Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE EFFECTS OF CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE STANDARDS BASED
INSTRUCTION ON AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
Shelley Jeannine Jones
________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Shelley Jeannine Jones
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to begin by thanking the Lord almighty for as we all know all things are
possible through our Lord Christ Jesus and without him none of this work would
have come to fruition. These last three years have been full of ups and downs
throughout which the support of my children, my family, friends, and faith in the
Lord has helped to pull me through.
I would first and foremost like to thank and thoroughly acknowledge my
children. Jordan, my first born baby boy, who has been with mommy through the
teaching credential program, masters degree, administrative credential, the trials and
tribulations of being dedicated to education, and now a doctoral degree. Mommy
loves and appreciates you more than words can express. For seven beautiful and
funfilled years it was just you and I. You have been my inspiration and reason for
living throughout this journey and I thank you for that. Its our time now to enjoy life
so continue to remind me to stop and enjoy all that we have accomplished.
To my newest precious addition baby boy Taylor Malik. You are truly a
blessing from the Lord for both your father and myself. Your existence has taught
me so much about myself and forced me to grow and humble myself in ways I didn’t
know possible. Everyday you both inspire and challenge me to recognize what is
truly important in this life. This degree could not and would not have been completed
without the continued support and inspiration from my babies. I love you today,
tomorrow and forever. Know completely that everything I do is to provide a healthy
and fulfilling life for us.
iii
Thanks to my parents, Ronald and Sandra Jones, for the countless nights and
Saturdays that they watched my children so that I could study or get a moment to
relax. Your support through this process is priceless. Special thanks to my daddy.
Our relationship has grown over the years into a beautiful friendship. Without you I
think I would lose my mind even though at times you yourself cause me to lose it.
Thank you for always being my voice of reason and putting me in my place when I
needed it most. You have been there for me in ways that mean the world to me. You
tell me what I need to hear and not always what I want to hear and I appreciate that. I
love you both.
Thanks to my Aunt Denise for watching Taylor and allowing me to invade
your home on a moments notice to get the observation portion of this project
completed. You and your family are appreciated.
To my mentor, friend, confidant, godmother to my son and dissertation
committee member, Dr. Ramona Bishop. Wow, we did it! Girl, you already
know…..I love you like the sister I never had, always wanted, and most importantly
always needed. Thank you for being my rock!
To my partner in crime, Tony Limoges. Man who would have thought that
the midwestern white boy and the power to the people black chick would end up
being the best of friends. From the birth of our children to the completion of this
degree we got through it together! Thanks for getting me through those Saturdays
and traveling this journey with me, I’ll always love you for it. We FINISHED!!!
iv
I would like to thank my fellow cohort members and my colleagues at Grant
High, Bret Harte Middle, the “Great School,” and Mahogany without whom none of
this would have been possible. You all were willing to help at every turn and I truly
appreciate your support.
Finally, I would like to thank all of my family and friends too numerous to
name for your patience, understanding, and support. Thanks to you all for being
there for me when I needed you and letting me be when I needed to sit down
somewhere and write!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................…vi
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................…vii
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..……………………….........................................1
Problem Identification......................................................................................2
Problem Analysis and Interpretation................................................................5
Problem Solution..............................................…......................................…10
Purpose and Research Questions....................................................................11
Purpose Statement..............................................................................11
Research Questions.................................….......................................11
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................. 12
African American Education......................................................................…13
Accountability............................................................................................….22
Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction..................................….27
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY...................................…......................................32
Design Summary.......................................................................................….32
Intervention Description ............................…................................................34
Participants and Setting.................................….............................................34
Instrumentation and Procedures.......................…..........................................35
Quantitative: Achievement......................….......................................35
Qualitative: Semi-structured Observations.........................................37
Analysis.....................................................................….................................38
Limitations...................................................................…...…........................39
CHAPTER 4.FINDINGS……….......................…....................................................41
Analysis of Findings…………………………………………………….…..41
Quantitative Analysis....................................................................…..41
Qualitative Analysis......................................................................…..50
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION……66
Summary...................................................................................................…..66
Recommendations.....................................................................................…..68
Conclusions...............................................................................................…..69
REFERENCES……………..............…..............................................................…...70
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. The Achievement Gap 2007 California Proficiency Rates: CST
Language Arts...............................................................................................5
2. Los Angeles County White, Asian, and African American
Achievement Results for 2005 - 2007………………………………….….7
3. San Bernardino County White, Asian, and African American Achievement
Results for 2005 -2007……………………………….…………………....8
4. Sacramento County White, Asian, and African American Achievement
Results for 2005 – 2007……..……………………….……………………8
5. Alameda County White, Asian, and African American Achievement
Results for 2005 -2007……………………………….……………….…...9
6. San Diego County White, Asian, and African American Achievement
Results for 2005 -2007……..…………………………………………..….9
7. Quantitative Design……………………..….……………...………………...33
8. CST ELA Data: Percentage Passing…..…………………...………………...42
9. CST ELA Longitudinal Percentage Change..…..……………………………43
10. CST Math Data: Percentage Passing ………………..……………………….46
11. CST Math Longitudinal Percentage Change…..……………………………..47
12. Percentage Difference in Achievement from African Americans at the
Great School……….……………………………………………………..50
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Total K-12 Enrollment in California 2006-2007..............................................2
2. CST – State of California English Language Arts Disaggregated Results
2007………………………………………………………………….........3
3. CST – State of California Mathematics Disaggregated Results 2007..............4
viii
ABSTRACT
Purpose
The purpose of this concurrent mixed methods study was to better understand
the effects of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction on African
American achievement by converging both quantitative and qualitative data. In the
study California Standards Test results were used to measure the effectiveness of
Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction (CRSBI) on African American
student performance. At the same time CRSBI was be explored using qualitative
observations of students, teachers, administration, and parents at a single school site
with effective implementation.
Method
A mixed methods approach which included the collection of both quantitative
and qualitative data (Creswell, 2000) was used for the purposes of researching the
question: does CRSBI affect the achievement of African American students. For the
quantitative portion of the study a longitudinal time series quasi-experimental
summative evaluation design format was used. The experimental group contained a
school that is identified as using CRSBI and the control groups were Los Angeles
Unified School District and the state of California. The 2007 California Standards
Test (CST) data was used to compare the experimental and control groups.
ix
The qualitative factor in this study was the semi-structured observations at
the CRSBI school. The school of choice is the CRSBI school with the highest API
and the highest population of African American students. The observations were
focused on the effective implementation of the various aspects of CRSBI.
Results
The quantitative data indicated that an African American student at the
school which implements CRSBI with integrity as evidenced by the qualitative
observations is 190% more likely to pass English Language Arts and 153% more
likely to pass Math than an African American student in the Los Angeles Unified
School District. This same student is 172% more likely to pass English Language
Arts and 138% more likely to be proficient in Math than an African American
student in the state of California. Therefore, while the qualitative data proved that
effective implementation is a daunting task requiring knowledge, desire, and
commitment it can be said that CRSBI has an overwhelming positive effect on the
academic achievement of African American students.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“We can whenever and wherever we choose successfully teach all
children whose education is of interest to us. We already know more
than we need in order to do this. Whether we do this or not must
finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we have not done it
so far.”
-Ron Edmonds, 1967
When the American educational system was created it was designed for a
certain type of student. It was designed for middle to upper class students who had
excellent preparation at home and in preschool. These ideal students came to school
with all the necessary materials from a two-parent nuclear family with middle class
money and values. While this is what the system was designed for, it is not what
actually shows up to the doors of the schoolhouse every morning. The real students
of today are from various ethnicities and financial backgrounds. The real students of
today come from varied family structures including: single parents, grandparents,
foster parents, extended families, blended families, and every variation in between
(Kunjufu, 2002). To add to this disparity in whom the educational system was
created for and who is being served, there is now an unprecedented strict
accountability system that requires all students to achieve at high levels or schools
and districts will suffer the consequences at both the state and federal levels.
2
Problem Identification
According to the 2006-07 California Department of Education Educational
Demographics Unit the state of California serves over 6.2 million students in 9,557
public schools within 1,054 districts. Over 2.1 million of the students in the state of
California live in poverty, over 1.2 million are English Learners and 373,521 are
designated as Special Education. The ethnic demographics show that 3,026,956
(48.15%) are Hispanic, 1,849,078 (29.41%) are White, 510,499 (8.12%) are Asian,
477,776 (7.60%) are African American, 165,480 (2.63%) are Filipino, 48,383 (.77%)
are American Indian, and 38,733 (.62%) are Pacific Islanders (California Department
of Education, 2007).
Figure 1
Total K-12 Enrollment in California 2006-2007
California Department of Education
Educational Demographics Unit 2006-2007
3
The diversity in cultural backgrounds is mirrored by the diversity in academic
performance. According to the 2007 achievement data in English Language Arts
64.3% of White students and 69% of Asian Students scored proficient while 31.1%
of Hispanic Students and 32.7% of African American Students scored proficient. In
Mathematics 62.8% of White students and 76.6% of Asian students scored proficient
while 36.9% of Hispanic and 31.1% of African American student demonstrated
proficiency.
Figure 2
CST – State of California English Language Arts Disaggregated Results 2007
California Department of Education
Policy and Evaluation Division
2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Report
4
Figure 3
CST – State of California Mathematics Disaggregated Results 2007
The disparity between the scores of white and Asian students and their darker
skinned counterparts is what is currently referred to as the achievement gap. It is also
known as an opportunity gap implying that some students are given greater
opportunities than other students to learn in ways that allow them to demonstrate
proficiency. While the grave differences in achievement results have always existed
as a result of the design of the educational system, it is only recently that educators
are now responsible for addressing these concerns and teaching all students so that
they learn the material. The following chart demonstrates the severity of this gap
based on the 2007 CST Language Arts proficiency rates. It also shows how the gap
becomes wider as our students continue in our current educational system.
California Department of Education
Policy and Evaluation Division
2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Report
5
Table 1
The Achievement Gap 2007 California Proficiency Rates: CST Language Arts
The Achievement Gap
2007 California Proficiency Rates: CST Language Arts
Grade African-
American
White The Gap
2 39 66 169%
3 27 56 207%
4 39 71 182%
5 32 64 200%
6 29 61 210%
7 32 66 206%
8 27 62 229%
9 33 66 200%
10 23 55 239%
11 22 52 236%
(California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Scores 2007)
Problem Analysis and Interpretation
On January 8, 2003 President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left
Behind Act making it federal law. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 is
a reauthorization of the Title I portion of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965 (NEA, 2004). Along with providing additional financial
resources, the No Child Left Behind legislation adds important accountability
provisions to Title I of ESEA and establishes an expectation for real progress in
raising overall student achievement and increasing parent involvement. The
6
accountability provisions require states to set clear timelines for improving student
achievement, with particular emphasis on closing achievement gaps between low-
income students and students of color and their higher income lighter skinned peers.
The new reporting provisions ensure that parents and the public will have a better
sense of how schools are doing (The Education Trust, 2005, NP).
NCLB has four education reform principles: stronger accountability for
results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an
emphasis on scientifically based effective teaching methods (California Department
of Education, 2005 page 25). It is the latter of these four that will be focused on in
this project.
One facet of the accountability portion of NCLB has to do with the
performance on the Academic Performance Index (API) and the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) that each school and district must adhere to achieving certain levels.
A significant factor of AYP is that schools and districts must meet the criteria both
overall and in numerically significant subgroups. A numerically significant subgroup
is defined as having one hundred students or fifty students who represent at least
15% of the students being tested (California Department of Education, 2004).
Subgroups used in AYP calculations include African American or Black (not of
Hispanic origin), American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or
Latino, Pacific Islander, White (not of Hispanic origin), Socio-economically
Disadvantaged, English Learner, and Students with Disabilities (California
Department of Education, 2004). This project will focus on the performance of the
7
African American subgroup and the effects of certain scientifically based teaching
methods on the achievement of the African American subgroup.
While the underlying intentions of the NCLB legislation are noble, they have
not shown to be practical for ensuring that African American students achieve the
expected proficiency levels. Since the inception of NCLB in 2004 the 5 counties in
California with the highest numbers of African American students: Los Angeles
County (165,635 [9.9%]), San Bernardino County 45,276 [10.6%]), Sacramento
County (36,596 [15.4%]), Alameda County (35,539 [16.6%]), and San Diego County
(35,164 [7.1%]) (California Department of Education Educational Demographics
Unit Statewide Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2007) have reported grim African American
proficiency results compared to their White and Asian counterparts.
Table 2
Los Angeles County White, Asian, and African American Achievement Results for
2005 - 2007
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
2005 2006 2007
Los Angeles County
African
American
White
Asian
8
Table 3
San Bernardino County White, Asian, and African American Achievement Results
for 2005 -2007
Table 4
Sacramento County White, Asian, and African American Achievement Results for
2005 -2007
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
2005 2006 2007
San Bernardino County
African
American
White
Asian
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
2005 2006 2007
Sacramento County
African
American
White
Asian
9
Table 5
Alameda County White, Asian, and African American Achievement Results for
2005 -2007
Table 6
San Diego County White, Asian, and African American Achievement Results for
2005 -2007
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
2005 2006 2007
Alameda County
African
American
White
Asian
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
2005 2006 2007
San Diego County
African
American
White
Asian
10
Problem Solution
The lack of progress from the African American subgroup has put educators
in the midst of numerous educational fads that schools and districts are implementing
in hopes that they will find the right answer to increasing achievement for African
American students. Among these are Explicit Direct Instruction, Standards Based
Instruction, and Culturally Responsive Instructional Methods. While all of them use
excellent strategies within their implementation, little has been proven in regards to
their effectiveness on African American student achievement (Lindsey, 1999;
Reglin, 1995; Gibbons, 2002; Irvine & Armento, 2001).
This study will focus on assessing the effectiveness of culturally responsive
standards based instruction on African American student achievement which right
now is very necessary for the educational world to not only think they know what
works but to have the data to show that progress can be made with our African
American students when appropriate strategies are put in place (Gay, 2000). This
connection with achievement data will also bridge the gap between theory, research,
implementation, and results (Gay, 2000). For the purposes of this study, Culturally
Responsive Standards Based Instruction (CRSBI) is a teaching style that
incorporates and validates students’ cultural background, ethnic history, current
societal interests, and addresses socio-emotional needs into their daily standards
based instructional content delivery using ethnically and culturally diverse material
(Banks, 1991; Gay, 2000).
11
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this concurrent mixed methods study is to better understand
the effects of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction on African
American achievement by converging both quantitative and qualitative data. In the
study California Standards Test results will be used to measure the effectiveness of
Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction on African American student
performance. At the same time Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction
will be explored using qualitative observations of students, teachers, administration,
and parents at a single school site.
Research Questions
The contribution of this study is to look at the effects of CRSBI on
achievement in this era of testing and school accountability. The goal of the
qualitative portion of this study will be to explain through observation data: what
Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction is in implementation; what
Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction looks like in the classroom; and
how the various components of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction
impact student learning.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In 1933 Carter G. Woodson wrote one of the most profound historical and
theoretical accounts of the state of education for people of African decent and what
needs to be done in order to change the negative affects that the current educational
system has on what he termed “the Negro.” He addresses issues such as classism,
racism, and “that education for the white man should mean one thing and for the
Negro a different thing” he went on to say that “it is merely a matter of exercising
common sense in approaching people through their environment in order to deal with
conditions as they are rather than as you would like to see them or imaging they are.
There may be a difference in method of attack, but the principle remains the same”
(Woodson, 1933, p. xv).
It is in light of this school of thought combined with the disrespected and
misunderstood history of Africans in America that the concept for culturally
responsive instruction in schools has been born. The purpose of this project is to
better understand the effects of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction
on African American achievement. As such what follows is a review of the literature
divided into the following categories: history of African American education,
accountability, and culturally responsive instruction. The research databases used
were ERIC, Info Psych, and the internet with the following descriptors: culturally
responsive instruction, history of African American education in America, culturally
13
relevant pedagogy, standards based education, accountability in education, and No
Child Left Behind (NCLB).
African American Education
During the European invasion of North America there came a point when the
enslaved labor of the Native Americans and indentured servants was not enough to
sustain the growing sugar industry that was beginning to boom in North America. As
such, Bishop Bartolome Las Casas’ recommendation in 1517 to import Africans to
work the fields here in America became priceless to the growing economy (Bennet,
Jr., 1961). As such the oppressors of the time who happened to be, “the planters, the
aristocrats, the parsons, the lawyers, the founding fathers—the good people,” knew
the power of education and its ability to empower and very soon thereafter laws were
enacted making the education of Negro slaves illegal (Bennett, Jr., 1961). It is from
that point this author’s historical synopsis of the events leading to the current status
of education for African Americans begins.
From the inception of America the power of education and the ability to
communicate intelligently was known and forbidden amongst those whom the
European people that were in power wanted to keep oppressed. From the moment
that African slaves were captured, they were separated by tribe and language to
prohibit communication and revolts (Bennett, Jr., 1961). They were also separated
during the middle passage and there is documentation to prove that when slave
owners purchased slaves they were careful not to have too many slaves from the
14
same tribes or that spoke the same language near each other for fear that
communication would lead to revolt (Bennett, Jr., 1961).
…slavery was a dirty business in both Hispanic and
Protestant America. In both areas slaves were given a
new conception of themselves—according to the lights
of their captors. This process…was a painful, mind
reversing operation in which two or three out of every
ten died…During this [breaking in] period…the slave
was taught pidgin English or French or Spanish. He
got a new name and began to look at himself and
others in a different manner. Yahweh took the place of
Olorum; Legba became St. Peter; the Mass or hymnal
replaced African Rituals (Bennett, Jr., 1961, p. 50).
This was the reality of the worldwide genocide of the African family and
culture. Slaves continued attempts for freedom to the point where they would kill
themselves and their children to prevent them from having to be subjected to an
enslaved lifestyle. Slaveship Captain Thomas Phillips said that:
The Negroes are so willful and loth to leave their own
country that they have often leap’d out of the canoes,
boat and ship, into the sea and kept under water till
they were drowned, to avoid being taken up and saved
by our boats, which pursued them; they having a more
dreadful apprehension of Barbadoes than we have of
hell, tho’ in reality they live much better there than in
their own country; but home is home (Bennett, Jr.,
1961, p. 51).
The fear of what would happen if in fact slaves were educated and more
organized was the basis behind forbidding their education, particularly reading.
Some would argue that the same fear this country was founded upon continues to be
seen in the inequitable educational practices and results we see today. There were
many individuals who were progressive enough to understand that keeping a person
15
in ignorance for the profit of another is wrong and therefore did help slaves and
former slaves learn how to read and write. The products of such individuals
accounted for some of the greatest change agents and exemplars of the times
including Frederick Douglass, Phyllis Wheatley, Benjamin Bannekar and Richard
Allen. But, this was by far the exception, not the rule.
During the 18
th
century beginning with the signing of the Declaration of
Independence in 1776 many could see that “Black freedom was an inevitable
corollary of White Freedom” (Bennett, Jr., 1961, p. 55). Abigail Adams saw the light
and told her husband John that “It always appeared a most iniquitous scheme to me
to fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have
as good a right to freedom as we have” (Bennett, Jr., 1961, p. 55). To fully
understand the education side of this struggle we must go to April 12, 1787 when
eight visionary black men in Philadelphia came together to form a Black social
compact later named the Free African Society. While the legal movement against
slavery is documented in Boston as early as 1766 these founding fathers of Black
America began the “independent church movement, an independent lodge movement
and the founding of Black schools and cultural organizations” in an effort to parallel
the efforts of White freedom from England with Black freedom from Whites
(Bennett, Jr., 1961, p. 51).
The founding fathers were responsible for opening a day school for children
at the Bethel AME Church in Philadelphia which also housed a night school for
adults. Black schools were also started in Boston, New York, and others in
16
Philadelphia. It has been said that “…the opening of the first African Free School in
November 1787, marked the beginning of free secular education in New York”
(Bennett, Jr., 1961, p. 80). Simultaneously, in Massachusetts one of the first public
petitions for the public education of blacks was filed by Prince Hall and other Boston
blacks.
The persecution of Blacks in America lasted over four centuries with many
laws enacted to keep Blacks enslaved, oppressed, and ignorant. While the South was
far less progressive than the North during slavery it was a crime in many Southern
and Northern states to teach slaves to read and write or give them a bible (Bennett,
Jr., 1961). The first of these laws was in 1740 in South Carolina and many other
states followed and continued to create laws well into the 1800’s (Erickson, 1997).
The struggle for education continued in the nineteenth century with the Black
education movement. A majority of the major events in this movement were a “re-
action to the continuing attempts to deny Blacks equal education” but despite the
“discriminatory laws” and racist attacks the movement continued (Bennett, Jr., 1961
p. 161). An example of this was in Connecticut in 1833 when Prudence Crandall, a
Quaker teacher, opened a school for Blacks and the people in the town tried to burn
the school to the ground. A law was then passed banning Black schools and Crandall
was arrested and convicted for the crime of education. While she was released upon
appeal and continued her efforts the school was then closed for student safety. In
New Hampshire there was a classic case that involved using one hundred oxen to
pull a Black school into a swamp that was a half-mile away.
17
These vicious attacks were occurring all over the country, but it did not stop
them from opening schools for blacks. Three former slaves opened the first black
school in Washington in 1807. Middle class free blacks in New Orleans opened the
Ecole des Orphelins Indigents or School for Needy Orphans in 1840. The fact that
there were 1,000 free blacks in New Orleans schools and 1,400 in Baltimore in 1850
notes the power of this movement. By the time the Civil War began there were over
32,000 Blacks in schools across the United States (Bennett, Jr., 1961).
The strength of this movement was a mark of the desires of Black people
during this time. “The whole race, eye witnesses said, wanted to go to school and it
was reported that Black ‘children love the school as White children love a holiday’”
(Bennett, Jr., 1961, p. 194). All across the country, especially in the South, Blacks
were enthusiastic about learning, a mark from their rich history in Africa. Rev.
Thomas Calahan was a missionary teaching in Louisiana who said:
Go out in any direction and you meet Negroes on
horses, Negroes on mules, Negroes with oxen, Negroes
by the wagon, cart and buggy load, Negroes on foot,
men, women, and children…Negroes in rags, Negroes
in frame houses, Negroes living in tents, Negroes
living in rail pens covered with brush, and Negroes
living under brush piles without any rails, Negroes
living on the bare ground with the sky for their
covering; all hopeful, almost all cheerful, everyone
pleading to be taught, willing to do anything for
learning. They are never out of our rooms, and their
cry is for “Books! Books!” and “when will school
begin?” (Bennett, Jr., 1961, p. 195).
18
When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 it freed the
slaves in theory and therefore since there weren’t any slaves then education of slaves
could not be viewed as illegal. Now the problem was providing education to all the
“free blacks” who had been denied education for so long. In the immediate years
following emancipation the Freedman’s Bureau contributed a majority of the funds
for black schools across the country. W.E.B. DuBois estimated that between the
years of 1865 and 1870 freedman contributed over $785,700 to Black schools. This
was quite a sum for the times, although in many cases they could only afford to build
one room schoolhouses which housed all students up to eighth and sometimes
twelfth grade. Time for education was also a concern for the economic situation for
black people was dismal and in many cases the assistance of children was needed in
order for the family to earn a living. So, children could only attend school in the off-
season when they were not needed in the fields.
Compulsory public education laws began in 1865 and continued to 1918
(Erickson, 1997) but, there weren’t any guidelines to the type or quality of
compulsory education that was to be provided leading directly into the movement for
educational equality of the Reconstruction period which continued well into the 20
th
Century Civil Rights Movement. In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Plessy v.
Ferguson decision which provided for separate but equal facilities, including schools.
Segregated schools, while a monumental accomplishment for Blacks who had come
a long way, soon proved to be insufficient due to the inequitable funding and
19
substandard conditions of facilities and materials for African Americans. In 1914 the
U.S. Commissioner for Education reported that:
Annual expenditures for public schools in Southern
states have risen by 230 percent since 1900. Yet,
Southern states show vast disparities in per pupil
expenditures by race. For every dollar the South
spends for educating a white child, the region spends
less than 38 cents educating a Black child ($10.82
versus $4.01). The largest disparity in funding is in
Louisiana where the state spends $16.44 per white
child and only $1.81 for a Black child (1896 – 1915:
Separate & Unequal, 2008).
The disparity in funding inevitably trickled to the teachers as well. In some parts of
the South white teachers were paid twice as much as Black teacher. In 1909 Alabama
paid an average monthly salary of “$50.62 for white teachers and $25.23 for Black
teachers” (1896 – 1915: Separate & Unequal, 2008).
Years of controversy and debates led to the passing of many laws
surrounding educational access for Black students during the 20
th
century. African
American attorney and leader of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), Charles Hamilton Houston, won the 1938. Supreme
Court case Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada which declared that “Missouri’s refusal
to provide legal education for Blacks within its own borders (Missouri sent its
qualified black law students to neighboring states; schools, paying the tuition) denied
blacks the equal protection of laws” (Separate but Equal, 2008). On May 17
th
, 1954
the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, with the ruling that “separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal (NEA, 2002-2004).” This decision overturned the previous 1896
20
ruling in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in which the Supreme Court made separate
but equal policies legal (NEA, 2002-2004). This was a huge undertaking for the
country as there would now be African Americans in the beautiful educational
sanctuaries that were built for white children. Nationwide focus now turned to school
integration, but these efforts were stifled by the racial discrimination and the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 causing the quality of the
American educational system to suffer. As Lyndon B. Johnson assumes the
presidency he passes two of the most integral Acts of current American history. The
Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, sex,
religion, or national origin and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965 (Barger, 2004). As part of Johnson’s “War on Poverty” ESEA provided
federal funds to help low-income students, which resulted in the initiation of
educational programs such as Title I, Head Start, and bilingual education (Barger,
2004).
The struggle for equity in California schools currently continues as evidenced
by the lawsuit filed in 2000, Eliezer Williams et al. vs. State of California et al. The
lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court by approximately 100 San
Francisco County students stating that the state of California “failed to provide
public school students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and decent
school facilities, and qualified teachers” (California Department of Education, 2007).
The 2004 settlement resulted in $138 million in state funding for instructional
materials and facilities upgrades. There has also been an accountability system put in
21
place that visits the various sites to ensure compliance which has forced schools and
districts to treat all schools equally (California Department of Education, 2007).
Over fifty years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the struggle
for equitable education for African Americans continues. All of the above
movements and legislative actions were geared towards ensuring equal access to
education for all students, regardless of economic status and race. To date there
hadn’t been any focus on the quality of that education or ensuring that the students
were learning what they were being taught. Therefore, the quality of an education
was not tested until students were graduating from high school and by this point their
futures were already determined. Currently, African Americans are still scoring
significantly less than their white counterparts on standardized assessments (see
Table 4). As an educational community, we are responsible for educating all students
to proficiency, but the data proves that the legacy of slavery, oppression, and
subjugation of Africans in America continues in our educational system and will
keep getting worse until we conscientiously and purposely change it. In summary,
there is now access to education for all, but there isn’t any accountability for the
education that is being provided.
22
Accountability
On January 8, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left
Behind Act making it federal law. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 is
a reauthorization of the Title I portion of the afore-mentioned Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (NEA, 2004).
Along with providing additional financial resources, the No Child Left
Behind legislation adds important accountability provisions to Title I of ESEA and
establishes a framework for real progress in raising overall student achievement and
increasing parent involvement. The accountability provisions require states to set
clear timelines for improving student achievement, with particular emphasis on
closing achievement gaps between low-income and minority students and their peers.
The new reporting provisions ensure that parents and the public will have a better
sense of how schools are doing (The Education Trust, 2005, NP).
NCLB has four education reform principles: stronger accountability for
results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an
emphasis on scientifically based effective teaching methods (California Department
of Education, 2005, p. 25). To hold schools and districts accountable there is a
statewide accountability system reported as the Academic Performance Index (API)
and a federal accountability system that is reported as Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP). The information from both accountability systems is reported to schools and
districts in August of every year in their Accountability Progress Report. The API
and AYP scores differ in that the API score measures movement of students from
23
one level to the next, granting point values to each stage of movement with more
points given for moving the lowest students to higher levels. AYP scores are based
on the number of students meeting the California definition of proficiency, which is
an overall score in the proficient category for all subgroups and a minimum
participation rate. API scores take into account that all schools do not start at the
same place and gives credit for growth, while AYP states that “all schools or
[districts] must meet common minimum academic levels, regardless of where they
start at the beginning of the school year” (California Department of Education, 2004,
p. 2).
Scores for API and AYP, in California, are determined based on student
performance on the annual Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) battery of
assessments which include the California Standards Tests (CST), the California
Achievement Test, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT 6/Survey), and the California
Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) (California Department of Education,
2004). The scores for these exams are calculated using a formula that is different at
each grade level, overall the most weight is placed on the CST scores, which is an
assessment of how well the students have mastered the state standards at their grade
level. The performance target for API in California is 800. Growth is measured by
their movement toward or past this goal. To calculate how much a schools has grown
in a year their prior year base API is subtracted for their current year growth API
(California Department of Education, 2004).
24
API growth is one of the four criteria that must be met under the federal
NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements. The other three are:
participation rate, percent proficient as defined by the Annual Measureable
Objectives), and graduation rate (for high schools). Within the participation rate and
proficiency rate areas of AYP, schools and districts must meet the criteria both
overall and in numerically significant subgroups. A numerically significant subgroup
is defined as having one hundred students or fifty students who represent at least
fifteen percent of the students being tested (California Department of Education,
2004). Subgroups used in AYP calculations include African American or Black (not
of Hispanic origin), American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or
Latino, Pacific Islander, White (not of Hispanic origin), Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged, English Learner, and Students with Disabilities (California
Department of Education, 2004). Socioeconomically disadvantaged is defined as
students whose parents have not received a high school diploma or who participates
in the free or reduced lunch program. A “student with disabilities” is defined as a
student who receives special education services and has a valid disability code.
The minimum participation rate for the schools, districts, and the numerically
significant subgroups is 95% under NCLB. The proficiency goal for NCLB is that all
students will be proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics by
2014 (California Department of Education, 2004). In order to reach this goal
California adopted minimum percentages of students that are required to meet the
proficient level on state wide assessments used for AYP known as the Annual
25
Measurable Objectives (AMOs) (see Appendix F). The AMOs follows an increasing
pattern to reach the 2014 goal of 100% proficiency.
Under NCLB each state was required to choose an “additional indicator” for
AYP. Calfornia chose to adopt the API score, but the definition of meeting the API
criteria for AYP is different. To meet the API additional indicator requirement
schools and districts must show growth of at least one point or have an API Growth
score of at least 560 (California Department of Education, 2004).
To meet the graduation rate criteria for AYP schools and districts must have a
graduation rate of at least 83.8%, or show improvement in the graduation rate of at
least 0.1, or show improvement in the average two-year graduation rate of at least 0.2
(California Department of Education, 2004).
As of now the consequences for not meeting AYP only apply to schools and
districts that receive Title I funding under ESEA. If a school or district does meet
the AYP criteria for two consecutive years they are placed under Program
Improvement (PI) status and must provide certain services and/or interventions. A
Title I school or district will be identified for PI when, for each of two consecutive
years, the school does not make AYP in the same content area for either participation
rate or percent proficient or if they do not make AYP on the same indicator for API
or graduation rate (California Department of Education, 2004).
As a year one PI school or district there are many requirements placed on the
school and the district. In the first year of PI status school officials must develop a
two-year plan to make the proficiency levels. Districts must prove the school
26
technical and fiscal support to develop their improvement plan. Schools must inform
parents that they did not make their AYP and offer them the option of transporting to
another public school that is not in PI status (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
In year two PI schools and districts must continue to implement their
improvement plan and offer choice to families. Low-income students in these
schools are also eligible to receive supplemental educational services (U.S.
Department of Education, 2003). Schools who fail to meet requirement for a further
year are designated as PI year three and the district is now required to implement
certain corrective actions that will improve the school. Examples of these corrective
actions include replacing school staff, replacing administration, or fully
implementing a new curriculum. Year three PI schools are still required to offer
school choice and supplemental services (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
Once a school fails to meet AYP requirements for a fifth consecutive year the
district will begin plans to restructure the school, which may include: reopening the
school as a charter school, replacing all or most of the school staff or turning over
school operations either to the state or to a private company with a demonstrated
record of effectiveness (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). To exit program
improvement schools and/or districts must meet their AYP requirements for two
consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2004).
NCLB has clearly laid out for the educational community what their goals are
and what will happen if they do not achieve them. What it has not done is provide
educators with a solution as to how they are to go about eliminating the achievement
27
gap and fulfilling the requirements of NCLB. This has left states, districts, schools,
principals and teachers in frenzy to figure out how to do what the system was not
designed to do, and what they have never done before, all by themselves.
Educational leaders have found that there are a variety of factors that
contribute to the success of all students. One of these factors is the students’ ability
to connect with the material that is being taught. As Tavis Smiley so eloquently
stated in his 2007 keynote address at the California Closing the Achievement Gap
Summit in Sacramento, “content without relevant context is pretext.” The use of
culturally relevant standards based instructional strategies is one effective way to
ensure students understand the importance of and have the skills to do well in our
current standards based accountability system (Woodson, 1933; Gay, 2000).
Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction
In 1933 Carter G. Woodson said “that education for the white man should
mean one thing and for the Negro a different thing. The element of race does not
enter here. It is merely a matter of exercising common sense in approaching people
through their environment in order to deal with conditions as they are rather than, as
you would like to see them or imagine that they are. There may be a difference in
method of attack, but the principle remains the same.” In current terms this translates
to the basis for Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction, in that the
standards for all students are the same but the approach to teaching the standards
should be different for African American students. Janice Hale made a similar
statement almost 70 years later when she contended that “…school reform for lower-
28
income African American children will not be effective until we construct a
supervisory and evaluative support system within the school that reinforces teachers
of African American children in their efforts to deliver to our children what they
deliver to white children in white settings” (Hale, 2001, p. xvi).
When schools were segregated the issue of teachers teaching students they
did not want to teach was a moot point for they could easily choose and not be
bothered with the other. For the most part white teachers taught white students and
Black teachers taught Black students. Hale (2001) remembered her times in the
segregated schools of Columbus, Ohio and while they were “the worst schools” it
was “because the family was strong many achievers emerged from those schools” (p.
6). With the desegregation of schools brought on by Brown vs. Board of Education
the family was broken and African American students were now being taught by
teachers who hated them. With the African American culture being heavily based in
family, which includes biological and non-biological members who work together to
raise children in a “village” type setting, being taught by people who were not part of
the loving “village” was a challenge. Since then teachers who are unfamiliar with the
African American culture have struggled to educate students while ignoring whom
the students are and demeaning the traditions they come from.
Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction (CRSBI) emerged as a
response to both the academic disparity in achievement and the fact that 70% of the
teachers are white females that do not fully understand the cultural differences that
must be addressed in order to effectively educate African American students
29
(Kunjufu, 2002). It is a strategic attempt to put the familial aspects of the African
culture back into the classroom to bridge the gap between the school and home
environments. There are five components to CRSBI that will be the focal points of
the qualitative portion of this study: caring, communication, curriculum, instruction
(Gay, 2000), and a focus on California content standards. All five components must
be in place and no one component is of more value than any other for they are all
equally essential to the effective instruction of our current culture of students
(Boykin, 1994).
In 1973 the U.S. Civil Rights Commission professed that the interactions
between communities and schools particularly students and teachers are major
determinants of the quality of education children receive. Gay (2000) considers the
kind of caring necessary for CRSBI to be “one of the major pillars of culturally
responsive pedagogy for ethnically diverse students. It is manifested in the form of
teacher attitudes, expectations, and behaviors about students’ human value,
intellectual capability, and performance responsibilities” (p. 45).
Communication in the sense of CRSBI is more than just the newsletters and
phone calls home to either update on progress and current events or report unruly
behavior in attempts for families to solve their problem children and send to school
the “good kids” that they must be keeping at home only to be released for special
occasions. Communication involves how teachers communicate with families as well
as how instruction is communicated to the students. Saville-Troike said in 1989 that
“there is a correlation between the form and content of a language and the beliefs,
30
values, and needs present in the culture of its speakers” (p. 32). Since we know and
accept that the way one communicates is a reflection of the culture that we come
from and therefore impacts academic performance, the theory and research behind
CRSBI indicate that “aligning instruction to the cultural communication styles of
different ethnic groups can improve achievement” (p. xvi).
The third major element of CRSBI is the use of culturally diverse curriculum
content in the classroom It is based on the premise that effective teaching and
learning for our ethnic minority students can be further facilitated and expedited
through the use of instructional materials that are not only standards based (which
will be discussed later) but recognize the contributions that people of ethnic minority
groups have made to the current bank of knowledge. When students see visions of
people who look and live like those of their culture, both currently and historically, it
not only breeds interests but also provides motivation for our students to believe they
can achieve and that their achievement is not only expected but also valued.
The fourth component of CRSBI is based on the fact that “deliberately
incorporating specific aspects of the cultural systems of different ethnic groups into
instructional process has positive impacts on student achievement” (Gay, 2000,
p.xvi). The fact that the teacher is the central element of the classroom affecting
student achievement has been stated, researched, and proven; therefore the focus
now is on what it is that the teacher does that can most impact achievement
(Marzano, 2001). “Compelling research demonstrates that school achievement
improves when protocols and procedures of teaching are synchronized with the
31
mental schemata, participation styles, work habits, thinking styles, and experiential
frames reference that of diverse ethnic groups” (Gay, 2000, p. xvi).
The final component of CRSBI which in many ways takes it a step further is
ensuring that all instruction done every day, every minute is directly based on the
California Standards for the designated academic areas. Focusing on culture alone
will not improve student achievement or result in productive citizens. Infusing
cultural aspects into strong standards based content instruction with continuous
assessments producing data that is used to improve that instruction is a key element
of CRSBI that is expected to drastically increase student achievement.
32
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the methods used in a mixed methods study of the
effects of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction (CRSBI) on African
American student academic achievement. The research question that was the
motivation behind this study was: Does culturally responsive standards based
instruction improve the academic achievement of African American students as
measured by the California Standards Test? To study this question both qualitative
and quantitative methods were used because Creswell (2000) states that this is the
best way to explore and explain a research problem.
This chapter is divided into the following sections to provide a thorough
explanation of the methodology used in this study: design summary, intervention
description, participants and setting, instrumentation and procedures that include
quantitative and qualitative subcategories, analysis, and limitations.
Design Summary
A mixed methods approach which included the collection of both quantitative
and qualitative data (Creswell, 2000) was used for the purposes of researching the
question: does CRSBI affect the achievement of African American students. For the
quantitative portion of the study a longitudinal time series quasi-experimental
summative evaluation design format was used. The experimental group contained a
single school that is identified as using CRSBI and the control groups were Los
Angeles Unified School District and the state of California. The 2007 California
33
Standards Test (CST) data will be used to compare the experimental and control
groups. It is understood that a portion of the control group will contain the
experimental group, but because that portion is minute they can be assumed to be
two different groups.
Table 7
Quantitative Design
____________________________________________________________________
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Experimental Group: CRSBI School 2004 CST 2005 CST 2006 CST 2007 CST
Control Group: Los Angeles Unified 2004 CST 2005 CST 2006 CST 2007 CST
Control Group: State of California 2004 CST 2005 CST 2006 CST 2007 CST
____________________________________________________________________
The longitudinal time series data was used to compare the African American
students in the CRSBI school with the African American students in the state as well
as to compare the growth made with African American students within the district.
There was some thought put into whether or not to use a district comparison versus a
state comparison. Both sets of data were reported, as there is value at looking at the
data from both perspectives. The district was chosen because many times there are
certain teachers in schools with high populations of African American students who
use CRSBI, but it is not adopted school wide. To mitigate this factor the control
group was set as all African American students who took the CST in the district with
34
the largest African American population in the state, Los Angeles Unified. This
study only focused on the African American subgroup.
The qualitative factor in this study was the semi-structured observations at
the CRSBI school. The school of choice is the CRSBI school with the highest API
and the highest population of African American students. By using this type of
purposeful sampling the qualitative portion of this study will be further validated.
The observations were focused on the effective implementation of the various
aspects of CRSBI.
Intervention Description
Culturally responsive standards based instruction was the intervention being
studied and was being done school wide at the participating school site. The five
aspects that define CRSBI for this study are: caring, communication, curriculum,
instruction (Gay, 2000), and a focus on California content standards. While the
teachers involved in the study are at various yet very high levels of implementation,
all five components must have been effectively in place for a school to be considered
a CRSBI school.
Participants and Setting
The quantitative participants in this study included all of the African
American, White, Asian, and Latino students in Los Angeles Unified, the state of
California and the CRSBI school for the 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007
school years who participated in the CST exams.
35
The qualitative portion of the study included the site administration and self
selected faculty, staff, students and parents from the CRSBI schools with the
researcher being a non-participatory observer. The school site chosen was an urban
school located in the heart of Inglewood, California with 100% African American
enrollment. The students come from the surrounding areas of the Los Angeles
Unified School District and must apply to the school. Students are accepted using a
lottery system with the remaining students being placed on a waiting list. The results
of the qualitative portion of the study were used to further understand CRSBI in
implementation not for data comparison.
Instrumentation and Procedures
Quantitative: Achievement
The California Content Standards Test (CST) for 2005, 2006 and 2007 was
used to analyze African American achievement in the areas of English Language
Arts and Mathematics. The CST is one of the exams given in the Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) program which also consists of the California
Achievement Test, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6 Survey), the California Alternate
Performance Assessment (CAPA), and the Aprenda : La prueba de logros en
espanol, Tercera edicion (Aprenda 3) which replaced the Spanish Assessment of
Basic Education (SABE/2) in 2006 (Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
Program Summary of Results). This study only be analyzed data from the CST as
these exams are designed to match the state’s rigorous academic content standards
for each grade level. The CST consists of a language, arts and mathematics multiple
36
choice exam for grades 2 through 8 with a writing exam in grades 4 and 7. For
grades 5 and 9 through 11 there are also science exams and there are history-social
science exams for grades 8, 10, and 11. While there are suggested times posted for
scheduling purposes all CSTs are untimed (2007 STAR Item and Time Chart).
The English language arts CST for grades 2 and 3 contains 71 items while the
test for grades 4 through 10 contain 81 items and the 11
th
grade exams has 96 items
(2007 STAR Item and Time Chart retrieved 4/10/2007). Each test reflects the state’s
academic content standards for the particular grade.
The mathematics exams are done differently. Mathematics CSTs all contain
71 items with the exception of the 11
th
grade, which contains 86 items (2007 STAR
Item and Time Chart). In grades 2 through 7, all items are based on the mathematics
content standards for each grade level. In grade 8, the exams begin to be based on the
math course within which the student is enrolled. “The standards assume that 8
th
graders are registered in Algebra 1, 9
th
graders in Geometry, and 10 graders in
Algebra 2…the High School Summative test is only for students who completed the
sequence of courses” (Wikipedia retrieved 4/10/2007). Beginning in 2007 7
th
graders
who are enrolled in Algebra 1 may take the Algebra 1 exam (2007 STAR Item and
Time Chart).
The results for the CST are reported based on five performance levels: far
below basic, below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced (2006 Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program Summary of Results retrieved 4/10/2007).
Results are reported at the state, county, school district, and school level for all
37
students, by grade, and by subgroup (2006 Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) Program Summary of Results retrieved 4/10/2007) if there are enough
students for the data to be reported anonymously. The expectation for the state of
California is for students to score at the proficient and advanced levels (2006
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program Summary of Results retrieved
4/10/2007).
Qualitative: Semi-structured Observation
The qualitative element of this study used semi-structured classroom and
school-wide observations. These consisted of the observer visiting the CRSBI school
and its classrooms for a one full day observation with the intention of further
understanding the implementation of CRSBI both in individual classrooms and
school-wide. Data was collected by the observer using both oral and written field
notes. Observational data provided the researcher with vital information about what
CRSBI looks like and feels like in its proper implementation so that such practices
can be further understood and possibly replicated. During the one full day
observations the objective was to observe both people and environment from a
holistic perspective. The data recorded during the observation in the form of
reflective field notes was reflected upon afterwards for further interpretation.
Patton’s (2002) information regarding analyzing and writing up qualitative
observational findings was used as a guide for collecting, reporting, and analyzing
data.
38
Analysis
Data analysis for this study was completed on both the quantitative and
qualitative sections. For the quantitative section the following statistics were used on
each dependent variable: 1) to assess the practical significance of the effect size a
Cohen’s d will be used (practical significance criterion d >.20); and 2) Percentage
difference will be performed to assess the practical significance.
The qualitative analysis was done using a research strategy broken down into
the following six steps from Creswell’s qualitative data analysis. The first step was
to organize and prepare the data for analysis, which for this study included typing up
field notes. The second step was to read through the data to get a “general sense of
the information provided and reflect on its overall meaning” (Creswell, p. 191). Step
three used a coding process to begin a more detailed analysis of the data. Coding
involved taking the data organized in step one and chunking it into various categories
that are labeled with a term, preferably a term based on the actual language of the
participants (Creswell, 2003). Step four involves used the coded material to
“generate a description of the setting or people as well as categories or themes for
analysis” (Creswell, p. 193). The goal of step four was to use the data to come up
with five to seven themes that are the major findings of the study and are “supported
by diverse quotations and specific evidence” (Creswell, p. 194). Further in the study
these themes were interconnected to “build additional layers of complex analysis”
(Creswell, p. 194). Step five moved to how the descriptions and themes from step
four were represented in the qualitative narrative and step six made meaning of the
39
data through interpretation of all the parts to convey personal, research-based, and
action meanings (Creswell, 2003). Personal meaning answered the question “what
was learned from the study,” while research-based meaning was derived from
comparing the findings from the study to those of the literature or other existing
theories, and action meanings suggested new questions that need to be asked, new
studies that need to be done, or action agendas for change not previously foreseen by
the researcher (Creswell, 2003). For the purposes of this study the school observation
data was analyzed as it relates to each aspect of culturally responsive standards based
instruction.
Limitations
The study has several limitations in the areas of internal validity, external
validity, reliability, and objectivity. The study has low internal validity as the
participants are not randomly assigned to the experiment and control groups and
pre/post gains may be due to factors other than CRSBI. Selection is also a concern as
the students who attend CRSBI schools self select to attend these schools they are
not randomly assigned within the district. To maximize internal validity a pre/post
observation design is being used as well as the incorporating of two different control
groups: Los Angeles Unified as well as the state of California. The primary external
validity concern that is inherent in this research design is that this study is only
applicable to African American students in this current era of testing and
accountability. This study is that is has low generalizability in that there is no
guarantee that the results for the students in the study can be obtained for African
40
American students in all settings. Reliability for this study should not be a problem
as the experimental group sample size is over 300, which is large enough to alleviate
this concern. However, grade level or other types of subgroup analysis will not be
reliable as the number of participants per grade level does not exceed 300.
The limitation for the qualitative portion of this study will be objectivity.
While every effort will be made to obtain objective data the perspectives of the
researcher may be biased and the perspectives of the research participants are
inherently biased and must therefore be combated with triangulation of all the data
obtained and purposeful sampling. The analysis will include looking collectively at
the information from the CST data and observations to draw conclusions from the
results of both sources.
41
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
Chapter 4 includes an analysis of the quantitative and qualitative portions of
this study to examine the effect of culturally responsive standards based instruction
(CRSBI) on African American student achievement. The quantitative analysis is a
longitudinal time series quasi-experimental design that includes a discussion of data
graphs and statistics on percentage difference and practical significance. The
qualitative analysis begins with a description of a single CRSBI school and proceeds
into an analysis of that school with respect to each aspect of CRSBI. The names of
all persons at the CRSBI school as well as the name of the school itself has been
changed to ensure confidentiality for all participants.
Analysis of Findings
Quantitative Analysis
The longitudinal time series quasi-experimental design uses two independent
control groups and two outcome groups. The dependent variables are the California
Standards Test (CST) results for English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics
(Math). The independent groups are the CST results for ELA and Math at the control
groups which are Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the State of
California compared to the CRSBI school. This study includes comparative data
between the years of 2004 to 2007 as well as change data for the beginning year
2004 to the end year 2007 using a percentage difference to analyze growth in student
42
achievement. Tables 11 and 13 show the percentage proficient and above scores for
the African Americans, Hispanics, Whites, Asians, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged (SED) for ELA and Math respectively. After each subject area is a
table (12 and 14) with the percentage differences from year to year as well as from
2004 to 2007.
Table 8
CST ELA Data: Percentage Passing
CST ELA DATA: PERCENTAGE PASSING
Los Angeles Unified
ELA
2004
ELA
2005
ELA
2006
ELA
2007
African American 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.3
Hispanic 0.20.230.260.27
White 0.580.620.650.66
Asian 0.610.650.680.69
SED 0.210.240.270.28
State of California
ELA
2004
ELA
2005
ELA
2006
ELA
2007
African American 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.33
Hispanic 0.220.270.30.31
White 0.560.610.640.64
Asian 0.590.650.680.69
SED 0.220.270.290.3
GREAT SCHOOL
ELA
2004
ELA
2005
ELA
2006
ELA
2007
African American 0.50 0.42 0.49 0.57
SED 0.52 0.40 * 0.51
* To be numerically significant, a subgroup must have 100
pupils or be 15% of total enrollment with at least 50 pupils with
valid test scores.
43
Table 9
CST ELA Longitudinal Percentage Change
CST ELA PERCENTAGE CHANGE
Los Angeles Unified
Diff '04 -
'05
Diff '05 -
'06
Diff '06 -
'07
Diff '04 -
'07
African American 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.08
Hispanic 0.030.030.01 0.07
White 0.040.030.01 0.08
Asian 0.040.030.01 0.08
SED 0.030.030.01 0.07
State of California Diff '04-'05 Diff '05-'06 Diff '06-'07
Diff '04 -
'07
African American 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.08
Hispanic 0.060.030.01 0.09
White 0.050.030 0.08
Asian 0.060.030.01 0.1
SED 0.050.020.01 0.08
GREAT SCHOOL Diff '04-'05 Diff '05-'06 Diff '06-'07
Diff '04 -
'07
African American -0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08
SED -0.12* * *
* To be numerically significant, a subgroup must have 100 pupils or be
15% of total enrollment with at least 50 pupils with valid test scores.
African American students at the Great School have been outperforming
African American and Hispanic students at both the state and district levels since the
school’s inception in the 2003-2004 school year. In the school’s first year African
American students at the Great School scored 200% better than their African
American counterparts at the state level and 227% better than the students in Los
Angeles Unified. While the gap between African American students and their White
44
and Asian counterparts at the district level was 31% and 34% respectively, the gap
between African American students at the Great school and the White and Asian
students at district level was narrowed to 6% and 9% respectively. At the state level
the gap between African American students and Whites and Asians was 31% and
34%, respectively. The Great School narrowed the gap to 6% and 9%. Within the
socioeconomically disadvantaged category the students at the Great School
outperformed the students at the district and state levels by 247% and 236%,
respectively.
The following year there was an 8% drop in proficiency at the Great School
from the prior year, but the students still outscored the African Americans at the state
level by 145% and at the district level by 168%. The gap between African Americans
and the Whites and Asians at the district level was 37% and 40% and at the state
level was 32% and 36%. The Great School despite a drop in proficiency rates
decreased the gap to 20% and 23% at the district level and 19% and 23% at the state
level. The socioeconomically disadvantaged students at the Great School
outperformed their equivalents by 16% at the district level and 13% at the state level.
The next year was 2006 and the Great School increased their African
American proficiency rates by 7% to 49%. Simultaneously there was an increase in
African American achievement at the district and state level to 28% for LAUSD and
32% for the state of California. The gaps at the district and state level with Whites
and Asians were still existent for these groups also showed increases in achievement.
While the gap at the district level was 37% for Whites and 40% for Asians, the Great
45
School closed that gap to 16% and 19% respectively. Similar differences existed at
the state level with the gap being 32% for Whites and 36% for Asians. At the Great
School the gap was 15% for Whites and 19% for Asians. Socioeconomically
disadvantaged was not a significant subgroup at the Great School in the 2006 school
year.
In 2007, the Great School increased African American student achievement
to 57% proficiency. This closed the gap to single digits with whites at the district
level (9%) and at the state level (7%), very distant from the 36% and 31% difference
in White and African American achievement at the district and state levels,
respectively. The same is true for the gap between African Americans and Asians.
The Great School narrowed the gap to 12% at both the district and state levels, a far
cry from the 39% difference at the district level and 36% throughout the state.
Longitudinal difference data at the state, district, and CRSBI school is
virtually the same from year to year. This data indicates that while African American
achievement is increasing at all levels, so is the achievement of the white and Asian
students. Therefore, the gap is not being narrowed it is just moving. In order to close
the racial achievement gap the data are saying that different strategies must be
employed in the classroom.
46
Table 10
CST Math Data: Percentage Passing
CST MATH DATA: PERCENTAGE PASSING
Los Angeles Unified
Math
2004
Math
2005
Math
2006
Math
2007
African American 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.28
Hispanic 0.270.310.330.34
White 0.590.630.660.66
Asian 0.720.750.780.78
SED 0.280.320.340.35
State of California
Math
2004
Math
2005
Math
2006
Math
2007
African American 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.31
Hispanic 0.270.330.360.37
White 0.550.60.630.63
Asian 0.690.740.740.77
SED 0.280.330.360.37
GREAT SCHOOL
Math
2004
Math
2005
Math
2006
Math
2007
African American 0.38 0.37 0.39 0.43
SED 0.40 0.40 * 0.45
* To be numerically significant, a subgroup must have 100 pupils or
be 15% of total enrollment with at least 50 pupils with valid test
scores.
47
Table 11
CST Math Longitudinal Percentage Change
CST MATH PERCENTAGE CHANGE
Los Angeles Unified Diff '04-'05
Diff '05-
'06
Diff '06-
'07
Diff '04 -
'07
African American 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.07
Hispanic 0.040.020.010.07
White 0.040.0300.07
Asian 0.030.0300.06
SED 0.040.020.010.07
State of California Diff '04-'05
Diff '05-
'06
Diff '06-
'07
Diff '04 -
'07
African American 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.08
Hispanic 0.060.030.010.1
White 0.050.0300.08
Asian 0.0500.030.08
SED 0.050.030.010.09
GREAT SCHOOL Diff '04-'05
Diff '05-
'06
Diff '06-
'07
Diff '04 -
'07
African American -0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05
SED 0* **
* To be numerically significant, a subgroup must have 100 pupils or
be 15% of total enrollment with at least 50 pupils with valid test
scores.
Mathematics proficiency while it has not moved as much as English
Language Arts, the data continues to show that African American students at the
Great School are outperforming the African Americans at both the district and state
level and moving towards narrowing the gap between their white and Asian peers. In
2004 students at the Great School outperformed African American students at the
district level by 17% and 15% at the state level. The disparity between African
48
Americans and the white and Asian subgroups was 38% and 51% at the district level
and 32% and 46% at the district level. The Great School in its first year decreased
that disparity to 21% and 34% with LAUSD and 17% and 31% with the state of
California. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students at the Great School scored 9%
better than LAUSD and 12% than state of California socioeconomically
disadvantaged peers.
There was a slight decrease at the Great School in 2005, but the students were
still outperforming African American students in LAUSD by 13% and in the state by
10%. The disparity between performance of African American students at the Great
School versus how African Americans perform compared to their white and Asian
peers in LAUSD and the state of California continues in 2005. The difference
between whites and Asians and African Americans at the district level was 39% and
51% and 33% and 47% at the state level. The Great School closed the gap with the
district to 26% and 38% and at the state level to 23% and 37%. The Great School
socioeconomically disadvantaged difference with the district was 8% and with the
state was 7%.
Achievement increased across the board in 2006 and 2007 as shown by
Table 14 and African Americans at the Great School continued to have a higher
percentage of students proficient than LAUSD or the state of California. The
disparity between white and Asian peers is still existent with the gap being wider
within the state and district than with the Great School. In 2006 the disparity between
whites and Asians and African Americans at the district level was 39% and 50% and
49
32% and 67% at the state level. The disparity with the Great School was less 27%
and 39% with LAUSD and 16% and 30% with the state. Socioeconomically
disadvantaged was not a significant subgroup in 2006.
The data for 2007 shows a 4% increase at the Great School while the
increases within groups at the state and district level lingered around 1% except for
Asians who had a 3% increase across the state. The gap at the district level was 38%
and 50% and at the state level 32% and 46% between whites and Asians and their
own African American students. The gap between the African Americans at the
Great School is significantly less with the difference being 23% and 35% with
LAUSD and 20% and 34% with the state. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students
at the Great School scored 10% and 8% higher than the district and state
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. This indicates that the Great School
practices are not only narrowing the racial achievement gap, but also addressing the
economic achievement gap.
The aforementioned percentage differences in achievement between the
African American students at the Great School and the ethnic groups at the state and
district level for the 2007 school year are organized into Table 15. Also included in
the table is the Cohen’s d score which numerically describes the practical
significance of the difference in achievement between each group (criterion for
practical significance = d>.20) with an asterisk next to the scores that are practically
significant.
50
Table 12
Percentage Difference in Achievement from African Americans at Great School
ELA 2007
Great
School Los Angeles Unified State of California
AA White Asian Hispanic AA White Asian Hispanic
57 30 66 69 27 33 64 69 31
% Difference 0 27 -9 -12 30 24 -7 -12 26
Cohen’s D 0 .59* .18 .26* 0.68* 0.51* 0.15 0.26* 0.56*
Great
School Los Angeles Unified State of California
Math 2007 43 28 66 78 34 31 63 77 37
% Difference 0 15 -23 -35 9 12 -20 -34 6
Cohen’s D 0 0.33* 0.49* 0.85* 0.19 0.26* 0.41* 0.81* 0.12
* = d>.20
Based on the data an African American student at the Great School is 190%
(.57/.3) more likely to pass ELA and 153% (.43/.28) more likely to pass Math than in
the Los Angeles Unified School District. When comparing an African American
student at Great School to those in the State of California the Great School student is
172% (.57/.33) more likely to pass ELA and 138% (.43/.31) more likely to be
proficient in Math.
Qualitative Analysis
I arrived at the Great School just in time to hear drumming and the sound of
children playing just before the morning meeting. At the Great School there aren’t
any bells so school begins with a morning affirmation in which all of the students
and staff meet out on the yard share upcoming activities and get mentally ready for
education. On this particular day a fourth grade student was on the drum and a
second grader led the morning affirmation. Students were all in their uniforms which
51
consisted of black pants, a white shirt, and either a bow or neck tie and a jacket or
sweater depending on what was developmentally appropriate. Teachers, students,
classified staff, administrators, and volunteers all stood in a circle with respect as the
affirmation was recited by a second grade student:
Welcome to success, a place where we do our best, we respect and
encourage each other. We never put down or disrespect another. We
may be children, but we have great dreams. Working together we can
accomplish anything. Welcome to success.
This was followed by the singing of the Black National Anthem during
which pride and joy could be both heard in the voices and seen in the
expressions that covered the faces of these young scholars as they prepared
themselves for a day of rigorous course work. Once the anthem was completed a
drum sounded to indicate it was time for the announcements. Two students, one
fourth and one seventh, read the announcements of various activities and
upcoming events for the school. Once that was concluded the director, Dr.
Miller, said a few encouraging words and the drum sounded again. The teachers
gathered their students and headed off to their respective classrooms.
The Great School population is 100% African American spanning from pre-
Kinder through 8
th
grade. There was also a section of toddlers that belonged to the
staff members who were able to come to work and care for their students without
worrying about care for their own children. The teachers at the Great School are
multi-ethnic with white, Asian, Latino, mixed race and African American members.
Located in an urban setting within a large school district the Great School at first
52
glance looks similar to most other urban schools, but the level of learning and respect
for students’ culture and backgrounds is far different.
Caring
Gay (2000) considers the kind of caring necessary for CRSBI to be “one of
the major pillars of culturally responsive pedagogy for ethnically diverse students. It
is manifested in the form of teacher attitudes, expectations, and behaviors about
students’ human value, intellectual capability, and performance responsibilities” (p.
45). An example of this type of caring within the Great School is in the language
they choose to use when relating to one another and within the classrooms. The
school is often referred to as the “village” referring to the African proverb “it takes a
village to raise a child” that has been extended in recent times to also state “it takes a
village to educate a child or mind.” The responsibility of the village is to care for and
educate the students and the village is everyone’s responsibility not just the teachers
and administration. Students at the Great School are called Scribes. The choosing of
this terminology dates back to the days of Ancient Egypt when the Scribes were one
of the few people who learned to read and write and were expected to achieve
greatness as scholars. Teachers are called advocates or elders for it is a belief at the
Great School that students learn from more than just the individuals in the classroom
and all adults on campus are to be advocates for the scribes.
As I walked into the office after seeing the morning affirmation it was very
difficult to tell who was who. The teachers, classified staff, volunteers are all dressed
in the same casual attire and everyone was helping with the children. I stood off to
53
the side and just watched as every adult in site worked to fulfill students’ various
needs and get them into class and learning. Every adult who interacted with the
students knew them by name and the atmosphere was very warm yet clearly it was
time for business. Within 10 minutes all the students were in class learning and a
woman came by, greeted me and asked me if I had been helped. I told her I was
waiting for Dr. Miller. She asked me my name and told me he was expecting me.
When he came out in his jeans and sweatshirt, a look that was different from the suit
and tie administrators typically wear, he was hard pressed to get to me because one
of his students had a concern that needed to be addressed. He took the 3 minutes
necessary to set this child’s mind and ease and then informed me that prior to my
observation it is customary to get a tour, just as you would tour a visitor around your
home or town. He sent a volunteer to find my tour guide and informed me that there
would be a packet of information waiting in his office upon completion of the tour
and that I would be free at that point to observe all I wanted. I thanked him and
waited for my tour guide.
A few moments later an African American boy came down the stairs. He
introduced himself as Malik Taylor and quickly apologized for not having his blazer
on for he had left it in his classroom. As we walked the three leveled campus it soon
became apparent that everyone knew Malik and Malik knew everyone, not because
he was a troubled student, but because that is the expectations for the relationship
between advocates and scribes at the Great School. Malik is currently a 7
th
grader in
54
his first year at the Great School where he transferred to because his parents wanted
him to get a good education and to know who he was when he got out of school.
The high expectations for student achievement, behavior, and relationships
between people were very visible. It was very clear that every scribe was every
advocates responsibility. No one walked by one another and didn’t speak, this
included students, and if anything was inappropriate then whomever was closest to
the concern dealt with it. Just before lunch Malik was showing me the pre-
Kindergarten room and as we looked at the student work on the walls there were two
girls who had come down the stairs when they weren’t supposed to. Within moments
a voice appeared, from what seems like out of nowhere, and told the girls to be on
their way in a way that was customary to African American culture. The girls did not
question the directive and immediately turned up the stairs back to their classroom.
Throughout the day in the classrooms teachers were seen scaffolding students
through questions and using respectful yet firm language. It was evident on this
campus that the expectations for achievement and behavior were very high and that
all advocates took a vested interest in the scribes. In the pre-Kindergarten classroom
students were instructed to write three sentence about someone they love. “There
was a four-year-old girl who could not remember how to spell ‘nice.’ She put her
‘righteous hand’ in the air and waited for the teacher to respond. Once called upon
she asked the teacher “how do you spell ‘nice’” the teacher responded “use your
resources and let me know when you find it.” Apparantly this was some type of clue
because her and the three other four-year-olds at her table began to frantically look
55
around the room that was plastered with words to find the word “nice.” As they
looked they vocalized every word that they read on the walls and continued to work
together for the next three minutes or so until they found the word “nice.” She then
thanked the members of her group and wrote the word on her paper. This continued
for the next fifteen minutes as each student completed their work. If one were to
come in midway into this activity it would perhaps appear to be chaos as there were
sixteen four- and five-year-olds, using what seemed to be their outside voices,
reading the room to complete three sentences. During this entire activity the teacher
never gave them one spelling of one word. If there was a word she knew they didn’t
know she instructed them to “spell it phonetically.” Students were familiar with this
as they used their posted sound/spelling cards to spell the unknown words. One
student, who later volunteered to me that she had just turned five the day before,
asked the teacher “what jumprope card spelling do I use for dodgeball.” The teacher
answered the question and applauded her for asking an “excellent academic
question.” Immediately the other students apparently remembered something about
“academic questions” because they all started asking similar questions. The teacher
revealed later that she had taught them academic questioning as a skill and it was
apparent to the observer that this was a strategy used throughout the school as a
method to maintain high academic and behavior expectations.
Communication
Communication involves how teachers communicate with families as well as
how instruction is communicated to the students. Saville-Troike said in 1989 that
56
“there is a correlation between the form and content of a language and the beliefs,
values, and needs present in the culture of its speakers” (p. 32). Since we know and
accept that the way one communicates is a reflection of the culture that we come
from and therefore impacts academic performance, the theory and research behind
CRSBI indicate that “aligning instruction to the cultural communication styles of
different ethnic groups can improve achievement” (p. xvi).
The style of communication at the Great School is one that is very to the
point direct, can be loud, but still has an undertone of respect and love between
people which is reflective of African American culture. The advocates at the Great
School communicate to their scribes much the same way that parents relate to their
children both during classroom instruction as well as in the hallways and on the yard.
Their style of communication seemed to make the students very comfortable as the
students were enjoying themselves in the classroom even when being reprimanded
responding with an appropriate “my bad.”
Teachers have a style of instruction that explicitly values students’ home
language while providing explicit instruction in mainstream academic English
mastery. It is very common to walk through campus and here the phrase “now repeat
that in mainstream academic English.” Students understand there is a valued
difference in the way they speak at home and the way they speak in academia and
that they are explicitly learning this foreign language in school. The teachers rarely
broke from mainstream academic English while they were doing classroom
instruction or facilitating learning opportunities. When they did it seemed as though
57
it was thoroughly thought out and only used to clarify a point to enhance student
learning. There was always a clear distinction and respect between scribes and
advocates that was not based on speaking African American English or any form of
slang, but it was based on creating meaningful learning experiences that enabled
students to experience success.
One example was a younger middle school teacher who apparently was very
well versed in both his subject matter as well as a member of the hip hop generation
as evidenced by his choice in clothing as well as the proscity in his voice. He was
observed conversing with the students about topics of their choosing during lunch
time and he continued his use of mainstream academic English while maintaining
the prosody of African American English. He communicated with the students very
clearly while never breaking professionalism or needing to use slang or African
American English to relate to them. Demonstrating that as an effective advocate he
did not need to code switch to relate to the students. They accepted and respected
him as their teacher even though he used mainstream academic English. He also
weaved in appropriate parallels to their classroom learnings during this very casual
lunchtime chatter. Every instructor on campus maintained this status quo as a means
of communicating with students. It was also noted that while the students were at
lunch most of the teachers were in their classrooms and students could choose
whether to go on the yard, go to the lunch room, or go visit with their favorite
advocate.
58
Communication with parents and families is done with the typical newsletters
as well as through word of mouth with the students. This works since there is a set
day every month that the school brings the community together to showcase student
achievement or discuss current concerns. When teachers need to contact parents they
use a predetermined method that they’ve discussed as appropriate be it either email,
notes home, phone calls, etc. When there is difficulty contacting a parent then
administration will step in and assist, but using the predetermined method seems to
work best for members of the Great School. Teachers communicate weekly with
parents through progress reports and offer their cell phone or other form of
communication so that parents can reach them after their work hours.
Curriculum
The use of culturally diverse curriculum content in the classroom is based on
the premise that effective teaching and learning for our ethnic minority students can
be further facilitated and expedited through the use of instructional materials that
recognize the contributions that people of ethnic minority groups have made to the
current bank of knowledge. When students see visions of people who look and live
like those of their culture, both currently and historically, it not only breeds interests
but also provides motivation for our students to believe they can achieve and that
their achievement is not only expected but also valued.
The Great School uses standards based state adopted curriculum in all of their
classrooms, but it is supplemented with literature that is reflective of the African
American culture. As Malik walked me through campus he took pleasure in pointing
59
out the classroom libraries that were cascaded with titles by African American
authors and faces that reflected the students who were expected to read them. Malik
very proudly told me that the “standards are the curriculum and what they give us are
tools to understand the standards so we can beat the test makers in the big game.”
This was phenomenal to me coming from a seventh grader who had been at the Great
School less than a year. The “Big Game” as it is called at the Great School is the
California Standards Test. The exam is packaged as a contest between the students
and the test makers that they are preparing for daily.
Instruction
Gay (2000) states that “deliberately incorporating specific aspects of the
cultural systems of different ethnic groups into instructional process has positive
impacts on student achievement” (p. xvi). The fact that the teacher is the central
element of the classroom affecting student achievement has been stated, researched,
and proven; therefore the focus now is on what it is that the teacher does that can
most impact achievement (Marzano, 2001). “Compelling research demonstrates that
school achievement improves when protocols and procedures of teaching are
synchronized with the mental schemata, participation styles, work habits, thinking
styles, and experiential frames reference that of diverse ethnic groups” (Gay, 2000,
p. xvi).
One of the most unique aspects of classroom instruction at the Great School
was the explicit instruction of Mainstream Academic English (MAE). This is a
common practice in many of the schools in the LAUSD through the work of Dr.
60
Noma Lemoine who is currently director of the Los Angeles Unified School
District’s Academic English Mastery and Closing the Achievement Gap Branch. The
premise behind this instruction is an understanding of the language that today’s
African Americans speak being a legacy of slavery. Many of the slaves brought to
the Americas were taken from the West Coast of Africa. Therefore they spoke the
hundreds of different languages and dialects of West Africa. When they were
brought to America there wasn’t any formal training in English, so they took their
limited understanding of the English words and placed it into their familiar West
African rule structure. Understanding this history of language development enables
teachers at the Great School to honor the language and culture their students bring
from an academic perspective while teaching them Mainstream Academic English. It
enables teachers to understand and appreciate the differences between African
American English and MAE and teach the students these differences from a
perspective that capitalizes on strengths rather than the deficit perspective typically
seen in schools.
One of the most notable differences from the typical instructional setting was
that at the Great School there aren’t full walls so one can hear the classroom next to
them very clearly. This did not in any way prevent teachers from doing cooperative
learning strategies or using inflection to make their points in a lesson. Every teacher
at the school was observed making excellent use of wait time and holding students
accountable by following through on questions. One teacher was observed going
back to the same student four different times rephrasing the same question
61
differently and calling on other non-volunteers intermittently until she was sure this
young scribe understood the concept. While raising hands was observed it did not
necessarily mean that they were going to call on those hands. Every student knew
that at any moment they could be called upon to share a response. But, a student was
never scolded for not knowing the answer
Lectures at the Great School were kept very succinct at all levels and
involved student participation in the form of choral response, clapping, sharing with
a neighbor, repetition, and guided note-taking as just some of the student
participation methods observed during the day. While instructors made a very clear
connection between the learning objective and the accompanying assessments, it was
clear that the process of understanding the learning and talking through that learning
was important on all levels. At one point in the afternoon standing in the middle of
the elementary floor it sounded like complete chaos with one teacher having the
students clapping out something, another had them learning some sort of pneumonic
device, another had a cooperative learning project, and two others were listening to
music as they wrote. But, as the observer walked into the different classrooms the
students were all on task and instructors were actively facilitating rigorous learning
experiences based on standards. This dispels the notion of a “good classroom” being
one where the students are all in rows, quiet, and listening to the teacher. While there
were students in rows at the middle school level it was clear through their sharing
and the ease with which they talked with their classmates in the academic setting that
no one was marginalized or left out of the learning process.
62
The prevalence of writing at the Great School is unmistakable. At every level
from pre-Kinder to eighth grade students were putting pen to paper to write their
thoughts in some form or fashion. From the pre-Kinder students writing their three
sentences to the eighth graders who were working towards their persuasive essays all
students were observed writing in mainstream academic English at some point
during the day. This writing was displayed on the walls outside every classroom in
some way. Whether is was the Pre-Kinders who had a display of copied sentences
completed earlier in the month to practice penmanship to the seventh grade writing
pieces displayed proudly outside of their classrooms. While the younger students
were more enthusiastic to point out their piece of writing on the wall to the observer,
Malik undoubtedly made it a point to ensure that the observer saw his writing and the
grade he had received. In middle school writing observed was displayed with the
final drafts as well as the pre-writing pieces to emphasize the importance of the
writing process.
The instructors at the Great School teach four days a week with Wednesday
being a day for professional development and collaboration on instructional
strategies. While the teachers are doing professional development the students are
getting instruction in one of many elective courses including: music, computers,
dance, theatre arts, chorus, etc. Wednesday is also the day that elementary students
get their Science and Social Science instruction while the middle school gets in their
required physical education hours. During this professional development day
teachers come together to discuss instructional strategies as the curriculum has
63
already been outlined. They were observed having in-depth conversation about how
to relate certain content to the students, making plans for team teaching, and what
types of prerequisite knowledge and academic vocabulary would have to be front
loaded in order to ensure all students are academically successful. This is not an
administratively monitored or facilitated day as it is the belief of the administration
that teachers are professionals and as such it is trusted that they are doing what is
best for the students whether they are on or off campus.
It was evidenced through the classroom instruction that the belief system at
the school is one where instruction is thought of in a different way. Teachers were
observed reminding themselves to “flip the script” which means that they must think
of the students and who they are first and then think about how to get them to
understand the curriculum. This is exactly the opposite of the way the instruction is
typically done in which educators think of what they are going to teach and then
think about how they are going to teach it without regard for the backgrounds or
interests of the students. This belief in “flipping the script” of instruction can be seen
in the way the teacher delivers the curriculum and the responses of their students
both in emotion as well as in their high levels of achievement on formative and
summative assessments.
Focus on California State Standards
The final component of CRSBI, which in many ways takes it a step further, is
ensuring that all instruction done every day, every minute is directly based on the
64
California Standards for the designated academic areas. Focusing on culture alone
will not improve student achievement or result in productive citizens. Infusing
cultural aspects into strong standards based content instruction with continuous
assessments producing data that is used to improve that instruction is a key element
of CRSBI that is expected to drastically increase student achievement.
As young Malik walked me around campus he continued to point out the
student work on the walls. He knew to show me where the California State Content
Standards for each display was located and further explained to me how he thought
the various projects addressed the standard. This was amazing for many of the
projects were not from any of his 7
th
grade classes. Students at the Great School are
very familiar with the standards that will be tested at the “Big Game.” Not only do
they understand the importance of the standards they also understand how their work
relates to a given standard and how standards may be tested as this is explicit taught
by the instructors during the lesson.
In one 8
th
grade classroom the students had recently went to see The Great
Debaters and were discussing various topics in a mock classroom debate. As they
concluded the activity the instructor immediately returned to the day’s objective and
the standards they were addressing and spent about 7 minutes discussing types of
“Big Game” questions that the activity they just participated in would help them
answer. Not before long students were taking the knowledge a step further and
adding to the list demonstrating their understanding of the purpose for such an
activity.
65
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this concurrent mixed methods study was to better understand
the effects of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction (CRSBI) on
African American achievement by converging both quantitative and qualitative data.
What follows is a summary of the project, recommendations for future research and
conclusions.
Summary
In the study California Standards Test results were used to measure the
effectiveness of CRSBI on African American student performance. This was done by
analyzing the results of a school that specialized in CRSBI and has 100% African
American enrollment over a four year period. The results of the quantitative analysis
showed that in the area of English Language Arts African American students at the
Great School outperformed the African American and Hispanic students of the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the state of California. These students
were also able to narrow the gap with the white and Asian students in both LAUSD
and the state of California. The proficiency rates were not as high in mathematics
African American students still outperformed the African American and Hispanic
students at the district and state level. While the gap with white and Asian students
was narrowed it is still very large. One of the concerns is that while African
66
American achievement is increasing the achievement of the white and Asian groups
is also increasing, but not closing the gap.
At the same time CRSBI was explored using qualitative observations with
students, teachers, administration, and parents at the participating school sites. The
results were analyzed with respect to all five areas of CRSBI. The outcome was that
all aspects of CRSBI were strongly in place at the Great School. In the area of caring
strong, respectful, and valued relationships between students and adults were
observed that were predicated upon knowing every student by name, having
honorable titles for students, adults, and the school, and maintaining high
expectations for behavior and achievement throughout the school. Communication
was evidenced by the differentiated ways of communicating with parents and
guardians that is tailored to each person’s lifestyle. It was also evidence in the
manner in which adults and students communicated with each other and how they
expected students to communicate within themselves. Curriculum at the Great
School was defined by Malik as being the California State Content Standards which
are taught using state adopted curriculum materials supplemented by literature that is
reflective of the students culture. Instruction within the Great School is done using a
“flip the script” method that involves thinking of the students and who they are first
then considering what it is that they need to learn and tailoring instructional activities
to the students. Teachers spend an entire day every week discussing and creating
culturally and linguistically relevant lessons that emphasize the direct instruction of
standard Academic English. In the area of focusing on California Content Standards
67
the Great School, as was previously mentioned, uses the California Content
Standards as their curriculum and this explicit discussion of the standards with
students is evidenced throughout the campus.
Recommendations
The results of this study indicate that further investigation can be done in the
area of Mathematics with respect to increasing student achievement at a much faster
rate, looking at CRSBI in implementation at the high school level, as well as further
investigating CRSBI in implementation through the use of interviews. While African
American achievement at the Great School was higher than at the state and district
levels the disparity between African American students and their white and Asian
peers is still quite large. There is a 23% and 35% difference at the district level and
20% and 34% difference at the state level between whites and Asians, respectively in
the area of mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is an evident area of need. It can be
said that CRSBI seems to be narrowing the gap, but it is not as effective in
Mathematics as it is in English Language Arts. Furthermore, with the achievement
rates in the white and Asian group increasing with African American achievement
research needs to be done and strategies need to be put into place that will expedite
the rate of mathematics achievement for African American students.
This study focused on a single K-8 school that effectively implemented all
aspects of CRSBI. For future research there needs to be analysis of effective CRSBI
implementation at the high school level. There are many varieties of high schools
including comprehensive high schools, small schools model, and charter schools to
68
name a few. Effective implementation needs to be analyzed in all of these different
settings for the purposes of understanding and replication, should it prove effective
for increasing student achievement.
Further research can also be done with the implementation of CRSBI through
the possible use of interviews. There were multiple occurrences throughout the
observation in which the researcher wanted to ask questions or delve deeper into the
reasons behind certain practices, but this was not part of this study. Therefore, it is
recommended that further in-depth investigation be completed on CRSBI in effective
implementation through questioning the members of the “village.”
Conclusion
In summary the quantitative data indicated that overall an African American
student at the Great School, which implements CRSBI with integrity as evidenced by
the qualitative observations, is 190% more likely to pass English Language Arts and
153% more likely to pass Math than an African American student in the Los Angeles
Unified School District. This same student is 172% more likely to pass English
Language Arts and 138% more likely to be proficient in Math than an African
American student in the state of California. Therefore, while effective
implementation is a daunting task requiring knowledge, desire, and commitment it
can safely be said that CRSBI has an overwhelming positive effect on the academic
achievement of African American students.
69
REFERENCES
1896-1915: Separate & Unequal Retrieved February 25, 2008 from
www.sefatl.org/1896.asp?print=y
Arvey, R. D., Strickland, W., Drawden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). “Motivational
components of test-taking.” Personnel Psychology, 43, 695-716.
Barger, R.N. (2004). History of American Education Web Project. [Online].
Retrieved December 21, 2004 from
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/%7Ecfrnb/index.html
Berendt, P. R & Koski, B. “No Shortcuts to Success.” (1999, March). Educational
Leadership, 56 Issue 6, p. 45.
Blair, J. (2000). “Test-Taking Strategy Yields Major Gains (cover story). Education
Week, 19, Issue 24, p. 1.
Bunting, B. & Mooney, E. (2001, Sept.). “The Effects of Practice and coaching on
Test Results for Educational Selection at Eleven Years of Age.” Educational
Psychology, 21, Issue 3, p. 243, 11p.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2002). Educational demographics unit.
[Online]. Retrieved January 4, 2003 on the World Wide Web:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2004). Accountability Progress Report.
[Online]. Retrieved May 11, 2005 on the World Wide Web:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aprinfoguide04.pdf
California Department of Education. (2004 – 2007). AYP Data Retrieved from
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Fl
evel%3D06%26reportNumber%3D16 on March 3, 2008
California Department of Education. (2006-2007). Educational Demographics Unit
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrollEthState.asp?Level=State&TheYear=20
06-07&cChoice=EnrollEth1&p=2 Retrieved January 8, 2008 data as of
September 8, 2007.
70
California Department of Education. (2007). Standardized Testing and Reporting
Item and Time Charts
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cstitemtime07.doc on March 3,
2008.
California Department of Education. (2007). Standardized Testing and Reporting
Summary of Results Retrieved on March 3, 2008 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/yr06rel89summ.pdf
California Department of Education. (2007). Policy and Evaluation Division
Adequate Yearly Progress Report
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2007/2007APRStAYPChart.aspx
Retrieved January 8, 2008 data as of October 31, 2007.
California Department of Education. (2007). Educational Demographics Unit
Statewide Enrollment by Ethnicity,
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/StateEnr.asp?cChoice=StEnrEth2&cYear=200
6-
07&cLevel=State&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
Retrieved January 8, 2008.
California Department of Education. (2007). Williams Case History
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmslawsuit.asp Retrieved January 11, 2008
Data reviewed December 26, 2007.
California Department of Education Instructional Materials in California -
Curriculum and Instruction (PDF) Retrieved January 11, 2008 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/instmatoverview.pdf
California Department of Education (2008). Closing the Achievement Gap.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/ag/ on March 16, 2008.
California Department of Education. (2008). Closing the Achievement Gap: Report
of Superintendent Jack O’Connell’s California P-16 Council. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/pc/documents/yr08ctagrpt0122.pdf on March
16, 2008
California Standardized Testing and Reporting Scores. (2007).
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2007/viewreport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2006&ls
tTestType=C&lstCounty=&lstDistrict=&lstSchool=&lstGroup=1&lstSubGro
up=1 Retrieved January 8, 2008.
Chall, J.S., (2002). The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the
Classroom. New York: The Guilford Press.
71
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cubberly, E. (1909). Changing conceptions of education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools
that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DuFour, R., DuFour R., & Eaker, R. (2002). Getting Started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (No Date). [Online]. Retrieved
April 17, 2005 from http://cwx.prenhall.com/
bookbind/pubbooks/burns3/medialib/docs /esea1965.htm
ERASE. (2004). Historical Timeline of Public Education in the U.S. [Online].
Retrieved December 28, 2004 from http://www.arc.org/erase/j_timeline.html
Erickson, R. (1997). The Laws of Ignorance Designed to Keep Slaves (Blacks)
Illiterate and Powerless. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199701/ai_n8749429
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(2), 106-116.
Green, H. & Schmittou, D. (No Date). The History and Mystery of the SAT.
[Online]. Retrieved May 3, 2005 from www.houston.clemson.edu/
highlights/history_of_the_sat.pdf.
Helton, G. (No Date). Curriculum Development in 20th Century United States.
[Online].Retrieved January 2, 2005 from
www.personal.kent.edu/~whelton/index.html
Hughes, C. A. & Schumaker, J. B. (1991). “Test-Taking Strategy Instruction for
Adolescents with Learning Disabilities.” Exceptionality, 2, Issue 4, p. 205.
72
Jefferson, T. (1782). Bill on Education. Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive Number
2398. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Library. [Online].
Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foleydate-
browse?id+1782.
Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.
Kunjufu, J. (2002). Black Students. Middle Class Teachers. Chicago, IL: African
American Images.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992a). Distorting democracy: An ethnographic view of the
California history-social science textbook adoption process. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992b). Liberatory consequences of literacy: A case of
culturally relevant instruction for African American students. Journal of
Negro Education, 61, 378-391.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dream keeper: Successful teachers of African
American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching: The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34, 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Teaching in Dangerous Times: Culturally Relevant
Approaches to Teacher Assessments. Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), p.
255.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education. Teachers
College Record, 97, 47-68.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized Discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In
N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
257-277) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leavitt, F. (1912). Examples of an industrial education. Boston, MA: Ginn and
Company.
73
Lowe, R. (2000). History of Education: Major Themes. London, England. Routledge.
Millman, J. Bishop, C.H., & Ebel, R. (1965). An analysis of test-wiseness.
Educational Psychological Measurement, 25, 707-725.
National Education Association. (1910). Report of the Commission on the Place of
Industries in Public Education. (1974). In M. Lazerson & W. N. Grubs (Eds.),
American education and vocationalism: A documentary history. New York:
Teachers College Press.
National Education Association (NEA). (2004). School Integration Timeline.
[Online]. Retrieved January 4, 2005, from
http://www.nea.org/brownvboard/integrationtimeline. html
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (2001). [Online]. Retrieved April 15, 2005 on
the World Wide Web: http://www.nclb.gov/
Pacenza, M. (No Date). Flawed from the Start: The History of the SAT. [Online].
Retrieved May 5, 2005, from
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/race_class/edu-matt3.htm
Papalewis, R. & Fortune, R. (2002). Leadership on Purpose. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Polansky, H. B. (2000, Oct.). “Student Testing: Understanding What It Is All
About.” Student Business Affairs, 66(10), pp. 30-32.
Prescott, J. (2001, Oct.). “Put to the Test.” Instructor, 111, Issue 3, p. 20.
Rippa, S. A. (1971). Education in a Free Society, (2nd. Edition). New York: David
McKay Company.
Ritter, S. & Idol-Maestas, L. (1986, July/August). “Teaching Middle School
Students to Use a Test Taking Strategy.” Journal of Educational Research,
79(6), p. 350.
Roth, J.L., Paris, S. G., Turner, J.C. (2000). “Students’ Perceived Utility and
Reported Use of Test-taking Strategies.” Issues in Education, 6, Issue 1/2, p.
67, 16p, 5 charts.
Rozakis, L. (2003). Test Taking Strategies and Study Skills for the Utterly Confused.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
74
Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD). (2002). Our schools –
elementary schools. [Online]. Retrieved November 3, 2002 on the World
Wide Web: http://www.scusd.edu/ourschools/showSchools.asp?TypeID=3
Sarnacki, R.E., (1979). “An examination of test-wiseness in the cognitive test
domain.” Review of Educational Research, 49, 252-279.
Scruggs, T.E., White, K.R., & Bennion, K. (1986). “Teaching Test-Taking Skills to
Elementary Grade Students: A Meta-Analysis.” Elementary School Journal,
87, pp. 69-81.
Scruggs, T. (1992). Teaching Test Taking Skills. Indianapolis, IN: Purdue University.
Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the
Cafeteria?” And Other Conversations About Race. New York: Basic Books.
Taylor, K. & Walton, S. (2001, Oct.). “Testing Pitfalls.” Instructor, 111, Issue 3, p.
26.
Thayer, V. T. (1965). Formative Ideas in American Education. New York: Dodd,
Mead, and Company.
The Education Trust. (2003). [Online]. Retrieved April 17, 2005 from
http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/ESEA.
Umanski, D. & Hible, P. (1997, March). “Test-taking know-how.” Working Mother,
p. 42.
Welter, R. (1963). Popular education and democratic thought. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this concurrent mixed methods study was to better understand the effects of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction on African American achievement by converging both quantitative and qualitative data. In the study California Standards Test results were used to measure the effectiveness of Culturally Responsive Standards Based Instruction (CRSBI) on African American student performance. At the same time CRSBI was be explored using qualitative observations of students, teachers, administration, and parents at a single school site with effective implementation.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Reframing school reform with effective tactics: institutionalizing culturally responsive pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to ensure the achievement of African aAmerican stud...
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of algebra students
PDF
The effect of site support teams on student achievement in seven northern California schools
PDF
Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of teacher training on the improvement of California standardized test scores at Eva B. Elementary School
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Raising student achievement at Eberman Elementary School with effective teaching strategies
PDF
Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Infusing school-wide culturally responsive teaching to increase the cultural proficiency of teachers
PDF
"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?
PDF
Exploring the effects of media on the self-concepts and achievement of African American high school students
PDF
Infusing school-wide culturally responsive teaching to increase the cultural proficiency of teachers
PDF
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of an urban school
PDF
Implementation of instructional programs targeting African American students to increase academic achievement
PDF
K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study
PDF
What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jones, Shelley Jeannine
(author)
Core Title
The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/22/2008
Defense Date
03/20/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
African American,culturally responsive instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles County
(city or populated place)
Language
English
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Bishop, Ramona (
committee member
), Goodyear, Rodney K. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
shelleyj25@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1184
Unique identifier
UC1268666
Identifier
etd-Jones-20080422 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-60321 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1184 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Jones-20080422.pdf
Dmrecord
60321
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Jones, Shelley Jeannine
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
culturally responsive instruction