportive
teacher interactions with students as a means of producing increased student
engagement should be noted. The ability to engage students in learning is in many
ways dependent on the engaging nature of particular teachers in their role as
concerned adults through the connections they are able to make with individual
students. The literature on the engagement of minority and Hispanic students
stressed that these individual connections are of particular importance for these
populations that make up a majority of the student enrollment at Central High
School. While an argument is not being made that a willing teacher cannot learn
effective strategies to engage students, the site administration is being wise to
consider a prospective teacher’s current ability to connect with students and promote
student engagement as they make important decisions about hiring and replacing
school staff.
Second Research Question:
What school factors contribute to student engagement in high performing urban high
schools?
Leadership:
In the Joint Intervention Agreement that the school entered into in 2002,
improvement of student engagement was listed as one of the 37 specific
118

recommendations that the school was required to address. The Joint Intervention
Agreement directive is of particular interest because it required the school to address
student engagement in a direct manner and provide documentation to the California
Department of Education on their progress. Therefore, it is important to note that the
strategies that were implemented to specifically address engagement and increase
student achievement at the school appear to have been taken very seriously by the
staff. It also appears that many of these practices became institutionalized within the
organization and are still having a positive impact on student achievement three
years after the school was released from its Joint Intervention Agreement.
Because of the Joint Intervention Agreement directives, school leadership led
a concerted effort to improve student engagement along with student achievement.
School leadership centered the school improvement efforts on specific objectives,
one of which was improving levels of student engagement. The student engagement
improvement campaign lead by the school leadership emphasized the utilization of
Kate Kinsella learning engagement strategies that had been featured once before in a
comprehensive professional development program previously administered by the
district. In this instance, school leadership brought a previous staff development
program back again and focused on deeper implementation and utilization of the
skills teachers learned.
Another important school leadership action was addressing a general lack of
organization and administration that a staff member described as “operational stuff to
decrease the sense of chaos and disorganization.” The school leadership improved
119

order and procedures related to school management by establishing and
disseminating discipline policies, increasing the presence of administration on
campus, developing campus supervision schedules, refining opening day procedures,
calendaring important events and related activities, and developing the master
schedule to minimize future changes and disruptions. Regaining order on the school
campus allowed other school improvement efforts to flourish. The principal stated
these first efforts were, “Nothing with a grand philosophical instructional program, it
was fundamentals, making sure the place is operating on a day to day basis
effectively. When we had taken care of that, we could look at other areas.”
The school leadership has also lead efforts to improve student attendance by
continually monitoring attendance reports and overseeing intervention systems to
meet the needs of individual students. This leadership focus on getting students to be
physically present in school and on time has contributed to improved student
participation in learning, and the school has improved their overall attendance rate
more than any other school in the district..
The school leadership has also been successful in utilizing data and reports to
monitor student achievement and to guide the work of the school. Because the
relationship between engagement and achievement is circular in nature, efforts to
monitor and improve student performance also represent efforts to monitor and
improve some measurable aspects of student engagement. For example, some of the
multiple measures the school leadership routinely monitors with regard to
participation in college a-g coursework or student attainment of benchmarks for
120

graduation can arguably be interpreted as monitoring the engagement level of
students.
Instructional Practices:
A key component of the instructional practices that have had a positive
impact on student engagement is the way in which increased academic demands on
students have been coupled with attention to student engagement and support. It is
clear that the school has expected more from students scholastically, but they have
also offered more support for student success. The emphasis on student literacy and
support for students who need help reading is one example of this instructional
support.
The increased structure of curriculum, and lessons tied to state standards and
common assessments have helped to more clearly define what students should be
learning every day in each class. Teachers are expected to have standards posted and
a daily agenda communicated to students. This helps students remain purposefully
involved in each lesson, and provides structure so teachers utilize time more
effectively. The Kinsella engagement strategies have supported both engagement
and academic success, and the strategies have provided teachers with ways to
informally assess student understanding before moving to the next segment of a
lesson. Teachers have also spent professional development time practicing and
refining the tools they are using to engage students. This professional development
has included teachers observing other teachers in demonstrations of lessons in which
121

engaging instructional strategies are utilized. Much of this work has focused on
utilizing questioning techniques that aim to involve the whole class.
Students have also demonstrated a greater sense of urgency with regard to
acquiring the skills needed to pass the CAHSEE. This is likely due in part to new
enforcement of the state requirement that students pass the exam to be eligible for
graduation. A staff member stated, “I think after last year’s group, when the state
finally put some teeth in the exit exam, I think kids finally realized how important it
is. We had a good pass rate to begin with, but I think our students now have a real
serious understanding of how important that is.”
With regard to teacher efficacy, the teacher survey results suggest that those
taking the survey believe that they have the ability to impact student engagement.
77.3% of teachers taking the survey agree that they are able to influence their
students attitudes about school, and 70% agree with the statement they are able to
help their students care about their schoolwork. However, a smaller percentage
(56.6%) of teachers agreed with the statement that they can motivate a student who
has stopped trying in class to start trying again, and only 50% of teachers taking the
survey agreed with the statement that they can get through to the most difficult
students.

122

Table 8
Teacher’s perceptions of their efficacy regarding their ability to impact student
engagement as measured by the teacher survey instrument. (N=30)
Item % Agree % Neutral % Disagree
11) I am able to influence the
attitudes my students have
about school.
77.3 23.3 3.3
12) I am able to help student
care about their schoolwork.
70 26.6 3.3
13) I have enough time to get to
know the personal
characteristics and interests
of all my students.
55.1 17.2 27.5
14) If students stop trying in my
class, I have the capacity to
motivate them to start trying
again.
56.6 36.6 6.6
15) If students in my class are
struggling, I have the
necessary skills to increase
their achievement.
80 20 0
16) Resources and assistance are
available to students to meet
their personal and academic
needs.
76.6 13.3 0
17) I can get through to the most
difficult students.
50 26.6 23.3
18) I can help my students think
critically.
90 6.6 0
19) I can foster student
creativity.
86.6 10 3.3
20) I can assist families in
helping their children to well
in school.
53.3 43.3 3.3

The new bell schedule with built in tutorial time also gives teachers a way to
provide individual support for students. The bell schedule was established to provide
additional common planning time for teachers and mandatory tutorial intervention.
Staff suggested that a key difference with this tutoring program was that it was not
123

intervention by invitation and could be required. The Monday through Thursday
schedule below provides an additional twenty minutes of optional instructional time
following each of the three daily block periods. Because this schedule is so new, the
school is still working to establish some guidelines for the use of this time; however,
administration confirmed that only a handful of teachers are not yet using the time
appropriately. According to interviews with staff, the majority of the teachers are
using the additional tutoring time to motivate students, provide additional
instruction, and show students they care about their individual success. A recent
school survey of staff members indicated that all but a few of the teachers at the
school support continued use of the new schedule for next year.

Table 9
Tutorial Bell Schedule – Monday through Thursday schedule
Zero Period
Period 1 & 2
Tutoring
NUTRITION
Period 3 & 4
Tutoring
LUNCH
Period 5 & 6
Tutoring
6:50 – 7:55
8:00 – 9:40
9:40 – 10:00
10:00 – 10:10
10:15 – 11:55
11:55 – 12:15
12:15 – 12:45
12:50 – 2:30
2:30 – 2:50

Culture:
Because Central High School is part of an all high school district, students
matriculate from different elementary school districts; and this school’s students
matriculate from several elementary school districts. It appears that part of the
engagement work of the school involves unifying the students from a variety of
124

elementary schools into a cohesive student body. This is accomplished in part by the
sense of history pervasive in the culture at Central High School. The school is
challenged by a relatively high transient rate in some neighborhoods feeding into the
school, but that problem is countered by a strong sense of community and tradition.
Many of the staff members used the term “special place” when speaking about the
school. In addition, several staff members mentioned that many of the students have
parents and grandparents who attended the school. A staff member stated, “I do
think that sense of tradition that this is a real special place to be. I think that
contributes a lot to success.”
The school community is also challenged by some gang influences. Staff
members acknowledge that they have to address some gang problems, but gang
issues do not appear to have an influence on the school culture as a whole. In
general, the positive and supportive school culture keeps attention on the issues of
student achievement. A staff member stated, “You can find problems anywhere. It’s
all what you want to look for.”
The staff frequently used the word, “hope” in describing their interventions
for students and their efforts to keep them from giving up. A staff member stated,
“The word we’ve come up with lately for part of our success is hope. If you provide
kids hope that they can be successful, they’re much more likely to buy into that
whole idea, and to be able to feel good about coming to school and want to be here
and engage in what’s going on.” With specific instructional strategies and time to
125

reach out to challenging students, the staff has been able to convey to students that
there are opportunities for improvement and multiple ways to recover from setbacks.
It appears that efforts to improve student achievement are bringing about
cultural changes that are engaging the staff in new ways. Within the school’s new
cultural norms of consistently reviewing student achievement data with a concern for
continuous improvement, the sense of obligation on the part of staff members to try
and help students be successful is increasing. A staff member stated, “Our new
schedule has provided a new way to think about learning for kids, but also for
teachers. It’s about being successful and giving kids hope that they can be
successful.”

Discussion of the Second Research Question
Because of the circular relationship between student engagement and student
achievement, it was difficult to differentiate whether specific school factors were
impacting engagement or improved achievement. It is apparent from the similarity in
findings between the second and third research questions that both student
engagement and student achievement influence on another. The qualitative data
suggests that engagement has been positively influenced by school leadership,
instructional practices and school culture; however, the improvement efforts on the
part of the school to address engagement were not readily evident in the High School
Survey of Student Engagement. In addition, it was apparent in the qualitative data
that the school was helping students take increased responsibility for their own
126

learning (a form of engagement) through a variety of means, but the impact on
student engagement as measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement
did not confirm this finding.
There appears to be evidence that the efforts to improve student engagement in
students had an engaging influence on the teaching staff and supported a culture of
responsibility for student achievement. A report on the 2006 High School Survey of
Student Engagement national profile reinforces this concept that engagement is
primarily about relationships. The report states, “Engagement is about relationships;
engagement is not a solo activity” (Yazzie-Mintz, 2006). In supporting this concept
of relationships, the visible cultural shift in the role of the teachers related to ongoing
engagement was not anticipated from the literature on student engagement.
However, the shifting role and attitudes on the part of teachers was one of the most
predominant findings.
Another predominant finding is the importance of coupling rigor with student
support and assistance. It is evident that this support is vital for keeping students
engaged, and the schools ability to increase rigor without the unintended
consequence of increased dropouts attests to the high level of support that students at
Central High School are receiving. A key component in their support of students is
the many opportunities the school provides for students to re-learn or try again.
The reinforcement of student engagement derived from the ability to re-submit
work or re-learn a unit is also consistent with the literature on providing incentives
for perseverance (Darling-Hammond & Ifill-Lynch, 2005; Tomlinson, 2001). The
127

chance to improve a failing grade or master a unit of study provides an incentive to
keep trying and diminishes the overall sense of failure for the student as the
emphasis is placed on the work at hand. It also prevents the feeling that the student
has been “written off” by the teacher, and may reciprocally keep the teacher more
involved in supporting the student. The high school setting with its 20-week
semesters and credit requirements can make students particularly vulnerable to a
cycle of failure. If opportunities to re-learn or make up work are not provided to
students, then those who are failing by the mid point in the semester have little
incentive to keep trying. Therefore, providing students with the incentives and the
support to persevere has helped the school sustain engagement and impact student
achievement.

Third Research Question:
What school factors contribute to high performance?
Leadership:
At Central High School, the Joint Intervention Agreement was a tipping point
for the subsequent changes that contributed to high performance. After the Joint
Intervention Agreement was put in place, the principal and the three assistant
principals making up the entire leadership team at the school was changed. Staff
members credited the district office for their willingness to make changes where
needed. The principal has now been in place for four years, and his leadership has
not only helped bring the school out of the Joint Intervention Agreement, but it has
128

helped the school continue on a pathway of continued success. In referencing the
principal, a staff member stated, “When the old principal left, the district office hired
a principal who had a reputation for turning schools around. He had a very daunting
task to make sure the state did not come in and take over the high school.” The three
new assistant principals have also been effective in leading school efforts to improve
student achievement. Their leadership has brought about many improvements
throughout the school program including critical areas of counseling and intervention
and curriculum and master schedule planning. The coordinator of the New Horizons
and ELL programs is also an important leader on campus overseeing crucial areas
impacting English language learners and college guidance programs.
In addition to the formal leadership of administrators and coordinators, the
school has other layers of effective instructional leadership. Strong department
chairpersons are described by administration as an essential part of ongoing
improvement. In particular, a new math department chairperson that the school
sought out to bring back to the district has been described as, “one of the great keys
to success.” His leadership efforts have been credited with gains in student
achievement, effective use of common assessment, and positive changes in the types
of collegial work between teachers. A staff member described the progress the math
chairperson made as, “taking the math department on a sprint and moving them in
the right direction.” It was reported that part of the reason the math department
chairperson has had such success is the willingness of the math teachers to follow
him. Prior to the establishment of embedded teacher planning and collaboration time
129

within the school schedule, the math department would often meet on their own time
into the early evening to review the results of common assessments and to determine
the effectiveness of instructional activities. The principal credited this individual’s
success to the following factors: he, “knew how to teach and knew how to work with
people; and there was also a young math department willing to follow him with good
teachers who were motivated and optimistic.”
The new science department chairperson has also been identified as an
important instructional leader at the school. In addition to teaching science courses,
this individual taught in the math department under the leadership of the new math
department chairperson. As a result of the math department chairperson’s influence,
the instructional leadership strategies demonstrated in the math department are now
being utilized in the science department. The science department has also been
described as younger and similarly optimistic and capable.
Staff members reported that school leaders are able to take actions to be
successful and try new strategies because of district office support. In describing the
role of the district office in supporting innovation at school sites, the staff member
stated, “Anytime you’re going to make things happen, you have to be allowed to take
some risks. The district office gives us latitude within limits.” An example of how
this latitude within limits created opportunities for improvement at the school is with
the new bell schedule that was established to meet the need for increased planning
time and individual work with students. The bell scheduled is also an example of a
measured risk that the school leadership took to improve the instructional program.
130

It appears that the willingness of the district office to allow the school to be
innovative is due in part to the effective monitoring systems embedded in data. The
use of data as a tool to measure effectiveness is evident throughout the school; and
the school leadership uses large amounts of data received by the district office to
both measure their own success and be accountable to the district office. The school
leadership uses data to establish goals and spends planning time reviewing goals and
strategies with district office leadership during the summer months. The district
office does give the school directives and specific guidelines about how to improve,
but they also allow the school to try different strategies provided that the school
monitors data and results to understand if what they are doing is effective.
One noticeable feature of the data and reports provided to the school through
its EADMS software is its usability. The school leadership is able to track progress
and share results with staff in a variety of forms including spreadsheets, charts, and
graphs. It appears that this information provides significant help to the school’s
instructional leadership in working with their teaching staff. In planning for a staff
meeting this year, the administration was able to provide individual teachers with
personalized data packets containing their own student achievement information.
This quantifiable and objective data has proved useful in helping teachers
differentiate their perceptions about their own effectiveness from their actual results
with students.

131

Instructional Practices:
The improvements in instructional practices have had a positive impact on
the achievement level of the school. With the support of the district office, the school
has made a concerted effort to ensure that the curriculum is in alignment with state
standards, and that students are being taught a well planned, sequential curriculum
that leads students to success. In virtually every department, the school has taken
steps to ensure that students are acquiring the skills and knowledge they need
through common unit and semester assessments. The departments that have not been
consistently using common assessments are now developing these assessments. The
school modeled their protocol for utilizing common assessments from the
Professional Learning Communities work that the school studied at Stevenson High
School in Illinois.
Much of the school’s growth in student achievement has been attributed to
common assessments, and data on student achievement also supports continued use
of common assessments. The math department that first began utilizing common
assessments was the first to have significant levels of instructional improvement. A
staff member said, “As they began to utilize common assessments, grades improved
dramatically, test scores improved. There were more kids in algebra and more
challenging course work.”
In another the example, the English department has also been able to see
improvement in student achievement through the use of a standardized curriculum
and common assessments. The department has improved from a student failure rate
132

(F grade) of 28% in English I four years ago to a current failure rate of 9%. A staff
member stated, “This isn’t grade inflation. It’s doing things that help kids. And part
of it is people realizing that’s their job and helping kids be successful. And that’s not
about grade inflation, that’s about doing things that help kids succeed.”
The science department has also had success moving forward with common
assessments. Grades in science classes have improved, and more students are
enrolled in college prep science courses. Some departments in the school have had
challenges in making common assessments work within their particular areas of
study. For instance, the foreign language department is by scale, a smaller
department with a limited number of individual course sections. This has made the
implementation of common assessments challenging.
The success the school is achieving from the use of common assessments is a
result of the decisions that are made about teaching and the instructional program
from reviewing the subsequent assessment data. A staff member stated, “It isn’t just
the assessment, but what you do with it after, what you do with results and talking
about the results, and talking about the teaching that’s gone on to create the results.”
Another critical element that has been instrumental in school success is re-teaching
and providing additional instruction when the common assessments indicate that
students are not performing at desired levels.
The school is able to provide this extra instruction through remedial classes
and the new tutorial period. As an example of a remedial class, the school monitors
the CAHSEE data and requires every junior or senior that has not passed the tests to
133

enroll in the appropriate CAHSEE prep class as an elective. The school currently has
six math and seven English CAHSEE prep sections. An alternative bell schedule
with built in tutorial periods began this school year. Student grades indicate that it is
having a positive impact on student achievement. A comparison of first semester
grades for the 2005/2006 school year (before the tutorial bell schedule had started)
and the 2006/2007 school year (one semester after the tutorial bell schedule started)
indicate that most courses have improved grades with fewer F’s and D’s, and more
C’s, B’s ,and A’s. However, the departments not fully utilizing common assessments
(history/social studies) are not showing the same improvements as other
departments. This may be due to a lack of direction or understanding of how best to
utilize the extra tutorial time in the absence of common assessments. In addition to
the overall improvements in student grades, it appears that the tutorial period is
contributing to student achievement in the areas of students on-target-to-graduate
and a-g course completion. Because the new bell schedule has been in place for less
than a year, the school has not determined if it has had a positive impact on
standardized test results.

134

Table 10
2005/2006 First Semester grades (as percentages) above. 2006/2007 First Semester
grades (as percentages) below in bold.
Class A B C D F
English 2 13.2
16.2
19.6
27.4
27.3
24.7
17.8
14.0
21.6
17.0
Geometry 15.7
15.9
18.5
26.1
33.9
33.1
26.6
18.8
5.3
5.1
PE 32.0
51.2
18.8
21.9
17.1
14.4
14.3
6.5
15.7
5.0
Biology 16.3
20.7
23.9
23.8
36.1
28.4
12.9
11.9
10.7
14.1
World Civil. 12.5
8.1
21.4
20.6
25.5
24.5
15.4
21.6
25.2
24.7

Culture:
The use of common assessments and data to make instructional decisions is
impacting the overall school culture and in particular, the relationships between
teachers and the role of teachers in the school. Staff reported that it has energized
veteran teachers and brought about increases in the amount and quality of teacher
work with colleagues. A staff member stated, “Use of common assessment has
created a little competition among people and a sense of healthy rivalry among
teachers – but also a strong sense of team. Of working together and wanting
everyone to be successful.” Staff reported that it has also brought about more
willingness on the part of teachers to have dialogue about teaching and to ask
questions of one another. A staff member stated, “If someone got 98% of their class
to get a question correct on a common assessment, others have a reason to ask how
they made that happen. It has changed the tone of meetings among teachers –
changed the mindset.”
135

The focus on student achievement has also impacted the school climate with
regard to the issues that are valued and important among staff members. In addition,
a change in teachers beliefs about their role and their willingness to embrace
responsibility for student success has evolved from the work to improve student
achievement. An administrator stated that before he came to work at the school, he
had impressions about the school in program improvement status and the staff that
turned out to be false once he arrived. He did not expect to find so many caring and
hard working teachers and examples of good teaching; and he was surprised to see
the hard work and level of concern for students. He believes that the school staff still
has the same level of caring and concern for students, but the school culture has
evolved. He suggested that an increasing number of teachers believe that their role is
to find strategies that ensure students are successful. He stated,

“It has never been an issue of people not working hard and caring. It’s
been a change in focus and a change in how we spend our time
outside of class. And now a change in some people’s thinking. I
wouldn’t say it was the majority, but there was always staff that say,
‘I put it out there. It’s up to him to come take it and be successful or
not.’ Now there’s a whole lot more people who are saying, ‘You
know what, if kids aren’t doing well in my class, I need to look at
what I’m doing and why they’re not being successful, and what I’m
going to do differently tomorrow or what I’m going to use my tutorial
time for to help these kids be successful.’ There’s a whole lot more
people thinking that way. Thinking about making kids successful and
using this time we’ve created. And really our job is for kids to be
successful and not to be proud of a 25% fail rate in your class because
you’ve got standards. That doesn’t mean you’ve got standards, that
means you’re not helping kids be successful. That kind of discussion
is going on and I think people’s attitudes are really changing.”

136

Discussion of the Third Research Question
The importance of instructional leadership from within the teaching staff was
a predominant finding that was only partially anticipated from the literature on
instructional improvement. The literature emphasized quality teacher collaboration,
but the pervasive cultural and political shifts caused by team oversight of teacher
effectiveness was not anticipated. The finding that the harshest criticism and external
motivation for teacher improvement came from peers was also important. It should
be noted that the collegial environment was not negative. Reviewing disparities
between classes on performance data was perhaps uncomfortable for some at times,
but the collegial support for the subsequent improvement efforts also promoted
increased teamwork and collective inquiry.
The use of data as a means of monitoring continuous improvement while
allowing for innovation and new solutions was also a predominant finding. The use
of data to measure and monitor the effectiveness of the instructional program was
anticipated in the literature through the work of Dufour and Eaker (1996), but the
way in which this school used data to monitor considerable schoolwide innovations
like the tutorial bell schedule was not anticipated. The use of data to measure the
effectiveness of the innovative bell schedule, and in particular, the ability of school
leadership to point to this data was likely a factor in the leadership’s ability to garner
teacher support.
Another important finding that was not anticipated was the attention to
fundamentals in terms of school management and operations. The more recent
137

literature on school leadership has predominantly focused on instructional leadership
almost to the exclusion of operational day-to-day management (Schmoker; 2006;
Dufour & Eaker, 1996). It is important to acknowledge that the school had to remedy
the chaos and disorder in order for improvement efforts to flourish. This finding may
be of particular importance to new administrators. It was not necessary for this
school to wait to fix every operational and organizational problem before addressing
student achievement, but this school’s example suggests that the operational and
management aspects of school leadership are also critical.

Themes
The following four themes below emerged as ongoing issues throughout the
study. There was considerable crossover between the themes as they shared various
aspects of the recurrent issues with one another.
1.) Responsibility for student learning
The school efforts to positively impact student achievement became more
successful as staff accepted responsibility for student success in the areas of both
engagement and student achievement. This is evident in all levels of the school
organization: from the district office with the theme of “whatever it takes;” to
professional development work at the school with the willingness of staff to confront
the reality of student achievement data and be innovative and strategic in their
improvement efforts; and to the individual classrooms with teachers empowered and
obligated to provide immediate intervention.
138

In addition, it appears that the culture of responsibility for student learning
spread with efforts by staff to increase student engagement. When the teachers at this
school made significant effort to improve student achievement or engagement, the
teachers also became increasingly engaged. This also resulted in cultural and
political changes with regard to teacher roles and obligations to support students. The
role of teachers as responsible parties in the success of students is also related to the
tools they have at their disposal to remedy problems. The use of data to measure the
effectiveness of their teaching and make improvements, and the use of extra time to
work with challenging students are two examples of how giving teachers more
authority as professionals promotes teacher acceptance of responsibility for student
learning.
The tools and strategies teachers utilize to improve student achievement also
support the role students have in taking responsibility for their own learning. For
example, the same use of data to guide instruction for individual students also
supports students in taking responsibility for their own learning by helping them
focus on what they need to learn next. In addition, the use of extra time with teachers
also makes students more likely to share responsibility for their own learning as they
become more comfortable seeking and accepting help with their learning difficulties
and experience the benefit of increased persistence.

139

2.) Personal concern for students
Meeting individual student needs and demonstrating concern for the success
of every student was a recurrent theme in increasing student achievement and
engagement; and part of the cultural shift of accepting responsibility for student
achievement also includes a responsibility for meeting the needs of every student. It
is evident that having caring and concerned individuals willing and available to
support students is essential, but that alone is not enough. Taking students to their
next level of learning and engagement requires an understanding of the individual
needs of students and a systemic way to provide the support students need.
This was achieved in part through the school’s effective use of data as a
means of sorting and identifying students in need of intervention and assistance. The
school intervention pyramid is a model for how the school meets the needs of all
identified students who need support to be successful. It should also be noted that the
intervention pyramid included many proactive approaches to increase engagement in
students who were already achieving at satisfactory levels, but needed to be
challenged to pursue college preparation and more rigorous courses. Therefore,
personal concern for students encompasses both students who are in need of
assistance to meet the minimum satisfactory level of performance and also students
who are already achieving at the satisfactory level and need support to continue
achieving at even higher levels.
Personal concern for students in their classroom learning was also part of the
school efforts that brought about success. This was again achieved in part through
140

the effective use of data to identify student learning needs and what specific areas
needed to be re-taught on both a classroom and individual student basis. The
individual learning needs of students who were performing at satisfactory levels was
also enhanced through personalization; and as a result, more students were
challenged and experienced success in more rigorous college preparation courses.
3.) Using data to guide decision making
Another recurrent theme embedded in all aspects of the schools success is
the use of data to guide decision making. The prevalence of the effective use of
meaningful data was evident in all aspects of the school organization: from the
district office with reliance on data to provide multiple indicators of success; to the
school leadership with data to support accountability and guide ongoing
improvement; to the individual classroom with data use to understand the teaching
and learning that has occurred.
The growing use of data to guide decision making has also brought about
significant cultural changes in the school, and in particular, with regard to
relationships and interactions among teachers. Facing objective data about student
achievement in front of a peer group was a courageous endeavor for the majority of
teachers; but the collegiality and assistance received from the peer group has brought
about increased teamwork and the willingness to assume greater responsibility for
student achievement.
The use of data has also increased the amount of instructional leadership at
the school. With usable and informative data, the administrative team had the
141

capacity to provide instructional leadership and focus school efforts on continuous
improvement. With data, the department chairpersons had important and compelling
information to share with their teacher teams, and this data provided the focus for
purposeful work and ongoing collaboration. Finally, the use of data in the classroom
allowed teachers to assume the role of instructional leader as they facilitated learning
for their students.
4.) Effective leadership
The recurrent theme of effective leadership was evident in the schools
success. The leadership aspect of oversight for continuous improvement and
focusing efforts on the most important work of increasing student achievement was
evident in every aspect of the organization. The district office and the school site
partnered in the development of student achievement goals, and the school
leadership planned activities to meet improvement benchmarks and performance
targets. The leadership was able to break the goals down into smaller pieces that
were understandable and attainable by the staff. This was important on a practical
level, because the staff was able to understand what they needed to do on an
individual basis in order for the school to achieve its goals.
The use of data figured prominently in monitoring progress; and it is
important to note that when achievement was not attained, the focus was not on
blaming the individual(s). Instead it was placed on understanding what needed to be
changed and implemented in order for progress to be resumed. Involving the
accountable party in the measuring and monitoring of progress also supported
142

increased responsibility for achievement and promoted leadership at all levels of the
organization. It also empowered persons to take calculated risks and monitor the
effectiveness of innovations. The ongoing monitoring of achievement appeared to be
a rigid aspect of the school leadership, but it actually made the organization more
flexible. It provided the structure by which the organization could adapt to new
circumstances, and the necessary changes could be more readily implemented.

143

CHAPTER FIVE
Overview
There is a considerable body of research on the student achievement of high
school students and the persistent achievement gap present in many urban high
schools (The Civil Rights Project, 2005; Ferguson, 2002). In a related area, there is a
growing amount of research about the schooling factors present at successful urban
high schools that are outperforming their peers (Haycock, 2001; Bell, 2001). In
addition, there is a depth of knowledge about student engagement and its impact on
student achievement (Newman, 1989; Marks, 2000). Adding to information on the
status of student engagement in American high schools is a major study currently
being conducted by Indiana University called the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (2006). However, there is limited knowledge about how student
engagement impacts the achievement of students in high performing urban high
schools and how instructional practices, leadership, and school culture impact the
engagement and achievement in these schools.
The lack of information on how high performing urban high schools are
impacted by student engagement and schooling factors associated with student
achievement lead to the completion of this study conducted in association with a
thematic dissertation team.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the level of student engagement and the school factors
associated with student engagement and student achievement at a high performing
144

urban high school in Los Angeles County. Its purpose was to determine whether high
performing urban high schools have higher levels of student engagement and if so;
what school factors contribute toward that engagement. A thematic dissertation team
of six researchers developed the three research questions that guided this study:
1) What is the level of student engagement in a high performing urban high school as
measured by the High School Survey of Student Engagement? How does it compare
to the national profile?; 2) What school factors contribute to student engagement in
high performing urban high schools?; and 3) What school factors contribute to high
performance?
Significance of the Study
It appears that efforts to improve student engagement have a positive impact
on student achievement and that school leadership, instructional practices and school
culture play a role in the relationship between student engagement and student
achievement. In addition, this study affirms the literature reinforcing the concept that
the following school factors: effective leadership, instructional practices and school
culture, positively impact student achievement. A key finding in the study reinforces
the concept of the circular relationship between student engagement and student
achievement. The themes that continued to emerge at this school site were: 1)
responsibility for student learning, 2) personal concern for students 3) using data to
guide decision making, and 4) effective leadership.
While this study as an individual case is not significant, it is possible that
when the six thematic team studies are viewed together, potential common findings
145

among them may suggest more significant findings regarding the impact of student
engagement and high performing urban high schools from the perspective of an
entire school district.
Research Methodology
This study was completed as part of a thematic dissertation team which
examined the level of student engagement and the school factors associated with
student engagement and student achievement at a high performing urban high
school. The case study was completed using a mixed method qualitative research
design. The school site selected was a high performing urban high school in Los
Angeles County.
The thematic dissertation team met from May 2006 through November 2006
to develop the framework for the study, form the study design, and develop the
research instruments. Research at the school site began in January 2007 and
continued through April 2007. A concurrent research study conducted in January
2007 at the school site by Indiana University as part of the High School Survey of
Student Engagement was also utilized as a secondary data source. Instruments to
gather multiple methods of data collection supported triangulation of the data.
Methods of data collection included observations, surveys, interviews and document
analysis. The research observation instrument was also developed utilizing the
“Four Frames” categories developed by Bolman and Deal (1997). Their descriptions
of the political, structural, symbolic and human resource lenses through which
146

behavior and interaction can be categorized provided a framework for sorting the
observation data.
Summary
Evidence of efforts to improve student engagement and of increasing
amounts of student engagement was found at Central High School, but results of the
High School Survey of Student Engagement found the students only minimally or
moderately engaged. It appears that leadership, instructional practices and school
culture are having a positive impact on student achievement. The relationship
between student engagement and student achievement is circular in nature and it is
therefore difficult to differentiate aspects of each when studying high performance.
It appears that efforts to increase student achievement and student
engagement increases the engagement level of staff. In addition, particular strategies
involving data and collaboration appear to increase the acceptance of responsibility
for student learning among teachers. This in turn can have an impact on school
culture and political dynamics within the organization.

Conclusions

How data is utilized will have an impact on whether or not it brings about
improvement in achievement. Many school districts are utilizing data systems;
however the ways in which this particular school made effective use of data
throughout all levels of the organization provides evidence of promising practice.
Although the variety of multiple measures and usability of the data supported the
147

efforts of school leaders to sustain continuous improvement, the common assessment
data developed by staff appeared to have the most impact on actual classroom
teaching and performance.
Efforts to meet the individual needs of students need to be embedded in a
structure of schoolwide support. The educational community is filled with many well
intentioned and caring individuals attempting to rescue students, but these individual
efforts are not systemic enough to address the enormity of student needs. The
supports at this school that proved to be a critical component in their improvement
efforts were personal time with students (through the alternative bell schedule) and
effective intervention strategies.
The issue of self-efficacy is important for teachers as well as students. Just as
students are reluctant to attempt a task unless they are sure they can be successful,
teachers are also reluctant to take on additional responsibilities or adopt new
strategies unless they believe that they too can be successful. Observing colleagues
having success or experiencing small, measured successes are important for teachers.
The more successful strategies teachers have at their disposal to impact student
achievement, then the more likely teachers will be in accepting responsibility for
student success. Few individuals are willing to assume responsibility for a situation
that appears hopeless and doomed to failure.

148

Recommendations
The accountability movement has centered public interest on hard issues like
performance data and student achievement results. Therefore, political discourse and
related dialogue on education has emphasized performance outcomes. Conversely,
educational issues that can be perceived as softer in nature, like student feelings,
have been viewed as less important and ineffectual. However, the personal
perceptions and feelings of the learner are highly important educational issues; and
strengthening the relationship between the learner and their role in the learning
process is of vital importance in improving the performance of the most challenging
students. Schools practitioners need to balance their focus between hard data and
issues related to the individual learner. In addition, school practitioners can benefit
from efforts to couple increased academic demands with student supports that foster
engagement.
Further studies on the relationship between student engagement and the
improvement of underperforming schools may prove beneficial. More specifically,
further research on the breaking point at which students become disengaged may
help provide insight into strategies that will keep more students actively engaged.
The related issue of disengagement or diminished engagement in middle school
grades may help educators sustain engagement as students matriculate to high
school.
In addition, addressing the engagement level of teachers in school
improvement efforts appears to be a critical issue for continuous improvement.
149

Additional research into the relationship between teacher efforts to improve student
performance and teacher engagement may increase responsibility for student
learning throughout educational organizations.
Finally, motivation and engagement needs to be highlighted as an important
component in administrator training programs if educators are to effectively lead
engagement improvement efforts at their schools.

150

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. (1994). A primer on school accountability. The Center for Education
Reform. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from website:
http://edreform.com/pubs/account1.hrm

Alson, A. (2003). The minority student achievement network. Educational
Leadership 6(4), 76-78.

Arroyo, A., Rhoad, R.,& Drew, P. (1999). Meeting diverse student needs in urban
schools: research-based recommendations for school personnel. Preventing
School Failure, 43 (4), 145-153.

Atkin, J.M. & Black, P. (1997). Policy perils of international comparisons: The
TIMSS case. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (1), 22-21.

Bainbridge, W., Lasley II, T., & Sundre, S. (2003). Policy initiatives to improve
urban schools: An agenda. Education and Urban Society, 35 (3 ), 292-299.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59 (8), 6-11.

Barton, P. (2006). The dropout problem: Losing Ground. Educational
Leadership63.(5), 14-18.

Bell, J. (2001). High-performing high-poverty schools. Leadership
September/October.

Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80 (2), 139-148.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & William, D. (2004). Working inside
the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan,
86 (1), 9-21.

Boaler, J. (2004). Promoting equity in mathematics classrooms: Important teaching
practices and their impact on student learning. Text of a lecture given at
ICME, Copenhagen.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice and
leadership (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
151

Bracey, G. (2001). The 11
th
Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi
Delta Kappan, 83 (2).

Brewster, C. & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation:
From time-on-task to homework. Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory. Retrieved June 9, 2006 from website:
http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/textonly.html

Bridgeland, J., Dilulio, J., & Burke Morison, K. (2006). The Silent Epidemic:
Perspectives of High School Dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in
Association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation.

Brown, K. & Anfara, V. (2003). Paving the way for change: Visionary leadership in
action at the middle level. NASSP Bulletin, 87 (6) 35.

Bushman, J., Goodman, G., Brown-Welty, S., & Dorn, S. (2001). California testing:
How principals choose priorities. Educational Leadership, 59 (1), 33-36.

Bybee, R.W. & (1997). The Sputnik era: Why is this educational reform different
from all other reforms. Text of a lecture given at the Center for Science,
Mathematics and Engineering Education. Text reprinted by The National
Academy of Sciences. Retrieved September 9, 2006, from website:
http://scholar.google.co/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:aZaA5mEMWzQJ:ww
w.research

California Department of Education. Retrieved from website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/

California Basic Educational Data System.(CBEDS). Retrieved from website:
http://www3.cde.ca.gov/scripts/texis.exe/webinator/search?query=cbeds&sub
mit=GO

Chappuis, S. & Stiggins, R. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational
Leadership, 60 (1), 40-43.

Children Now (2001). California Report Card 2001.

Clark, R. (2002). Building student achievement: In-school and out-of-school factors.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Policy Issues, December
2002, (13), 11-21.

Cosner, S. & Peterson, K. (2003). Building learning community. Leadership,
May/June, 12-16.

152

Cotton, K. Educating urban minority youth: Research on effective practices.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Paper retrieved June 6, 2006
from website http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/5/topsyn4.html

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

Cushman, K. (2006). Help us care enough to learn. Educational Leadership, 63 (5),
34-37.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Ifill-Lynch, O. (2005). If they’d only do their work.
Educational Leadership, 63 (5). 8-13.

DeMoss, K. (2002). Leadership styles and high-stakes testing. Education and
Urban Society, 35 (1), 111-131.

Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D.B. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives
on schools and students who don’t fit them. Teachers College Record, 103
(4), 525-547.

Dufour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.

Earl, L., & Fullan, M. (2003). Using data in leadership for learning. Cambridge
Journal of Education 33 (3) 383-394.

EdSource Online. (2002). Standards-based reform and accountability. Retrieved
June 1 2006 from website: www.EdSource

Education Trust. (2001). New Frontiers for a new century. Publication from the
Education Trust.

Education Trust. (2005). Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground. Retrieved from the
website: www.EdSource

Ferguson, R. F. (2002). Addressing racial disparities in high-achieving suburban
schools. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Policy Issues,
December 2002, (13), 1-10.

Gabelko, N. H. & Sosniak, L. (2002). Someone just like me: When academic
engagement trumps race, class, and gender. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (5), 400-
405.
153

Gall, M.P. & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7
th
ed.).
Allyn & Bacon, Boston.

Getting Ready for College: What student Engagement Data can tell us. (2005). A
special report from the High School Survey of Student Engagement. 1 (1).
Retrieved December 9, 2005 from website:
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/college_prep_hssse05.pdf

Guthrie, J., Schafer, W. D, & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and
balanced instruction on the NAEP. The Journal of Educational Research, 94
(3), 145-162.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1998). Reassessing the principal’s roe in school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (2), 157-191.

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58 (6),
6-11.

Hentschke, G. C. (1997). Beyond competing school reforms: A redefinition of public
in public schooling. Education and Urban Society, 29 (4), 474-489.

High School Survey of Student Engagement 2005. What Can We Learn From High
School Students. Retrieved December 9, 2005 from website:
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/hssse_2005_report.pdf

High School Survey of Student Engagement. Sample Survey. Retrieved December 9,
2005 from website: http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/ncs_2.pdf

High School Survey of Student Engagement. Fall 2006 Report. [Central] High
School. Indiana University.

Holloway, J. ( 2002). Research link: Extracurricular activities and student
motivation. Educational Leadership, 59 (6), 80-81.

Isaac, S.& Michael, W. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego,
California: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

Joyce, B. & Calhoun, E. (1995). School renewal: an inquiry, not a formula.
Educational Leadership,52 (7), 51-55.

154

Klem, A. & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to
student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74 (7), 262-
273.

Krathwohl, D. (1993). The methods of research. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Krug, E.A. (1964). The shaping of the American high school. New York: Harper and
Row.

Leah, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, & William, D. (2005). Assessment minute by minute,
day by day. Educational Leadership, 63 (3), 19-24.

Lee, V. E. & Burkam, D.T. (2000). Dropping out of high school: The role of school
organization and structure. Paper Prepared for Conference – January 13,
2001. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Cambridge, MA.

Lehr, C., Sinclair, M., & Christenson, S. (2004). Addressing student engagement
and truancy prevention during the elementary school years: A replication
study of the check and connect model. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk 9 (3), 279-301.

Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’
motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 38(1 ) 94-119.

Lewis, A., (2004). Washington Commentary: Schools that engage children. Phi
Delta Kappan, 85 (6), 483-484.

Linnenbrink, E. & Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly,
19 (2), 119-137.

Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the
elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research
Journal, 37 (1), 153-188.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria:
Virginia.

Marzano, R. (2002). A tool for selecting the “right work” in your school. Paper
presented at ACSA conference 2004. San Diego, CA.

155

Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCarthy, M. (2003). High School Survey of Student Engagement. PowerPoint
Notes. Bloomington, IA:

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

McTighe, J. O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning.
Educational Leadership, 63 (3), 10 -17.

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

National Academy of Education (1987). The nation’s report card. National
Academy of Education - Harvard

National Commission on Excellence (1993). A nation at risk.

Newman, F. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational
Leadership, February 1989) 34 - 39.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The Civil Rights Project. (2005). Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis in
California. Executive Summary. Report of the Civil Rights Project. Harvard
University.

The Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (1990). America’s
choice: High Skills or Low Wages. National Center on Education and the
Economy. Rochester: NY.

Osterman, K. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review
of Educational Research, 70 (3) 323-367.

Peterson, K. & Kelley, C. (2001). Transforming school leadership. Leadership, 30
(3), 8-11.

Pierce, M. (2001). Support systems for instructional leaders. Leadership, May/June,
16-18.

156

Raynor, A. F. (2005). Small learning communities: Putting power in the “C”. Voices
in Urban Education, Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Issue number 8.
Retrieved September 23, 2005 from website:
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/VUE/summer05/Raynor.html

Raywid, M. A. (2006). Small schools: Themes that serve schools well. Phi Delta
Kappan, 87 (8), 654-666.

Reville, S.P. (2005). Reinventing high school accountability: authenticity, pressure,
and support. Voices in Urban Education, Annenberg Institute for School
Reform. Issue number 8. Retrieved September 23, 2005 from website:
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/VUE/summer05/Reville.html

Rothman, R. (2005). Redesigning high school: Whole systems that work for all
students. Voices in Urban Education, Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Issue number 8. Retrieved September 23, 2005 from website:
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/VUE/summer05/Rothman.html

Sagor, R. (2002). Lessons from skateboarders. Educational Leadership, 60 (1), 34-
38.

Schmoker, M. & Marzano, R. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based
education. Educational Leadership 56 (6), 17-21.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Shoer, P. &; Greer, J. (1997). Leadership in Empowered Schools. Prentice Hall:
New York.

Silliker, S. A. & Quirk, J. T. (1997). The effect of extracurricular activity
participation on the academic performance of male and female high school
students. The School Counselor, March 1997, (44), 288-292.

Smylie, M. A. & Hart, A. W. (1999). School leadership for teaching learning and
change: A human and social capital perspective. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis
(Eds.), Handbook of research on education administration. (2
nd
Ed.) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tatum, A. (2006). Engaging African American males in reading. Educational
Leadership, 63 (5), 44-49.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). Grading for success. Educational Leadership, 58 (6), 12-
15.
157

Tomlinson, C.A. (2002). Invitations to learn. Educational Leadership, 60 (1), 7-10.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Retrieved from website.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

Vaca, R. T. (2006). They can because they think they can. Educational Leadership,
63 (5), 56-59.

Voke, H. (2002). Motivating students to learn. Infobrief, February 2002 (28).
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

WestEd. (2004). California’s graduation rate: The hidden crisis. Retrieved June 1,
2006 from website: www.wested.org/online_pubs/cde.gradrateII.pdf

WestEd. (2004). Student achievement in California: Steady progress made, faster
improvement needed. Retrieved June 1, 2006 from website:
www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/753

Yazzie-Mintz, Ethan. (2006). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the
2006 high school survey of student engagement. Indiana University.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Youngs, P. & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development
to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 ( 5),.643-
670.

158

Appendix A –
Interview Instrument
Case Study
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

Interview Script

Investigator: Hi. My name is . As you know, I am here at Central
High School 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 specifically. Any information you provide me will remain confidential. If
at any point during our conversation you would prefer to not answer any
question, just let me know and we will move on to the next question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) follow-up -- Are there specific programs that this school has
in place that contribute to higher student engagement?

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

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

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

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

3. Does the central/district office play a role in Central High
School becoming a high performing urban high school? If yes,
please describe.

Again, thank you for participating in this study.

159

Appendix B –
Observation Instrument

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

(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)

160

Appendix C –
Document Review Instrument

DOCUMENT REVIEW

API and state test data Student achievement data – subgroup data
School SARC Test scores, demographic information
Attendance and
Student Attendance
Review Board reports
Attendance information, truancy follow-up
a-g completion rates College preparation courses offered, access to
rigorous curriculum
Master schedule Course offerings and enrollment by class
CDE website, and
other website
information
Demographic information, test scores, teacher
information
CBEDS Reports Student enrollment, ethnicity, teacher and staff
information, students on inter-district permits,
demographic data
School Publications –
newsletters, reports,
school/district website,
mission statement,
correspondence with
public
Validation of school values and priorities, areas of
concern for staff and community
Graduation Rates and
California High
School Exit
Examination data
Student achievement – subgroup information
WASC Self-study Site report of their areas of strength and weaknesses,
visiting committee report of areas for future growth
District Publications Programs and features of the school highlighted by the
district office
Internal
memorandums
Important areas of work in progress, areas of concern
by the school staff

161

Appendix D
Teacher Survey Instrument

Teacher Survey of Student Engagement

This voluntary 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 Arts

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, etc.) that 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.

162

Appendix D Continued

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

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

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.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to determine whether high performing urban high schools have higher levels of student engagement and if so

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

A case study: one California high school's commitment to preparing students for a global world

PDF

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

PDF

Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Lambert, Amicia L. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/26/2007

Defense Date 05/09/2007

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

Tag engagement,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email alambert@bhusd.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m693

Unique identifier UC1305612

Identifier etd-Lambert-20070726 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-524057 (legacy record id),usctheses-m693 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lambert-20070726.pdf

Dmrecord 524057

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lambert, Amicia L.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu