University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FACTORS INCLUDING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IMPACTING
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN A HIGH PERFORMING URBAN
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: A CASE STUDY
by
Katherine Frazier
__________________________________________________________________
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 Katherine Frazier

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father, Mr. James “Jim”
Ducey. My father has always been an inspiration to me. When I was a young girl,
he taught me right from wrong and the importance of giving back to others. He was
a role model not only to me but to others. My time with my father was much too
short. He unexpectedly passed away a month after seeing me graduate from the
University of Southern California (USC) with a Bachelor’s degree. I have tried to
live my life with his ideals and teachings in mind. I know that he would have been
especially proud to see me receive my third degree from USC, an institution we
both so loved.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My dissertation journey started a few years ago; along the way, I experi-
enced some delays. However, with encouragement and perseverance, I am realizing
the completion of that journey.
First, I would like to acknowledge my husband, Bobby Frazier, who whole-
heartedly provided the love, support, patience, and encouragement for me to finish
the work that I began. I thank him for always believing in me.
I thank Dr. Stuart Gothold, committee chairperson and professor, for wel-
coming me into his thematic dissertation group. As a school practitioner, I wanted
to study an area that was both personally and professionally meaningful to me.
Being somewhat idealistic, I wanted to contribute to and expand the research
focusing on student achievement in urban high schools. I wanted my journey to
have meaning and purpose. Dr. Gothold provided leadership, guidance, vision, and
insight. I also acknowledge committee members Dr. Steve Fish and Dr. Dennis
Hocevar for their guidance, and my advisor, Jessica Starr, for her assistance.
I am grateful to the many mentors who have had a profound and lasting in-
fluence on me. Most important, I thank my parents, Jim and Helen Ducey, who
gave me a solid foundation and taught me the importance of living life with integ-
rity, honesty, and purpose.
Although this particular journey is reaching completion, there is much more
to be done to improve and enhance the lives of students, our future.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY............................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................4
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................5
Research Questions.........................................................................................6
Significance of the Study................................................................................6
Methodology...................................................................................................7
Assumptions ...................................................................................................9
Delimitations and Limitations ......................................................................10
Key Terms and Definitions...........................................................................11
Organization of the Study.............................................................................13
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................15
Overview of the Literature Review ..............................................................15
History of the American Public High School...............................................15
Educational Reform and Accountability ......................................................19
High Schools Today .....................................................................................23
Urban High Schools Today ..........................................................................28
Leadership ....................................................................................................31
School Culture ..............................................................................................32
Curriculum and Instruction...........................................................................33
Engagement ..................................................................................................38
Summary.......................................................................................................44
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................45
Background of the Study ..............................................................................47
Research Questions.......................................................................................48
Conceptual Framework and Model ..............................................................48
Research Design ...........................................................................................50
Sample and Population .................................................................................51
Instrumentation.............................................................................................54
Document Review ..................................................................................55
Surveys ...................................................................................................56
Observations ...........................................................................................57
Interviews ...............................................................................................59
Data Collection.............................................................................................59
Validity and Credibility................................................................................60

v
Data Analysis................................................................................................60
Limitations....................................................................................................61
Summary.......................................................................................................62
Chapter 4: THE FINDINGS.................................................................................63
Overview of the Case Study .........................................................................63
Summary of Findings by Instrumentation....................................................65
Observations ...........................................................................................65
Day 1: All Employees Opening-of-School Meeting ........................66
Principal Meetings............................................................................68
Professional Development Activities ...............................................71
School Board Meeting......................................................................74
School and Classroom Observations ................................................76
Surveys ...................................................................................................84
High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)....................84
Teachers Survey ...............................................................................87
Administrators Survey......................................................................87
Documents Review...............................................................................104
Interviews .............................................................................................112
Emergent Themes From the Data Collection .............................................121
Summary of Findings by Research Questions............................................123
First Research Question........................................................................123
Second Research Question ...................................................................125
Third Research Question ......................................................................127
Discussion of the Findings Around the Four Frames.................................128
Discussion of the Findings .........................................................................130
Chapter 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................134
Purpose of the Study...................................................................................134
Summary of the Findings ...........................................................................136
Implications ................................................................................................140
Challenges Ahead .......................................................................................142
Recommendations for Further Research ....................................................145
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................147
APPENDICES
A. DOCUMENT REVIEW INSTRUMENT..............................................155
B. SURVEY INSTRUMENTS...................................................................156
C. OBSERVATION LOG ..........................................................................160
D. HIGH SCHOOL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 2006.....161
E. 2006-2007 HSSSE DISTRICT RESULTS COMPARED TO
NATIONAL PROFILE..........................................................................165
F. TEACHER SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT BY THE
PREVIOUS STUDY COHORT ............................................................206
G. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ..................................................................207

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of High School Students, States, and Schools
Participating in the High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE), 2004-2006 ......................................................42
Table 2: Ethnic Distribution of Students Who Have Participated in
the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE),
2004-2006 (Percentages) .....................................................................43
Table 3: Selected District Academic Performance Index (API), 2002-2006 ....53
Table 4: Teacher Survey Results in Percentages (81% Return Rate)................88
Table 5: Summary of Teachers’ Responses to Survey Items Regarding
Identification of Factors Contributing to Student Achievement .........91
Table 6: Reported Perceptions of Teachers in High School A, High
School B, and High School F Regarding Student Engagement
as Measured by the Teacher Survey Instrument of the Previous
Cohort ..................................................................................................95
Table 7: Results of the Administrators Survey..................................................97
Table 8: Summary of Administrators’ Responses to Survey Items
Regarding Identification of Factors Contributing to Student
Achievement......................................................................................100
Table 9: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance
Index (API) Scores and Targets (Met or Not Met) for Significant
Subgroups by School and District-Wide, 2004-2007........................105
Table 10: Four-Year High School Graduation Rates, 1999-2007 in
Percentages (National Center for Education Statistics).....................106
Table 11: Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
Accreditation Schedule and Term of Accreditation for Each
High School in the District ................................................................107
Table 12: Attendance Rates in Percentages by Study District Schools,
Academic Years 2003-2004 Through 2006-2007 .............................108
Table 13: Summary of Student Violations of California Education Code
48900(A-C) by Student District School ............................................109

vii
Table 14: Number of Expulsions by Schools in the Study District,
2004-2005 to 2006-2007....................................................................110
Table 15: Number of Common Assessments Scanned in the Study
District Since Academic Year 2004-2005 .........................................111

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Model of the conceptual framework for the current study ..................49
Figure 2: Cresswell’s six-step process ................................................................62
Figure 3: Comparison of students’, teachers’, and administrators’
responses regarding the number of assigned written papers
and/or reports of more than five pages ..............................................102
Figure 4: Comparison of students’, teachers’, and administrators’
responses when asked whether the school encourages
participation in extracurricular activities...........................................103
Figure 5: Comparison of students, teachers, and administrators’ responses
about school safety; students were asked whether they felt safe at
school, teachers and administrators were asked whether school
safety was a priority...........................................................................103
Figure 6: Advanced Placement tests taken by students in the study district,
2002-2007..........................................................................................108
Figure 7: English-Language Arts Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
targets for high school students 2002-2014.......................................143
Figure 8: Mathematics Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets for
high school students 2002-2014 ........................................................143
Figure 9: Additional indicators of growth in Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) targets for high school students 2002-2014 ...........................144
Figure 10: Minimum graduation rate component of Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) targets for high school students 2002-2014 ............144

ix
ABSTRACT
This mixed-methods qualitative case study was designed to investigate the
relationships of perceived factors including that of student engagement on
improved student achievement of high school students within an urban-like school
district. The study also examined the role of the central office leadership particu-
larly that of the superintendent had on student achievement. The sample for this
study included an urban-like school district in which all seven high schools were
outperforming and exceeding academic expectations of similar schools with like
demographics based on state and national accountability measures.
This case study was one of a series of 10 thematic dissertation studies by a
doctoral student cohort studying this phenomenon and an extension and integration
of research completed by the previous cohort. Data were collected through docu-
ment reviews, surveys, observations, and interviews. Secondary data of the results
from the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) as well as a
compilation of results from a teacher survey from the previous cohort were utilized.
All data were analyzed using Creswell’s six-step process.
Results of this study revealed the interrelationship, interdependence, and the
confluence of leadership, a strong curricular focus and instructional practices, a
culture of accountability, a belief that demographics does not determined destiny, a
highly qualified teaching and administrative staff, and student engagement had on
increasing student achievement in this urban-like high school district. Dynamic
and visionary leadership provided coherence, guidance, and support in “staying the
course” and doing “whatever it takes” to meet student needs.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The American public school system, particularly the high school, continues
to be the subject of much scrutiny and debate. Student achievement, or often the
lack of student achievement, has been a recurring theme in the literature. Student
performance, especially at the high school level, is of utmost concern. High school
graduation signifies the successful completion of the K-12 educational system.
President George W. Bush said, “Every high school diploma must mean that our
graduates are prepared for jobs, college, and for success” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004, p. 3).
Today’s high school students must learn to compete in an evolving and
multifaceted global community. However, many are not graduating from high
school or achieving at acceptable proficiency levels. Some researchers have argued
that today’s high schools are obsolete and do not meet the needs of the majority of
students (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2005).
The American high school is a relatively young institution that dates back to
the early 1600s with the opening of the Boston Latin Grammar School in 1635. The
goal was to prepare a few select young men for Harvard University to serve both
state and church (Boyer, 1983). Even then, the goal was to prepare a privileged
few, not necessarily educate the masses. It was not until nearly a century later that
the first public high school opened its doors. The English Classical School, later
renamed the English High School, began in 1821 in Boston and was purported to
be the first American public high school (Baldwin, 2001). By the turn of the

2
century, high schools evolved in numbers to approximately 6,000 (Boyer). The
focus and priority of high schools were reflective of the times.
As America entered the Industrial Era, high schools mirrored some of the
characteristics seen in the factories. Schools were designed to educate the “masses”
and to selectively “sort out” students for postsecondary consideration. Not all
students were expected to graduate; students were “tracked” based on their aca-
demic ability into vocational paths or, if they were higher performing, into a more
rigorous college preparatory track. Often students of color and low income were
guided into the vocational tracks, regardless of ability levels. Those not going on to
college or postsecondary education were absorbed in the nation’s factories (Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, 2005; Walcott, Owens-West, & Makkonen, 2005).
The industrial era has long since passed. We live in a time of globalization,
booming technological advancements, knowledge sharing, and increased automa-
tion. Yet, many students today attend schools that were designed to meet the needs
of the industrial era of the mid-20th century (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Many of today’s high schools have not kept pace with increasing academic
demands, evolving student needs, changing demographics, and increasing career
and technical preparation that are essential for students to be successful in today’s
global economy.
It was estimated that 66% of entering ninth graders would leave high school
deficient in reading and mathematics skills necessary to enter college or to obtain a
job that can support a family (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2007). This
problem is not new. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
program has been monitoring student performance of representative samples of
students across the United States over time since 1969. Based on the 2005 NAEP

3
results, high school seniors continued to show declines in reading performance
since 1992, except for the highest-performing students (NAEP, 2007). In mathe-
matics, less than 25% of high school seniors scored at or above the proficient level
in 2005.
The problem is magnified in urban high schools, which are further
challenged to meet the needs of students due to increased at-risk factors of the
students whom they serve. Urban high schools are characterized by a significantly
larger number of economically disadvantaged students, an ethnically diverse
population, English Learners (EL), student dropouts, shortages of qualified
teachers, increased student mobility rates, and high community population
densities, compared to their suburban counterparts. Students of color, with the
exception of Asian/Pacific Islander students, are more likely to attend high-poverty
schools than are White students. These high-poverty schools are more likely to be
located in urban areas (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics [NCES], 2006). High school students who attend high-poverty and
high-minority schools are more likely to be taught by less-qualified teachers (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004).
In California, only two thirds of students who begin in ninth grade earn a
high school diploma. Using the same calculation method of comparing the number
of high school graduates with the number of ninth-grade students who started 4
years earlier revealed that 45% of Latinos and 40% of African American students
do not reach high school graduation (Education Trust West, 2004). These statistics
are unacceptable in a time when 90% of the nation’s fastest-growing jobs require
postsecondary education or training (Spellings, 2007). The reality of most urban

4
high schools is that they are low performing and not adequately preparing students
for life after high school (Education Trust West, 2004).
Urban high schools that exceed academic expectations are the exception and
not the rule. Education Trust West (2004) recommended that California high
schools set three priorities to accelerate and address the needs of these at-risk
students:
• making sure all students have the benefit of highly qualified and effective
teachers;
• making high-level courses the recommended, or “default,” curriculum
for all high school students;
• providing the materials—curriculum, textbooks, and benchmark assess-
ments aligned to California standards—and the instructional supports
that will ensure that students succeed in these courses. (p. 1)
Closing the achievement gap among high school students, especially those
students most at risk, must be a priority of today’s high schools. Today’s high
schools are challenged more than ever to meet the needs of all students. Research
indicates that such factors as leadership, school culture, a results-oriented instruc-
tional program, strong teaching, a rigorous and relevant curriculum, and student
engagement may influence student achievement. Student achievement, especially
among students in urban high schools, has fallen short. What factors are contribut-
ing to improved student performance in urban high schools that are experiencing
success?
Statement of the Problem
Historically, students in urban high schools have underperformed academic-
ally in comparison to their suburban counterparts. Some urban high schools have
achieved significant gains; however, it is unclear what contributes to high

5
performance in these schools. It is also atypical for all high schools within an urban
school district to be high performing, thus realizing improved student performance
on a district basis.
What has yet to be fully studied is what factors have contributed to the
increase in student achievement at some urban high schools. It is unclear to what
degree or to what extent such factors as leadership, school culture, curriculum and
instruction, and student engagement contribute to increased levels of student
achievement in urban high schools. Student engagement refers to the “time and
energy devoted to educationally purposeful activities” (Indiana University Center
for Evaluation and Educational Policy, 2004, p. 1). There is limited information
about the effects of student engagement on student achievement in urban high
schools and virtually no studies of entire school systems where all schools are high
performing. It is unclear whether the central office leadership plays a role or is a
contributing factor to such increased student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine the factors, including student
engagement, which contributed to increased levels of student achievement in urban
high schools that were outperforming similar high schools. The study was also
designed to determine whether central office leadership was a contributing factor to
this increased student achievement in an urban school district in which all high
schools were exceeding expectations and experiencing academic success.

6
Research Questions
The study addressed three research questions:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in high-
performing urban high schools?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in
high-performing urban high schools?
3. What role does the central office leadership play in contributing to
improved student achievement in high-performing urban high schools?
Significance of the Study
In this age of increased accountability, standards-driven instruction, and
high-stakes testing, student achievement is foremost. Schools are judged and
measured by how well students perform academically. There has been much debate
and discussion that many high schools are not adequately preparing students for life
after high school. Although there have been numerous high school reform efforts
over the years, many schools still function as they did in the past, based on an
antiquated model. Too many young people drop out of school and those who stay
in school often leave with deficient reading and mathematics skills. The American
public high school is at a crossroad (National Association of Secondary School
Principals & The Education Alliance Brown University, 2004). It is time that all
students achieve at high levels.
Urban high schools with increased at-risk factors have often performed at
unacceptable levels, academically performing below their suburban counterparts.
Yet there are examples of urban high schools that exceed expectations and are high
performing. It is important to discover the factors have contributed to their success.
It is important to study an urban high school district in which all of its schools are

7
high performing and exceeding expectations. By discovering how this urban high
school district is “beating the odds,” other urban high schools and districts may
gain valuable insight.
This case study was one of a series of 10 thematic dissertations within a
cohort group of doctoral students studying factors, including student engagement,
which may contribute to academic success in high-performing urban high schools.
This case study also examined the role, if any, of the central office administration
in this high performance. This dissertation extends and integrates the research
completed by the previous cohort group who independently studied selected high
schools within this district. Together, these case studies contribute to a developing
body of research studying factors, including student engagement, that may be
linked to increased levels of student achievement in high-performing urban high
schools. School practitioners, both at the site and district levels, may find these
lessons applicable to their school and district improvement efforts.
Methodology
The research method selected for this study was a mixed-methods
qualitative case study. The case study methodology allows the researcher to study
the phenomenon within its natural setting. Mixed-methods research involves
“collecting, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single
study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon”
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006, p. 474). In this case study the researcher examined
the relationships of student engagement and other contributing factors to improved
student achievement in high-performing urban high schools in a selected urban
school district. The natural setting of this in-depth study was the actual school and

8
school district environment. Data collection methods included document reviews,
teacher and administrator surveys, observations, and interviews. Secondary quanti-
tative student data from the High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE)
compiled by Indiana University was also used. This use of multiple instruments to
address the research questions facilitated convergence or triangulation of the
findings and strengthened the validity of the study (Creswell, 2003). The instru-
mentation was developed with Bolman and Deal’s (Bolman & Deal, 1997) four
frames in mind. The application of the four frames—structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic—led to understanding and insight to the phenomenon under
study. Data analysis was facilitated by use of Creswell’s six-step process: organiz-
ing and preparing the data, reading for a general sense, chunking the information,
describing and identifying themes, creating narratives, and interpreting the data
(Creswell).
This research was one of 10 studies concurrently investigating the
phenomenon in other urban or urban-like high schools. The study expanded and
enhanced the work of five studies from a previous thematic dissertation group and
one study from the current thematic dissertation group investigating the same
phenomenon within all high schools in the selected school district, thereby
strengthening the validity and credibility of the findings.
In order for a high school to be considered for the study by the dissertation
team, the school must have met two qualifying criteria: (a) The student body and
demographics were consistent with characteristics of urban-like high schools, as
defined by the dissertation group; and (b) the high schools were exceeding expecta-
tions of similar schools, as defined by the dissertation group.

9
The dissertation team defined urban or urban-like as an ethnically diverse
population, a large number of EL students, and a large number of economically
disadvantaged students, as defined by 40% or more students qualifying for free or
reduced-price lunch or a numerically significant subgroup on the Academic Per-
formance Index (API) or Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM). A
school was deemed to be high performing or exceeding expectations if its similar
school ranking on the API exceeded its statewide ranking or if its API score
exceeded the state average.
The case study focused on central office and site-level practices of a union
high school district serving five comprehensive high school sites, one continuation
high school, an independent study school, and one adult school.
Assumptions
1. The participants in this study answered all of the survey and interview
questions in an open and honest manner.
2. Responses from the selected focus groups were representative of the
various identified groups.
3. Respondents had sufficient knowledge and understanding of the
questions asked.
4. Student responses on the HSSSE accurately and honestly reflected their
perceptions and actions.
5. Data summaries and analysis of the HSSSE were accurately compiled by
Indiana University.
6. The researcher accurately recorded and interpreted the data.

10
Delimitations and Limitations
Four delimitations of the study were noted:
1. The study was confined to a single urban high school district.
2. Only urban high schools meeting the two qualifying criteria were studied:
(a) The student body and demographics were consistent with characteristics of
urban-like high schools as defined by the dissertation group, and (b) the district
high schools were exceeding expectations of similar schools.
3. Data collection occurred from August to December 2007.
4. The sample size was delimited to those who were interviewed.
Five limitations of the study were recognized:
1. The sample size was relatively small. The study was delimited to one
union high school district and its five comprehensive high schools, one continua-
tion high school, and an independent study high school.
2. It was assumed that the research and data from the other case studies and
outside sources were accurate.
3. The findings were limited to one union high school district and may not
be generalized. The study did not allow opportunity to compare and contrast the
studied district with other high-performing urban high school districts.
4. The findings are representative only of the time that the study was
conducted.
5. Observations were subject to the researcher’s interpretation and inherent
bias.

11
Key Terms and Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): California’s ranking of schools by
academic performance and growth. A numeric index or scale of scores ranges from
200 to 1000, with 800 being the statewide performance target.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Under the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (2002), each state develops and implements measures for determining
whether its schools and local educational agencies achieve AYP, with the target of
100% of students reaching at least proficiency level by 2014. In California AYP
consists of four areas: participation rate, school-wide and subgroup proficiency or
Annual Measurable Objectives, API, and graduation rate.
Alternative Schools Assessment Model (ASAM): California’s alternative
accountability system for schools under the jurisdiction of a county board of educa-
tion or a county superintendent of schools, community day schools, and alternative
schools serving high-risk pupils, including continuation high schools and oppor-
tunity schools.
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS): An annual collection
of basic student and staff data.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): California’s examination
of high school proficiency according to state standards in the areas of English
Language Arts and mathematics; a requirement for a high school diploma starting
with the class of 2006.
California Standards Test (CST): A group of tests that measure progress
toward California’s state-adopted academic content standards, given to students in
grades 2-11.

12
Culture: A pattern of beliefs, norms, values, and traditions that have been
formed over time.
Dropout rate: Dropout rates are reported differently. The status dropout rate
represents the percentage of an age group that is not enrolled in school and has not
earned a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as a General Educational
Development (GED) certificate. The event dropout rate measures the proportion of
students who drop out of high school in a given year.
English Learner (EL): Refers to a student who does not speak English or
whose native language is not English and who is not currently able to perform
ordinary classroom work in English.
High-performing high school: A high school that exceeds expectations of
similar schools or its API score exceeds the state average.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Federal act that reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the main federal law affecting
education from kindergarten through high school. NCLB was signed into law on
January 8, 2002, and was developed on four principles: (a) accountability for
results, (b) more choices for parents, (c) greater local control and flexibility, and
(d) an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): Each school in California
annually provides information to the community that allows the public to evaluate
and compare schools for student achievement, environment, resources, and
demographics.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged student: A student participating in the
free or reduced-price lunch program or whose parents are not high school
graduates.

13
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR): A measure of student
progress in meeting California’s content standards in grades 2-11.
Student engagement: HSSSE refers to student engagement in terms of the
student’s relationship and involvement in the life and work of school within three
dimensions: (a) cognitive/intellectual/academic engagement, (b) social/behavioral/
participatory engagement, and (c) emotional engagement.
Urban high school: Defined by the dissertation team as a high school
characterized by (a) an ethnically diverse student population, (b) a large EL student
population, and (c) a significant number of socioeconomically disadvantaged
students as defined by 40% or more of the students qualifying for free or reduced-
price lunches or a numerically significant subgroup on the API.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 presents the introduction, the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, and the research questions that guided the study. The signifi-
cance of the study, the research methodology, assumptions, delimitations and
limitations, and definitions of key terms are also included in chapter 1.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature. It addresses the
following: the history of the American public high school, educational reform and
accountability, high schools today, urban high schools today, leadership, school
culture, curriculum and instruction, and student engagement.
Chapter 3 describes the research methodology used in the study. It
addresses the background of the study, the research questions, the conceptual
framework and model, the research design, the sample and population, the

14
instrumentation, the data collection procedures, validity and credibility, data
analysis, and limitations.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study, including an overview of the
case study, the summary and discussion of the findings, and identification of the
emergent themes.
Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the findings and their implications
regarding practices, conclusions, and recommendations for further research.

15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
With increased focus on student achievement and academic proficiency,
especially among high school students and soon-to-be graduates, American public
high schools are currently the subject of much attention and debate (Bridgeland,
Dilulio, & Morison, 2006; National High School Alliance, 2005). Despite this
attention and focus, many high schools do not successfully engage students.
Student performance in urban high schools falls below the national average
(National High School Alliance; Swanson, 2004).
Overview of the Literature Review
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the factors associated
with high student performance in urban high schools. This begins with examination
of the history of the American public high school and the major educational reform
efforts impacting high schools in the past quarter century. The review continues
with a look at the conditions of the American public high school today, narrowing
the focus to the urban high school. This review addresses how such factors as
leadership, school culture, curriculum and instruction, and student engagement may
influence student performance. At the core of the literature review is a discussion of
factors that may positively impact student achievement and the need to identify
factors specifically associated with high performance in urban high schools.
History of the American Public High School
The American public high school is a relatively young institution that has
undergone some noteworthy transformations. No longer is high school a “closed

16
institution” reserved only for the academically motivated or privileged few. During
the colonial period (1660-1775) settlers brought their own customs and practices
from their homeland to America, including their education methodologies. School-
ing primarily consisted of the “three Rs” (reading, writing and arithmetic) and
religion in a one-room schoolhouse. The harsh reality of the life for the early
settlers did not lend itself to most children enjoying the privileges of formal school-
ing. Education was seen as a luxury, with only 1 of 10 children attending school
(Collins, B. D., n.d.). There were no compulsory education laws.
Founded in 1635, Boston Latin Grammar School is believed to be the first
American high school. Its goal was to prepare a few select young men for Harvard
University to serve both state and church (Boyer, 1983). Seven years later, in 1642,
the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed the first known law in America to mandate
communities to establish a public school system. Elementary or common schools
were to be established in towns with 50 families and Latin Grammar Schools were
to be established in towns with at least 100 families (Collins, B. D., n.d.).
In 1751 Benjamin Franklin introduced the academy concept to high schools
in Philadelphia. Students received instruction in letter writing and accounting. Girls
were permitted to attend Franklin’s new established school (Collins, B. D., n.d.).
The academy model, which focused on more practical skills, was quite prevalent
throughout 19th-century secondary education. Although the academies sometimes
received state and community support, these schools were privately controlled.
Only the paying student enjoyed the educational opportunity of the academies
beyond the common school (Boyer, 1983).
The first public high school began in 1821 with the opening of the English
Classical School in Boston. The school was later renamed to the English High

17
School (Baldwin, 2001). In 1827 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted a
law requiring every town or village with 500 or more families to establish a high
school (Boyer, 1983). In 1852, Massachusetts passed the first compulsory attend-
ance law for elementary age students in the United States. Horace Mann, then
Massachusetts Secretary of Education, was instrumental in the passage of this law
(“The Story of American Public Education,” 2007). Public high schools soon grew
in number and, by turn of the century, there were 6,000 high schools in the United
States (Boyer).
During the 1880s, educational leaders such as Calvin M. Woodward
contended that high schools should address the vocational and economic needs of
the country in addition to providing a liberal arts focus. The first manual training
high school opened in Baltimore in 1884 (Baldwin, 2001; Boyer, 1983). Secondary
schools began to take on a vocational focus and often did not reflect Woodward’s
vision of a blended school of manual training and liberal arts (Boyer). Distressed
by the varying levels of high school preparation of students entering higher educa-
tion, the National Council of Education in 1892 appointed the Committee of Ten to
examine the state of secondary education (Boyer). The Committee of Ten, chaired
by Harvard University President Charles W. Eliot and comprised mainly of college
professors, concluded that secondary education should maintain a common and
equally rigorous academic curriculum to prepare students for either the workplace
or college. Thus, the concept of a standard curriculum was introduced. In 1909 the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching developed the standard unit
to measure time allocated to high school subjects. The standard unit was later
called the Carnegie unit (“The Story of American Public Education,” 2007).

18
At the turn of the century there was an influx of immigrants to the United
States. Many of these immigrants settled in urban areas. Schools were called on to
prepare students for the demands of this urban industrial society (“The Story of
American Public Education,” 2007). Secondary schools were also influenced early
in the 1900s by philosopher John Dewey (Boyer, 1983). Dewey, who is associated
with the progressive movement, advocated educating the “whole child” (Baldwin,
2001). The movement quickly lost momentum when it was often misinterpreted
that “play” was more important than academics (Boyer).
In the middle of the 20th century secondary education was dramatically
impacted by the launching of Sputnik, the world’s first satellite, by the Soviet
Union in 1957. The launching of Sputnik caused Americans to examine their
educational system. The focus shifted to the immediate need to improve and
enhance the mathematics, science, and foreign language curricula, particularly in
high schools. The National Defense Act of 1958 provided additional funding to
improve and enhance instruction in the areas of mathematics, science, and foreign
language instruction. Former Harvard University President James B. Conant
reinforced the need for schools to improve and strengthen the teaching of mathe-
matics, science, and foreign language in his seminal work, The American High
School Today (Conant, 1959).
High schools were once again influenced by society in the 1960s and 1970s.
In response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the women’s movement, and a new
wave of progressivism, high schools provided more opportunities for student
choice of curriculum offerings and activities, flexible scheduling, and project-based
learning (“The Story of American Public Education,” 2007). Commissioned by the
U.S. Department of Education in accordance with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964,

19
Johns Hopkins sociologist James S. Coleman led in the writing of the pivotal
Coleman Report, which suggested that disadvantaged Black children would
achieve greater academic success if they were placed in racially integrated
classrooms with White students (Coleman, 1966).
By the end of the 1970s and through the 1980s the “back to basics” move-
ment took hold. This movement was categorized by increased learning expectations
for all students (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000). Throughout the past decade
to the present, national education goals and state initiatives advocating the attain-
ment of high standards for all students continue to be a priority for schools, especi-
ally at the high school level.
Educational Reform and Accountability
Despite the aforementioned transformations of the American public high
school, some may argue that American high schools have not changed dramatically
since their inception. The American high school continues to be the subject of
numerous educational reform efforts. Noteworthy reform efforts over the past
quarter century include A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act (1994), NCLB (2002), and specific statewide efforts.
A Nation at Risk, commissioned by the National Commission on Excellence
in Education (1983), served as an open letter to the American people about the
current status of education in the United States. The commission investigated the
declining state of the educational system in the United States. Four aspects of the
educational system were examined: content, expectations, time, and teaching. The
commission recommended strengthening content by increasing high school

20
graduation requirements, including 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 3
years of science, 3 years of social sciences, and one half year of computer science.
Schools were encouraged to adopt more rigorous and measurable standards and
higher expectations for student performance. The report stated that, in other
countries, such as England, students had a longer school day and a longer school
year than in the United States. The report also suggested that time in schools was
often ineffectively utilized and that not enough time was devoted to the develop-
ment of student study skills. The commission suggested that not enough “aca-
demically able students” were becoming teachers, noting that half of newly
employed teachers of mathematics, sciences, and English were not qualified and
that there was a severe shortage of teachers in the areas of mathematics and
science, particularly physics.
Some educational researchers (e.g., Guthrie & Springer, 2004) contended
that A Nation at Risk inaccurately portrayed the condition of the educational
system. However, the report shifted the focus of measuring school quality to
measurable student outcomes instead of solely the amount of resources given to
schools.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 continued the national focus on
educational reform. The act was amended in 1996 as a bipartisan effort with the
support of business, education, and parent organizations. Goals 2000 stated that
education is not only a state and local responsibility but also a national priority.
The act supported state and local efforts to improve student achievement by
increased academic standards, high-quality professional development for teachers,
enhancement of instructional technology, and increased parent and community
involvement.

21
One of the most comprehensive educational reforms in recent years was the
NCLB Act of 2001 (2002). The goal of NCLB was “to close the achievement gap
with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (p. 1).
The act reauthorized the ESEA of 1965. It has been touted as the “most sweeping
reform of [ESEA] since it was enacted in 1965” (U.S. Department of Education,
2007). The act requires states to implement annual assessments by 2005-2006 in all
public school students in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12, based on
state standards in reading and mathematics. By 2007-2008 all states must imple-
ment science assessments based on state standards at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9,
and 10-12. One of the most challenging expectations is that all students are to reach
proficiency levels by 2014 (Educational Research Service, 2003). Student progress
toward achievement of these standards is measured in terms of AYP under NCLB.
Each state defines its specific criteria for determining AYP toward the goal of
100% of students achieving proficiency or above on state standards; however, each
state must receive approval of its criteria from the U.S. Department of Education.
California’s adopted and approved criteria for 2006 were included in its Accounta-
bility Workbook (California Department of Education [CDE], 2006). NCLB con-
tinues to have a major impact on schools and districts throughout the United States.
Prior to the enactment of NCLB, California sought its own accountability
system to assess student progress toward mastery of academic standards. The
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 created the API, which measures the
academic performance and growth of schools. API was defined as
a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000.
A school’s score on the API is an indicator of a school’s performance level.
The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A school’s
growth is measured by how well it is moving toward or past that goal. A

22
school’s API Base is subtracted from its API Growth to determine how
much the school improved in a year. (CDE, 2007a, n.p.)
The API ranking system was joined by the federal AYP in California in 2003. At
present, California has a dual system of ranking schools and measuring student
progress.
The California Legislature specially addressed high school proficiency of
state standards in the areas of English-Language Arts and mathematics with the
establishment of the CAHSEE in 2000 (CAHSEE, 2000). The California School
Board postponed the requirement of the passage of the CAHSEE by the class of
2004 to the class of 2006 in July 2003 (CDE, 2007f). The first administration of the
CAHSEE to the class of 2006 was in February 2004. The CAHSEE is used in
calculating both API and AYP.
The CDE has provided vision and direction to high schools in terms of two
educational reform documents: Second to None (CDE, 1992) and Aiming High
(CDE, 2002). Both reports outlined high school reform efforts. Aiming High builds
upon the principles in Second to None and especially supports standards-based
curriculum and assessments.
In 2007 educational reform in California took on a significantly different
look with the March 7, 2007 release of 22 adequacy studies as part of the Getting
Down to Facts research project commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Founda-
tion, and the Stuart Foundation. The project examined California’s school govern-
ance and finance systems over a 18-month period, September 2005 to March 2007,
and concluded that a major overhaul was needed to achieve desired student per-
formance goals (Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek, 2007). The Getting Down to Facts
project assembled a cross-section of researchers from various political and policy

23
orientations to examine the current status of school governance and finance
systems, to make recommendations on how funds could be more effectively
utilized to improve student achievement, and to identify additional resources
needed to assist students in meeting current educational goals. This independent
research project had been requested by the Governor’s Committee on Education,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction, former Secretary of Education Alan
Bersin, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the President Pro Tem of the Senate.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated, “These studies confirm what I
have been saying all along: that even though we are making all of these great
investments in our kids, it’s the system itself that needs to be fixed” (Rosenhall,
2007, ¶ 7). The Governor declared that 2008 would be the year of educational
reform in California (Rosenhall).
High Schools Today
Today’s high schools are structurally very similar to the high schools of the
past. Phillip C. Schlechty, founder of the Schlechty Center for Leadership in School
Reform, stated that, despite much attention aimed at changing the organization’s
structure, very little of substance has actually changed (Schlechty, 1990). Many
students today attend schools that were designed to meet the needs of the industrial
era of the mid-20th century (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Some
researchers have argued that today’s high schools are obsolete and do not meet the
needs of the vast majority of students (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2005).
High schools are challenged to prepare students for the demands of the modern
world. President George W. Bush said, “Every high school diploma must mean that

24
our graduates are prepared for jobs, college, and for success (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004, p. 3).
Nationally student enrollment in public high schools has increased since the
1990s, with student enrollment in grades 9-12 projected to peak in 2007 to 15.1
million students and then decrease to 14.8 million students by 2015 (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, NCES, 2006). California has also experienced an increase in
student enrollment over the past 15 years. However, it is projected that student
enrollment will stabilize during this decade, with some areas already experiencing a
decline, especially in the elementary grades (Ed-Data, 2007).
Many high schools have not kept pace with increased academic demands,
evolving student needs, career/technical and postsecondary preparation, changing
demographics of communities, current requirements of the workforce, and the
complex, ever-changing global economy of today. Two thirds of entering ninth
graders will leave high school lacking reading and mathematics skills necessary to
enter college or to obtain a job that can support a family (Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2007). Only 68% of entering ninth graders will graduate with a
diploma in 4 years (Swanson, 2004).
According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),
U.S. 15-year-olds performed as well or better in reading literacy than students in
the other 26 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
member countries in 2000. However, U.S. 15-year-old students scored in mathe-
matics literacy below 20 of the 28 OECD member countries that participated in the
PISA in 2003. Similar results were reported in science literacy in 2003, with U.S.
15-year-olds producing average scores below those of students in 15 of the 28

25
OECD member countries that participated in the PISA (U.S. Department of
Education, NCES, 2006).
The NAEP program, a project of the NCES of the U.S. Department of
Education, has provided ongoing monitoring of student performance to representa-
tive samples of students across the United States since 1969. In 2005, 21,000 high
seniors were assessed in reading and mathematics on the NAEP. The results indi-
cated that reading performance for high school seniors in 2005 had declined since
1992 except for the highest-performing students (NAEP, 2007). Achievement gaps
in reading performance between White and Hispanic students and White and Black
students had not statistically changed since 1992; however, White and Black
students’ reading performance scores had declined since 1992. In mathematics,
less than 25% of high school seniors scored at or above the proficient level in 2005.
Three achievement levels are reported on the NAEP: basic, proficient, and
advanced. California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell
indicated that the student performance results on the NAEP are not consistent with
those of state high school reports of students getting better grades and being
exposed to more rigorous curriculum content (CDE, 2007h).
It is essential that American students be prepared to compete and prosper in
this evolving and complex global society. Globalization expert Thomas Friedman
suggested that the “world is flat” (Friedman, 2006). Friedman suggested that the
world has been “flattened by the convergence of 10 major political events, innova-
tions, and companies” (p. 50). These ten forces were as follows.
1. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, signaling the end of the
Cold War.

26
2. The emergence of the World Wide Web, highlighted by Netscape
©
going
public on August 9, 1995.
3. The development of workflow software to enable people from different
parts of the world to work collaboratively and collectively from their personal
computers on joint projects without having to leave their home-based locations.
4. The use of “uploading,” a community-developed software or open source
community that facilitates communities of individuals to develop online materials,
including available source codes. People have access to download the software
materials often for free and to improve on the initial software by utilizing the
provided source codes.
5. The practice of “outsourcing,” which allows a company to assign a
specific function that was initially done in house to another company (e.g.,
research, call centers) at a cost-saving and then reintegrate that function into the
overall operation.
6. The entrance of China in the World Trade Organization on December 11,
2001, accelerating “offshoring”: company moving its entire operation offshore to
produce the same product in the same way but with lower operating costs.
7. The utilization of “supply-chaining”: the ability of companies, such as
Wal-Mart, to assemble products and parts from all over the world and deliver them
on time at a lower price than their competitors.
8. The practice of “insourcing,” which facilitates delivery companies, such
as UPS
®
, to collaborate with other companies to manage the complex global supply
chain.

27
9. The expansion of “in-forming” through Web search engines such as
Google™, Yahoo!
®
, MSN Web
©
, that allow people to have universal access to
information.
10. The enhancement of digital, mobile, personal, and virtual technologies
to facilitate communication and exchange of information worldwide.
A result of globalization is that the American worker is now in direct
competition with workers worldwide. Companies have increasingly the ability to
employ workers other than Americans, who may be better skilled and work at
lower wages. Future top-paying salaries are likely to go to persons with a high level
of preparation in reading, writing, speaking, mathematics, science, literature,
history, and the arts and who possess creativity and innovative ideas (National
Center on Education and the Economy, 2006). It is essential for high schools to
prepare students for the global world of today.
Although the challenges and demands placed on America’s high schools
today may seem insurmountable, there are shining examples of successful high
schools. Newsweek publishes an annual list of “America’s Best High Schools,”
highlighting schools that do the best job in preparing students for college
(Kantrowitz & Wingert, 2006). These high schools successfully prepare students
for the rigors of college. However, not all students go to college; high schools must
prepare students not only for college but also for the workforce and other post-
secondary careers. A new set of the three Rs, a departure from the traditional
reading, writing, and arithmetic, has emerged as a recipe for improving school
performance: rigor, relevance, and relationships. Proponents of the three new Rs,
such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, suggest that students should be
exposed to a rigorous curriculum, be college ready, find relevancy in what is being

28
taught, and form relationships with teachers and staff to assist them in meeting high
standards. These proponents advocate high schools that are smaller in size, aca-
demically focused, personalized to meet student needs, and linked to real-world
experiences (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2005). High schools today are
influenced not only by local, state, and national concerns but by global needs as
well.
Urban High Schools Today
Urban high schools are challenged to meets the needs of students due to
increased at-risk factors of the students whom they serve. Urban high schools are
characterized by a significantly larger number of economically disadvantaged
students, EL students, student dropouts, shortages of qualified teachers, increased
student mobility rates, and high community population densities, in comparison to
their suburban counterparts. Students of color, with the exception of Asian/Pacific
Islanders, are more likely to attend high-poverty schools than are White students.
These high-poverty schools are more likely to be located in urban areas (U.S.
Department of Education, NCES, 2006). High school students in high-poverty and
high-minority schools are more likely to be taught by teachers out of their field of
expertise, as defined as teaching a subject area that is outside the degree major or
certification distinction, in such critical courses as English, mathematics, and
science (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Graduation rates vary significantly among racial-ethnic categories of
students. Hispanic, Black, and American Indian students are estimated to have just
slightly over a 55% chance of graduating from high school with a diploma
(Swanson, 2004). Between 1972 and 2004 the status dropout rate declined for

29
White, Black, and Hispanic students. The largest decline was among White
students. In contrast, the lowest decline rate was among Hispanic students, with
Hispanic students born outside of the United States representing 25% of all status
dropouts ages 16-24 years (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2006).
The number of school-age students who speak a language other than
English at home virtually doubled between 1979 and 2004, with the majority of
these students coming from economically disadvantaged homes. Youth ages 16-19
years from poor homes were more likely not to be in school or working than their
nonpoor counterparts (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2006).
Educational researchers Karen Seashore Louis and Matthew B. Miles
(1990) indicated that the problems facing urban schools do not necessarily differ in
type from those of their suburban and rural counterparts but differ in “scope and
intensity” (p. 11). The challenges facing urban high schools are clearly more
diversified and larger in scope.
U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings stated, “It is unacceptable
that only half of our African American and Hispanic students graduate from high
school on time when nearly 90 percent of our nation’s fastest-growing jobs require
post-secondary education or training” (Spellings, 2007, ¶ 4).
Despite these additional challenges, some urban high schools achieve
significant student results and are “beating the odds.” Seven traits common to high-
performing high-poverty schools have been identified that contribute to school
success (Carter, 2000).
1. Principals must be free [sic].
2. Principals use measurable goals to establish a culture of achievement.
3. Master teachers bring out the best in a faculty.

30
4. Rigorous and regular testing leads to continuous student achievement.
5. Achievement is the key to discipline.
6. Principals work actively with parents to make the home a center of
learning.
7. Effort creates ability. (pp. 8-11)
Carter contended that of the 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools in his study
poverty was not an excuse for academic failure. Two of these schools were
Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) schools.
KIPP schools are 57 open enrollment, college preparatory, public charter
and contract schools across the nation serving predominantly African American
and Hispanic students in urban and rural communities. The majority of KIPP
schools are middle schools serving grades 5-8. In 2004 the first KIPP high school
opened in Houston, Texas. KIPP reported that nearly 80% of low-income students
who had completed the KIPP middle school program had gone to college, as
compared to the national average of 20% (KIPP Foundation, 2007b). KIPP also
reported that students who had attended one of its two high schools with measur-
able results were achieving a greater level of academic success than their district
counterparts. Three additional KIPP high schools opened in the summer of 2007.
KIPP schools were founded on five core principles or “pillars”(KIPP Foundation,
2007a): high expectations, choice and commitment, more time, power to lead, and
focus on results.
KIPP is just one example of an initiative that has realized improved student
achievement success. The problem facing urban or urban-like high schools is that
the majority of schools are not achieving high academic results and not adequately
preparing students for life after high school. There is not one “cookie cutter” or
“lockstep” approach that can be applied to all schools to improve student

31
achievement. In most urban or urban-like high schools that are “beating the odds”
and “exceeding expectations,” some common characteristics are present, including
but not limited to, strong leadership, a results-oriented instructional program, strong
teaching, and a rigorous and relevant curriculum.
Leadership
School leadership, particularly the principal, is essential in leading school-
wide reform efforts. It is well documented that the principal is a key component to
student success. Educational researchers Robert J. Marzano, Timothy Waters, and
Brian A. McNulty (2005) reviewed 35 years of studies on leadership practices and
school effectiveness and concluded that school-level leadership is highly correlated
to student achievement. However, not all principals who are viewed as strong
leaders positively influence student achievement. One possible explanation is that
they are not focused on specific practices that may directly impact student
achievement.
The school leader or principal must select the right things on which to focus
to achieve the desired results. Jim Collins in his book Good to Great (2001) sug-
gested that it is essential to have “the right people on the bus, the right people in the
right seats, and the wrong people off the bus” to achieve results (p. 41). Although
Collins was referring to the corporate world, an analogy may be translated to
schools. It is important for the principal to identify what should be done at the
school to impact student achievement positively, who should be part of the team
to make it happen, what positions the team members should hold, and (equally
important) who should not be part of the team. The principal should have the
courage to assign the very best teachers to the students who need them the most.

32
The assignment of teachers to classes is sometimes problematic due to teacher
credentialing restrictions, collective bargaining agreements, and assumed seniority
entitlements. The principal and teachers must work collaboratively and share a
vision to achieve optimal results. If school reforms are to be successfully imple-
mented, leadership must be a venture shared by administrators and teachers; it
should not rely on a single leader (Lambert, 1998).
Central office leadership, particularly the superintendent, is essential to
successful district-wide efforts. Educational researchers J. Timothy Waters and
Robert Marzano (2006) examined over 30 years of research on the effect of super-
intendent leadership on student achievement and concluded that school district
leaders have an impact on student achievement. Four major findings were cited:
1. District-level leadership matters.
2. Effective superintendents focus their efforts on creating goal-oriented
districts.
3. Superintendent tenure is positively correlated with student achievement.
4. Effective superintendents provide principals with “defined autonomy,”
setting clear non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction but allowing
principals to determine how best to meet the identified goals. (pp. 3-4)
School Culture
In any organization, whether a business setting, social club, or a school,
there is a culture to that organization. The concept of culture refers to a pattern of
beliefs, norms, values, and traditions that have been formed over time. In the school
setting, culture may be defined as the beliefs, behaviors, and values generally held
by teachers, principals, and students. School improvement efforts must be linked
and tailored to the unique culture of the school or risk failure (Deal & Peterson,
2003). When the teachers, principals, and students, through their collective actions,

33
exemplify the beliefs and values that the school or school district feels are import-
ant, positive results occur.
Educator Michael Fullan (2001) stated that leaders are challenged to lead
change within complex and evolving environments. He identified five themes or
core competencies to assist leaders to influence change within the dynamic
environments of schools and businesses: moral purpose, understanding change,
development of relationships, knowledge building, and coherence making. Fullan
contended that these five competencies, although may be independent, must also be
mutually reinforcing of each other to realize positive change.
Recognizing the positive connection between a school’s culture and student
achievement, school leaders should acknowledge the power of school culture and
strategically nurture and develop that culture to meet student needs (Goldring,
2002). Getting the school culture right is the basis for school improvement reform
efforts (Sergiovanni, 2004).
Educational researcher Doug Reeves (2007) identified four essential com-
ponents affecting lasting cultural change in schools: define what one will not
change, recognize the importance of actions, use the right change tools for the
school or district, and be willing to do the “scut work.” In a study of high schools
that were achieving greater-than-expected growth over a 3-year period, teachers
and administrators reported sharing the same beliefs or mutually embracing the
school culture (Education Trust, 2005).
Curriculum and Instruction
Preparing today’s high school student for the challenges and demands of a
global society continues to be a complex and fluid quest. It is even more taxing on

34
urban high schools when at-risk factors associated with the urban student are added
to the mix. It has been noted that student achievement is positively impacted when
the school leader has the “right” focus and when that focus or direction is supported
by a school culture that is shared and collectively embraced by principals, students,
and teachers alike.
The concepts of rigor, relevance, and relationships permeate the literature.
Today’s high school student must be able to think, solve problems, and create. A
rigorous and relevant high school curriculum is not a goal; rather, it should be the
norm. Rigor, relevance, and relationships were stressed in the 2007 release of the
California Career Technical Framework. Career technical standards were written
for grades 7-12 to support learning goals in 58 career pathways organized around
15 industry sectors. The career technical standards were collaboratively developed
by a representative group of teachers, parents, students, administrators, legislators,
and representatives of business and industry, higher education, and the labor force
(CDE, 2007g). Students must develop the basic core competencies of reading,
writing, and mathematics but in the context of applying those core competencies to
real-world and challenging curriculum and career areas. The implementation of a
standards-based curriculum for all students enhances student learning. At present,
high schools offer too many courses that are fragmented and not connected to what
colleges and universities expect students to know (Bill & Melinda Gates Founda-
tion, 2005).
Current research suggests that the implementation of effective instructional
practices and school-wide efforts have a positive impact on student achievement.
Using a meta-analysis approach to summarize and identify the essential findings of
research on instructional strategies over the past few decades, researchers

35
(Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) have identified nine categories of K-12
instructional strategies that have the greatest impact on student achievement: (a)
identifying similarities and differences, (b) summarizing and note taking, (c) rein-
forcing effort and providing recognition, (d) homework and practice, (e) non-
linguistic representations, (f) cooperative learning, (g) setting objectives and
providing feedback, (h) generating and testing hypothesis, and (i) questions, cues,
and advance organizers.
Educator Mike Schmoker (2006) boldly proclaimed that “the single greatest
determinant of learning is not socioeconomic factors or funding levels . . . it is
instruction” (p. 7). He asserted that it is time for schools to face the “brutal facts”
and not do business as usual. Schmoker contended that only a small percentage of
time is devoted to literacy development, teaching of curriculum standards, instruc-
tional supervision, teamwork, and professional learning communities. Teaching is
often a very isolated endeavor with limited monitoring and supervision by school
leaders. Education Trust President Kati Haycock (1998) reaffirmed that the class-
room teacher is the single most important factor influencing student achievement.
One of the more promising instructional initiatives to emerge in recent years
has been the concept of professional learning communities. A professional learning
community is “composed of collaborative teams whose members work interde-
pendently to achieve common goals linked to the purpose of learning for all”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, p. 3). In a professional learning com-
munity, the team members ask three basic questions:
1. What do we want students to learn in each subject, grade, level, or
course?
2. How will we assess what students know and can do?

36
3. What is our plan for responding to students who aren’t learning? (p. 132)
The focus of using data to drive instruction is aligned with the practices and
actions of a professional learning community. The dilemma facing educators is to
sift through the enormous amount of available student data and decipher what is
important and what is not important when making instructional decisions affecting
students. Rick Stiggins (2004) posited that it is important to achieve “a balance
between standardized tests of learning and classroom assessment for learning
(p. 26). Both summative and formative types of assessments are important and
critical to the overall instructional program but they serve different purposes.
Summative assessments, as the word summative implies, refer to the final or ending
measure of student attainment. Formative assessments, on the other hand, provide
the teacher and student with critical information about student mastery of the skills
and concepts taught during the course of instruction so that needed adjustments
may be made to enhance student learning.
Student support systems, such as the Advancement Via Individual Determ-
ination (AVID) program and the Talent Search program, have provided students
with additional instructional assistance, mentoring, and career advisement (AVID,
2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2007). These support programs have
especially assisted students from low-income and minority families to realize
postsecondary options.
One school-wide restructuring effort in many high schools is the trans-
formation of large and often impersonal high schools to smaller schools of
approximately 400 or fewer students, generally focused on an area or career
pathway. These small learning communities strive to create personalized learning
environments, rigorous and relevant curriculum aligned with standards, more

37
student choice tied to the student’s interest and/or career goal, student support
systems to catch students “falling through the cracks,” collegial and collaborative
learning environment, increased home-school communication, and targeted
professional development.
Researcher Kathleen Cotton (2001) stated that small high schools graduate
a higher percentage of students, have fewer students drop out, have greater student
participation in extracurricular activities, send more students onto college or other
postsecondary education, have less violence, and have greater teacher satisfaction
than their large high school counterparts. Cotton pointed out that minority students
and students from low-income families have benefited the most from attending
small schools by academically outperforming and matriculating to college at higher
rates than their counterparts attending larger high schools. With that said, simply
reducing the number of students in a high school does not automatically achieve
results but may be a component to a comprehensive school reform plan.
Critical to any school improvement effort is ongoing targeted professional
development. Targeted professional development and training efforts around a
common focus may positively impact student achievement. Prominent staff
development researchers Joyce and Showers (2002) outlined a staff development
approach to improve student achievement that includes identifying training needs
that focuses on a process to achieve the desired goal, devising staff training that
have the greatest transfer to the classroom, and delivering training over a period of
time. Four components to the training are knowledge, demonstration and modeling,
practice, and peer coaching during and after the training. Joyce and Showers
advocated using peer coaching techniques as part of the staff development training
to maximize the greatest chance of transfer to the classroom. Stanford Professor

38
Linda Darling-Hammond (1999) stated that it is essential to invest in teacher learn-
ing at all stages of a teacher’s career, starting with preservice training and teacher
education preparation programs and continuing throughout the duration of a
teacher’s tenure.
Also essential to any staff development or professional training program is
training for school leaders. If school leaders are expected to lead in a climate of
school reform, high-stakes testing, and state and national initiatives such as NCLB,
ongoing professional development is crucial. Since 2002 many school districts in
California have opted to have site administrators participate in the Administrator
Training Program, formerly the Principal’s Training Program, which consists of
three training modules focusing on developing leadership skills and capacity in
curriculum and instruction, human resources and finance, and technology. This
training program is partially funded through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Engagement
Central to any discussion about student achievement should be the role,
behaviors, and attitudes of students in the learning process. Once again, the three
Rs of rigor, relevance, and relationships play a pivotal part in affecting student
actions, student achievement, and student motivation in the learning process. When
students are engaged in the learning process, they tend to achieve more. On the
other hand, when students are disengaged from the learning process, there is a
greatest chance of them dropping out of school entirely. This is especially true for
the urban high school student (Committee on Increasing High School Students’
Engagement and Motivation to Learn & Council [Committee], 2003).

39
Student engagement has been defined as “the student’s relationship with the
school community: the people (adults and peers), the structure (rules, facilities,
schedules), the curriculum and content, the pedagogy, and the opportunities
(curricular, co-curricular, and extracurricular)” (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007, p. 1).
Phillip C. Schlechty (2002) stated that, when teachers focus on the quality
of work that they give their students, students will be more engaged and will spend
more time on “the work” or given assignment. Students will see the work as
relevant and having meaning to them and therefore tend to work harder to achieve
the desired results. Therefore, curriculum and instructional practices influence
students’ motivation to learn (Committee, 2003).
Alan M. Blankstein, founder and president of the HOPE Foundation
(Harnessing Optimism and Potential through Education) stated that the number one
complaint of students about school is that it is boring. He asserted that it is critical
for educators to know their students’ interests and why they may have feelings of
boredom in order to engage them in the learning process (Blankstein, Cole, &
Houston, 2007). Struggling students who are academically behind are often
relegated to low-interest remedial classes that perpetuate and even widen the
achievement gap for these students. Some high schools have achieved promising
results by accelerating learning for struggling students. These students are provided
with additional help but kept in challenging college preparatory classes (Education
Trust, 2005). Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky advocated raising the bar high
enough within a reasonable degree of success and with teacher’s assistance to
motivate students (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978). Students respond favorably when they
are exposed to authentic, engaging, and motivating curriculum (Tomlinson &
McTighe, 2006).

40
In addition to rigorous and relevant curriculum, student achievement and
motivation are influenced by the relationships that students form with adults at
school, particularly classroom teachers (Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998). “Young
people who have strong internal and external supports and guides, who feel valued
and valuable, and who are involved in many positive activities and relationships do
better in school” (Search Institute, 1999, ¶ 5).
Martha M. McCarthy, former project director of HSSSE at Indiana
University, stated, “If you improve students’ engagement, you’re going to improve
students’ learning, and that is going to improve the lives of students later on” (as
cited in Viadero, 2004, p. 9). Students who are motivated and engaged in the
learning process tend to do better academically and are more prepared for college
and the work force.
The HSSSE was developed by the Indiana University School of Education
to measure the levels of engagement of high school students. The survey was
patterned after Indiana University’s National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE), which measures student engagement and academic performance of college
students. The survey assessed the level of involvement of high school students in
activities that were connected with increased levels of learning and development.
Three areas or dimensions of student engagement were included on the HSSSE:
(a) cognitive/intellectual/academic engagement, (b) social/behavioral/participatory
engagement, and (c) emotional engagement (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). The cognitive/
intellectual/academic engagement dimension concentrated on aspects of student
engagement during the instructional portion of school. Questions on the HSSSE
related to this dimension focused on class preparation, class participation, level
of academic difficulty, and homework. The social/behavioral/participatory

41
engagement dimension examined student engagement in activities outside the
classroom but related to school or the larger school community, including
involvement in extracurricular activities, interactions with other students, social
activities, and within the community. The final dimension of student engagement
described the relationships, the connection or disconnection, and feelings that
students have about school. These three dimensions provided a comprehensive and
reflective approach to examining the engagement levels of high school students.
According to HSSSE data, a higher percentage of students expressed a desire to go
to college than would actually attend (Indiana University, Center for Evaluation
and Educational Policy, 2005b). In this special report the HSSSE indicated that is
imperative for high schools to provide assistance for all students to realize their
dreams and recommended using the data obtained on the HSSSE to guide their
school improvement efforts.
The HSSSE was first pilot tested with 7,200 high school students from four
high schools in 2003 and administered on a nationwide basis in 2004. The 2006
administration marked the 3rd year that the HSSSE had been conducted. Table 1
summarizes the number of students, schools, and states participating in the HSSSE
in 2004-2006.
Only 9% of the high school students who took part in the 2006 HSSSE
administration were from the Western region of the United States. In fact, the
majority of the students, 56%, attended high schools in the Midwest (Yazzie-Mintz,
2007). Consequently, a large percentage of students who participated in the HSSSE
were from suburban areas. On the 2005 administration, 55% of the students
indicated that they were from a suburban area (Indiana University, Center for

42
Table 1

Number of High School Students, States, and Schools Participating in the High
School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), 2004-2006

Year Students States Schools

2004 90,530 26 103
2005 80,904 19 87
2006 81,499 26 110

Source: About HSSSE, by Indiana University, 2004, retrieved July 12, 2007, from
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/html/about.htm.

Evaluation and Educational Policy, 2005b). The ethnic distribution of students who
have participated in the HSSSE is indicated in Table 2.
Only 8% of the students who participated in the 2006 HSSSE
administration stated that English was not the primary language spoken at home.
Fifty-eight percent of students indicated that they were not eligible to participate in
the free/reduced-price lunch program. Demographically, the majority of the
students who have participated in the HSSSE surveys since 2004 have not been
representative of the characteristics of the urban or urban-like high school students
defined in this study. However, in the 2006 administration of the HSSSE more
students (34%) indicated that they lived in an urban area, as compared to 25% in
2005.
The 2006 HSSSE report (Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and
Educational Policy, 2005b) revealed that 55% of the high school students stated
that they were bored at school every day. Seventy-five percent of students who
commented that they were bored in school said that the classroom material was not

43
Table 2

Ethnic Distribution of Students Who Have Participated in the High School Survey
of Student Engagement (HSSSE), 2004-2006 (Percentages)

Ethnicity 2004 2005 2006

White 67 68 54
Latino, Hispanic 8 5 7
African America 13 13 9
Asian 4 5 4
Middle Eastern <1 1 1
American Indian 1 1 2
Multiracial 7 5 7
Not stated <1 3 16

interesting, 39% said that the material was not relevant to them, 31% said that the
material was not challenging enough, and 27% said that the work was too difficult.
In addition, 83% of the students reported spending 5 hours or less per week doing
written homework. Twenty-two percent of the students indicated that there was not
at least one adult who cared about them and knew them well at school. However,
61% said that, given a choice they would still select their current high school to
attend. The majority indicated that one of the reasons for attending high school was
to go to college and get a degree. Of those students wanting to attend college, the
majority stated that they attended high school to socialize with their peers; only
39% said that they attended high school because of what they were learning in their
classes.

44
Summary
In an era of increased accountability, demands for rigorous and relevant
curriculum, and the ongoing goal of ensuring that students are ready for college and
prepared for postsecondary opportunities, including careers that may not currently
exist, student achievement must be of foremost concern in today’s high schools. In
high performing urban or urban-like high schools, there may be certain factors that
significantly impact improved student performance. Some schools are statistically
outperforming other urban or urban-like high schools. This case study examined
such factors as leadership, school culture, curriculum and instruction, and student
engagement in one high-performing urban-like union high school district.

45
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In order to examine an urban high school district that exceeds expectations,
many aspects of a study must be taken into consideration. In this chapter, the pur-
pose of the study, research questions, research design, sample and population, data
collection procedures, data analysis process, and limitations are discussed. As dis-
cussed in the problem statement and the review of the literature, certain factors,
such as leadership, school culture, and instructional practices are linked to
improved student achievement. What has yet to be comprehensively studied is
whether student engagement is linked to improved student achievement in an urban
high school setting and whether the central office administration plays a role or is a
factor contributing to this improved student achievement. There is limited informa-
tion on the effects of student engagement on student performance in urban high
schools and virtually no studies of entire school systems where all schools are high
performing.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether student engagement
was a contributing factor to increased levels of student achievement in high-per-
forming urban high schools within a selected high school district. The study also
examined whether central office and site-level practices were contributing factors
to improved student performance at the selected district’s high schools. The speci-
fic practices examined were leadership, school culture, and instructional practices.
The high-performing urban school district selected for this case study was
chosen to extend and enhance five individual site-specific studies of schools within
this district completed by a previous thematic dissertation team and one other

46
member of the current dissertation team. This selected union high school district
was unique in that each of its five comprehensive high schools, one continuation
high school, and independent study high school were exceeding expectations of
similar schools throughout California. Since all of the district’s high schools were
exceeding expectations, this study focused on central office as well as site practices
that may have impacted this improved student performance.
The school district was selected because its student body and demographics
were consistent with characteristics of an urban or urban-like population, as defined
by the dissertation team. The characteristics included an ethnically diverse popula-
tion, a large EL population, and a significant proportion of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. The school district was located in an urbanized area, as
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (2000).
This case study was one of a series of 10 thematic dissertation studies by a
doctoral student cohort studying this phenomenon and an extension and integration
of research completed by the previous cohort. The cohort met on a regular basis
from December 2006 through February 2008 to design the components of the
study, develop the conceptual framework, identify research questions, develop the
instrumentation, discuss individual progress, compare results, share resources, and
support each other efforts. It should be noted that each study was an individual
effort and reported in a stand-alone dissertation. However, the compilation of these
case studies and the ones before them provide a comprehensive and extensive
examination of the relationship between student engagement and contributing
factors to improved student achievement in high-performing urban or urban-like
high schools.

47
A mixed-methods qualitative case study was conducted to examine the
relationships of student engagement and other contributing factors to improved
student achievement in the high schools within this urban school district. The case
study methodology was selected to provide an opportunity to study these relation-
ships and contributing factors in their natural setting: the school environment. Data
collection methods included document review, teacher and administrator surveys,
observations, and interviews. Secondary quantitative student data from the HSSSE
that were compiled by Indiana University were also utilized.
Background of the Study
The thematic dissertation topic of student engagement in high-performing
urban high schools was of prime interest to the 10 researchers on the dissertation
team. All 10 researchers worked in a school or district office setting and had
expressed a desire to conduct case studies that might be of value to them as school
practitioners. Student achievement, especially in urban high schools, was of
primary interest to the team. The team members wanted to expand the research in
this area, specifically to determine whether student engagement was a contributing
factor to improved student performance in urban high schools.
The HSSEE developed by Indiana University provides extensive
information to high schools about their students’ educational practices that are
linked with high levels of learning and development (Indiana University, 2004).
One identified form of disengagement by students is “dropping out” (Yazzie-Mintz,
2007). Symptoms of student disengagement may be exhibited in various degrees,
including coming late to class, missing class entirely, or ultimately not attending
school at all. Since urban high schools are often characterized by a large ethnically

48
diverse and low-income population, the dropout rate for minority students is note-
worthy. Between October 2004 and October 2005 Black and Hispanic students
dropped out of high school at higher rates than their White or Asian/Pacific
Islander counterparts, and low-income students were 6 times more likely than
their higher-income classmates to drop out of school (Laird, DeBell, Kienzi, &
Chapman, 2007). In 2006 the HSSSE was administered to 81,499 high school
students across the nation. One suggested application for the HSSSE results was its
use in school improvement efforts (Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and
Educational Policy, 2005a).
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to address the following research questions:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in high-
performing urban high schools?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in
high-performing urban high schools?
3. What role does the central office leadership play in contributing to
improved student achievement in high-performing urban high schools?
The third research question was exclusive to this study since the companion
studies were site-specific and did not address a district-wide perspective.
Conceptual Framework and Model
The conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 illustrates the relationship of
the selected factors and their impact, if any, on improved student achievement in
urban high schools that are exceeding academic expectations within the context of

49
globalization, national, state and district influences, urban risk factors, and
accountability.

Figure 1. Model of the conceptual framework for the current study.

National/State/
District Influences
Globalization
Accountability
Urban-like
Risk

Student
Achievement
Leadership
Student
Engagement
Curriculum
&
Instruction
School
Culture

50
Research Design
This study was a mixed-methods qualitative study. Mixed-methods research
involves “collecting, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in
a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying
phenomenon” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006, p. 474). This research was one of a
10 concurrent studies investigating the same phenomenon in other urban or urban-
like high schools. In addition, this study expanded the work of five studies from a
previous thematic dissertation group and one study from the current group investi-
gating the same phenomenon within all high schools in the selected school district
of this study, thereby strengthening the validity and credibility of the findings in
this study.
Case study methodology was selected to make sense of this contemporary
phenomenon within a real-life context (Yim, 2003). The case study methodology
identified factors that may have contributed to improved student achievement
within the real-life context of a selected high school and school district. In addition,
the case study methodology allowed the researcher to present thick and rich
descriptions using the data collected (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003; Stuart Gothold,
personal communication [class lecture], January 28, 2007).
Case study research may provide explanations or patterns for the studied
phenomenon (Gall et al., 2003). In more rare circumstances, it may also be used to
evaluate the phenomenon. In this study the researcher selected case study methodo-
logy to study the phenomenon within its natural setting and to gain insights and
detailed descriptions to identify emerging themes and to possibly identify explana-
tions for the phenomenon. It was the hope of this researcher that the identified
patterns or explanations that emerged from this study might assist other urban high

51
school educators to achieve similar improved student achievement outcomes at
their sites and throughout their school district.
Sample and Population
The study focused on central office and site-level practices of a union high
school district serving five comprehensive high school sites, one continuation high
school, an independent study school, and one adult school in order to examine the
extent, if any, that student engagement, school and district practices, leadership,
and culture had on student achievement. It also examined student engagement data
from each of the five comprehensive high schools, the continuation high school,
and the independent study school.
The union high school district, located in the southeast portion of Los
Angeles County, was selected for the study because it met the two qualifying
criteria set by the dissertation group: (a) The student body and demographics were
consistent with characteristics of urban-like high schools as defined by the disserta-
tion group, and (b) the district high schools were exceeding expectations of similar
schools. Although there is not a definitive definition of what determines a high
school to be considered urban or urban-like, the dissertation group defined urban or
urban-like high schools to be characterized by (a) an ethnically diverse student
population, (b) a large proportion of EL students, and (c) a significant proportion
of socioeconomically disadvantaged students as defined by 40% or more of the
students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches or a numerically significant
subgroup on the API.
The selected school district met the two criteria. First, the school district
had urban or urban-like characteristics as defined by the dissertation team. The

52
district was located on the urban fringe of an urbanized area as defined by the U.S.
Census Bureau (2000). The district served an ethnically diverse population and
reported 80% of its population to be of Hispanic or Latino origin. Fourteen percent
of students district-wide were EL students or reported their primary language other
than English on the Home Language Survey. Of the EL students, 97.1% were
Spanish speaking. In addition, 41% of the students in the district participated in the
free/reduced-price lunch program (CDE, 2007e).
Second, this urban or urban-like school district was considered high per-
forming because it was exceeding expectations and outperforming school districts
within the state with similar relevant demographics and characteristics. All but one
of the comprehensive high schools in the district had a higher similar school rank-
ing than their statewide ranking in 2006 (CDE, 2007j). However, the one exception
had the same similar school ranking as its state ranking of 7 of 10 with an API of
747, well above the average state ranking of 683, and therefore exceeding expecta-
tions. The school district had experienced a steady growth in student achievement
over the past several years. From 2002 to 2006 the school district had increased by
88 points on the API base, with the largest gain realized in 2005. The 2006 API
base for this district was 684; the state average for all schools with grades 9 through
12 was 683 (CDE, 2007k). This was noteworthy because this union high school
district performed above the state average of all high schools throughout California,
including those schools that were not considered urban or urban-like. Table 3
summarizes these data.
In addition to increases in the API scores, the school district received other
notable academic and performance-based recognitions. The 2007 seniors showed
an overall passage rate of 99.4% on the CAHSEE (Whittier Union High School

53
Table 3

Selected District Academic Performance Index (API), 2002-2006

Students included Change from
API base year in API Base API previous year

2006 9,301 684 + 17
2005 9,213 677 + 48
2004 8,765 629 + 7
2003 7,974 622 + 26
2002 7,515 596
a

Note. Source: 2006-07 Accountability Progress Reporting, by California Depart-
ment of Education, Sacramento.

a
No district API computed prior to 2002.

District, 2007). The district graduation rate for the class of 2006 was 92.4%, well
above the county average of 77% and the state average of 83% (CDE, 2007d).
Three of the five comprehensive high schools in the school district were designated
at the time of study as active California Distinguished Schools, with two of the high
schools receiving honors in 2007 and one in 2003 (CDE, 2007b). In 2007 one of
the high schools received the Title 1 Academic Achievement Award from the CDE
for doubling its API school-wide and socioeconomically disadvantaged growth
targets for 2 consecutive years, as well as meeting its AYP for the same 2-year
period (CDE, 2007i). Two of the district’s high schools in 2007 were named to
Newsweek’s listing of the top high schools in the United States. Newsweek recog-
nizes schools with a high percentage of its graduating seniors taking Advanced

54
Placement, International Baccalaureate, and/or Cambridge tests (Bondy, Brillman,
& Kaufman, 2007).
Furthermore, the school district superintendent and one of the high school
principals received regional Superintendent of the Year and High School Principal
of the Year honors, respectively, in 2007, presented by the Association of
California School Administrators, the state administrators association.
Five elementary (K-8) school districts matriculate into this union high
school district (grades 712). The union high school district covers 41.65 square
miles and six communities. The district has benefited from its longevity, with an
establishment date about 1900. Despite declining student enrollment in nearby
school districts, this union high school district experienced a slight increase in
enrollment in its 9th through 12th grades in recent years, an increase of 1,505
students from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 (CDE, 2007e). This enrollment as recorded
in the October 2006 CBEDS report was 13,704.
Instrumentation
This study used multiple instruments to identify factors, including that
of student engagement, that may have been linked to student achievement in
the selected high-performing urban high school district. The instruments were
developed collaboratively by the thematic dissertation team during January through
May 2007. The researcher conducted document reviews, surveys, observations, and
interviews from August through December 2007. Secondary data of the results
from the 2006 HSSSE of each of the district’s high schools were also utilized. This
use of multiple instruments to address the research questions facilitated converg-
ence or triangulation of the findings and strengthened the validity of the study

55
(Creswell, 2003). The instrumentation was developed with Bolman and Deal’s four
frames in mind (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The application of the structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic frames provided the researcher a comprehensive
understanding and insight into the phenomenon being studied.
The administration of the multiple instruments was more fluid than rigid
and did not follow a defined sequential pattern. However, for the most part, the
researcher conducted the document review initially, followed by the teacher and
administrator surveys. Observations and interviews were conducted throughout the
data gathering period. In particular, selected interviews were strategically desig-
nated to the end of the data gathering period to provide the researcher an oppor-
tunity to clarify, to verify, and to ask questions about data collected via the prior
document review, surveys, and observations.
Document Review
The dissertation team wanted to capitalize on the richness that case study
research offers and designed the document review instrument (appendix A) to
obtain a thorough and vivid description of the current status of the selected schools
and districts being studied. In order to identify high-performing urban high schools
or those urban or urban-like high schools exceeding expectations, the API that
ranks schools in California was used. For the purpose of this study, both state-wide
ranking and similar-school ranking on the API were used to identify schools meet-
ing the selection criteria. Results from the CAHSEE were utilized to determine
whether graduating seniors had met state proficiency requirements in the areas of
English-Language Arts and mathematics. In addition to CAHSEE results, gradua-
tion rates were studied and disaggregated by ethnic groups who had completed

56
courses required for entrance into California State University and University of
California. API, CAHSEE and graduation rates were obtained using the CDE Web
site. In addition, student demographic information, including parent education
levels, was captured through the SARCs from each of the high schools and by
accessing the CDE Web site.
The researcher examined other documents that might be linked to student
performance and engagement levels, including attendance, suspension, expulsion,
extracurricular participation, Advanced Placement and honors enrollment, and
student recognition records. These records were obtained from the site and district
offices.
Current copies of each of the high schools’ Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC) accreditation self-studies, related action plans, and valida-
tion reports were reviewed. The Single School Plan for Student Achievement for
each of the high schools offered an insight to site goals and their relationship, if
any, to district-wide initiatives and goals. Student and parent handbooks, site and
district Web sites, and school newsletters were also viewed.
Surveys
The teacher survey and administrator survey (appendix B) were developed
by the dissertation team to determine whether teachers’ and administrators’ percep-
tions matched those of students as reflected on their responses on the HSSSE. The
teacher survey contained 16 questions that paralleled items on the HSSSE student
survey; the administrator survey contained 15 questions that corresponded to items
on the HSSSE student survey.

57
The teacher survey was administered to teachers at department meetings at
five comprehensive high schools. The researcher administered the teacher survey
jointly with a dissertation team member at the high school being studied con-
currently by the colleague. The administrator survey was administered to the
principal and the assistant principal of instruction at of the high schools in the
district. Similar collaborative procedures were employed in surveying the adminis-
trators at the high school being studied by the colleague.
Observations
The researcher selectively determined observations that would assist with
addressing the research questions of the study. Four general categories or settings
of observations were identified by the researcher: (a) school and district leaders’
actions, (b) classroom instruction, (c) attendance and participation at events, and
(d) general school and district operations. The researcher attended the district-wide
opening-of-school meeting and observed the superintendent addressing all
employees and outlining district-wide goals and priorities for the school year. The
researcher also attended a school board meeting, two meetings of principals, two
professional development meetings with site and district leaders, a curriculum
improvement team meeting, an assistant principals of guidance meeting, and a
Parents Teachers Association’s leaders meeting.
Fourteen classroom observations ranging from 4 minutes to 55 minutes
each were conducted in the district’s high school classrooms. The classrooms were
mutually selected by the researcher and district staff to represent a cross-section of
curriculum areas and student ability levels. While on the campuses, the researcher
also observed areas outside the classrooms, including but not limited to before

58
school, during snack and lunch periods, between classes, and at student dismissal
time.
To assist with validating attendance and participation of stakeholders at
school-related events, an intradistrict football contest between two of the district
high schools was observed. General school and district observations were inform-
ally conducted while participating in the more formalized observations. These
observations included the visual inspection of the physical plant of the school and
district, how visitors were greeted in the office, the cleanliness of the campus,
student-to-student interactions, teacher-to-student interactions, teacher-to-teacher
interactions, teacher-to-staff interactions, teacher-to-parent or community member
interactions, administrator-to-staff interaction, and school-to-parent or community
member interactions.
During the observations, the researcher took notes on the observation log
designed by the dissertation team (appendix C). The observation log was designed
to be open-ended to allow the user to script notes freely without being burdened by
specific coding of information during the observation. It was the intention of the
dissertation team to make the observation log adaptable to any setting encountered
by the researcher. During the observation, the researcher designated the observation
setting as one of four types: (a) outside the classroom but at a school or district’s
general setting, such as in the lunch area or in the school office; (b) within the
classroom; (c) observations or shadowing of selected leaders; or (d) within a meet-
ing or professional development activity. The researcher wrote extensive notes of
what was being observed and scripted these observations onto the observation log
in one or more of the corresponding categories: school culture, curriculum and
instruction, leadership, student engagement, and an additional category for

59
observations that did not correspond with the four aforementioned groupings.
Within a 24-hour period after each observation, the researcher transcribed the notes
to capture as much detailed information as possible.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted individually and in focus groups with selected
persons. All interviews were tape recorded with the participant’s permission and
transcribed into a computer word processing document so it was readily obtainable
and to ensure accurate retrieval. Individual interviews were conducted with the
Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, the high
school principals, and a school board member. These interviews lasted 23 to 71
minutes each, with an average of 45 minutes to 1 hour. Three focus group inter-
views were conducted. The focus groups consisted of teacher leaders, parent and
community members, and school counselors. Nine consistent questions focusing on
factors that may be linked to student achievement and student engagement were
asked during all interviews. Additional questions, including follow-up questions
based on other data collected, were asked during the individual interviews to
persons with responsibility or possible knowledge in that particular area. Interviews
were strategically placed at the end of the document review to provide the
researcher an opportunity to clarify, to probe, and to validate information obtained
from the other data collection areas.
Data Collection
Data collection for the study was the responsibility of this doctoral student;
however, the quantitative data of student responses from all five comprehensive
high schools, the one continuation high school, and the independent study high

60
school on the HSSSE were obtained from Indiana University. The document
review, surveys, interviews, and observations were conducted during the months of
August through December 2007. The doctoral dissertation group was responsible
for the identification of document criteria, development of the surveys, creation of
the interview questions, and design of the observation criteria.
Validity and Credibility
The qualitative data collection design was strategically developed by the
dissertation team to align with areas on the HSSSE student survey and the research
questions to increase the validity and credibility of the results. The teacher and
administrator surveys, as well as the interview questions, were field tested in a
focus group setting consisting of five high school teachers and five high school
administrators in another school district. As a result of field testing, questions 6
and 7 on the administrators’ survey were reworded to reflect an administrator’s
perspective rather a teacher’s point of view. No modifications were made to the
interview questions as a result of feedback from the focus group members.
The researcher received certification from the Collaborative Institutional
Training Initiative Course in the Protection of Human Research Subjects prior to
data gathering. The researcher completed the seven required modules and two
elective modules with a 100% success rate. The course focused on legal, pro-
cedural, and ethnical research practices when working with human subjects,
including children.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of student engage-
ment, the role of the central office administration, and other factors in student

61
achievement. The researcher had access to pertinent data from previous thematic
doctoral group students who studied the effects of student engagement in this
district’s high schools. In addition, one of the researcher’s thematic group
colleagues who was also studying one of the district’s five comprehensive high
schools shared data and worked collaboratively, as appropriate, with the researcher.
By analyzing all case data, surveys, observation notes, relevant documents, and
interviews, the researcher triangulated data to give credence to emergent themes
and to strengthen validity of the results (Creswell, 2003; Figure 2). The data were
coded and classified as they related to the research questions. The researcher
applied the concept of the four frames (Bolman & Deal, 1997) to analyze or view
data from these lenses or frames within this school district. This approach assisted
in interpreting the data using the perspectives based on structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic frames and their interrelationships to each other.
Limitations
The primary limitation of this study was the relatively small sample size of
the case study. Although the case study focused on one union high school district
and its five comprehensive high schools, one continuation high school, and an
independent study high school, it is important to note that this study was one of 10
case studies examining the impact of student engagement and other identified
factors on student achievement in urban or urban-like high schools that were
exceeding academic expectations of similar schools. In addition, this study built
upon and extended the work of five studies from an earlier thematic dissertation
group and one study from the current thematic dissertation group. The limiting
factors of this study were the assumption that the research and data from the other

62
Organize and Prepare Data
⇓
Read for a General Sense
⇓
Chunk Information
⇓
Describe and Identify Themes
⇓
Create Narratives
⇓
Interpret the Data
Figure 2. Creswell’s six-step process.

case studies and outside sources were accurate and the relatively low incidence of
EL students compared to the incidence in some urban or urban-like high schools.
Summary
Through carefully designed qualitative methodology, the study addressed
the stated research questions. It was the intent of the researcher to identify contri-
buting factors, including that of student engagement and central office practices, as
they might relate to improved student academic performance in an urban or urban-
like school district. It was also the researcher’s objective to comprehensively study
a high-performing urban or urban-like school district to garner important lessons
and identify practices that could be applied in similar settings in order to achieve
improved student performance results.

63
CHAPTER 4
THE FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine what perceived factors, including
student engagement, may have contributed to academic achievement in a high-
performing urban high school district. Unlike the associated companion studies that
focused on a single high school, this case study examined an entire high school
district. This urban or urban-like high school district was unique because, despite
typical urban risk factors such as a high occurrence of students from low socioeco-
nomically/disadvantaged backgrounds, a primary Hispanic student body, and a
significant portion of students who were EL, students in this high school district
were outperforming students in similar circumstances. In fact, each of the five
comprehensive high schools, the one continuation high school, and the independent
study high school had met and/or exceeded schoolwide and subgroup targets on the
API and/or ASAM state accountability systems for the previous 6 years.
This chapter summarizes the findings of the case study. The chapter con-
sists of six major sections: Overview of the Case Study, Summary of Findings by
Instrumentation, Emergent Themes from the Data Collection, Summary of Findings
by Research Questions, Discussion of the Findings Around the Four Frames, and
Discussion of the Findings.
Overview of the Case Study
This urban-like high school district is located in the southeast section of Los
Angeles County. The district covers 41.65 square miles and six communities. Five
elementary school districts feed into this high school district (grades 9 through 12)
that also maintains an adult school.

64
This union high school district enjoys a rich history in the community. High
School A was established in 1900 and still has a very active alumni association.
However, over the past century, demographics and housing patterns have dramatic-
ally changed. In the late 1880s a group of Quakers purchased 1,259 acres of land
with the purpose of establishing a new community in California (Whittier, 2008).
At the turn of the century the area enjoyed a thriving citrus and walnut industry,
boosted by railroad lines through the community. Soon afterward, an electric
trolley line was established that connected the community to downtown Los
Angeles; within the first 2 decades of trolley operation the line reported over one
million commuter passengers each year. The community is now identified as on the
urban fringe and the once abundant agricultural farms and open spaces have been
primarily replaced by houses, manufacturing, educational, health and social
services, and retail services (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
The purpose of this study was to address the following research questions:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in high
performing urban high schools?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in
high performing urban high schools?
3. What role does the central office leadership play in contributing to
improved student achievement in high performing urban high schools?
The third research question was exclusive to this study; companion studies
were site specific and did not address a district-wide perspective.
In order to take a comprehensive look at this urban-like high school district,
the researcher spent 16 weeks immersed in a wide range of data collection activities
to try to discover why this school district was exceeding expectations. Over the

65
course of the 16 weeks the researcher observed 14 classes on four high school
campuses, including the continuation high school; observed the opening and/or
dismissal of school on three high school campuses; attended the all-district
employees opening-of-school meeting; attended two meetings of principals;
observed a student leaders meeting; attended a school board meeting; attended two
professional development workshops; attended an intradistrict football game;
conducted focus groups with parent leaders, assistant principals of guidance, and
mathematics department chairpersons; conducted individual interviews with the
superintendent, the assistant superintendent of educational services, the director of
accountability, staff development and educational technology, two school board
members, all six high school principals, and the principal who oversees the
independent study high school. The researcher also surveyed all principals and
assistant principals and reviewed the district Web site, instructional publications,
WASC accreditation reports, high school bell schedules and course offerings,
standardized test scores, grade reports, and suspension and expulsion records. In
addition, the researcher collaborated and shared information with a colleague
concurrently studying one of the high schools in the district, and gained access to
portions of three doctoral studies by researchers who were members of the previous
cohort group studying other high schools in this district.
Summary of Findings by Instrumentation
Observations
In order to capture the essence of this school district and authentically
experience the typical workings of the district, the researcher set out to observe a
variety of site specific and district-wide activities. These activities included, but

66
were not limited to, meetings, workshops, classroom instruction, school activities,
and general school operations. The researcher began this journey by attending the
first day back for teachers signaling the end of summer vacation and the start of a
new school year.
Day 1: All Employees Opening-of-
School Meeting
On arriving at the campus of the oldest high school in the district, the
sounds of music and students cheering are heard amid friendly chatter of
employees greeting one another. It is the first official day back for teachers as well
as a district-wide meeting for all employees, both certificated and classified.
Employees are adorned in their school spirit shirts, with smiles on their faces, as
they partake in some light refreshments outside the steps of the school auditorium.
A few minutes later, a group of student leaders leads cheers to signal to the
employees that it is now time to go inside. Without hesitation and without any
noticeable grumbling, the employees make their way inside the auditorium. Each
high school employee sits with others from his or her school in a designated section
of the auditorium, all adorned in their school spirit shirts. Teachers, secretaries,
custodians, and instructional aides sit together. District employees also sit together,
with no visible distinction regarding their job positions. Employees are coming
together as one team.
On stage sit the superintendent and her cabinet members, school board
members, and a university professor. The message is clear and deliberate from each
of the speakers. “We will continue to do whatever it takes to ensure student
success” is echoed by the district superintendent and reinforced by the school board

67
president. A brief summary of the district’s recent accomplishments is presented,
serving perhaps as a reminder for continuing employees and a reference or illus-
tration of the existing culture for new employees. The school board president
acknowledges the past work but is quick to emphasize that “the work is not done.
“We must continue to improve the lives of students.” He personalizes his message
to include the positive impact that teachers and school staff have had on the lives of
his own children.
The superintendent continued to personalize the message to employees. She
recognized that the positive outcomes, such as increased student achievement
scores, increased graduation rates, improved student attendance, and increased
passage rate by seniors on the high school exit examination, take a “team effort of
not just certificated employees but of also classified employees.” She characterized
the school board as consisting of people who are “pure of heart who help keep us
focused.” All but one member of the school board was present that morning. She
acknowledged the three employee association presidents for keeping students at the
forefront and valuing mutual respect. She stated that the “culture is uncommon, not
perfect, but one not to be taken for granted.” She emphasized, “Everyone is
responsible for our success. Everyone matters.”
The superintendent then invited a university professor, also an alumnus of
the district whose doctoral students have been studying the district high schools, to
say a few words. He summarized some of the trends that may be linked to the
increased student achievement by district students. The four trends or factors
emerging from the studies were identified as leadership, a culture of success,
accountability, and student engagement.

68
The superintendent then strategically reaffirmed the direction of the district.
She stated that all children can learn if given the time and support that they need.
She passionately said, “We can no longer afford independent operators working in
isolation.” She emphasized the need to “stay the course” and the three elements of
instruction: rigor, relevance, and relationships. She challenged employees to con-
tinue to expand interventions, to increase the graduation rates, to reduce failing
grades without lowering standards, and to provide a learning environment of hope
and opportunity. She said that the learning environment should be rigorous but not
ruthless. She concluded by indicating, “Our students are fortunate to have you in
their lives.”
A well-articulated message was then delivered by the superintendent. This
opening meeting for all employees clearly defined the “marching orders” of this
superintendent: Employees in this district must “stay the course” and do “whatever
it takes” to improve the lives of their students. New employees of this district were
quickly oriented about the culture of the district and were acquainted firsthand
with the expectations and goals of this superintendent. In addition, the observed
camaraderie among the employees served as an indication of a positive and
supportive working environment present in this district.
Principal Meetings
Principal meetings are inherent in most school districts; however, the
purpose and the format vary. The researcher observed meetings of principals on
two separate occasions.
In this school district, principals meet as a group with the superintendent
and cabinet members once a week for about 2.5 hours in the afternoon. The

69
meetings are called Superintendent’s Council meetings. The frequency of meetings
was increased this year from twice a month to once a week based on a request from
the principals. The principals indicated that they wanted more time to work
collaboratively on district-wide initiatives and to have quality time to share and
learn from each other. Some of the principals who had been in the district for
several years commented on the changing atmosphere of increased collegiality and
collaboration among their principal colleagues in council meetings, as compared to
several years ago when they had worked more in isolation from each other.
The Superintendent’s Council meeting with principals follows the morning
Cabinet meeting, when the superintendent meets with her three assistant superin-
tendents. The Superintendent’s Cabinet consists of an Associate Superintendent of
Business Services, an Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, and an
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources. In the Superintendent’s Council
meeting, the Superintendent’s Cabinet meets weekly with all principals around a
large conference table. The size of the Superintendent’s Council, with the seven
principals and four cabinet members, appeared to be manageable to facilitate dis-
cussion of agenda items. The agenda items for the two observed council meetings
were a balance of ongoing district focus areas, such as a quality standards-driven
instructional program for all students, and typical operational issues, such as the
district-wide calendar for the following school year.
The principals were observed interacting with each other in a friendly and
positive manner. Conversations prior to the meeting were congenial and the
principals appeared to have a genuine personal interest in one another. At one of
the meetings a district-wide band event called “Band Jam” was taking place later

70
that evening; the principals talked about getting together for dinner prior to the
event.
The council meetings are structured but allow for a free flow of ideas from
all participants. However, the superintendent did not miss an opportunity to empha-
size her “stay the course” mantra and continue her discussion with principals
regarding the philosophy behind grading. She reviewed an article that was intro-
duced to principals and teacher leaders about 2 years ago concerning the use of
zeros in grading, written by educational researcher Douglas Reeves (Reeves, 2004).
She led a discussion about the purpose of grading and the accompanying equity
issues. The principals then engaged in a discussion using a MAP (Moving to
Action) backward mapping procedure or protocol to establish an action plan with
timelines for the implementation of “an enlightened view on grading” and a draft of
a new policy on grading by June 2009. The discussion included the importance of
involving teacher leaders, sharing of best practices, incorporating research-based
practices, and a return visit by Reeves to a teacher staff development buy-back day
to be scheduled in September or early October 2008. A dinner meeting with Reeves
would be scheduled the prior night to include department chairpersons, course lead
teachers, and instructional specialists.
At both of these meetings, an unwavering instructional focus was exhibited
by all members of the Superintendent’s Council. That focus was aligned with the
message delivered by the superintendent in her Day 1 address. A climate of
collaboration, cooperation, and collegial support was observed in these meetings.

71
Professional Development
Activities
Professional development activities were aligned with the district-wide and
school site specific goals. A coordinated and sequential staff development calendar
of activities was in place. The researcher observed two professional development
workshops involving site and district representatives, as well as a curriculum
improvement team meeting. For the past several years, professional development
efforts have focused around the work of Rick DuFour and the concept of develop-
ing a professional learning community. School and district teams have taken three
trips to Adlai Stevenson High School in Illinois, where professional learning
communities first started. The district’s “Whatever It Takes” attitude to ensure
student success stems from the readings and teachings of DuFour and others
(DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004).
The district has employed the services of Gayle Karhanek, the former
director of student services at Stevenson High School and co-author of Whatever It
Takes: How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn
(DuFour et al., 2004) to assist site teams of teachers and administrators in their
ongoing work on meeting student needs. The researcher observed a day-long
session led by Karhanek with leadership teams from all seven high schools. The
focus of the day was to review, refine, and enhance the work of the previous year
around the theme of a “Pyramid of Interventions,” involving levels of student
interventions.
Although this staff development was district driven, one critical and dis-
tinctive aspect of the training was the opportunity for school teams to customize
and personalize their implementation plans to meet the needs of their individual
sites. School site teams openly shared their triumphs, challenges, and

72
disappointments from the previous year. The researcher noted an environment of
candidness and openness among the participants. Participants were willing to share
honestly what was working and what needed to be refined with their site teams, as
well as with their colleagues from other schools. The teams shared how they had
refined their interventions to meet the needs of their students. Each of the schools’
action plans reflected the uniqueness, diversity, and individuality of their particular
campus. However, one common thread ran across all site action plans: “Interven-
tions by invitation do not work; interventions must be imbedded within the school
day.”
For the past 7 years the district superintendent, high school principals, and
teacher leaders have been involved in a county-wide collaborative effort with
superintendents and high school leaders from other school districts. The collabora-
tive group meets three to four times per year to discuss critical and pertinent issues
facing high schools. The 2007-2008 topics scheduled included Professional Learn-
ing Communities, “A-G” Closing Educational Gaps, and Revolution in Career
Technical Education.
In mid-October 2007 the district in this study served as the host for this
county collaborative. The focus of that day was professional learning communities.
This county collaboration had followed just a few weeks after the all-day workshop
with Karhanek and site leadership teams concentrating on strengthening the
Pyramid of Interventions within the context of a professional learning community
at the various school sites in the district. At the workshop, the Assistant Superin-
tendent of Educational Services stressed the importance of sharing best practices
with other schools and districts. He stated that the collaborative group gives
opportunities to learn from one another. The day started with the superintendent

73
sharing the district’s journey of getting out of program improvement status,
working as a professional learning community, building a pyramid of interventions
to assist students, and doing whatever it takes to ensure student success. Collabora-
tive participants then boarded school buses to get a first-hand look and to talk
directly to school practitioners at two of the district high schools. At High School
E, participants took part in two of five break-out or small group sessions. The
break-out topics included intervention coordination and study hall tutorials, fresh-
man mentoring program, a counselor’s role in professional learning communities,
guided study and the OASIS programs for the most at-risk students, and adminis-
trative leadership and this school’s journey. After the sessions, participants traveled
to High School A. Participants were again assigned to two out of the five break-out
groups. The break-out topics at High School A included common assessments and
collaborative post-assessment conferences, high school senators program, block
schedule and privilege system, interventions, and administrative leadership and this
school’s journey.
Throughout the day the researcher observed the participants and presenters
engaging in open and candid conversation. The presenters did not “sugar coat” their
comments. The principal of High School A candidly shared that his Social Science
and English departments were not up to level of his Mathematics, Foreign
Language, and Science departments in terms of development and implementation
of common assessments. He stressed that it is extremely important to hire the right
people who will buy into the focus of the school. He said that he had been
extremely careful in hiring new teachers, stressing that teachers must be willing to
share student results with one another on his campus. He said that, if they are not
willing to do this, he will not hire them.

74
School Board Meeting
The instructional vision of the school district was not lost at the observed
school board meeting. A five-member Board of Trustees is in place to set the policy
of the district, with the administration responsible for execution of that policy. The
Board of Trustees meets once a month, typically on a Tuesday evening. The
researcher observed the November meeting. The 2-hour nontelevised meeting was
attended by 34 persons, primarily school representatives and family members of an
outgoing trustee and board president, as well as family members of a student being
honored. The principal and/or an assistant principal from each of the school sites is
expected to attend all Board of Trustees meetings. Four of the five trustees were
present at the meeting, including a student board representative. Most meetings
highlight a particular school or program within the district.
On the night observed, High School G, the independent study high school,
was featured. The adult school principal who oversees High School G presented an
overview of the various programs and procedures in place to meet student needs.
He spoke about the diversity and uniqueness of his student population. He
explained that the independent study high school tries to “fill the holes” in student
learning. Students are provided with standards-based courses via contracts and are
administered common assessments. He stated that High School G offers courses
parallel to those of other district high schools and that technology is used to
accelerate learning. Students are taught how to use Cornell note-taking skills to
assist them in their coursework (Pauk & Ross, 2007). He indicated that a pocket
laboratory for science was under development, as well as restricted chat rooms to
serve as a core academic supplement and a hosted reading program in the content

75
areas. He also stated that students who attend the independent study high school are
still required to complete a senior project prior to graduation.
The student board representative followed the adult school principal and
spoke about the recent “Band Jam.” He said that High School D and High School E
chose not to compete this year in an effort to steer away from a strictly competitive
event to a more relaxing evening of good music and camaraderie among all
schools. The student representative also spoke of a revitalization of school pride at
his high school (High School E) and attributed much of the increase to the new
assistant principal. He also spoke of a dodge ball lunch tournament with students
and staff members.
The superintendent then spoke about students from High School B and High
School E coming together to “break bread” and to share homecoming ideas. She
said that she witnessed the “beauty of collaboration.” She said that it is not always
about competition and that it was her hope that band directors and cheer and drill
team advisors might move in the direction of more collaboration and less
competition.
Later in the superintendent’s report section she announced that State Super-
intendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell had indicated that he wanted to visit
the district. She spoke about when Doug Reeves came to the district 5 years earlier
and predicted that the district would soon be “on the map” for its efforts in raising
student achievement. She spoke about the district’s journey on raising achievement
and attributed the positive student outcomes to “fidelity of implementation” in
terms of implementing common instructional materials, site-based interim assess-
ments, district-wide quarterly common assessments, and implementation of the
Pyramid of Interventions. She stated that the next step in the district’s journey was

76
to seriously examine the district’s grading policies. She said that she met with
student leaders the day before and had talked with them about the philosophy of
grading. She advocated the use of the 3 R (retesting, revision, and redemption) in a
grading policy. She promoted a 4-point grading system (F = 0, D = 1, C = 2, B = 3,
A = 4), thus eliminating the skewed inequity of a zero based on a 100-point scale.
She advocated that this new grading system would provide equal intervals between
grades and more accurately reflect student learning.
The remainder of the board meeting consisted primarily of routine consent
and action items. The researcher noticed that comments by trustee members were
on topic and brief in nature. Trustee members expressed their appreciation and
made mention regarding the contributions of the outgoing board president, who
will continue as a trustee, and that of a board member who was retiring. This
exchange of collegial comments between board members served as an indicator
of good board morale and cooperation among the trustees.
School and Classroom
Observations
A critical question for the researcher was whether district initiatives such as
the district’s instructional direction goals were evident on school campuses, par-
ticularly in the classrooms. Many organizations, including schools, suffer from a
“knowing-doing gap” (Pfeffer & Robert, 1999).
The researcher visited the five comprehensive high school campuses, the
continuation high school, the independent study high school on the adult school
campus, the district office facility, and the football stadium located on one of the
comprehensive high school campuses. All school and district facilities were clean
and well maintained. Modernization of facilities was taking place on some of the

77
campuses. The modernization process was in various phases of completion
throughout the district. Some of the campuses are nestled in residential areas, with
others areas in a downtown area or off well-traveled arteries.
School visitors to the comprehensive high school campuses and continua-
tion high school must enter at a designated location and are greeted by a staff
member. Visitors must identify their purpose for being on campus. At only one
campus (one of the comprehensive high schools) was a driver’s license or other
photo identification requested of the researcher by the staff greeter. Two of the
comprehensive campuses required the researcher to wear a visitor’s badge while on
campus. At all school and district facilities the researcher was greeted in a friendly
and warm manner by school and district personnel. This procedure indicated a
district-wide priority of maintaining a safe learning environment for both students
and staff members.
Before and after school procedures were observed, including two opening
days (one on a regular bell schedule day and one on a late-start day at different
campuses) and one school dismissal on a minimum day at another high school
campus. For the most part, students arrived to school on time, primarily by private
vehicle. Students proceeded in an orderly manner onto the school campus. More
students were tardy on the late-start day (when school began 30 minutes later) than
at the other campus, which was on the regular bell schedule day. However, even
with a slight increase in student tardiness on the late-start day, a minimal number of
students were tardy on both campuses. Student attendance, including arriving to
school on time, is a form of student engagement.
School rules and procedures were in place. School dismissal was observed
at High School D. The students were observed to exit the school campus in an

78
orderly and safe manner. Some students went to waiting vehicles and others took
buses, walked home, or lingered in front of the campus. No student disturbances,
conflicts, or inappropriate behavior were observed. High School C Principal stated
to the researcher that many students elected to stay at school after dismissal
because they felt safe and perhaps “at home” while at school.
Classroom observations took place on four of the high school campuses,
including the continuation high school. Fourteen classroom observations were
conducted. The time in each classroom varied from 4 to 55 minutes. Classroom
instructional practices varied, from a traditional directed instruction approach to
hands-on, interactive instruction. All 14 classrooms observed were addressing the
state curriculum content standards for the designated subject area. These observa-
tions supported the district’s direction of a common curriculum for all students.
One of the observed classes was an intervention classroom where the
teacher and student mentors assisted struggling students with standards-based
assignments across all curricular areas. This intervention class in High School E
was “between the bells” and part of the regular school day. It was a clear example
of what site teams addressed at a previously observed professional development
day. The observation supported that interventions were being strategically placed
during the school day to address the needs of struggling students. In this interven-
tion class, accountability systems for both the intervention students and student
mentors were evident. Weekly progress checks of intervention students and student
mentors were observed by the researcher. The intervention teacher, a beloved
former football coach, interacted with students in a positive and caring manner.
Students appeared to feel safe and comfortable in asking questions and seeking
assistance from both the teacher and the upperclass student mentors. Evidence of

79
positive reinforcements and incentives were noted, including a jar filled with
cookies, parent newsletters noting student successes, and a student who came in to
give the ex-coach some certificates for students to dine in a local eatery.
At one of the other comprehensive high schools (High School B) the
researcher briefly observed three of the same subject social science classes taught
by three teachers. The same curriculum content standard was addressed in all three
classrooms. Students were involved in the lesson, asking questions and participat-
ing in class discussion. Afterwards, the principal commented to the researcher that
the social science department teachers had been working extensively on developing
curriculum pacing guides and implementing site-common assessments beyond the
quarterly district assessments. Several walk-through visits to classrooms on High
School C and Continuation High School F were conducted by the researcher. At
High School C the researcher and a researcher’s colleague, accompanied by the
principal, conducted unannounced walk-through classroom visits of 5 minutes or
less during the period immediately following lunch. A social science classroom,
two English classes, one mathematics classroom, and a biology classroom were
visited.
At Continuation High School F a resource specialist classroom was
observed. The teacher was working with three students on an English assignment.
The students were there voluntarily to make up absences. An added incentive for
students’ afternoon attendance was an upcoming trip to Disneyland for students
who qualified, based on positive student attendance. The principal reported to the
researcher at a later date that 70 students qualified to participate in the Disneyland
incentive activity. These observations supported the district’s instructional direction
of a common curriculum for all students with common assessments.

80
In most of the classrooms the students appeared to be focused and engaged
in standards-based lessons. However, in a mathematics classroom at High School B
the teacher stood in front of the class adjacent to the security of the overhead pro-
jector speaking in a monotone voice to his students. Although he was addressing
the appropriate curriculum standard, students were not engaged and did not interact
with the teacher. The researcher classified student behavior in that classroom as
passive but polite. The principal indicated that the teacher would not be returning
the following year. This observation served as an example that administrators place
a great deal of importance on hiring and retaining the right people, as well as
having the courage to release teachers who are not meeting standards.
A component of the district’s instructional emphasis, as stated in the
Superintendent’s Day 1 address, is the infusion of relevance into the curriculum.
One of the comprehensive high schools, High School C, was successful in receiv-
ing a California Partnership Academy Grant. At that high school five career-
technical academies exist: health, business, hospitality house or culinary, architec-
ture and engineering, and automotive technology. The researcher observed an
accounting class, part of the school’s business career academy, for approximately
30 minutes. The class contained many senior students. The teacher gave examples
of how the accounting procedures being studied would be applied in a real-world
business setting. The teacher followed with some brief instructions before releasing
students to work on individual assignments. The teacher circulated around the
classroom, checking for student understanding and assisting students. The class of
28 students appeared to be on task. In a culinary arts class that is part of the hospi-
tality house career academy, students were evaluating the results of a recent cook-

81
ing laboratory activity. These observations supported attention to relevance and
critical career connections within specially designed classrooms.
The district has a growing EL student population. An EL government class-
room was observed at High School E for 55 minutes. The teacher utilized SDAIE
(Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English) strategies to assist her EL
students with both language acquisition and subject matter content. The teacher
spoke to the class of 14 students and one student teacher’s assistant in both English
and Spanish. She reviewed the unit on the House of Representatives. She called on
students to answer questions and to identify the context clues that assisted them in
answering the questions. She showed how the students could use a table as a
graphic organizer to find information. The students appeared to be on task and
actively following the teacher.
In the majority of the classrooms observed, students were actively engaged
in the lesson as demonstrated by students being on task, asking questions, and
participating in classroom discussions. One aspect of student engagement is how
students spend their time outside of the formal classroom setting and how they
interact with others. While visiting the five comprehensive high school campuses,
the one continuation high school site, and the independent study school, the
researcher observed interactions among students and between students and adults
outside the classroom setting.
The student lunch period was observed at High School C. The clubs
presidents met in a classroom to discuss the coordination of club pictures for the
yearbook. The yearbook advisor, who was new this year, stated that it was her
intent to minimize the amount of instructional time missed for yearbook photos.
She said that next year she planned to conduct all club photos outside of classroom

82
instructional time. Students reacted in a positive and proactive way to her goal of
decreasing missed classroom time.
Outside on campus, most students gathered in the quad areas at lunch and
appeared to mix with students from various backgrounds and special interests. The
researcher did not observe any student who visually displayed gang or gang-like
dress. Most students socialized with others. A few students sat individually on the
ground reading or finishing a possible upcoming classroom assignment. At the end
of the lunch period the bell rang and the students made their way to their fifth
period classes. Very little trash was left on the ground after lunch, and only three
students were observed to be tardy to fifth period. The researcher noted a sense of
school pride and belonging during this noninstructional period.
At the five comprehensive high school campuses and at the continuation
high school site there was ample evidence of student involvement in activities. At
the start of the ninth-grade year, freshmen students were encouraged to identify two
or more school activities in which they would like to become involved. To support
student involvement in activities, teachers appeared to be willing to give freely of
their time “beyond the bells” to serve as club advisors or coaches and to participate
in other extracurricular activities. Posters adorned the walls of High School D
advertising the annual faculty and staff revue. It appeared that there was a culture
of teacher involvement beyond the four walls of the classrooms at all sites. Club
and Associated Student Body activity notices were seen on all comprehensive high
school campuses and on the continuation high school site.
The researcher observed a varsity level intradistrict football game between
High School B and High School D. The researcher sat on High School D’s side
during the first half of the game and on High School B’s side during the second

83
half. The game (held at a neutral site, the campus of High School C) was well
attended by both schools. The researcher observed the principal and his young son
on the sidelines. This family atmosphere carried into the stands of both sides.
Families as well as groups of students attended the game. At one point in the game
the drill team members held up rally towels. One towel had “212°” written on it.
The researcher inquired of an adult what 212 degrees meant. The adult, the mother
of a football player, told the researcher that the football coach had talked to the
team about the power of going that extra degree. The football coach told the team
that at 211 degrees water is hot, but at 212 degrees water boils and steam is created.
That steam can then power a locomotive. She continued that the coach had T-shirts
made for the team with “212°” inscribed on them. The researcher learned through
an interview with the principal later that the principal had seen an inspirational
DVD about the power of 212 degrees at a Superintendent’s Cabinet meeting. The
principal shared the inspirational message with his teachers at his opening-of-
school meeting. The football coach had used it as a motivating strategy with his
team. The superintendent told the researcher that she had been given the motiva-
tional video by the school board president, who was unaware that the video had
been implemented to that extent.
Another noteworthy observation made by the researcher at the football
game was the number of parents on both sides of the field who had attended district
high schools as students. Although the community had changed demographically
over the years, a significant of number of district alumni who were now parents of
high school students still lived within the school district boundaries. In fact, the
district superintendent had been a student in the school district and still resides
within the district boundaries. Her daughter is a student at High School B.

84
Surveys
High School Survey of Student
Engagement (HSSSE)
High school students throughout the district high schools completed the
HSSSE during the 2006-2007 school year (see appendix D). The summary of
results was received by the district in the spring of 2007. School leaders used the
results as part of ongoing staff development efforts to address student needs and to
set site and district priorities. For the most part, the students in this school district
were at or slightly below the national profile on the HSSSE. Since this was the first
administration of such a survey for this school district, previous comparison data
were not available. The national profile primarily reflected a suburban perspective
and did not include a significant number of urban or urban-like high schools. An
analysis of the data revealed that district students (based on 95% confidence
levels), although not always having a large effect size, scored higher than HSSSE
peers in the following areas (Cohen, 1988): (a) feel good about being in this school;
(b) care about school; (c) treated fairly at this school; (d) voice in classroom/school
decisions; (e) opinions are respected; (f) I can be who I am at school; (g) motivated
by teachers who encourage me; (h) worked harder than I expected to in school; (i)
enjoy opportunity to be creative; (j) number of classes in which I give maximum
effort; and (k) spend a lot of time preparing for state and district standardized tests;
(l) school contributed to growth in speaking effectively, thinking critically, working
well with others, solving real-world problems, understanding relevance of school
work to life after high school, understanding people of other racial/ethnic back-
grounds, understanding yourself, treating people with respect, and personal beliefs
and values; (m) participating in work study program; (n) more 10th graders have

85
taken AP course than peers; (o) taken a course at college or university; (p) go to
school because enjoy being in school, because there is nothing else to do, or
because I want to stay out of trouble; (q) have skipped school, (r) have considered
dropping out, (s) considered dropping out because work was too hard, needing to
work for money, family issues, or other; (t) believe they are in danger of being held
back a grade level this year; (u) was bored in class because work was too difficult;
and (v) other.
Conversely district students scored lower than HSSSE peers (with 95%
confidence levels), although not always having a large effect size, on the following:
(a) at least one adult in school who cares about me and knows me well; (b) class-
room participation (asking and answering questions in class, making presentations,
attending class with all assignments completed, connected ideas from one class
to another in assignments or discussions, discussion readings outside of class);
(c) placing a high value on learning; (d) having the skills and abilities to complete
my work; (e) like discussions where there are no clear answers; (f) number of
classes that do not require them to work hard (inverse question); (g) use of com-
puters for class work; (h) participate in community service or volunteer work; (i) go
to school because it’s the law and because I want to get a degree and go to college;
(j) held back a grade level in school; (k) have ever been bored in class (inverse
question); (l) was bored in class because work was not challenging, material was
not interesting, material was not relevant, or no interaction with teacher (inverse
question); and (m) in class, what excites or engages you: discussion/debate, role
plays, art/drama (except for High School B).
In summary, district students reported a sense of pride and belonging,
according to the HSSSE results. Students genuinely cared about their school and

86
felt supported by their teachers. Students reported an emphasis on district and state
standardized examinations. This finding may be in response to the implementation
of site and district-wide common assessments, as well as the CAHSEE as a gradua-
tion requirement. Students also reported a lower instance than the national profile
of use of computers for completion of class work and participation in classroom
discussions, including discussions with no clear answers or connecting ideas from
one class to another (these types of discussions typically involve higher-order
thinking skills and use of more problem-solving strategies).
The complete listing of the 2006-2007 HSSSE district results compared to
the national profile is included as appendix E. The Director of Accountability, Staff
Development, and Educational Technology provided each school with the mean,
probability level, and effect for each of the HSSSE items, as well as the national
profile mean for each item. Site leadership teams used this means report as part of
ongoing staff development in the following way: (a) highlighting items on the
survey that they found most interesting; (b) analyzing how their students responded
to the items and determining whether their responses were statistically significant;
(c) interpreting the items and discussing why they felt that students responded as
they did; (d) looking at all the survey items with the greatest statistical significance
that was also practically significant to their school’s demographics, programs, and
services; and (e) creating a list of items in which their school was doing well and
those areas that called for improvement.
According to the director, the leadership teams questioned whether students
understood what was meant by being part of “a high school community” on
Question 6.m of the HSSSE. Student responses on that question were similar to the
results on the national profile.

87
Teachers Survey
In an effort to triangulate the data on student engagement on the HSSSE, a
teacher survey that was aligned to the HSSSE student survey was developed by the
dissertation group. The teacher survey was administered in departmental meetings
at High School C. Eighty-one percent of the teachers completed the survey. Using
Creswell’s approach of analyzing data, open-ended responses to an item asking
teachers to identify factors that had contributed to student achievement at their
school were divided into four categories: leadership, curriculum and instructional
practices, school culture, and student engagement. The results of that survey are
presented in Table 4.
The teacher survey included open-ended items asking teachers to identify
factors contributing to student achievement. Table 5 provides a summary of the
teachers’ responses to these open-ended items.
The researcher also analyzed the teacher survey from the previous cohort
group. Ninety-seven teachers representing High Schools A, B, and F had completed
that survey as indicated in Table 6. The researcher used the compilation of the
results of the previous cohort as secondary data. Although the previous cohort’s
teacher survey did not ask the exact questions as those asked by the current
dissertation team, similarities and inferences surfaced (see appendix F). In
particular, there was agreement among students and teachers, as well as the
administration, that students were motivated and encouraged by their teachers.
Administrators Survey
To further triangulate the data and strengthen the study, an administrators’
survey was developed by the dissertation team, aligned to the student version of
HSSSE. All site administrators, principals, and assistant principals completed the

88
Table 4

Teacher Survey Results in Percentages (81% Return Rate)

Survey item and response categories %

Student writing assignments, first 6 weeks of school
Number of assigned papers/reports of 5+ pages
0-2 89.8
3-4 6.8
5-6 3.4
7-8 0.0
9-10 0.0
11+ 0.0
Number of assigned papers/reports of 3 to 5pages
0-2 83.4
3-4 10.0
5-6 3.3
7-8 3.3
9-10 0.0
11+ 0.0
Number of assigned papers/reports of fewer than 3 pages
0-2 39.0
3-4 18.2
5-6 22.1
7-8 9.1
9-10 1.3
11+ 10.3

Number of hours of assigned reading in a typical week
0 20.7
1 29.3
2-3 39.0
4-5 8.6
6-7 1.2
8-10 1.2
11+ 0.0

Instructional strategies employed to encourage participation
by all students
Very often 61.7
Frequently 35.8
Sometimes 2.5
Never 0.0

89
Table 4 (continued)

Survey item and response categories %

Prompt and personal feedback on assignments given to students
by the teacher
Very often 51.9
Frequently 33.8
Sometimes 14.3
Never 0.0

School safety as a priority
Agree 94.7
Disagree 5.3

Skill or learning activity emphasized
a. Students must spend a lot of time studying on schoolwork
Very Much 20.3
Quite a bit 56.8
Some 18.9
Very little 4.0
b. Students are provided with support needed to succeed
in school
Very Much 50.0
Quite a bit 44.6
Some 5.4
Very little 0.0
c. Students are encouraged to participate in school events
and activities (athletics, music, etc.)
Very Much 54.8
Quite a bit 38.4
Some 5.5
Very little 1.3
d. Students are encouraged to get involved in school
leadership and governance
Very Much 31.5
Quite a bit 32.9
Some 32.9
Very little 2.7
e. All adults on campus treat students fairly
Very Much 39.7
Quite a bit 45.6
Some 11.8
Very little 2.9

90
Table 4 (continued)

Survey item and response categories %

f. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to learn work-related skills
Very Much 43.3
Quite a bit 33.8
Some 18.9
Very little 4.0
g. Students are encouraged to write effectively
Very Much 60.0
Quite a bit 33.3
Some 6.7
Very little 0.0
h. Students are encouraged and provided the support to
use information technology
Very Much 26.3
Quite a bit 43.4
Some 29.0
Very little 1.3
i. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities
to solve real-world problems
Very Much 21.6
Quite a bit 50.0
Some 21.6
Very little 6.8
j. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to develop clear, sequential career goals
and prepare for appropriate postsecondary education
or training
Very Much 32.0
Quite a bit 48.0
Some 17.3
Very little 2.7
k. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to make their community a better place
Very Much 24.3
Quite a bit 37.8
Some 28.4
Very little 9.5

91
Table 5

Summary of Teachers’ Responses to Survey Items Regarding Identification of
Factors Contributing to Student Achievement

Area Factors

Leadership Community, resources, cohesive vision
Accountability, providing various options to be successful,
outside of high school, emphasizing problem solving skills
Structure, safety
Dedication, teachers, supportive administration, and student
buy-in
High expectations, feedback, interventions

Curriculum and Academies, positive reinforcement, group projects, feedback,
instructional varied instruction, care and concern
practices
Academies, teachers who care, High School C always
looking to try new things
Intervention
Support, encouragement, guidance, parent communication,
student-teacher communication, extra tutoring
Intervention, student teacher commitment
I run the culinary academy and preparation for career and
transition to post secondary educational settings are our 2 top
priorities.
Teachers using a variety of teaching strategies, a variety of
assessment, technology with a wonderful tech support, fun,
PowerPoint, internet, teaching, love of learning
I believe that a major portion of student achievement that
occurs on our campus is due to the driving force of our
academies. Because the academies provide “real-world”
training. Students are motivated because it will directly
benefit their future.
Students placed in classes at their ability levels and
encouraged to challenge themselves. Not put in classes
deemed important for political purposes. Most students not
interested in going to UCLA, so, they need skills in other
areas to be successful

92
Table 5 (continued)

Area Factors

A variety of teaching methods, positive learning experience,
teachers enjoying what they do, having high and appropriate
expectations of all students.
Challenging and rigorous curriculum delivered by qualified
and caring staff in a comfortable and enjoyable environment
High expectations for all students. Interventions that are
systematic for struggling students. Teachers interested in the
success of all their students.
Motivation, prior knowledge, collaborative learning, real-life
examples, visuals, support
Encouragement, high standards, challenging assignments,
discipline, belief in themselves.
Having lots of opportunities both outside the school day and
embedded in the school day to seek assistance
Positive environment in the classroom. Updated grades
frequently so students know where they stand.
Motivated and encouraging teachers; teachers skilled in
teaching content, parent encouragement and support, student
safety and good health, good student attendance
A variety of classes and levels of classes all offered to
challenge students appropriately. Students and their parents
get to pick the level that suits them.
School culture A caring staff with a supportive administration
Parent involvement, a desire to succeed, quality of teachers
Parent support, a willing attitude, and caring teachers
Teacher/parent support
Parent/family support; teacher/faculty support
Parent modeling/accountability
A refusal to fail by faculty and administration
A caring and dedicated teacher more than any other factor.
Good communication and support from a student’s family
Parent involvement, reason for taking elective classes,
ultimate goal for the 4 year: college?

93
Table 5 (continued)

Area Factors

Parental involvement, self-motivation, caring teachers, hard
work. Parents that instill values of getting an education,
taking pride in accomplishing academic/personal goals
Encouragement from teachers; support from family and
teachers
Home life and parent support
I believe caring and dedicated teachers. I feel a supportive
family also must be present to promote student achievement
We love our kids and treat them as if they are our own. That
is why we the very want the best from them.
Parents, teachers that care and want students to succeed.
Campus environment/school support
Support at school, support from parents, goal-oriented
attitude.
Parents, intrinsic motivation
Responsibility, organization and self motivation. If student
learn and implement these factors, they should succeed in
obtaining a high school diploma.
Expectations at home. Competition and collaboration with
peers. Teacher motivation
Teacher involvement and professionalism. Parental
involvement, home to school communication
Home life, supportive parents and access to resources
Caring, dedicated faculty and staff; career academies; college
counseling and college speakers, link crew,
intervention/strategies, literacy program, senior project,
parallel classes, CAHSEE tutoring, strong AP program
Teacher and parent involvement
Parent involvement; high expectations of teachers/parents

94
Table 5 (continued)

Area Factors

Student engagement Academies, athletics, clubs, extended lunch
Involvement in extracurricular activities
Fun activities for all students. Students have a sense of
belonging at the school. Good athletic program/fine arts
opportunities
Good attendance, good attitude, positive teacher influence,
motivation, curriculum
Effort, motivation, attitude, family, counseling
Parent support, prompt feedback, assignments designed for
student success to build confidence for more difficult tasks.
Safe learning environment, relevance.
Support from staff at many levels especially the academies
but also in other extracurricular activities

survey. The researcher provided each principal with the necessary copies of the
surveys for all site administrators. In addition, a prepaid return-addressed envelope
was provided to assist with survey return. A 100% response rate was achieved. The
results are reported below in Table 7.
The administrator survey included open-ended items asking administrators
to identify factors contributing to student achievement. Table 8 provides a
summary of the administrators’ responses to these open-ended items.
Some emerging themes were evident in analysis of the two forms of the
teacher surveys and the administrator survey with the student responses on the
HSSSE. Students agreed that their teachers supported and motivated them; teachers
and administrators concurred with this finding. However, students contradicted
themselves somewhat when asked whether there was at least one adult in their

95
Table 6

Reported Perceptions of Teachers in High School A, High School B, and High
School F Regarding Student Engagement as Measured by the Teacher Survey
Instrument of the Previous Cohort (N = 97)

% % %
Survey item Agree
a
Neutral Disagree

1. My students attend class with readings and/or
assignments completed. 29.17 41.66 29.17
2. My students take pride in their schoolwork. 51.55 28.87 19.58
3. My students have the skills and abilities to
complete their assignments. 79.17 14.48 6.25
4. My students value the rewards (grades, awards,
etc.) that they get at school for their work. 74.22 21.65 4.13
5. My students think it is important to make
good grades. 64.95 25.77 9.28
6. My students care about their school. 54.74 37.9 7.36
7. My students place a high value on learning. 34.73 47.37 17.9
8. My students have a voice in classroom decisions. 66.67 21.87 11.46
9. My students put forth a great deal of effort
when doing their schoolwork. 40.62 36.46 22.92
10. My students are challenged to do their
best work at school. 91.75 8.25 0
11. I am able to influence the attitudes my students
have about school. 83.5 16.5 0.00
12. I am able to help students care about
their schoolwork. 83.5 15.47 1.03
13. I have enough time to get to know the
personal characteristics and interests of
all of my students. 63.91 15.46 20.63
14. If students stop trying in my class, I have the
capacity to motivate them to start trying again. 74.47 23.4 2.13

96
Table 6 (continued)

% % %
Survey item Agree
a
Neutral Disagree

15. If students in my class are struggling, I have the
necessary skills to increase their achievement. 90.72 9.28 0.00
16. Resources and assistance are available to students
to meet their personal and academic needs. 85.25 12.62 2.13
17. I can get through to the most difficult students. 55.32 30.85 13.83
18. I can help my students think critically. 93.4 6.6 0.00
19. I can foster student creativity. 91.76 7.21 1.03
20. I can assist families in helping their children
do well in school. 54.64 38.14 7.22

a
Agree category includes responses reported as Strongly Agree and Agree; disagree
category includes responses reported as Disagree and Strongly Disagree.

school who cared about them and knew them well. The student responses on this
question (Question 6.g) fell below the national profile at all high schools in the
district with the exception of the High School G (the independent study high school
that structurally provides more one-on-one teacher and student interaction).
There appeared to be agreement among teachers and administrators that
students are encouraged to write effectively (see Figure 3). However, there were
limited opportunities for students to write papers or reports of more than five pages.
This finding was supported by student responses. Overall, the district students fell
below the national profile on this question, except for 12th-grade students at three
of the comprehensive high schools: A, C, and E.

97
Table 7

Results of the Administrators Survey

Survey item and response categories %

Student writing assignments, first 6 weeks of school
Number of assigned papers/reports of 5+ pages
0-2 73.0
3-4 18.0
5-6 0.0
7-8 0.0
9-10 0.0
11+ 0.0
Number of assigned papers/reports of 3 to 5pages
0-2 0.0
3-4 55.0
5-6 35.0
7-8 5.0
9-10 0.0
11+ 5.0
Number of assigned papers/reports of fewer than 3 pages
0-2 0.0
3-4 0.0
5-6 10.0
7-8 15.0
9-10 5.0
11+ 70.0

Number of hours of assigned reading in a typical week
0 0.0
1 13.6
2-3 41.0
4-5 31.8
6-7 9.1
8-10 0.0
11+ 4.5

Instructional strategies employed to encourage participation
by all students
Very often 48.0
Frequently 42.0
Sometimes 0.0
Never 0.0

98
Table 7 (continued)

Survey item and response categories %

Prompt and personal feedback on assignments given to students
by the teacher
Very often 35.0
Frequently 52.0
Sometimes 13.0
Never 0.0

School safety as a priority
Agree 100.0
Disagree 0.0

Skill or learning activity emphasized
a. Students must spend a lot of time studying on schoolwork
Very Much 13.6
Quite a bit 63.7
Some 22.7
Very little 0.0
b. Students are provided with support needed to succeed
in school
Very Much 50.0
Quite a bit 44.6
Some 5.4
Very little 0.0
c. Students are encouraged to participate in school events
and activities (athletics, music, etc.)
Very Much 52.2
Quite a bit 39.1
Some 0.0
Very little 8.7
d. Students are encouraged to get involved in school
leadership and governance
Very Much 17.4
Quite a bit 34.8
Some 39.1
Very little 8.7
e. All adults on campus treat students fairly
Very Much 36.4
Quite a bit 59.1
Some 4.5
Very little 0.0

99
Table 7 (continued)

Survey item and response categories %

f. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to learn work-related skills
Very Much 8.7
Quite a bit 26.1
Some 60.9
Very little 4.3
g. Students are encouraged to write effectively
Very Much 43.5
Quite a bit 56.5
Some 0.0
Very little 0.0
h. Students are encouraged and provided the support to
use information technology
Very Much 13.1
Quite a bit 39.1
Some 47.8
Very little 0.0
i. Students are encouraged and provided opportunities
to solve real-world problems
Very Much 4.3
Quite a bit 34.8
Some 56.6
Very little 4.3
j. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to develop clear, sequential career goals
and prepare for appropriate postsecondary education
or training
Very Much 7.4
Quite a bit 43.5
Some 39.1
Very little 0.0
k. Students are encouraged and provided meaningful
opportunities to make their community a better place
Very Much 17.4
Quite a bit 47.8
Some 34.8
Very little 0.0

Note. 100% completion: 23 site administrators (7 principals, 16 assistant
principals).

100
Table 8

Summary of Administrators’ Responses to Survey Items Regarding Identification of
Factors Contributing to Student Achievement

Area Factors

Leadership Educational goals and access
Strong discipline
Alternative bell schedules and calendars that give students
time for remediation and also staff development (cited five
times)
Consistent, fair consequences
School policies and procedures are clearly identified and
communicated to students

Curriculum and Common assessments
instructional
practices Interventions
Tutorial
Focus on standards
Effective teachers
Quality instruction
Meaningful curriculum
Plenty of support and encouragement if struggling
Rigorous standards-based instruction with teacher support
(cited twice)
Supportive teachers (cited twice)
An abundance of writing with revisions
Consistent use of content literacy
Focus on mastery of essential skills
Time and support for students and an effective response
when students do not learn
Necessary support given
Immediate support for struggling students
Teaching of organization
Frequent and personal feedback

101
Table 8 (continued)

Area Factors

Collaboration
Teacher efficacy
Excellent staff that works in teams to address student needs
and issues
School culture Supportive community
High expectations (cited three times)
Strong relationships with faculty and staff
School pride
Supportive peers
Support from home, parents, and family
Caring staff
Respect
School-wide effort to provide an atmosphere where all
students feel they can achieve their academic goals
One-on-one instruction
Student engagement Engaging instruction
Good attendance
Student support with an emphasis on student-teacher
relationships
Personal relationships
Student attachment to school
Meaningful student/teacher relationships
Counselor/student relationships
Building relationship

Teachers at High School C gave a positive response (93.2%) when asked
whether students were encouraged to participate in school events and activities,
such as athletics and music. District administrators agreed with this finding

102
Number of Assigned Written Papers/Reports of More than 5 pages
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Students Teachers Admin

Figure 3. Comparison of students’, teachers’, and administrators’ responses regard-
ing the number of assigned written papers and/or reports of more than five pages.

(91.3%). However, student responses fell below the national profile (see Figure 4).
One possible explanation for this difference could be that the students took the
HSSSE in the 2006-2007 school year, and after analyzing the results of school
teams, there has been a district-wide effort in the school year of the study (2007-
2008) to encourage students to participate in extracurricular activities.
Both teachers (94.7%) and administrators (100%) rated safety as a school
priority. However, district students responded below the national profile about
feeling safe at school, with the only exception expressed by the independent study
students, who overall responded above the national profile (see Figure 5).

103
Students Are Encouraged to Participate in Extracurricular Activities
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Very little Some Quite a bit Very much
Students Teachers Admin

Figure 4. Comparison of students’, teachers’, and administrators’ responses when
asked whether the school encourages participation in extracurricular activities.

School Safety: Students asked if they felt safe at school. Teachers and administrators asked
if safety is a priority
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Students Teachers Admin
Agree Disagree

Figure 5. Comparison of students, teachers, and administrators’ responses about
school safety; students were asked whether they felt safe at school, teachers and
administrators were asked whether school safety was a priority.

104
Documents Review
The researcher examined documents that might be linked to student
achievement and engagement levels, including the schools’ and district’s Web
sites, API and AYP information, CHSEE results, graduation rates, suspension and
expulsion information, master schedules of course offerings, newsletters, and
district publications.
The district’s Web site prominent feature a headline on the home page
announcing increasing student performance and rising API scores. The superin-
tendent was quoted:
For the seventh consecutive year, [name] Union High School District has
shown steady growth in the Academic Performance Index. This continued
improvement is the direct result of the dedicated efforts of teachers, staff
and students who have committed to do “Whatever It Takes” in order for
everyone to succeed in academics.
The district experienced a 19-point increase on the API in 2006-2007,
resulting in a district-wide API score of 703. The increase was also higher than the
state average of 681 points for high school districts. Table 9 details the AYP/API
scores and targets by school and significant subgroups for the previous 5 years.
Also prominently featured on the district Web site was an article indicating
that more than 2,300 students graduated from schools in this high school district in
2007. Table 10 provides information about NCES graduation rates based on the
number of graduates (Year 4) divided by the number of graduates and the grade 9
dropouts (Year 1), grade 10 dropouts (Year 2), grade 11 dropouts (Year 3), and
grade 12 dropouts (Year 4) dropouts (CDE, 2008).
To further highlight student achievement, a headline indicated that
“CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam) Results Show 99.4% of [district]
Seniors Pass Exam.” The 2007 CAHSEE passage rate of 99.4% ranked higher than

105
Table 9

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API) Scores
and Targets (Met or Not Met) for Significant Subgroups by School and District-
Wide, 2004-2007

School/ 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
group Score Met Score Met Score Met Score Met Score Met

School A 610 Yes 612 Yes 682 Yes 683 No 714 Yes
Hispanic 593 Yes 593 No 670 Yes 671 No 707 Yes
White 724 Yes 740 Yes 754 Yes 775 Yes 776 Yes
SED 584 Yes 566 No 654 Yes 656 No 692 Yes
EL 624 No 656 Yes
Special 453 No 477 Yes

School B 610 No 648 Yes 660 Yes 693 Yes 700 Yes
Hispanic 603 Yes 640 Yes 651 Yes 683 Yes 691 Yes
White 659 No 692 Yes 675 No 734 Yes 765 Yes
SED 588 Yes 617 Yes 630 Yes 671 Yes 683 Yes
EL 645 Yes 653 Yes
Special 422 Yes 433 No

School C 631 No 649 Yes 680 Yes 721 Yes 714 Yes
Hispanic 608 Yes 626 Yes 662 Yes 708 Yes 703 Yes
White 705 No 735 Yes 741 Yes 776 Yes 763 No
SED 576 Yes 595 Yes 638 Yes 678 Yes 673 Yes
EL 656 Yes 654 Yes
Special 450 Yes 451 No

School D 613 Yes 609 No 671 Yes 659 No 657 Yes
Hispanic 611 Yes 607 Yes 671 Yes 662 No 655 Yes
SED 599 Yes 587 No 663 Yes 641 No 643 Yes
EL 640 No 621 No
Special 450 No 443 Yes

School E 687 Yes 702 Yes 739 Yes 747 Yes 777 Yes
Hispanic 642 Yes 659 Yes 709 Yes 717 Yes 744 Yes
White 737 Yes 748 No 765 Yes 782 Yes 829 Yes
SED 538
a
579 Yes 666 Yes 678 Yes 690 Yes
EL 654 No 678 Yes
Special 492 Yes 551 Yes

Note. SED = socioeconomically disadvantaged, EL = English Learner, Special =
special education.

a
First year in this subgroup.

106
Table 10

Four-Year High School Graduation Rates, 1999-2007 in Percentages (National
Center for Education Statistics)

School 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

A 89.11 92.39 91.33 92.67 93.50 95.56 97.18 97.25 94.08
B 95.79 93.87 97.45 98.08 98.29 98.53 99.41 99.63 96.86
C 89.60 89.30 89.77 92.53 95.83 96.95 98.25 99.53 98.36
D 93.24 95.42 93.64 95.22 91.54 93.23 99.41 99.38 97.95
E 94.06 94.42 92.29 92.95 97.17 97.37 97.11 98.80 98.28
F 26.96 43.30 58.73 38.22 68.18 75.71 87.88 41.23 59.15
G 61.68 58.48 67.94 53.43 54.07 46.34 63.89 42.34 63.85
District 83.41 85.10 86.94 86.06 90.16 90.40 95.19 91.59 90.95

the state average of 91.4%. The superintendent mentioned in the article that many
of the students who did not pass the examination were EL students.
School site Web sites were easily navigable. Information was up-to-date
and student performance was focused. The format of the high schools’ Web sites
was standardized so the user could readily find information. School accountability
reports, course offerings, bell schedules, senior project guidelines, school
calendars, and daily bulletins were posted on the Web sites.
Each high school received accreditation by WASC. Table 11 provides the
WASC accreditation cycle. The goals and objectives of the various schools’
accreditation reports mirror district-wide goals.

107
Table 11

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Accreditation Schedule and
Term of Accreditation for Each High School in the District

School Schedule Term of accreditation

A Spring 2002
a
6 years with mid-term visit
B Spring 2003 6 years with mid-term visit
C Spring 2005 6 years with mid-term visit
D Spring 2005 6 years with mid-term visit
E Fall 2007 6 years clear
F Fall 2007 6 years with mid-term visit
G Spring 2007 6 years with mid-term visit

a
High School A was scheduled to be visited spring 2008.

Evidence of increased rigor was supported by increasing student enrollment
in Advanced Placement classes, more students meeting the University of
California’s A-G requirements, and more students actually attending 4-year
colleges or universities. Figure 6 shows the increasing number of students taking
Advanced Placement tests over the past 6 years. In addition, the class of 2007 had
35.4% completing A-G requirements and had 112 more graduating seniors
attending a 4-year college than the previous class.
Attendance rates for the high schools in the study district for academic
years 2003-2004 through 2006-2007 are summarized in Table 12. Student
attendance appeared to be fairly stable district-wide over those 4 school years.
Student suspension and expulsion records were examined by the researcher.
Student violations of Education Code 48900 in the study district’s high schools

108
1284
1748
1591
1758
1821
1977
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
# of Tests Taken

Figure 6. Advanced Placement tests taken by students in the
study district, 2002-2007.

Table 12

Attendance Rates in Percentages by Study District Schools, Academic Years 2003-
2004 Through 2006-2007

School 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

A 94.58 94.56 94.59 93.09
B 95.83 95.80 95.76 96.37
C 95.10 95.24 94.45 94.26
D 94.38 94.14 94.26 94.48
E 95.43 95.27 95.24 95.07
F 81.00 82.00 81.00 73.00
G 81.00 82.00 81.00 81.00

during the academic years 2002-2003 through 2006-2007 that resulted in sus-
pensions are summarized in Table 13. Most common were violations of sections
A and C of the Code. High School C had a significant increase in violations of

109
Table 13

Summary of Student Violations of California Education Code 48900(A-C) by
Student District School

School Code 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

A
A1 92 66 39 70 40
A2 20 20 16 23 47
B 7 6 7 6 14
C 46 46 34 49 33

B
A1 62 35 77 45 76
A2 6 6 3 7 7
B 14 18 6 16 10
C 27 46 28 47 46

C
A1 67 69 36 90 121
A2 4 7 9 7 21
B 6 8 14 8 13
C 26 40 33 45 56

D
A1 37 54 52 62 99
A2 10 4 32 4 14
B 13 17 15 19 6
C 23 35 35 36 47

E
A1 8 9 14 14 12
A2 3 7 1 8 4
B 8 4 8 4 6
C 25 19 29 25 30

F
A1 23 14 22 16 4
A2 0 0 6 0 4
B 6 4 7 5 12
C 62 40 34 45 24

All
A1 289 247 240 297 352
A2 43 44 67 49 97
B 54 52 67 58 61
C 209 227 193 247 236

110
Table 13 (continued)

Note. Education Code 48900(A-C): A1 = caused, attempted to cause, or threatened
to cause physical injury to another person; A2 = willfully used force or violence
upon the person of another, except in self-defense; B = possessed, sold, or
furnished any firearm, knife, explosive, or dangerous objects; C = possession, sales,
or under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or other intoxicants. No suspensions were
reported for High School G.

Education Code 48900A in 2006-2007. Table 14 summarizes the expulsions of
students from the district’s high schools in three academic years: 2004-2005
through 2006-2007.

Table 14

Number of Expulsions by Schools in the Study District, 2004-2005 to 2006-2007

School 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

A 3 5 4
B 4 3 4
C 4 8 15
D 1 2 5
E 3 3 7
F 0 0 0
G 0 1 0
District 15 22 35

District publications, such as the Annual Report to the Community and the two
“Whatever It Takes” Guides to the Instructional Direction for the District clearly

111
articulated the district’s vision and road map to increase student achievement.
Simply put, the publications outlined the “steps in realizing the vision”: common
instructional materials, site-based interim assessments, district-wide quarterly
common assessments, and implementation of the Pyramid of Interventions.
Documents examined by the researcher revealed that teachers in the district
had significantly increased use of common assessments since the 2004-2005
academic year (Table 15).

Table 15

Number of Common Assessments Scanned in the Study District Since Academic
Year 2004-2005

Academic year Common assessment tests Number of tests scanned

2004-2005 2 512
2005-2006 92 23,127
2006-2007 100 62,133
2007-2008 (as of 12/17/07) 50 32,099
Totals to December 17, 2007 66,419

Note. Source: CES National Web: Essential Resources for School Change, by
Coalition of Essential Schools, 2008, Oakland, CA: Author, retrieved January 21,
2008, from http://www.essentialschools.org

The professional development calendar was reviewed by the researcher.
Staff development offerings and activities were consistent with district’s stated
directions. The focus areas for professional development included professional

112
learning communities, common assessments, the Pyramid of Interventions,
strategies to assist EL, and grading practices.
The superintendent submits a District’s Annual Report and Self-Evaluation
Report to the Board of Trustees in December each year. Included in the reports to
the Board is a blank Superintendent’s Evaluation form. Each board member has 4
weeks to complete the evaluation form, and the Board president compiles the forms
and scores in January and shares the comments and scores with the superintendent.
Through a collaborative process with the Board and the Superintendent, Board
priorities and district goals are derived in February.
The four board priorities identified in the latest report were student achieve-
ment, attracting and retaining quality staff, maintaining fiscal stability, and clean,
safe, and modernized facilities. The school site annual reports also reflected Board
priorities and were aligned with areas on the Single School Plan for Student
Achievement and WASC’s Focus on Learning goals. The researcher saw coherent
and coordinated effort to reflect these goals and objectives in the individual school
reports.
Interviews
Most interviews were conducted during the last part of the data collection
period. The researcher conducted 12 individual recorded interviews and four focus
group interviews. The individual interviews varied in length from 23 minutes to 1
hour and 11 minutes, with an average of 45 minutes to 1 hour. The researcher
utilized the interview questions developed by the dissertation group (appendix G)
and asked clarifying questions based on previous observations, documents review,
and prior interviews. Creswell’s (2003) six-step process for analyzing collected

113
data was useful to this researcher, who examined and “chunked” the data into
identified themes and categories.
Individual interviews were conducted with the Superintendent, two Board
of Trustees members, the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, the
Director of Accountability, Staff Development and Educational Technology, and
the seven principals. Focus groups interviews took place with parent leaders, the
district-wide Parents Teachers Association (PTA) leaders, assistant principals of
guidance, and mathematics department chairpersons in a curriculum improvement
team meeting. The researcher advised all interviewees of the purpose of the study,
the interview procedures, the confidentiality assurances, and the option of the
interviewee to participate and/or withdraw at any time. Data obtained from the
audiotaping were securely stored in the researcher’s office in a password-protected
computer.
The open-ended questioning during the interviews provided the inter-
viewees opportunities to tell the journey of this school district. The interviews
provided the researcher with a greater understanding of this school district and the
people in the district.
The school district has been in existence for over 100 years. The district has
experienced many changes throughout the years, especially demographically.
Although this current year’s CBEDS information was not yet posted on the CDE
Web site, the rise in the number of socioeconomically disadvantaged students in
just a 1-year period was quite startling: from 41% in October 2006 to 67% in
October 2007, according to the superintendent. The superintendent explained that
the increase was seen at all high schools but especially at High School A and High
School D.

114
To get a better perspective of this district today, it was helpful to discuss
some of the history, especially that of the recent past. The interview process
provided the researcher with a glimpse into this district’s journey. The Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services stated that the district has always had “a
spirit of innovation” coupled with good labor relations. In 1991 restructuring
efforts around the work of Ted Sizer, an educational reformer and founder of the
Coalition of Essential Schools, started to take place (Coalition of Essential Schools,
2008). Restructuring efforts take a long time, especially for high school districts,
according to the superintendent, who was then the principal of High School B. She
stated that the current culture of collaboration was rooted in these earlier
restructuring efforts. The superintendent spoke fondly and with admiration about
the then-superintendent, describing her as an outstanding instructional leader.
However, a power struggle between the superintendent and three of the School
Board members emerged. “It shook the entire district,” she said. She indicated that
people lined up for hours in support of this superintendent at board meetings, which
had to be held in one of the high school gyms. Eventually, the board bought out the
contract of this 9-year superintendent in August 1997. It was difficult for the
district to attract superintendent candidates during this interim and volatile time.
Coincidentally, the three board members who were immersed in the power struggle
with the previous superintendent were up for reelection that November; all three
were soundly defeated, signaling a return to positive board/superintendent relations.
The superintendent made an analogy about this period of time in the district’s
history to going through “a horrible divorce.” In 1998 the current superintendent
was promoted from high school principal to Assistant Superintendent of Educa-
tional Services. She has been serving as superintendent since 2002.

115
When inquiring about the factors that have contributed to increased student
performance, all seven principals stated that a common factor has been the quality
of the teachers and willingness of teachers to put students first. About 6 years ago
the district teachers and administrators collaboratively began to identify the essen-
tial curriculum content standards, based on the work of Doug Reeves. The essential
standards, or power standards as Reeves refers to them, are the critical knowledge
that students need in a particular content area, according to the Assistant Superin-
tendent. The role of the department chairperson started to take on a renewed and
more instructional focus. Principals spoke of the “changing evolution of the role of
the department chairperson.” At the curriculum improvement team meeting with
mathematics department chairpersons, they spoke of their role changing from more
of a “bureaucratic role to an instructional leadership role.” With a common curri-
culum and accompanying pacing guides, the development of site common assess-
ments were more prevalent throughout the district high schools. The assistant
superintendent who had been the principal at High School C pointed out that he
could remember working with his high school teachers 10 years prior on develop-
ing common assessments but the efforts did not achieve the desired momentum
until the implementation of a district-wide common curriculum and pacing guides
in the core curriculum areas. The district has continued its work with Reeves and
Rick DuFour and his associates around common assessments and the components
of a professional learning community. One of the outcomes after visiting Stevenson
High School was the implementation of course lead teachers, who assist with the
implementation of the common assessments at the site level and the timely place-
ment of students into needed interventions. The mathematics department chair at
High School D stated, “[The addition of course lead teachers] distributes the wealth

116
as far as leadership is concerned. Now I have four leaders in the department and I,
as the department chair, can do a better job.”
Teacher quality and teacher commitment to students were repeatedly noted
during the interviews. At High School E the principal indicated that 3 years ago
teachers voted to reshape time and shave 6 minutes off each class period to institute
tutorials and study halls for struggling students without additional financial com-
pensation to them. “This is the most selfless staff of the five schools that I have
been associated with. It is all about Maslow. If I take care of their [teachers’] needs,
they will take care of the students’ needs.”
As the researcher interviewed principals, school board members, and
district administrators, the issue of the importance of hiring emerged frequently.
The principal of High School B said that the superintendent has reinforced the
importance of the hiring the right people for the job. The superintendent told the
researcher that she expects her principals to be “perfect” when hiring people. The
new principal at High School C indicated that she had been heavily recruited by the
superintendent last year. There is no secret in this school district that the various
stakeholders, from the Board down, believe that recruitment and retention of
quality people are keys to their success.
The interviewees also talked about a culture of collaboration. “Collabora-
tion is not our middle name, it is our first name. When I hire teachers I tell them
that if you are not willing to open your doors, you will not survive here,” said one
of the principals. That sentiment was echoed by other principals, administrators,
and teacher leaders. During the focus group interview with teacher leaders, one of
teachers stated, “We continue to grow when we share best practices at our school
sites.” Another teacher commented about district leadership impacting student

117
achievement because “they [the district leaders] have faith in teachers.” She stated
that district administration comes to the teachers with a vision of what they want
and then “will allow us to run with it. It may look different at the various schools,
but we do feel empowered as teachers.”
The superintendent and her positive leadership and influence on leading
student achievement efforts strongly resonated in all interviews with all the various
stakeholders. Even the parent leaders affectionately referred to the superintendent
by her first name. She was characterized by stakeholders as one of the primary
reasons the district and its students had achieved so much success. Her leadership
style was described by one of the principals as “visionary and deliberate.” One
assistant superintendent spoke about the change in principals meetings under the
current superintendent’s leadership. “There is an environment of trust and that
principals know that she supports them and is not out to get them. . . . There is a
climate of collaboration and trust at principals meetings.”
At the PTA leaders meeting when asked about what factors had contributed
to increased student performance, one parent replied simply with the first name of
the superintendent. It was quite evident that the superintendent had the support of
all stakeholders, including the Board. One of the Board members stated, “We are
pretty vested that we put the right administrators in the right jobs and then support
them. We try not to micromanage.”
The principals and district administrators often spoke about the importance
of listening and “going slowly to move fast.” Principals stated that there were non-
negotiable goals but, as principals, they had flexibility and autonomy in how they
implemented or addressed those goals. There was definite agreement among all
administrators and school board members interviewed that the superintendent has a

118
well-articulated instructional vision for the school district. The Director of
Accountability, Staff Development and Educational Technology stated, “Fidelity of
implementation is not new to us and has been consistently reinforced by the
superintendent.”
The “Whatever It Takes” approach was communicated repeatedly by princi-
pals, teachers, parents, administrators, and school board members. “Demographics
will not determine our destiny” was quoted verbatim by the superintendent, an
assistant superintendent, a school board member, and three principals in separate
conversations with the researcher. The superintendent attributed this belief state-
ment to Doug Reeves.
A high-quality and focused professional development program was referred
to in many of the interviews. Much of the work of the district has been built around
the components of a professional learning community and quality instructional
practices. One of the greatest achievement gaps identified by the superintendent
was among the EL students of the district. The superintendent has elicited the
services of SpringBoard, part of CollegeBoard, to assist in providing professional
development in this area (SpringBoard, 2008). Each site team has identified three
instructional strategies to implement to address EL needs. The superintendent
indicated that she did not tell the site teams which instructional strategies to select;
however, she wanted them to identify three strategies for their particular schools.
She then asked principals to work collaboratively with their site administrative
teams to acknowledge the implementation of these strategies when observing
classes by simply leaving a note for the teacher when they left the classroom.
Another professional development opportunity for teachers to support the EL has
been SALT (Secondary Academic Literacy Tools) training that focuses on

119
instructional strategies for EL. The SALT training consists of 4 professional
development days spread throughout a year. The district is in its fourth cohort. The
superintendent commented that the most powerful part of this training was “what
happened afterwards” in terms of teacher collaboration and sharing of best
practices.
A theme of rigor, relevance, and relationships permeates the district. With
the advent of a common curriculum, common assessments, and support systems for
struggling students, there was a general agreement that a challenging and rigorous
curriculum was in place. The principal of High School A and one assistant super-
intendent both stated that the curriculum should be more relevant and career
focused. The superintendent spoke of the addition of career academies at the high
school sites planned for the future. An area of emphasis observed and confirmed
through interviews was the importance of building relationships. The principal of
High School E stated, “All success starts with relationships.” He spoke of the first
year that interventions were provided to students during the regular school day.
Struggling students were randomly placed in tutorials and study halls. Often,
teachers did not have the same students placed in their assigned tutorial or study
hall sections that they had in their regular classes; they did not have a relationship
with these students. The principal said that quickly remedied this problem by
manipulation of the scheduling of these students to sections taught by the students’
regular teachers. He emphasized the importance of “giving teachers their own kids
where they have a relationship.” He stated that this arrangement held the students
to a higher level of accountability.
In the two parent groups, the relationship of parents with the school was
discussed. Parents expressed that in recent years they had felt a better connection

120
with their child’s high school as well as the district office. Communication systems
had been improved. Both groups cited the Teleparent, an automated phone system
that teachers may utilize to inform parents of upcoming assignments or tests,
academic progress, general information, student attendance, corrective action, and
positive comments. Teachers have the ability to make a general call to all parents of
their students or to parents of selected students. The PTA president at High School
C stated that this innovation had greatly improved home-to-school communication.
Interviewed parents agreed that they had a clear understanding of the direction of
the district. They appreciated the superintendent’s willingness to solicit their
comments and to seek their input. The parents also stated that, when they call the
school sites, they get a return call in a timely manner.
One assistant superintendent commented on the increase in student enroll-
ment over the past few years. This increase was not anticipated because most of the
surrounding school districts had been experienced a decline in student enrollment
for several years. He attributed this increase in student enrollment because of the
increase in student achievement. The principal of High School A stated that he had
seen more students coming into his school from the local Catholic high school.
Although the district has experienced this increase in the past few years, the
assistant superintendent was anticipating that the district would join surrounding
districts in the next year and start to decline in enrollment as well.
Student engagement has been a focus in the district for the past several
years. The superintendent stated the district has been working with Kate Kinsella,
an educational consultant, in developing opportunities for structured engagement
with content literacy for students in classrooms (see Kinsella, 2003). The principal
of High School A shared with the researcher a half-page form that he utilizes when

121
visiting classrooms. The form has a space for the observer to make comments to the
teacher and a list of strategies that can be circled if observed, such as structured
student engagement strategies, checking for understanding, standards posted, daily
agenda communicated, and literacy strategies employed. The superintendent stated
that “checking for understanding, making sure kids are with you before proceeding,
and student engagement—those two things will help us get to next level.”
In addition to more cognitive and academic student engagement, efforts
have been made to increase the social/behavioral/participatory student engagement,
such as participation in extracurricular activities. At each of the comprehensive
high schools, Freshman Day results in ninth-grade students selecting at least two
activities in which they would like to participate, such as clubs, athletics, and per-
forming groups. The teacher advisors follow up with these students to try to get
them involved. The principal at the continuation high school, High School F, talked
about the importance of connecting students to school: “You need a hook some-
times with these students. Extracurricular activities are often that hook.”
Emergent Themes From the Data Collection
Although the data collection for this study was comprehensive, emerging
themes readily surfaced. The researcher prioritized and categorized subjects or
focus areas into major themes. Although themes of leadership, instructional
practices, school culture, and student engagement emerged, the critical difference
was that these themes were realized and implemented at all levels and at all sites.
Eight themes were identified that impacted increased student achievement in this
district.

122
1. Distribution of leadership at all levels, from the superintendent and board
to the classroom teacher; a mutual trust and respect exists.
2. Common instructional focus transcended all levels; there is no island or
school of excellence, but a district of excellence.
3. Fidelity of implementation: Staying the course is not a catching slogan,
but a way of doing business.
4. Rigorous and challenging curriculum with accountability; teacher-
developed site and district common assessments are not unique to just this school
district; the difference is an assessment support system with a short turnaround time
so teachers are given timely and understandable data to make critical instructional
decisions for their students.
5. Hiring practices: Starting with the superintendent, the hiring of the
“right” person is a top priority; district hiring procedures are proactive and
innovative.
6. Sharing of best and most promising instructional practices: A climate of
collaboration, collegiality, and cooperation is present at all levels.
7. Culture of “Whatever It Takes”: This is reflected in a practicing belief
that “demographics do not determine destiny.” The Pyramid of Interventions is an
example of providing student support to meet the demands of a challenging
standards-based curriculum.
8. Student engagement: Building and enhancing student relationships and
making positive connections for students are of utmost importance and are prac-
ticed at the school sites.

123
These emergent themes are discussed in the summary of findings by
research questions, the discussion of the four frames, and the overall discussion of
the findings.
Summary of Findings by Research Questions
First Research Question
Research question 1 asked, What perceived factors contribute to academic
achievement in high performing urban high schools? The factors that contributed to
this district’s success in the area of academic achievement included strong district-
wide leadership at both the central office and the school sites, a well-articulated and
unyielding district-wide focus, a standards-based common curriculum for all
students, district accountability systems, the Pyramid of Interventions for struggling
students, a belief that all students can be successful, proactive hiring practices, and
student engagement.
The instructional direction of the district is based on the concepts of a
professional learning community model (DuFour et al., 2006). The three questions
asked by a professional learning community are “(a) What do we want students to
learn in each subject, grade, level, or course? (b) How will we assess what students
know and can do? and (c) What is our plan for responding to students who aren’t
learning?” (p. 132). These three questions are embedded in the district’s instruc-
tional direction. A common standards-based curriculum is what students are
expected to learn. Formative and summative assessments indicate whether students
are learning. The Pyramid of Implementation is implemented if students are not
learning what is expected of them.

124
One of the strengths of this instructional direction has been the empower-
ment of teachers and the distribution of leadership in this process. There is a mutual
respect and trust between teachers and administrators. Teacher leaders, with sup-
port from the district, have developed all site and district-wide common assess-
ments. A key finding is the ease of access by teachers and school leaders to student
data and assessment information. The Director of Accountability, Staff Develop-
ment and Educational Technology provides excellent customer service to teachers,
counselors, and administrators, with practically instantaneous turnaround of student
data requests. This ease of access has facilitated timely implementation of instruc-
tional decisions that directly impact student achievement.
The curriculum is challenging and rigorous and, in some cases, career
oriented. There is a culture that the zip code of a student should not matter and that
all students should have access to a high-quality education. For the most part,
teachers have embraced the changing demographics of the district. Many of the
teachers who started in the district when the demographics were dramatically
different have either “changed with the times” or have since retired. The assistant
superintendent stated that some of the veteran teachers were positively influenced
by new teachers who were employed due to the increase in student enrollment or
retirements.
The district has attracted and retained high-quality people, in part by higher
paying salaries than surrounding districts and in part by a culture of collaboration
and support. The superintendent graduated from one of the district’s high schools,
did student teaching at High School A, became a teacher in High School B, served
as an assistant principal and principal in High School B, became an assistant
superintendent, and ultimately became superintendent. The only comprehensive

125
high school at which she did not work was High School E, which her daughter
currently attends. The superintendent places the highest priority on the hiring of the
right people. There is a difference between hiring the best person and hiring the
right person. The best person may distinguish himself or herself from a pool of
candidates; the best person is not necessarily always the right person for the job.
The superintendent not only wants the best person but insists on the right person.
Student engagement has positively impacted student achievement. Since the
district has embarked on being a professional learning community, there has been
increased attention to connecting students to school, developing positive teacher-
student relationships, increasing the rigor of the curriculum, and enhancing instruc-
tional practices to meet student needs. The components of rigor, relevance, and
relationships have been imbedded in professional development offerings. One of
the outcomes from the three trips to Stevenson High School has been more atten-
tion to enhancing and enriching positive relationships with students. The establish-
ment of the Freshman Day, a separate school day for incoming ninth-grade
students, was a product of one of these trips.
Second Research Question
Research question 2 asked, Is there a link between student engagement and
student achievement in high performing urban high schools? In the conceptual
model of this study (Figure 1), the selected factors of leadership, curriculum and
instruction, and school culture were shown to have an impact on student achieve-
ment in urban high schools that are exceeding academic expectations within the
context of globalization, national, state and district influences, urban risk factors,

126
and accountability. What was unclear in this model was the role of student
engagement.
Student results on the HSSSE were generally similar or lower than the
national profile. However, the national profile does not significantly reflect the
demographics of this school district. Student results are compared primarily to a
suburban or rural student population, a population not experiencing some of the
urban risk factors present in this district. With that said, there were other indicators
within this school district that student engagement had contributed to increased
student achievement.
Increased student engagement strategies, particularly those strategies
promoted by Kate Kinsella, were present in the classroom. Principals reported that
these strategies have increased in recent years. Connecting students to school has
resonated at the school sites. The district-wide institution of Freshman Day was one
example. School principals and district administrators reported increased club and
activities participation. School observations validated student participation in extra-
curricular activities. Increased student support systems, such as the Pyramid of
Interventions, the AVID program, and the Puente program, have assisted students.
The senior project has connected students to relevant and real-world curri-
culum content, as well as linking students with possible adult mentors. Although
the senior project varies somewhat among schools, the project is research based and
interdisciplinary focused. The senior project provides an opportunity for students to
research areas of interests or possible career areas.

127
Third Research Question
Research question 3 asked, What role does the central office leadership
play in contributing to improved student achievement in high performing urban
high schools? District leadership does matter. The central office leadership,
particularly the superintendent, plays a pivotal role in this district’s success. The
superintendent positively impacts student achievement in this district. Her
infectious personality transcends all levels in this school district. The belief that
“demographics does not determine destiny” permeates the classroom setting.
The superintendent masterfully and relentlessly carries the message of the
district: “We will do whatever it takes to make our students be successful.” She
keeps that message in the forefront when talking to all stakeholders. The superin-
tendent executes her game plan with precision and grace. She utilizes a backwards-
design approach when implementing the instructional direction for the district. The
instructional direction is data driven and research based. She solicits stakeholders at
the various stages of implementation for their input and ideas. She makes adjust-
ments and refinements along the way; however, she does not detour from her goals.
She models fidelity of implementation in leading this instructional direction. The
superintendent holds herself, as well as her division heads and school principals,
accountable for this instructional progress.
The superintendent strategically maintains excellent board relations. She
reinforces the instructional direction of the district by highlighting schools and
programs at each of the board meetings. She keeps board members informed and
involved in the instructional direction of the district without loss of control or
leadership.

128
The stated instructional goals of common curriculum for all students,
common assessments, and the Pyramid of Interventions are non-negotiable.
However, she does not dictate or prescribe how school leaders implement these
goals at their own sites. She embraces the uniqueness of the various school sites
and celebrates personalization of these goals.
The superintendent continues to build the leadership capacity within the
district. She proactively recruits school leaders and teachers from outside the
district and at the same time nurtures and develops leaders from within. She
believes in and practices having the “the right people on the bus, the right people in
the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus” to achieve results (Collins, 2001).
She instills the importance of strong hiring practices with all members of her
leadership team.
She interacts with all stakeholders with kindness and compassion. She does
not visibly distinguish one person from another; she greets the custodian in the
same way she greets the School Board President. She repeatedly acknowledges that
“all employees have contributed to student success in this district.”
Although the district has experienced much success, she continues not to be
satisfied with the status quo. She wants her school district to be the first to tackle
the grading problem. Her attitude is that she needs to address anything that gets in
the way of student learning!
Discussion of the Findings Around the Four Frames
Leadership, curriculum and instructional practices, district culture, and
student engagement have contributed to this school district’s success. In applying
Bolman and Deal’s (1997) four frames to the data collection, the researcher gained

129
increased understanding of the study phenomenon. Bolman and Deal’s four
frames—structural, human resource, political, and symbolic—assisted in making
sense of the data collected.
Using the lens of the political frame, there was a sense of urgency when the
school district went into Year 1 Program Improvement Status in 2004-2005 for not
meeting its academic target areas. High School A had been in program improve-
ment status since 2000. The district and school leadership saw this as an oppor-
tunity to make needed changes. The district was able to exit from program
improvement status the following year, 2005-2006. High School A eventually
exited program improvement status in 2005, with corrective action enforced that
year.
A comprehensive and well-articulated instructional direction for the district
may be viewed from all four frames. The plan itself provided a structural roadmap
for all stakeholders. Structurally, the plan kept the district focused and headed in
the right direction.
District leadership involved the stakeholders in the process, thus addressing
the human resource frame. The changing role of the department chairpersons and
the addition of the course lead teachers served as examples of investing in the
people of the organization. District administrators stated that a conscious shift
occurred to have the best teachers working with struggling students as well as
advanced placement students.
The political frame was applied to understanding the need for teachers to
have sufficient time to realize and support the reasons for developing pacing guides
and common assessments. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services
summed up in this way:

130
We needed to allow time for people to grieve and to abandon some past
practices, but at the end of the day people understood why pacing guides
were necessary and why changes were needed to be made. Simply put, if
80% of the year has elapsed and teachers are not getting to what is being
tested, there is a definite disconnect.
The symbolic frame was applied in a variety of ways. An example of the
application of the symbolic frame was the district’s “Whatever It Takes” approach
to ensure student success. Stakeholders have embraced the idea that “demographics
will not determine destiny” in this school district. There is evidence of a culture of
success.
Discussion of the Findings
It was known at the onset of this case study that such perceived factors as
leadership, curriculum and instruction, and school culture positively impact student
achievement. However, it was not known whether student engagement in an urban
or urban-like high school district was also a contributing factor. The results of the
study validated that such factors as leadership, curriculum and instruction, and
school culture contribute to increasing student achievement. Student engagement in
this urban-like school district was similar or slightly below the national profile on
the HSSSE, which reflected more of a suburban perspective. Significant to this case
study were the extent, the depth, the interrelationship, and the interdependence of
the perceived factors, along with student engagement, as they influenced student
achievement in this urban-like high school district.
A unifying factor in this study was leadership, particularly district leader-
ship. During the data collection phase of this study it became abundantly clear that
district leadership, principally that of the superintendent, was a key factor in this
district’s success. This superintendent kept student achievement in the forefront and
imbedded an attitude or expectation that “we will do whatever it takes to make

131
students successful” throughout all district operations. Her leadership was strategic
and focused. She used a backwards mapping approach to identify a process on how
to achieve desired goals (Wiggins, 2005). She kept a laser-like focus on student
achievement and implemented the instructional directional goals with fidelity.
The superintendent fostered a culture of collaboration, collegiality, and
cooperation among all stakeholders. She nurtured and supported distributive leader-
ship at all levels. She humbly gave credit and accolades for the district’s success to
everyone in the organization except herself. She believed and practiced celebrations
focusing on student successes but was quick to point out that the work was not
done. An atmosphere of mutual respect, trust, and empowerment existed between
the district and school sites. Teachers and support staff believed that they make a
difference in the lives of these students.
The instructional directional goals were tied to a common curriculum,
common assessments, and strategic student interventions. Rigorous and challenging
curriculum with accountability was implemented throughout the district. Instruc-
tional decisions were based on data with prescribed protocols. Principals and
teachers mutually took ownership in this process and led efforts at their respective
sites to address student needs. The district facilitated this process by providing
timely assessment results, targeted staff development offerings, and opportunities
for collaboration.
The various stakeholders embraced the district-wide vision and behaved in
a professional, collegial, and supportive manner. There appeared to be a belief that
the people in this school district were making a positive impact in the lives of their
students. This belief, coupled with a culture of success, fostered a sense of
empowerment.

132
The importance of placing the right people in key positions was evident.
Hiring practices were of pivotal importance. There was an expectation that teachers
must be willing to collaborate and share successes and challenges with their
colleagues. The idea of teachers closing their doors and working in isolation was
not an acceptable practice in this school district. The sharing of best practices and
collaborating on district-wide issues were seen as a district norm, a way of
operating.
Teaching was seen as extending beyond the “four walls of the classroom.”
Not only engaging students in the academic content in a classroom setting but
connecting students to activities outside the classroom was a district-wide goal.
Teachers voluntarily served as club advisors and participated in extracurricular
activities. Incoming ninth-grade students participated in a Freshman Day that
concluded by connecting students to activities of interest. Although the results on
the HSSSE showed that district students responded similar or slightly below the
national profile, an important distinction was that the national profile did not
include a significant number of students from an urban or urban-like school
environment. Furthermore, this was the district’s first administration of the HSSSE,
and no baseline or previous data were available for comparison purposes. Through
observations and other data collection efforts, the researcher concluded that many
students participated enthusiastically in school activities.
In conclusion, this high school district is experiencing success due to strong
distributive leadership starting with the superintendent, a unifying district instruc-
tional focus with accountability and support systems, mutual respect and trust
among all stakeholders, a belief that demographics do not determine destiny, and
the hiring of not only the best people but the right people. At present, the district is

133
moving forward, similar to an automobile operating on all cylinders. The district’s
journey is not over. The challenge is to keep operating on full power, with all
cylinders working.

134
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a summary of the case study and important con-
clusions gleaned from the data reported in chapter 4. It provides a discussion of the
implications on how the findings may be duplicated or considered in similar sett-
ings, the challenges facing this school district and other similar districts, and
recommendations for further research.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine what perceived factors, including
student engagement, may have contributed to academic achievement in a high-
performing urban high school district. The study also examined the role of the
central office leadership in this increase in student achievement in this urban school
district in which all high schools were exceeding expectations and experiencing
academic success.
The study addressed three research questions:
1. What perceived factors contribute to academic achievement in high-
performing urban high schools?
2. Is there a link between student engagement and student achievement in
high-performing urban high schools?
3. What role does the central office leadership play in contributing to
improved student achievement in high-performing urban high schools?
This case study was one of a series of 10 thematic dissertation studies by a
doctoral student cohort studying this phenomenon and an extension and integration
of research completed by the previous cohort. The third research question was

135
exclusive to this study; the companion studies focused on a single high school and
not an entire school district. A mixed-methods qualitative case study was con-
ducted to examine the relationships of perceived factors, including that of student
engagement, on improved achievement by high school students within this urban-
like school district. The study used multiple instruments to identify factors,
including student engagement, that may have been linked to improved student
achievement. The instruments were developed collaboratively by the thematic
dissertation team during January through May 2007. The researcher conducted
document reviews, surveys, observations, and interviews from August through
December 2007. Secondary data from the 2006 HSSSE of each of the district’s
high schools, as well as a compilation of results from a teacher survey from the
previous cohort group, were utilized.
Graduation from high school marks a significant milestone in a young
person’s life. However, many young people are not realizing this goal. Only 68%
of entering ninth graders will graduate with a diploma in 4 years (Swanson, 2004).
Forty-five percent of Latino students and 40% of African American students in
California do not graduate from high school (Education Trust-West, 2004).
Historically, students in urban high schools have underperformed academically in
comparison to their suburban counterparts. Urban high schools are characterized by
a significantly larger number of economically disadvantaged students, EL students,
student dropouts, shortages of qualified teachers, increased student mobility rates,
and high community population densities, in comparison to their suburban
counterparts. Nonetheless, some urban high schools have achieved significant
gains; however, it is unclear what contributes to high performance in these schools.
In addition, there is limited information about the effects of student engagement on

136
student achievement in urban high schools and virtually no studies of entire school
systems in which all schools were high performing.
Summary of the Findings
The urban-like school district examined in this study has been “beating the
odds” and exceeding expectations. All seven high schools (five comprehensive
high schools, one continuation high school, and one independent study high school)
have met and exceeded schoolwide and significant subgroup achievement targets
based on the API for the most recent 6 years. The student population is ethnically
rich, with 80% of students of Hispanic origin. The district also has a growing EL
population. The fastest-growing subgroup is students identified as socioeconomic-
ally disadvantaged; this group grew from 41% in October 2006 to 67% in October
2007. However, despite such at-risk factors typical for an urban or urban-like
school district, these students are achieving and exceeding expectations. Why?
The researcher discovered several reasons for this increase in student
achievement as seen in the emergent themes.
1. Distribution of leadership at all levels from the superintendent and board
to the classroom teacher. Mutual trust and respect existed.
2. Common instructional focus at all levels. There was no one island or
school of excellence, but a district of excellence.
3. Fidelity of implementation. Staying the course was not a catch slogan,
but a way of doing business.
4. Rigorous and challenging curriculum with accountability. Teacher-
developed site and district common assessments were not unique to this school
district; the difference was an assessment support system with a short turnaround

137
time so teachers were given timely and understandable data to make critical
instructional decisions for their students.
5. Hiring practices. Starting with the superintendent, the hiring of the
“right” person was a top priority. The district’s hiring procedures were proactive
and innovative. Teacher quality was not compromise but revered.
6. Sharing of best and promising instructional practices. A climate of
collaboration, collegiality, and cooperation was present at all levels.
7. Culture of “Whatever It Takes.” There was a practicing belief that
demographics do not determine destiny. The Pyramid of Interventions provided
student support to meet the demands of a challenging standards-based curriculum.
8. Student engagement. Building and enhancing student relationships and
making positive connections for students were of utmost importance and practiced
at the school sites.
District and site leaders embraced the concepts of a professional learning
community and tailored their instructional directional goals and decisions to
address the following three questions (DuFour et al., 2006):
1. What do we want students to learn in each subject, grade, level, or
course?
2. How will we assess what students know and can do?
3. What is our plan for responding to students who aren’t learning? (p. 132)
A dynamic and charismatic superintendent led the charge and kept the
message of student achievement at the forefront. She masterfully and strategically
implemented the instruction directional goals with precision and fidelity. She
elicited support and input from all stakeholders: teachers, students, parents,
community, and support staff. Mutual respect and trust existed among the various

138
stakeholders. A culture of success was developed and reinforced after the district
and one its high schools emerged from program improvement status and joined the
rest of the schools in meeting and exceeding academic performance targets.
Teachers were supported by a targeted professional development program
that was aligned to the district’s instructional direction. Teacher leaders, with the
support of district administrators, developed pacing calendars, identified a rigorous
and challenging common curriculum for all students, developed site and district-
wide common assessments, implemented student interventions for struggling
students, enhanced and enriched connections and relationships with students both
in and outside the classroom, and linked students to extracurricular activities and
upperclass student mentors. Teachers and support staff received training to meet the
needs of their changing student population, including training to work more effect-
ively with a growing EL population. Collaboration became a norm and not a
byproduct among teachers and administrators. Since instructional decisions were
data driven, teachers were expected to share and discuss student results with
colleagues. As a consequence, hiring practices of principals changed. Principals not
only required teacher candidates to be of the highest quality but also expected them
to collaborate willingly with their colleagues. This hiring practice was reflective of
the superintendent’s priority in this area. She expected principals to be “perfect” in
this regard.
With the emphasis on instruction, a rigorous and challenging curriculum
with common assessments, and student interventions for struggling students, the
role of the department chairperson dramatically shifted from a bureaucratic and
clerical emphasis to that of an instructional leader. District-wide quarterly common
assessments became prevalent and, as a result, course lead teachers emerged. The

139
course lead teachers assisted department chairpersons with coordination and
implementation of common assessments. The district supported site efforts by
providing almost instantaneous data results that assisted the course leaders to place
struggling students into needed interventions quickly. The distribution of leadership
was evident at all levels of this school district.
One of the outcomes of becoming a professional learning community was
the emphasis on building and enhancing student relationships, including increasing
student engagement. Although the 2006 HSSSE results showed students respond-
ing at or slightly below the national profile, it is important to point out that the
national profile included a more suburban or rural perspective; for the most part,
the student population in the national profile was not exposed to the urban risk
factors present in this district. Even with these additional risk factors, district
students responded at or slightly below the national average and in some areas
above the national profile. Because the national profile had limited urban high
school student respondents and did not have a sufficient comparison base, it was
unclear, solely on the basis of the HSSSE, whether student engagement contributed
to increased student achievement. However, through other data collection efforts it
became clear that student engagement had contributed to increased student achieve-
ment in this school district. Some of these indicators included the establishment of
a Freshman Day that connected students to areas of interest and student activities,
the implementation of student engagement instructional strategies in the classroom,
the linking of upperclassmen to incoming students, and the increase in student
participation in extracurricular activities.
A significant finding of this study was the extent, the depth, the interrela-
tionship, and the interdependence of leadership, a strong curricular focus and

140
instructional practices, a culture of accountability, a belief that demographics do
not determine destiny, a highly qualified teaching and administrative staff, and
student engagement on increasing student achievement in this urban-like high
school district. Dynamic and visionary leadership provided coherence, guidance,
and support in “staying the course” and doing “whatever it takes” to meet student
needs.
Implications
It was the hope of this researcher that the patterns or explanations that
emerged from this study would assist other urban high school educators to achieve
similar improved student achievement outcomes at their sites and throughout their
school district. The conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 depicts the relation-
ship and impact of leadership, curriculum and instruction, school culture, and
student engagement, if any, on improved student achievement in urban high school
schools that are exceeding academic expectations within the context of globaliza-
tion, national, state and district influences, urban risk factors, and accountability.
School leadership, particularly district leadership, matters. One contributing
factor to the increased student achievement in the district studied was a district-
wide focus on key instructional goals and ample opportunities to collaborate, to
create, to debate, to discuss, and to analyze student work and instructional prac-
tices. The school superintendent led the charge and solidified the vision. The
superintendent established non-negotiable goals but allowed sites and divisions to
personalize and customize implementation of these goals to meet the needs of their
school sites or divisions.

141
Involvement of all stakeholders in the process was essential. Developing
and nurturing relationships were an essential component of this district’s success.
The superintendent maintained excellent working relations with the school board.
The school board members had confidence that the educational professionals could
carry out district policies and did not become micromanagers.
Good employer-employee relations existed. The superintendent continued
to inform, consult, involve, and acknowledge the various employee groups in this
collective instructional journey. Formal and informal communication structures
were in place. Employees felt empowered and leadership was shared and cele-
brated. Hiring practices were a key to this district’s success. The superintendent
supplemented conventional hiring practices by actively recruiting the brightest
leaders to enhance and complement her existing administrative team. Teacher
quality was valued. Principals strategically placed their best teachers with students
who needed them the most. Past practices of rewarding the most talented teachers
with honors or advanced placement courses was balanced by assigning these
teachers to classes with struggling students, EL students, or intervention students.
Because there was a district-wide instructional focus, stakeholders knew the
direction that was being taken. Teachers were involved from the onset in identifi-
cation of key standards, establishment of pacing guides, development of common
assessments, and implementation of student interventions. As a result, teachers took
ownership and were empowered. Teachers as well as other school leaders believed
that they could break the cycle of demographics determining destiny. The “What-
ever It Takes” attitude permeated all levels of this school district.
The establishment of professional learning communities at the school sites
as well as at the central office facilitated educational professionals to work

142
collaboratively around common goals. The implementation or adaptation of the
professional learning community concept may be easily duplicated, since it is not a
program but a way of operating in a collaborative manner around common goals
and using data to drive instructional decisions. The district facilitated this process
by providing timely and essential student data information to teachers. Professional
development opportunities were closely aligned with the instructional directional
goals.
Making critical connections for students, in terms of academic and social/
behavioral, as well as emotional engagement, was a priority at all school sites.
Students expressed that they were motivated and supported by their teachers.
One realization expressed by all stakeholders was that, despite some student
success, their work was not over. A characteristic of a good school district is that it
is not satisfied with the status quo and constantly looks for ways to improve.
Challenges Ahead
Although the district has been experiencing student achievement success,
district leadership is mindful of the challenges ahead. With the raising of the
academic targets in the 2008 AYP reporting, some subgroups, such as EL students,
may not meet growth targets. The school year 2007-2008 marks an increment
increase in AYP targets for high school districts with students in grades 9 through
12. The proficiency percentage rate for students in English and Language Arts will
increase from 22.3% to 33.4% by the end of 2008, and the proficiency percentage
rate in mathematics will increase from 20.9% to 32.2% in 2008. Figures 7 through
10 illustrate the continuing AYP targets impacting high schools from 2002-2014.

143

English-Language Arts AYP Targets
for High Schools 2002-2014
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2001-2002
2003-2004
2005-2006
2007-2008
2009-2010
2011-2012
2013-2014
ELA Percent
Proficient

Figure 7. English-Language Arts Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) targets for high school students 2002-2014.

Mathematics AYP Targets for High Schools
2002-2014
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2001-2002
2003-2004
2005-2006
2007-2008
2009-2010
2011-2012
2013-2014
Math Percent
Proficient

Figure 8. Mathematics Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
targets for high school students 2002-2014.

144
Additional Indicator: Growth in the API of at least one point
OR a minimum API score
0
200
400
600
800
1000
API
API 560 560 560 590 590 590 620 650 680 710 740 770 800
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
2013-
2014

Figure 9. Additional indicators of growth in Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) targets for high school students
2002-2014.

Minimum Graduation Rate or Improvement of at least 0.1
from the Previous Year's Rate or Improvement in the Rate
of at least 0.2 in the Average Two-Year Rate
82.00%
82.50%
83.00%
83.50%
84.00%
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
Minimum Graduation Rate

Figure 10. Minimum graduation rate component of
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets for high school
students 2002-2014.

Another challenge for the district is the rising rate of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, as noted by a 26% increase in a 1-year period.

145
The instructional program will continue to be a focal point in the future.
The superintendent said, “We have really been pushing hard to have wide and deep
implementation of common assessments, the pyramid of interventions, and we need
to get back to our core of fundamentals of good instruction.” Another area of
challenge identified is the enhancement of career-technical education and making
learning more relevant for students. One of the most challenging areas in the
instructional program will be the implementation of a new grading system to
enhance student learning.
One of the most challenging areas for district leaders is the uncertainty and
dismal forecast of the state budget, coupled with an expected decline in student
enrollment. The assistant superintendent stated that people have felt valued and that
the district has been able to give the full Cost of Living Adjustments and some-
times more to employees. With declining enrollment, negotiations will be more
difficult.
Recommendations for Further Research
Recommendations for further research are based on the findings and
conclusions that emerged from this study.
1. Future research should provide a replication of this study with other high
performing urban or urban-like school districts with similar demographics and
student populations.
2. Future research on the impact of student engagement on increased
student achievement levels in an urban high school setting should include a larger
sampling size of urban high school students in the national profile on the HSSSE.

146
3. Future research should provide an analysis of a compilation of the related
case studies by the current and previous doctoral cohorts examining the same
underlying phenomenon.
4. Future research should include a longitudinal study of this school district
to determinate sustainability of student achievement results.

147
REFERENCES
Advancement Via Individual Determination. (2007). Avid online. San Diego, CA:
Author. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.avidonline.org/
Baldwin, J. (2001). Meeting the challenge of the urban high school. Carnegie Re-
porter, 1(2).
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2005). High schools for the new millennium:
Imagine the possibilities. Seattle, WA: Author. Retrieved February 2,
2007, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/Education/
TransformingHighSchools/default.htm
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2007). The 3 Rs solution. Seattle, WA: Author.
Retrieved February 12, 2007, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
UnitedStates/Education/ RelatedInfo/3Rs_Solution.htm
Blankstein, A. M., Cole, R. W., & Houston, P. D. (2007). Engaging every learner:
A joint publication with the Hope Foundation, the American Association of
School Administrators, and the National Association of Elementary Princi-
pals (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bondy, H., Brillman, D., & Kaufman, B. (2007, May 28). The top of the class: The
complete list of the 1,200 top U.S. schools. Newsweek [electronic version].
Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12532678/
site/ newsweek/
Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America.
New York: Harper & Row.
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J., John J., & Morison, K. B. (March 2006). The silent
epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic
Enterprises.
California Department of Education. (1992). Second to none: A vision of the new
California high school. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2002). Aiming high: High schools for the
21st century. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2006). 2006 adequate yearly progress report.
Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007a). API description. Retrieved February
23, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apidescription.asp

148
California Department of Education. (2007b). Distinguished school awards. Sac-
ramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007c). English learners by language and
grade. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007d). Graduation rates based on NCES
definition: District report. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007e). K-12 public school enrollment,
Whittier Union High School District. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007f). Program overview of the California
high school exit examination. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007g). Schools chief Jack O’Connell an-
nounces adoption of career technical education framework: Blueprint for
career technical education highlights rigor, relevance, relationships [Press
release]. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007h). Schools chief Jack O’Connell com-
ments on latest NAEP reports. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007i). Title I academic achievement school
list: Part A—Accountability. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007j). 2006 base API local educational
agency (LEA) list of schools: Whittier Union High School District. Sacra-
mento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2007k). 2006-07 accountability progress
reporting. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education. (2008). Formula for graduation rate based on
nces definition. Sacramento: Author.
California High School Exit Exam. (2000). California Senate, 1999-2000 Sess.
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in aca-
demic progress: Three decades of student performance. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high poverty
schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241. (1964).
Coalition of Essential Schools. (2008). Essential resources for school change. Re-
trieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.essentialschools.org/

149
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (The Coleman Study).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of Education/National Center for Education Statistics.
Collins, B. D. (n.d.). The rise of the high school. Retrieved February 18, 2007, from
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/riseofhs.html
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others
don’t (1st ed.). New York: Harper/Collins.
Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to
Learn, & Council, N. R. (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school
students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Conant, J. (1959). The American high school today: A first report to interested citi-
zens. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent litera-
ture. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://72.14.253.104/search?
q=cache:a6qwfKctlMUJ:www3.scasd.org/small_schools/nlsc.pdf+cotton+
%22new+small+learning+communities%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed meth-
ods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2003). Shaping school culture: The heart of school
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DuFour, R. D., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How profes-
sional learning communities respond when kids don't learn. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
Ed-Data. (2007). State of California education profile: Fiscal year 2005-06. Re-
trieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/
fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile.asp%3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumbe
r%3D16
Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools
accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: Author.

150
Education Trust West. (2004). Are California’s high schools ready for the 21st
century? A special report. Oakland, CA: Author.
Educational Research Service for the National Association of Elementary School
Principals and National Association of Secondary School Principals.
(2003). K-12 principals guide to No Child Left Behind. Alexandria, VA:
National Association of Elementary School Principals and National Asso-
ciation of Secondary School Principals.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century,
updated and expanded (1st rev. ed., expanded). New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduc-
tion (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 20 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.
(1994).
Goldring, L. (2002). The power of school culture: Research show which traits of a
school’s most affect student achievement, and how schools can work
toward positive change. Leadership, 32(2), 32-35.
Guthrie, J. W., & Springer, M. G. (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did “wrong”
reasoning result in “right” results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Edu-
cation, 79(1), 7-35.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close
the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 14.
Indiana University. (2004). About HSSSE. Bloomington, IN: Author. Retrieved
July 12, 2007, from http:// ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/html/about.htm
Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Educational Policy. (2004). High
school survey of student engagement: HSSSE overview 2004. Blooming-
ton, IN: Author.
Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Educational Policy. (2005a). Getting
students ready for college: What student engagement data can tell us.
Bloomington, IN: Author.
Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Educational Policy. (2005b). High
school survey of student engagement 2005: What we can learn from high
school students. Bloomington: Author.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development
(3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum De-
velopment.

151
Kantrowitz, B., & Wingert, P. (2006). What makes a high school great? Newsweek
[electronic version]. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.msnbc
.msn.com/id/12532668/
Kinsella, K. A. F. (2003). Active learning strategies to engage all learners: Struc-
tures for active participation and learning. Santa Rosa, CA: Sonoma
County Office of Education. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.
scoe.org/images/usrupload/RES_52p2520_661_20070918163028.pdf
KIPP Foundation. (2007a). Five pillars. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from http://www
.kipp.org/01/fivepillars.cfm
KIPP Foundation. (2007b). Results of KIPP schools. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from
http://www.kipp.org/01/resultsofkippsch.cfm
Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzi, G., & Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout rates in the
United States: 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Na-
tional Center for Education Statistics.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: As-
sociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: School finance
and governance in California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works
and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Al-
exandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that
works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper &
Row.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). The nation’s report card:
12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
National Association of Secondary School Principals, & The Education Alliance
Brown University. (2004). Breaking ranks II: Strategies for leading high
school reform. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary Principals.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2006). Tough choice or tough
times: The report of the new Commission on the Skills of the American
Workforce (executive summary). Washington, DC: Author.

152
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Defense Act of 1958, 50 U.S.C. § 511-515. (1958).
National High School Alliance. (2005). A call to action: Transforming high school
for all youth. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Leadership.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 7908. (2002).
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed
methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474-498.
Pauk, W. O., & Ross, J. Q. (2007). How to study in college (9th ed.). Geneva, IL:
Houghton Mifflin.
Pfeffer, J. S., & Robert, I. (1999). Knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, California Education Code 52020-
52050.5. (1999).
Reeves, D. (2004). The case against the zero. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 324-325.
Reeves, D. (2007). Leading to change: How do you change school culture? Educa-
tional Leadership, 64(4), 92-94.
Rosenhall, L. (2007, March 15). State education report gets rapid assessment. The
Sacramento Bee, p. A3.
Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperatives for
educational reform (1st. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, princi-
pals, and superintendents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How can we achieve unprecedented improve-
ments in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development.
Search Institute. (1999, October). Student achievement: Do assets make a differ-
ence? Source Newsletter. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www
.search-institute.org/archives/student_achievements.html
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2004). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, com-
munity, and personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

153
Spellings, M. (2007). Statement by Secretary Spellings on 12th-grade achievement
reports released by the Nation’s Report Card [Press release]. Retrieved
February 22, 2007, from http://ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/02/
02222007.html
SpringBoard. (2008). Springboard. Retrieved January 21, 2008, 2008, from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/k-12/prepare/springboard/about
Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(1), 22-27.
The story of American public education. (2007). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/choice_master2.html
Swanson, C. B. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn’t? A statistical portrait of
public high school graduation, class of 2001. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating: Differentiated instruction
and understanding by design, connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). U.S. census. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). American factfinder: Whittier, California, population
and housing narrative profile. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Preparing America’s future high school
initiative. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Talent search program. Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004).
The condition of education 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006).
The condition of education 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Viadero, D. (2004, January 21). New inquiry to measure student engagement. Edu-
cation Week, 23(19), 9.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walcott, C. R., Owens-West, R., & Makkonen, R. (2005). High school reforms:
National and state trend, prepared for the California Teachers Association.
San Francisco: WestEd.

154
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The
effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO:
McRel.
Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influ-
ences on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review,
10(2), 20.
Whittier (City of). (2008). Short history of Whittier. Retrieved January 3, 2008,
from http://www.whittierch.org/content/AW01.html
Whittier Union High School District. (2007). CAHSEE results show 99.4% of
Whittier Union High School District seniors pass exam [Press release].
Whittier, CA: Author. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www
.wuhsd.k12.ca.us/whittieruhsd/lib/whittieruhsd/CAHSEE_Results_07.pdf
Wiggins, G. P. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Asso-
ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006
High School Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from
http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse/pdf/HSSSE_2006_Report.pdf
Yim, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

155
APPENDIX A

DOCUMENT REVIEW INSTRUMENT

156
APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

157

158

159

160
APPENDIX C

OBSERVATION LOG

161
APPENDIX D
HIGH SCHOOL SURVEY OF STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT 2006

162

163

164

Reprinted by permission of the copyright holder, Indiana University, 2006.

165
APPENDIX E

2006-2007 HSSSE DISTRICT RESULTS
COMPARED TO NATIONAL PROFILE
5.a.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Doing written homework
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.33 1.71 1.96 2.10 1.93 2.80 1.80 4.20
10 2.43 1.71 1.93 2.63 1.88 2.79 1.74 2.17
11 2.55 2.15 2.16 2.59 2.01 2.90 1.46 2.73
12 2.22 1.99 2.40 1.97 2.14 2.37 1.44 2.83
Overall 2.39 1.88 2.09 2.33 1.98 2.72 1.51 2.76

5.a.2 How important: Doing written homework
(Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4
= Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.32 2.12 2.42 2.28 2.10 2.44 1.00 3.20
10 2.31 2.14 2.32 2.23 2.12 2.42 1.88 2.42
11 2.30 2.25 2.45 2.47 2.29 2.50 1.77 2.81
12 2.14 2.35 2.46 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.01 2.83
Overall 2.28 2.20 2.40 2.32 2.21 2.43 1.91 2.79

5.b.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Reading and studying for class
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.71 1.45 1.49 1.29 1.24 1.76 1.60 2.00
10 1.77 1.32 1.38 1.59 1.36 1.74 1.21 1.73
11 1.94 1.45 1.43 1.66 1.49 1.78 1.28 1.82
12 1.80 1.51 1.80 1.46 1.50 1.72 1.24 1.77
Overall 1.80 1.43 1.50 1.49 1.39 1.75 1.26 1.78

166
5.b.2 How important: Reading and studying for class
(Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4
= Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.12 1.93 2.14 1.91 1.83 2.12 1.40 2.00
10 2.12 1.85 2.06 1.86 1.84 2.10 1.47 2.17
11 2.16 2.00 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.11 1.65 2.32
12 2.04 2.09 2.221 2.08 2.07 2.19 1.74 2.31
Overall 2.11 1.95 2.11 1.97 1.95 2.12 1.69 2.30

5.c.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Reading for yourself (books, magazines, newspapers,
online articles, etc.) (Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.00 1.73 1.61 1/66 1.44 2.25 3.00 1.00
10 2.09 1.57 1.74 1.64 1.59 2.09 2.11 1.52
11 2.07 1.92 1.77 1.82 1.83 1.97 1.90 2.03
12 2.10 1.91 1.78 1.83 1.96 2.14 1.90 1.99
Overall 2.06 1.77 1.72 1.73 1.69 2.11 1.96 1.96

5.c.2 How important: Reading for yourself (books, magazines, newspapers, online articles, etc.)
(Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4
= Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.57 1.50 1.44 1.40 1.43 1.62 1.40 1.80
10 1.65 1.46 1.48 1.38 1.35 1.74 1.75 1.21
11 1.69 1.56 1.54 1.59 1.50 1.65 1.43 1.47
12 1.74 1.61 1.64 1.64 1.66 1.85 1.56 1.71
Overall 1.65 1.52 1.52 1.49 1.47 1.71 1.52 1.58

5.d.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Participating in school-sponsored activities (athletics,
clubs, student government, etc.)
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.96 2.26 2.27 1.77 2.10 2.48 1.20 0.00
10 3.10 2.09 2.57 2.32 2.17 2.81 1.95 0.57
11 3.05 2.44 2.42 2.44 2.73 2.63 0.99 0.67
12 2.95 2.59 3.02 2.50 2.33 2.45 1.03 0.65
Overall 3.01 2.32 2.55 2.23 2.33 2.59 1.08 0.63

167
5.d.2 How important: Participating in school-sponsored activities (athletics, clubs, student
government, etc.) (Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important;
3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.89 1.59 0.06 1.59 1.73 1.78 0.40 0.20
10 1.88 1.56 0.32 1.57 1.66 1.83 0.81 0.94
11 1.84 1.67 0.18 1.75 1.83 1.68 0.99 0.83
12 1.76 1.61 0.34 1.71 1.53 1.58 1.08 0.81
Overall 1.85 1.60 0.11 1.65 1.69 1.73 1.03 0.83

5.e.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Practicing a sport and/or musical instrument and/or
rehearsing for a performance
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.44 2.62 2.68 2.57 2.48 3.04 1.60 1.60
10 3.60 2.46 3.01 2.90 2.46 3.13 2.39 1.82
11 3.44 2.74 2.72 2.80 3.12 3.29 2.38 1.88
12 3.24 2.83 3.40 3.03 2.81 3.10 1.85 1.62
Overall 3.44 2.66 2.93 2.81 2.70 3.13 2.06 1.73

5.e.2 How important: Practicing a sport and/or musical instrument and/or rehearsing for a
performance (Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very
Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.13 1.83 2.02 1.81 1.93 2.05 1.20 1.00
10 2.09 1.71 2.03 1.80 1.70 2.02 1.20 1.58
11 1.96 1.78 1.84 1.86 2.00 1.96 1.49 1.38
12 1.83 1.75 1.90 1.85 1.69 1.76 1.55 1.40
Overall 2.02 1.77 1.96 1.83 1.83 1.96 1.49 1.39

5.f.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Working for pay (including babysitting and afterschool
jobs) (Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.92 1.19 1.14 1.32 1.11 1.20 1.60 4.00
10 2.82 1.48 1.27 1.63 1.31 1.19 2.74 2.43
11 4.28 1.83 1.99 1.75 1.81 2.03 2.37 2.91
12 5.32 3.08 2.70 3.28 2.60 3.52 3.45 3.98
Overall 3.42 1.79 1.71 1.92 1.64 1.89 3.00 3.42

168
5.f.2 How important: Working for pay (including babysitting and afterschool jobs) (Rating scale
of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.70 1.26 1.21 1.30 1.21 1.31 1.20 1.80
10 1.92 1.47 1.30 1.41 1.36 1.43 2.25 1.72
11 2.13 1.58 1.58 1.48 1.48 1.67 2.07 1.74
12 2.29 1.93 1.68 1.87 1.69 1.97 2.13 2.23
Overall 1.98 1.52 1.43 1.49 1.42 1.57 2.11 1.99

5.g.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Doing volunteer work
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.97 0.74 1.26 0.90 0.81 1.09 0.40 2.00
10 0.97 0.98 1.51 0.97 0.89 0.82 1.72 1.50
11 1.04 1.29 1.57 1.29 1.06 1.04 1.63 1.16
12 1.10 1.72 1.83 1.37 1.62 1.13 1.38 1.01
Overall 1.01 1.13 1.52 1.12 1.06 1.01 1.52 1.11

5.g.2 How important: Doing volunteer work (Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little;
2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.29 0.95 1.26 1.08 1.08 1.23 0.40 1.00
10 1.34 1.15 1.45 1.09 1.11 1.29 1.00 1.47
11 1.39 1.26 1.49 1.38 1.26 1.35 1.25 1.24
12 1.40 1.40 1.65 1.47 1.44 1.41 1.07 1.19
Overall 1.35 1.17 1.44 1.24 1.21 1.31 1.13 1.23

5.h.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Exercising
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.61 3.11 2.90 3.07 2.77 3.82 3.00 3.20
10 3.66 3.14 3.38 3.43 2.76 3.66 3.28 2.10
11 3.52 2.94 3.02 3.13 3.03 3.50 2.61 2.82
12 3.35 3.27 3.43 3.18 2.60 3.32 2.51 2.33
Overall 3.55 3.12 3.17 3.21 2.81 3.60 2.60 2.52

169
5.h.2 How important: Exercising (Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat
important; 3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.42 2.29 2.42 2.35 2.34 2.44 1.80 1.40
10 2.39 2.34 2.42 2.28 2.22 2.48 2.40 2.27
11 2.30 2.20 2.35 2.38 2.24 2.44 2.19 2.25
12 2.24 2.28 2.38 2.40 2.01 2.35 2.03 2.10
Overall 2.34 2.28 2.40 2.35 2.22 2.43 2.09 2.17

5.i.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Watching television and/or playing video games
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.46 3.76 3.17 3.05 3.21 3.27 3.00 1.20
10 3.45 3.32 2.79 3.49 3.21 3.57 2.47 1.70
11 3.31 3.05 3.00 2.96 3.02 3.08 2.58 2.58
12 3.33 3.20 3.17 3.34 3.18 3.16 2.93 2.43
Overall 3.39 3.38 3.02 3.20 3.16 3.28 2.81 2.45

5.i.2 How important: Watching television and/or playing video games (Rating scale of 0 = Not
at all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.38 1.47 1.38 1.35 1.43 1.40 1.40 0.40
10 1.35 1.37 1.20 1.33 1.37 1.50 0.88 1.06
11 1.28 1.30 1.23 1.35 1.17 1.34 1.20 1.06
12 1.30 1.21 1.17 1.29 1.25 1.31 1.19 1.11
Overall 1.33 1.35 1.25 1.33 1.32 1.40 1.18 1.07

5.j.1 Hours spent in a typical week” “Surfing” or chatting online
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.75 2.76 2.41 2.56 2.39 2.90 0.20 0.75
10 2.65 2.57 2.29 2.63 2.27 2.86 2.68 1.10
11 2.50 2.51 2.43 2.42 2.46 2.66 1.74 2.31
12 2.57 2.67 2.66 2.74 2.17 2.56 2.10 1.93
Overall 2.61 2.63 2.43 2.58 2.33 2.76 1.97 2.00

170
5.j.2. How important: “Surfing” or chatting online (Rating scale of 0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 =
Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.34 1.41 1.29 1.31 1.30 1.42 0.25 0.60
10 1.28 1.29 1.15 1.34 1.22 1.49 1.20 0.88
11 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.24 1.17 1.35 1.11 1.06
12 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.17 1.11 1.21 1.18 0.88
Overall 1.26 1.29 1.20 1.27 1.21 1.38 1.13 0.94

5.k.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Talking on the phone (including cell phones)
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.97 2.81 2.69 2.72 2.90 3.21 2.80 1.00
10 3.21 2.97 2.79 3.17 3.12 3.20 4.37 1.79
11 3.21 3.16 3.21 3.16 3.17 3.07 3.47 2.81
12 3.24 3.51 3.48 3.29 3.06 3.13 3.21 3.01
Overall 3.15 3.10 3.01 3.07 3.08 3.15 3.42 2.80

5.k2. How important: Talking on the phone (including cell phones) (Rating scale of 0 = Not all,
1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.66 1.58 1.51 1.53 1.66 0.52 2.00 0.40
10 1.72 1.59 1.45 1.64 1.64 0.45 1.81 1.13
11 1.70 1.61 1.62 1.66 1.58 0.41 1.74 1.37
12 1.65 1.65 1.61 1.62 1.64 0.41 1.58 1.33
Overall 1.69 1.61 1.55 1.61 1.63 0.37 1.68 1.32

5.l.1 Hours spent in a typical week: Hanging out/socializing with friends outside of school
(Rating Scale of 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2-5; 6 = 6-10; 10 = 10+)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F

9 4.68 4.36 3.85 4.11 3.87 4.61 3.00
10 5.03 4.40 4.16 4.52 4.22 4.55 5.42
11 5.27 4.61 4.31 4.29 4.23 4.72 4.54
12 5.46 5.01 4.71 4.78 4.67 5.15 4.57
Overall 5.08 4.57 4.24 4.41 4.23 4.72 4.61

171
5.l.2 How important: Hanging out/socializing with friends outside of school (Rating scale of
0 = Not all, 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat important; 3 = Very Important; 4 = Top Priority)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.59 2.41 2.28 2.44 2.25 2.53 1.80 1.00
10 2.67 2.40 2.34 2.48 2.35 2.59 2.31 2.39
11 2.67 2.44 2.40 2.52 2.38 2.65 2.48 2.10
12 2.70 2.54 2.37 2.56 2.46 2.62 2.34 1.99
Overall 2.65 2.44 2.35 2.49 2.36 2.59 2.39 2.04

6.a Overall, I feel good about being at this school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.92 2.97 3.12 2.95 2.97 3.05 2.50 3.20
10 2.89 2.98 2.99 2.89 2.83 2.98 2.74 3.26
11 2.91 2.96 2.95 3.03 2.89 3.04 2.84 3.29
12 2.92 3.11 3.11 2.99 2.89 3.05 2.80 3.18
Overall 2.91 3.00 3.04 2.96 2.90 3.02 2.79 3.23

6.b I care about my school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.76 2.74 2.92 2.75 2.76 2.83 1.75 2.80
10 2.74 2.78 2.77 2.70 2.62 2.76 2.63 3.00
11 2.74 2.80 2.75 2.83 2.76 2.83 2.54 3.07
12 2.73 2.91 2.90 2.83 2.67 2.86 2.58 3.02
Overall 2.74 2.79 2.83 2.77 2.71 2.81 2.57 3.04

6.c I feel safe at my school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.81 2.72 2.88 2.72 2.70 2.89 2.60 2.80
10 2.85 2.71 2.82 2.63 2.57 2.86 2.63 2.95
11 2.92 2.85 2.85 2.81 2.72 2.92 2.55 2.85
12 2.99 2.90 2.94 2.83 2.71 3.04 2.90 2.97
Overall 2.88 2.78 2.87 2.74 2.67 2.92 2.78 2.91

172
6.d I am treated fairly in this school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.76 2.81 2.95 2.81 2.83 2.82 3.40 3.20
10 2.75 2.81 2.89 2.75 2.82 2.76 2.95 3.17
11 2.77 2.91 2.85 2.82 2.87 2.85 2.87 3.29
12 2.79 2.92 2.96 2.91 2.96 2.87 2.83 3.30
Overall 2.76 2.85 2.91 2.82 2.91 2.82 2.85 3.29

6.e I have a voice in the classroom and/or school decisions.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.68 2.68 2.77 2.70 2.60 2.70 2.40 2.25
10 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.65 2.65 2.63 2.63 2.86
11 2.69 2.76 2.69 2.75 2.71 2.69 2.74 3.05
12 2.69 2.86 2.80 2.78 2.75 2.76 2.55 3.08
Overall 2.68 2.73 2.73 2.71 2.67 2.69 2.61 3.05

6.f My opinions are respected at this school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.57 2.57 2.71 2.62 2.62 2.65 2.60 2.50
10 2.56 2.63 2.61 2.56 2.61 2.53 2.44 2.96
11 2.58 2.69 2.61 2.62 2.67 2.61 2.59 3.13
12 2.60 2.73 2.74 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.64 3.18
Overall 2.57 2.64 2.66 2.62 2.64 2.61 2.60 3.14

6.g There is at least one adult in my school who cares about me and knows me well.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.89 2.61 2.81 2.63 2.72 2.70 2.00 3.40
10 2.98 2.73 2.86 2.73 2.70 2.80 2.63 3.04
11 3.08 3.01 2.92 2.89 2.93 2.86 2.66 3.02
12 3.18 3.14 3.20 3.14 2.97 3.06 2.62 3.15
Overall 3.02 3.84 2.93 2.83 2.82 2.84 2.60 3.10

173
6.h.1 I feel supported by the following people at my school: teachers
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.85 2.84 2.93 2.90 2.88 2.91 2.40 3.50
10 2.87 2.86 2.89 2.82 2.82 2.83 2.76 2.81
11 2.92 2.96 2.93 2.97 2.96 2.88 2.61 3.23
12 2.98 3.08 3.13 3.04 2.97 2.98 2.77 3.32
Overall 2.90 2.92 2.96 2.92 2.90 2.89 2.70 3.25

6.h.2 I feel supported by the following people at my school: administrators (principal,
assistant/vice principal/dean)
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.58 2.57 0.00 2.55 2.63 2.65 2.40 3.50
10 2.56 2.66 0.16 2.44 2.54 2.53 2.56 2.71
11 2.56 2.69 0.05 2.59 2.59 2.61 2.47 2.97
12 2.58 2.78 0.00 2.68 2.56 2.72 2.54 3.01
Overall 2.57 2.66 0.00 2.56 2.58 2.62 2.52 2.98

6.h.3 I feel supported by the following people at my school: counselors
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.78 2.69 2.85 2.70 2.78 2.78 2.40 3.50
10 2.78 2.78 2.68 2.79 2.75 2.72 2.50 2.70
11 2.82 2.87 2.82 2.85 2.87 2.79 2.49 3.02
12 2.81 2.96 2.98 2.95 2.86 3.01 2.56 2.97
Overall 2.80 2.81 2.82 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.52 2.98

6.h.4 I feel supported by the following people at my school: other adults (secretaries,
custodians, etc.).
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.58 2.51 2.68 2.49 2.58 2.62 2.40 3.25
10 2.57 2.47 2.62 2.46 2.46 2.52 2.50 2.67
11 2.60 2.58 2.60 2.59 2.56 2.48 2.45 2.75
12 2.64 2.70 2.71 2.73 2.59 2.67 2.56 2.98
Overall 2.59 2.55 2.65 2.56 2.54 2.57 2.50 2.87

174
6.h.5 I feel supported by the following people at my school: other students.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.98 2.99 3.05 2.97 2.94 2.98 2.60 2.75
10 2.96 2.91 2.99 2.94 2.88 2.96 2.69 2.90
11 2.94 3.01 2.97 3.01 2.96 2.94 2.66 2.72
12 2.95 2.95 3.09 3.00 2.91 2.95 2.66 2.86
Overall 2.96 2.97 3.02 2.98 2.92 2.96 2.65 2.81

6.i Adults in the school want me to succeed.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.05 3.01 3.09 3.03 3.09 3.02 2.80 3.50
10 3.04 3.07 3.07 2.93 3.04 2.97 3.06 2.86
11 3.03 3.10 3.07 3.07 3.09 2.99 2.83 3.19
12 3.05 3.12 3.24 3.14 3.09 3.08 2.94 3.21
Overall 3.04 3.07 3.11 3.03 3.07 3.01 2.91 3.18

6.j Teachers try to engage me in classroom discussions.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.83 2.77 2.86 2.81 2.79 2.77 2.40 2.75
10 2.84 2.79 2.85 2.75 2.69 2.74 2.67 2.55
11 2.86 2.88 2.84 2.78 2.83 2.84 2.71 2.90
12 2.88 2.92 2.94 2.83 2.84 2.86 2.62 3.03
Overall 2.85 2.83 2.87 2.79 2.78 2.79 2.65 2.94

6.k I have opportunities to be creative in classroom assignments and projects.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.94 2.86 3.04 2.93 3.01 9.95 2.20 3.33
10 2.92 2.85 2.99 2.84 2.90 2.85 2.88 2.65
11 2.92 2.96 3.04 2.95 2.99 2.95 2.83 2.96
12 2.93 2.98 3.11 2.98 2.95 2.97 2.72 3.10
Overall 2.92 2.90 3.04 2.92 2.96 2.92 2.75 3.01

175
6.l I can be who I am at school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.86 2.94 3.07 2.97 3.01 2.93 2.20 3.50
10 2.85 2.90 2.99 2.96 2.94 2.88 2.56 2.62
11 2.86 2.99 2.96 3.05 3.00 2.94 2.67 3.21
12 2.87 2.93 3.04 2.99 2.97 2.90 2.79 3.16
Overall 2.86 2.94 3.01 2.99 2.98 2.91 2.71 3.15

6.m I am an important part of my high school community.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.49 2.40 2.48 2.37 2.50 2.49 2.20 2.50
10 2.49 2.39 2.44 2.31 2.36 2.40 2.00 2.67
11 2.53 2.52 2.43 2.51 2.47 2.47 2.29 2.66
12 2.58 2.61 2.58 2.52 2.41 2.52 2.38 2.82
Overall 2.52 2.46 2.48 2.42 2.44 2.47 2.31 2.74

6.n This school makes me feel confident about who I am.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.56 2.65 2.75 2.52 2.62 2.65 2.20 3.50
10 2.54 2.56 2.64 2.48 2.51 2.51 2.39 2.90
11 2.56 2.63 2.60 2.63 2.65 2.60 2.48 3.00
12 2.62 2.72 2.73 2.67 2.58 2.63 2.58 3.01
Overall 2.56 2.63 2.68 2.57 2.59 2.59 2.52 3.01

6.o This school’s rules are fair.
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.48 2.63 2.57 2.63 2.51 2.64 2.20 3.75
10 2.41 2.56 2.39 2.51 2.39 2.42 2.56 2.89
11 2.41 2.54 2.34 2.58 2.42 2.49 2.36 3.12
12 2.43 2.66 2.51 2.61 2.37 2.50 2.39 3.11
Overall 2.43 2.59 2.45 2.58 2.43 2.51 2.39 3.12

176
6. p If I could select a high school, I would go to the same one again.
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.61 2.73 2.78 2.66 2.63 2.79 2.20 3.25
10 2.56 2.70 2.76 2.62 2.42 2.71 2.61 2.70
11 2.58 2.69 2.68 2.70 2.48 2.73 2.53 2.91
12 2.63 2.82 2.78 2.74 2.52 2.77 2.43 2.84
Overall 2.59 2.73 2.75 2.68 2.52 2.74 2.47 2.87

6.q I am engaged in school.
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.78 2.61 2.73 2.61 2.61 2.74 2.20 3.25
10 2.76 2.60 2.67 2.61 2.50 2.70 2.50 2.95
11 2.77 2.69 2.72 2.73 2.62 2.72 2.58 2.93
12 2.74 2.74 2.80 2.74 2.58 2.76 2.60 2.91
Overall 2.76 2.65 2.72 2.66 2.58 2.72 2.57 2.93

7.a. How often have you: asked questions in class
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.11 2.01 1.99 2.02 1.99 2.06 1.20 1.75
10 2.14 1.97 1.95 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.89 1.76
11 2.15 2.02 2.03 1.97 2.10 2.01 1.83 2.00
12 2.11 2.16 2.07 2.06 2.18 2.04 1.77 1.92
Overall 2.13 2.02 2.01 1.99 2.04 2.01 1.79 1.93

7.b How often have you: answered questions in class
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.15 2.03 2.02 2.00 1.99 2.06 0.80 1.50
10 2.17 1.96 1.99 1.88 1.86 2.01 1.67 1.50
11 2.17 2.06 2.05 2.02 2.04 2.04 1.81 1.78
12 2.13 2.06 2.06 2.04 2.08 2.06 1.80 1.85
Overall 2.16 2.03 2.02 1.98 1.99 2.04 1.78 1.80

177
7.c How often have you: talked to a teacher about your class work
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.96 1.87 1.92 1.83 1.98 1.90 1.20 2.75
10 2.03 1.88 2.05 1.80 1.86 1.89 1.76 1.86
11 2.09 2.06 2.10 1.97 2.04 2.01 1.77 2.32
12 2.06 2.15 2.17 2.07 2.14 2.06 1.84 2.19
Overall 2.03 1.97 2.05 1.90 1.99 1.95 1.80 2.23

7.d How often have you: made a class presentation.
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.84 1.64 1.64 1.25 1.44 1.61 0.00 1.25
10 1.89 1.66 1.68 1.46 1.48 1.79 1.41 0.90
11 1.92 1.74 1.91 1.57 1.65 2.05 1.01 0.83
12 1.89 1.88 2.03 1.64 1.76 1.83 1.12 1.12
Overall 1.88 1.71 1.80 1.46 1.57 1.81 1.09 1.00

7.e. How often have you: prepared a draft of a paper or assignment before turning it in.
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.86 1.65 1.76 1.56 1.72 2.06 0.00 2.25
10 1.96 1.67 1.85 1.55 1.73 1.90 1.33 1.62
11 1.98 1.80 1.87 1.69 1.71 2.15 1.51 1.61
12 1.95 2.13 2.08 1.99 1.83 2.05 1.43 1.66
Overall 1.93 1.78 1.87 1.68 1.75 2.03 1.43 1.64

7.f How often have you: wrote a paper of fewer than five pages.
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.16 1.83 1.89 1.84 1.88 2.09 0.40 1.25
10 2.22 1.85 2.03 1.88 1.84 2.06 1.78 1.55
11 2.23 1.97 2.05 2.05 1.85 2.18 1.61 2.02
12 2.20 1.89 2.05 1.97 2.06 2.19 1.67 1.73
Overall 2.20 1.88 2.00 1.93 1.89 2.12 1.63 1.83

178
7.g How often have you: wrote a paper of more than five pages
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.09 0.93 0.85 0.99 0.86 1.23 0.20 0.75
10 1.23 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.86 1.09 1.18 1.50
11 1.38 1.17 1.10 1.24 1.01 1.28 1.15 0.97
12 1.51 1.99 1.42 2.11 1.21 1.53 1.11 1.30
Overall 1.28 1.21 1.05 1.28 0.97 1.27 1.12 1.18

7.h How often have you: received helpful feedback from teachers on assignments or other
class work (Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.93 1.84 1.94 1.86 1.92 2.01 0.80 1.00
10 1.97 1.86 1.93 1.85 1.87 1.83 1.83 1.80
11 1.98 1.98 2.03 1.96 2.00 2.03 1.71 2.23
12 2.00 2.18 2.12 2.15 2.01 2.09 1.76 2.30
Overall 1.97 1.94 1.99 1.94 1.94 1.98 1.73 2.21

7.i How often have you: attended class with all assignments completed
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.32 2.03 2.16 2.10 1.93 2.15 1.00 3.00
10 2.34 1.99 2.06 2.01 1.84 2.20 1.61 2.00
11 2.34 2.00 2.17 2.22 1.99 2.23 1.89 2.41
12 2.31 2.08 2.24 2.18 2.03 2.24 1.81 2.29
Overall 2.33 2.02 2.15 2.12 1.94 2.19 1.79 2.32

7.j How often have you: attended class with no assignments completed.
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.08 1.17 1.06 1.16 1.26 1.10 1.50 0.50
10 1.13 1.27 1.22 1.18 1.32 1.21 1.61 1.24
11 1.19 1.27 1.22 1.15 1.31 1.19 1.44 0.80
12 1.23 1.28 1.31 1.27 1.39 1.24 1.25 1.01
Overall 1.15 1.25 1.19 1.19 1.31 1.18 1.36 0.96

179
7.k How often have you: worked on a paper or project that required you to do research
outside of assigned texts (books, articles, interviews, Internet, etc.)
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.98 1.44 1.78 1.77 1.70 2.01 0.60 1.50
10 2.03 1.72 1.80 1.83 1.83 1.88 1.44 1.43
11 2.06 1.89 1.97 1.90 1.91 2.18 1.53 1.38
12 2.02 2.18 2.25 2.26 2.09 2.03 1.46 1.67
Overall 2.02 1.77 1.92 1.92 1.86 2.01 1.47 1.54

7.l How often have you: worked on a paper that required you to interact with people outside
of school (for interviews, observations, etc.)
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.30 0.88 1.03 0.99 0.83 1.36 0.40 0.25
10 1.34 1.15 1.12 1.19 1.05 1.25 1.39 1.43
11 1.43 1.27 1.33 1.35 1.16 1.28 1.30 0.89
12 1.47 1.84 1.95 2.02 1.67 1.48 1.25 1.44
Overall 1.37 1.24 1.32 1.34 1.14 1.34 1.27 1.21

7.m How often have you: worked with other students on projects/assignments during or outside
of class (Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)
Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.81 1.46 1.71 1.46 1.55 1.57 0.60 0.75
10 1.84 1.55 1.76 1.63 1.67 1.65 1.61 1.29
11 1.87 1.76 1.85 1.67 1.77 1.68 1.36 0.85
12 1.84 1.81 1.87 1.78 1.83 1.76 1.28 1.10
Overall 1.84 1.62 1.79 1.62 1.70 1.66 1.31 1.02

7.n How often have you: discussed questions that have no clear answers
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.81 1.46 1.59 1.40 1.44 1.58 1.20 1.25
10 1.86 1.56 1.66 1.59 1.45 1.70 1.65 1.57
11 1.90 1.71 1.69 1.70 1.62 1.71 1.53 1.37
12 1.92 1.81 1.70 1.74 1.76 1.83 1.41 1.49
Overall 1.86 1.62 1.66 1.59 1.55 1.69 1.46 1.45

180
7.o How often have you: took a test in class with multiple-choice questions created by your
teacher (not a state or district test)
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.38 2.02 2.25 2.05 2.08 2.12 0.80 0.75
10 2.43 2.13 2.32 2.14 2.09 2.26 1.72 1.45
11 2.44 2.27 2.36 2.29 2.33 2.39 1.91 1.31
12 2.37 2.28 2.37 2.29 2.22 2.36 1.91 1.43
Overall 2.40 2.16 2.32 2.16 2.17 2.27 1.87 1.38

7.p How often have you: took a test in class with essay questions or show-your-work problems
created by you teacher (not a state or district test)
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.29 1.89 2.02 1.85 1.82 1.93 1.20 0.50
10 2.37 2.02 2.14 2.03 1.89 2.17 1.89 1.39
11 2.39 2.22 2.18 2.12 2.23 2.27 1.74 1.31
12 2.29 2.13 2.26 2.08 2.17 2.18 1.79 1.36
Overall 2.33 2.06 2.14 2.01 2.01 2.12 1.76 1.33

7.q How often have you: connected ideas or concepts from one class (or subject area) to
another in doing assignments or participating in class discussions)
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.72 1.35 1.47 1.38 1.41 1.57 0.80 0.25
10 1.79 1.52 1.51 1.49 1.40 1.69 1.39 1.33
11 1.86 1.72 1.66 1.71 1.59 1.75 1.53 1.27
12 1.84 1.67 1.75 1.71 1.72 1.75 1.41 1.36
Overall 1.80 1.55 1.58 1.56 1.51 1.68 1.43 1.30

7.r How often have you: discussed grades with teachers
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.83 1.78 1.89 1.70 1.96 1.75 1.00 1.25
10 1.90 1.85 2.01 1.72 1.95 1.75 1.67 1.55
11 1.91 2.00 2.07 1.94 2.02 1.91 1.88 2.07
12 1.85 2.03 2.15 2.06 2.09 1.91 1.72 2.06
Overall 1.87 1.90 2.02 1.83 2.00 1.82 1.77 2.01

181
7.s How often have you: discussed ideas from readings or classes with teachers outside of
class (Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.13 1.02 1.05 0.98 0.93 1.06 0.40 0.00
10 1.19 1.16 1.10 1.05 0.95 1.18 1.17 1.26
11 1.26 1.16 1.21 1.21 1.05 1.10 1.29 1.11
12 1.31 1.36 1.35 1.36 1.34 1.39 1.34 1.45
Overall 1.22 1.16 1.17 1.13 1.05 1.17 1.29 1.29

7.t How often have you: discussed ideas from readings or classes with others outside of class
(friends, family, coworkers, etc.)
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.58 1.42 1.47 1.41 1.31 1.50 0.80 1.00
10 1.62 1.52 1.52 1.49 1.47 1.67 1.67 1.48
11 1.64 1.53 1.59 1.56 1.55 1.66 1.55 1.40
12 1.66 1.54 1.64 1.65 1.61 1.75 1.46 1.48
Overall 1.62 1.49 1.55 1.52 1.47 1.63 1.48 1.44

7.u How often have you: had conversations or worked on a project with at least one student of
a race or ethnically different than your own
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.95 1.65 1.84 1.76 1.45 1.91 0.60 0.75
10 1.96 1.84 2.02 1.87 1.54 2.01 1.31 1.30
11 1.90 2.01 2.10 2.01 1.73 2.17 1.43 1.42
12 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.02 1.72 2.20 1.55 1.52
Overall 1.92 1.86 2.01 1.90 1.60 2.05 1.48 1.46

7.v How often have you: had conversations or worked on a project with at least one student
who differs from you in terms of religious beliefs, political opinions, income background,
or personal values (Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.01 1.53 0.00 1.55 1.45 1.83 0.80 1.00
10 2.06 1.74 0.00 1.76 1.55 1.94 1.41 1.53
11 2.05 1.95 0.81 1.86 1.74 1.99 1.49 1.50
12 2.02 1.97 0.41 1.95 1.84 2.13 1.55 1.39
Overall 2.03 1.77 0.00 1.77 1.63 1.96 1.50 1.44

182
7.w How often have you: talked to an adult in the school about career goals
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.41 1.22 1.27 1.12 1.19 1.31 0.60 1.50
10 1.58 1.38 1.48 1.33 1.30 1.37 1.41 1.57
11 1.74 1.72 1.73 1.65 1.64 1.43 1.52 1.71
12 1.82 1.98 2.00 1.91 1.83 1.74 1.46 1.61
Overall 1.62 1.53 1.59 1.47 1.46 1.45 1.46 1.65

7.x How often have you: talked to an adult about how to apply for college
(Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Rarely; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Often)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.95 0.98 1.04 0.88 0.92 1.05 0.80 0.75
10 1.15 1.14 1.27 1.09 1.08 1.15 1.33 1.10
11 1.50 1.38 1.49 1.43 1.37 1.22 1.38 1.25
12 1.70 1.86 1.96 1.82 1.81 1.75 1.24 1.39
Overall 1.29 1.29 1.40 1.26 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.31

8.a I place a high value on learning.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.10 2.92 2.99 2.99 2.94 3.05 2.00 3.25
10 3.15 2.98 3.04 2.94 2.86 3.10 3.06 2.81
11 3.19 3.08 3.09 3.13 3.07 3.15 2.77 3.23
12 3.21 3.13 3.23 3.20 3.12 3.23 2.85 3.20
Overall 3.16 3.01 3.07 3.05 2.99 3.12 2.81 3.19

8.b I have the skills and abilities to complete my work.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.28 3.12 3.21 3.18 3.12 3.25 2.40 3.50
10 3.31 3.11 3.21 3.14 3.07 3.23 2.76 3.05
11 3.33 3.26 3.25 3.31 3.22 3.29 2.87 3.38
12 3.34 3.30 3.35 3.31 3.28 3.35 2.97 3.34
Overall 3.31 3.18 3.25 3.23 3.16 3.27 2.92 3.34

183
8.c I put forth a great deal of effort when doing my work.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.91 2.85 2.92 2.91 2.82 2.93 2.00 3.50
10 2.89 2.81 2.90 2.76 2.73 2.91 2.94 2.90
11 2.87 2.82 2.87 2.95 2.82 2.91 2.64 3.04
12 2.86 2.92 2.94 2.93 2.85 2.96 2.63 3.18
Overall 2.88 2.85 2.90 2.88 2.80 2.92 2.75 3.11

8.d I am motivated to work by a desire to learn.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.76 2.78 2.84 2.75 2.73 2.80 2.20 3.00
10 2.77 2.73 2.81 2.73 2.66 2.77 2.71 2.65
11 2.80 2.75 2.81 2.82 2.80 2.82 2.71 3.00
12 2.86 2.91 2.89 2.91 2.82 2.97 2.78 3.10
Overall 2.79 2.78 2.83 2.79 2.75 2.83 2.75 3.02

8.e. I am motivated to work by a desire to get good grades.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.13 3.07 3.17 3.07 3.06 3.09 2.00 3.50
10 3.12 3.04 3.14 3.01 3.01 3.12 2.88 2.80
11 3.10 3.06 3.14 3.14 3.12 3.18 2.79 3.20
12 3.05 3.13 3.22 3.16 3.12 3.19 2.93 3.22
Overall 3.10 3.07 3.16 3.09 3.07 3.14 2.85 3.19

8.f I am motivated to work by teachers who encourage me.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.72 2.77 2.88 2.78 2.79 2.80 2.20 2.75
10 2.72 2.75 2.81 2.70 2.70 2.73 2.88 3.05
11 2.76 2.80 2.80 2.84 2.85 2.74 2.74 3.17
12 2.81 2.97 2.94 2.94 2.87 2.90 2.87 3.25
Overall 2.75 2.81 2.85 2.81 2.80 2.79 2.81 3.20

184
8.g I am motivated to work by a desire to succeed in the world outside of school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.18 3.07 3.15 3.09 3.07 3.13 2.20 2.75
10 3.21 3.15 3.21 3.12 3.05 3.14 2.82 3.05
11 3.23 3.20 3.21 3.25 3.24 3.22 3.01 3.34
12 3.24 3.24 3.35 3.29 3.20 3.29 2.93 3.33
Overall 3.21 3.15 3.22 3.18 3.13 3.18 2.94 3.31

8.h I take pride in the quality of my schoolwork.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.91 2.83 2.90 2.86 2.75 2.93 2.00 2.75
10 2.92 2.82 2.90 2.77 2.73 2.86 2.69 2.81
11 2.93 2.82 2.88 2.93 2.84 2.89 2.74 2.97
12 2.94 2.95 2.96 2.98 2.93 2.95 2.76 3.15
Overall 2.92 2.84 2.90 2.88 2.80 2.90 2.74 3.05

8.i I have worked harder than I expected to in school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.71 2.78 2.81 2.75 2.68 2.79 2.00 3.25
10 2.68 2.72 2.76 2.62 2.62 2.68 2.59 3.00
11 2.66 2.68 2.69 2.73 2.71 2.71 2.69 2.94
12 2.65 2.78 2.84 2.80 2.72 2.79 2.81 3.16
Overall 2.68 2.74 2.77 2.72 2.68 2.73 2.74 3.06

8.k I like discussion in which there are no clear answers.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.68 2.58 2.63 2.57 2.52 2.64 2.00 3.25
10 2.73 2.57 2.59 2.58 2.50 2.67 2.71 2.62
11 2.76 2.60 2.59 2.66 2.66 2.65 2.55 2.56
12 2.81 2.71 2.70 2.69 2.83 2.77 2.53 2.77
Overall 2.74 2.61 2.62 2.62 2.61 2.67 2.54 2.69

185
8.l I enjoy the opportunity to be creative in school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.00 2.87 2.96 2.88 2.85 2.89 2.00 3.25
10 3.02 2.81 2.92 2.89 2.85 2.95 2.65 2.80
11 3.04 2.93 2.99 2.98 3.05 2.97 2.80 3.02
12 3.05 2.98 3.10 3.03 2.96 3.08 2.74 3.08
Overall 3.03 2.89 2.98 2.94 2.92 2.96 2.75 3.04

8.m I enjoy working on tasks that require a lot of thinking and mental effort.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.55 2.52 2.55 2.51 2.42 2.54 2.00 3.25
10 2.60 2.53 2.54 2.51 2.48 2.54 2.59 2.95
11 2.67 2.59 2.63 2.63 2.65 2.59 2.57 2.75
12 2.74 2.70 2.70 2.74 2.71 2.80 2.65 2.88
Overall 2.63 2.57 2.60 2.59 2.55 2.61 2.60 2.85

8.n My school work makes me curious to learn new things.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.72 2.69 2.75 2.00 3.50
10 2.72 2.72 2.77 2.66 2.69 2.72 2.71 2.90
11 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.77 2.78 2.72 2.66 2.88
12 2.79 2.81 2.87 2.81 2.74 2.84 2.71 2.99
Overall 2.73 2.75 2.79 2.73 2.72 2.75 2.68 2.96

8.o In general, I am excited about my classes.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.49 2.53 2.63 2.52 2.51 2.67 2.00 3.25
10 2.49 2.47 2.55 2.48 2.40 2.51 2.53 2.75
11 2.51 2.50 2.54 2.59 2.50 2.51 2.51 2.76
12 2.57 2.65 2.63 2.67 2.55 2.69 2.59 2.83
Overall 2.51 2.53 2.58 2.56 2.49 2.59 2.54 2.81

186
8.q I value the rewards (grades, awards, etc.) that I get at school for my work.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.94 2.90 2.97 2.89 2.82 2.97 2.00 3.50
10 2.94 2.85 2.91 2.81 2.75 2.91 2.94 3.10
11 2.93 2.84 2.90 2.99 2.88 2.90 2.76 3.09
12 2.93 3.01 3.04 3.01 2.89 2.94 2.82 3.15
Overall 2.93 2.90 2.95 2.92 2.83 2.93 2.79 3.12

8.r I see how the work I am doing now will help me after high school.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.89 2.94 2.99 2.93 2.92 2.94 2.00 3.50
10 2.86 2.94 2.87 2.84 2.77 2.76 2.59 3.00
11 2.83 2.85 2.88 2.98 2.91 2.81 2.62 3.11
12 2.87 2.92 2.96 2.98 2.79 2.92 2.81 3.17
Overall 2.86 2.91 2.92 2.93 2.85 2.86 2.71 3.14

8.s I feel good about who I am as a student.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.00 2.99 3.04 2.96 2.96 3.02 2.40 3.50
10 2.98 2.95 2.98 2.88 2.80 2.88 2.75 2.76
11 2.99 2.93 2.88 2.98 2.94 2.99 2.80 3.10
12 3.03 3.02 3.04 3.04 2.96 3.02 2.83 3.20
Overall 3.00 2.97 2.98 2.96 2.91 2.97 2.80 3.14

8.t I feel good about who I am as a person.
(Rating scale of 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Strongly agree)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.21 3.18 3.19 3.18 3.19 3.22 2.60 3.25
10 3.23 3.21 3.25 3.19 3.13 3.15 2.82 3.05
11 3.26 3.30 3.25 3.35 3.27 3.29 2.96 3.28
12 3.28 3.32 3.38 3.31 3.24 3.30 3.01 3.42
Overall 3.24 3.24 3.26 3.25 3.20 3.23 2.96 3.34

187
9. About how many of your teachers want you to do the best work you can do?
(Rating scale of 0 = None; 1 = 1-2; 2 = Some; 3 = Most; 4 = All)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.82 2.77 2.79 2.75 2.82 2.75 1.80 3.25
10 2.76 2.69 2.66 2.63 2.47 2.56 2.67 2.67
11 2.77 2.76 2.77 2.79 2.84 2.67 2.11 2.44
12 2.76 2.81 2.90 2.85 2.82 2.83 2.52 2.82
Overall 2.77 2.75 2.77 2.74 2.73 2.69 2.36 2.67

10. About how many of your teachers believe that you can do excellent work?
(Rating scale of 0 = None; 1 = 1-2; 2 = Some; 3 = Most; 4 = All)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.84 2.77 2.82 2.73 2.77 2.69 1.80 3.00
10 2.80 2.68 2.68 2.59 2.57 2.62 2.56 2.33
11 2.80 2.80 2.81 2.84 2.80 2.71 2.22 2.58
12 2.83 2.86 2.93 2.81 2.87 2.77 2.61 2.80
Overall 2.82 2.77 2.80 2.73 2.74 2.69 2.44 2.69

11. About how many of your classes challenge you academically?
(Rating scale of 0 = None; 1 = 1-2; 2 = Some; 3 = Most; 4 = All)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.33 2.24 2.33 2.24 2.24 2.31 1.20 2.75
10 2.32 2.32 2.34 2.23 2.11 2.32 2.33 1.95
11 2.32 2.28 2.39 2.37 2.32 2.30 1.98 2.06
12 2.16 2.27 2.38 2.21 2.25 2.24 1.98 2.47
Overall 2.29 2.28 2.36 2.26 2.22 2.29 2.00 2.29

12. About how many of your classes do not require you to work hard?
(Rating scale of 0 = None; 1 = 1-2; 2 = Some; 3 = Most; 4 = All)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.27 1.19 0.95 1.09 1.03 1.14 0.50 1.25
10 1.33 1.11 1.01 1.05 1.10 1.21 1.94 0.86
11 1.35 1.13 1.08 1.14 1.14 1.17 1.42 1.30
12 1.57 1.43 1.25 1.33 1.42 1.47 1.27 1.20
Overall 1.37 1.20 1.07 1.14 1.15 1.24 1.36 1.23

188
13. In about how many classes do you give your maximum effort?
(Rating scale of 0 = None; 1 = 1-2; 2 = Some; 3 = Most; 4 = All)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.36 2.46 2.59 2.39 2.34 2.39 1.20 2.75
10 2.27 2.30 2.34 2.23 2.22 2.30 2.24 2.43
11 2.21 2.30 2.41 2.35 2.68 2.30 2.13 2.50
12 2.08 2.24 2.42 2.33 2.31 2.30 2.26 2.79
Overall 2.25 2.33 2.44 2.32 2.31 2.32 2.21 2.65

14. In about how many classes do you put in very little effort?
(Rating scale of 0 = None; 1 = 1-2; 2 = Some; 3 = Most; 4 = All)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.22 1.22 1.05 1.20 1.21 1.28 1.60 1.00
10 1.30 1.33 1.16 1.24 1.25 1.34 1.56 1.00
11 1.33 1.29 1.25 1.22 1.27 1.26 1.52 1.08
12 1.51 1.31 1.23 1.33 1.47 1.36 1.29 1.05
Overall 1.33 1.29 1.17 1.24 1.29 1.31 1.40 1.08

15.a School encourages: spend a lot of time studying and doing school work
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.56 2.48 2.66 2.48 2.48 2.67 1.40 3.25
10 2.54 2.54 2.60 2.38 2.42 2.59 2.06 2.45
11 2.56 2.55 2.57 2.55 2.53 2.65 1.98 2.95
12 2.48 2.61 2.59 2.46 2.54 2.61 2.34 3.00
Overall 2.54 2.53 2.60 2.46 2.49 2.63 2.18 2.93

15.b School encourages: spend a lot of time preparing for state and district standardized tests
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.42 2.65 2.69 2.53 2.60 2.64 1.40 3.00
10 2.417 2.65 2.72 2.53 2.49 2.51 2.06 2.20
11 2.48 2.66 2.62 2.64 2.65 2.53 2.03 2.61
12 2.32 2.59 2.65 2.54 2.47 2.48 2.44 2.64
Overall 2.43 2.64 2.67 2.56 2.55 2.54 2.26 2.59

189
15.c School encourages: participate in school events and activities (athletics, plays, etc.)
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.68 2.55 2.81 2.50 2.60 2.65 1.00 2.00
10 2.66 2.38 2.73 2.40 2.49 2.49 2.12 1.95
11 2.62 2.48 2.55 2.62 2.59 2.50 1.80 1.99
12 2.62 2.64 2.75 2.70 2.45 2.48 2.18 2.09
Overall 2.65 2.50 2.71 2.54 2.54 2.53 2.01 2.04

15.d School encourages: use computers for class work
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.45 2.11 2.40 2.29 2.47 2.36 1.80 2.25
10 2.45 2.24 2.33 2.13 2.25 2.21 2.24 2.10
11 2.50 2.38 2.29 2.38 2.23 2.39 2.01 2.24
12 2.63 2.63 2.67 2.50 2.49 2.49 2.40 2.37
Overall 2.50 2.32 2.41 2.31 2.35 2.35 2.23 2.30

15.e School encourages: explore new ideas
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.50 2.32 2.53 2.38 2.37 2.53 1.60 3.00
10 2.46 2.30 2.41 2.32 2.22 2.40 2.29 2.30
11 2.45 2.38 2.44 2.45 2.43 2.42 2.10 2.70
12 2.47 2.48 2.56 2.47 2.44 2.54 2.39 2.70
Overall 2.47 2.35 2.48 2.40 2.36 2.47 2.27 2.67

15.f School encourages: continue schooling beyond high school (college, career training, etc.)
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 3.12 2.99 3.16 2.91 0.02 2.99 1.40 4.00
10 3.14 3.09 3.08 2.92 0.00 3.05 2.59 3.10
11 3.17 3.14 3.21 3.19 0.31 3.14 2.26 3.13
12 3.18 3.20 3.39 3.16 0.95 3.22 2.80 3.27
Overall 3.15 3.09 3.19 3.03 0.00 3.09 2.58 3.21

190
16.a School contributed to growth: acquiring new skills related to work after high school
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.49 2.42 2.58 2.36 2.41 2.43 1.80 3.00
10 2.49 2.60 2.52 2.43 2.39 2.44 2.00 2.40
11 2.49 2.59 2.57 2.60 2.49 2.46 2.20 2.66
12 2.51 2.58 2.67 2.69 2.47 2.61 2.38 2.73
Overall 2.49 2.54 2.58 2.50 2.44 2.47 2.27 2.69

16.b School contributed to growth: writing effectively
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.61 2.49 2.73 2.48 2.57 2.62 1.80 3.00
10 2.67 2.60 2.69 2.59 2.64 2.71 2.13 2.45
11 2.72 2.67 2.74 2.81 2.67 2.77 2.16 2.76
12 2.75 2.79 2.86 2.84 2.71 2.93 2.49 2.87
Overall 2.68 2.62 2.74 2.66 2.64 2.74 2.34 2.80

16.c. School contributed to growth: speaking effectively
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.57 2.55 2.77 2.53 2.63 2.62 1.60 2.67
10 2.61 2.68 2.73 2.64 2.67 2.73 2.24 2.42
11 2.63 2.70 2.77 2.77 2.73 2.75 2.26 2.70
12 2.65 2.83 2.91 2.82 2.71 2.91 2.57 2.90
Overall 2.61 2.67 2.79 2.68 2.68 2.74 2.42 2.78

16.d. School contributed to growth: thinking critically
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.73 2.63 2.84 2.60 2.68 2.75 1.80 2.50
10 2.74 2.73 2.81 2.73 2.72 2.84 2.18 2.60
11 2.76 2.85 2.84 2.92 2.83 2.81 2.26 2.89
12 2.76 2.87 3.00 2.83 2.76 2.89 2.59 3.05
Overall 2.75 2.76 2.86 2.76 2.75 2.82 2.42 2.95

191
16.e School contributed to growth: reading and understanding challenging materials
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.67 2.60 2.81 2.55 2.64 2.67 1.60 2.50
10 2.68 2.68 2.77 2.60 2.58 2.77 2.29 2.70
11 2.70 2.76 2.76 2.81 2.77 2.73 2.31 2.79
12 2.70 2.76 2.90 2.82 2.70 2.87 2.55 2.95
Overall 2.69 2.69 2.80 2.68 2.67 2.75 2.43 2.86

16.f School contributed to growth: using computers and the Internet
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.61 2.48 2.76 2.55 2.78 2.56 2.20 2.75
10 2.60 2.57 2.67 2.47 2.57 2.57 2.24 2.50
11 2.63 2.70 2.70 2.67 2.68 2.55 2.23 2.50
12 2.67 2.80 2.94 2.72 2.67 2.69 2.69 2.70
Overall 2.62 2.62 2.76 2.59 2.67 2.59 2.48 2.61

16.g School contributed to growth: working well with others
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.73 2.69 2.93 2.69 2.78 2.68 2.25 2.50
10 2.72 2.81 2.88 2.69 2.72 2.75 2.29 2.60
11 2.72 2.88 2.86 2.90 2.88 2.74 2.27 2.60
12 2.74 2.87 3.05 2.87 2.84 2.89 2.55 2.74
Overall 2.73 2.81 2.92 2.77 2.81 2.76 2.44 2.68

16.h School contributed to growth: learning independently
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.68 2.63 2.87 2.62 2.62 2.68 1.80 3.75
10 2.68 2.73 2.81 2.67 2.62 2.72 2.18 2.75
11 2.69 2.73 2.76 2.82 2.78 2.69 2.29 3.17
12 2.69 2.83 2.98 2.89 2.77 2.89 2.67 3.21
Overall 2.69 2.72 2.85 2.73 2.70 2.74 2.48 3.17

192
16.i School contributed to growth: solving real-world problems
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.47 2.45 2.59 2.43 2.41 2.46 2.00 3.25
10 2.43 2.52 2.51 2.42 2.43 2.51 2.06 2.53
11 2.42 2.48 2.49 2.49 2.48 2.40 2.28 2.59
12 2.43 2.61 2.61 2.64 2.45 2.53 2.39 2.64
Overall 2.44 2.51 2.55 2.49 2.44 2.47 2.34 2.64

16.j School contributed to growth: gaining awareness of conditions in the community outside
of school (Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.43 2.39 2.55 2.30 2.43 2.50 2.00 2.75
10 2.37 2.50 2.46 2.31 2.33 2.42 2.12 2.25
11 2.35 2.46 2.46 2.41 2.38 2.36 2.20 2.52
12 2.36 2.55 2.59 2.60 2.37 2.54 2.43 2.64
Overall 2.38 2.47 2.51 2.39 2.38 2.45 2.32 2.58

16.k School contributed to growth: developing clear career goals
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.55 2.59 2.80 2.52 2.63 2.58 2.00 3.25
10 2.53 2.67 2.68 2.56 2.54 2.55 2.35 2.30
11 2.51 2.62 2.70 2.71 2.62 2.52 2.26 2.60
12 2.52 2.74 2.79 2.74 2.51 2.65 2.48 2.92
Overall 2.53 2.64 2.74 2.62 2.58 2.57 2.40 2.76

16.l School contributed to growth: understanding the relevance of school work to life after
high school (Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.59 2.60 2.81 2.59 2.65 2.66 1.80 2.50
10 2.55 2.69 2.70 2.57 2.57 2.63 1.94 2.65
11 2.49 2.66 2.74 2.74 2.65 2.55 2.26 2.79
12 2.50 2.70 2.86 2.72 2.53 2.71 2.52 2.98
Overall 2.54 2.66 2.77 2.65 2.61 2.63 2.38 2.89

193
16.m School contributed to growth: understanding the people of other racial and ethnic
backgrounds (Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.58 2.58 2.80 2.57 2.68 2.62 2.00 2.25
10 2.50 2.63 2.71 2.57 2.61 2.67 2.38 2.65
11 2.44 2.78 2.66 2.68 2.64 2.65 2.27 2.64
12 2.43 2.66 2.72 2.69 2.58 2.71 2.53 2.68
Overall 2.49 2.66 2.72 2.62 2.63 2.65 2.43 2.66

16.n School contributed to growth: understanding yourself
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.57 2.67 2.86 2.67 2.72 2.65 2.00 2.00
10 2.48 2.68 2.72 2.55 2.67 2.59 2.31 2.90
11 2.46 2.67 2.72 2.69 2.72 2.56 2.34 2.95
12 2.49 2.76 2.78 2.69 2.53 2.67 2.63 2.87
Overall 2.50 2.69 2.77 2.64 2.67 2.61 2.50 2.90

16.o School contributed to growth: treating people with respect
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.80 2.91 308 2.79 2.97 2.85 2.40 3.00
10 2.74 2.87 3.01 2.80 2.85 2.79 2.06 3.00
11 2.70 2.95 2.97 2.89 2.98 2.80 2.37 2.99
12 2.70 2.95 3.09 2.88 2.74 2.89 2.72 2.97
Overall 2.74 2.91 3.03 2.83 2.90 2.83 2.55 2.98

16.p School contributed to growth: developing personal beliefs and values
(Rating scale of 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = Quite a bit; 4 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.60 2.62 2.83 2.60 2.69 2.68 2.00 2.50
10 2.52 2.66 2.69 2.53 2.64 2.61 2.13 2.70
11 2.49 2.73 2.70 2.65 2.67 2.58 2.38 2.83
12 2.51 2.75 2.81 2.64 2.55 2.67 2.58 2.84
Overall 2.53 2.68 2.75 2.60 2.64 2.63 2.48 2.83

194
17.a Have done during high school: Participated in community service or volunteer work.
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.47 0.22 0.40 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.40 0.25
10 0.57 0.37 0.55 0.42 0.36 0.40 0.24 0.40
11 0.66 0.56 0.60 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.45
12 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.67 0.72 0.59 0.44 0.40
Overall 0.60 0.44 0.56 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.42

17.b Have done during high school: Participated in a co-op or work study program
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.20 0.19 0.26 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.40 0.00
10 0.22 0.24 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.12 0.30
11 0.25 0.36 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.26 0.34 0.36
12 0.27 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.32 0.28 0.32
Overall 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.33

17.c Have done during high school: Taken the PSAT, SAT, or ACT
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.21 0.37 0.33 0.40 0.25
10 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.55 0.74 0.54 0.24 0.74
11 0.70 0.67 0.58 0.68 0.67 0.60 0.56 0.73
12 0.84 0.66 0.73 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.51 0.57
Overall 0.53 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.61 0.53 0.50 0.64

17.d Have done during high school: Received tutoring from an individual or organization
outside of school (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.17 0.40 0.23 0.20 0.50
10 0.25 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.36 0.27 0.25 0.35
11 0.29 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.37 0.31 0.26 0.32
12 0.29 0.36 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.24 0.34
Overall 0.26 0.31 0.28 0.23 0.35 0.28 0.26 0.33

195
17.e Have done during high school: Taken one or more course online
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.40 0.00
10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.05
11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.10
12 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.18
Overall 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.13

17.f Have done during high school: Taken one or more Advanced Placement (AP) courses
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.40 0.00
10 0.23 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.25 0.00 0.05
11 0.38 0.47 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.30 0.18 0.21
12 0.48 0.52 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.37 0.13 0.15
Overall 0.30 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.31 0.27 0.15 0.17

17.g Have done during high school: Taken one or more courses at a college or university
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.40 0.25
10 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.15
11 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.27
12 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.21
Overall 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.22

17.h Have done during high school: Participated in the International Baccalaureate program
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.20 0.00
10 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.05
11 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.04
12 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.07
Overall 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.05

196
18.a Why do you go to school: because I enjoy being in school
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.37 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.20 0.20
10 0.35 0.45 0.43 0.39 0.46 0.41 0.32 0.26
11 0.34 0.42 0.43 0.36 0.45 0.34 0.24 0.40
12 0.33 0.45 0.49 0.37 0.45 0.38 0.35 0.38
Overall 0.34 0.43 0.45 0.37 0.45 0.40 0.31 0.37

18.b Why do you go to school: because of what I learn in classes.
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.40 0.41 0.44 0.38 0.46 0.42 0.20 0.20
10 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.47 0.40 0.42 0.43
11 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.36 0.35 0.52
12 0.41 0.44 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.40
Overall 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.39 0.45 0.39 0.38 0.45

18.c Why do you go to school: because of my teacher(s)
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.40
10 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.30
11 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.32
12 0.26 0.33 0.31 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.39
Overall 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.35

18.d Why do you go to school: because of my peers/friends
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.72 0.71 0.73 0.68 0.77 0.72 0.00 0.20
10 0.70 0.76 0.75 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.47 0.39
11 0.68 0.72 0.72 0.65 0.72 0.70 0.47 0.42
12 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.53 0.43
Overall 0.68 0.70 0.73 0.67 0.71 0.69 0.50 0.41

197
18.e Why do you go to school: because it’s the law
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.60 0.47 0.51 0.51 0.55 0.50 0.80 0.40
10 0.60 0.57 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.59 0.32 0.48
11 0.59 0.57 0.55 0.47 0.53 0.55 0.48 0.60
12 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.47 0.50 0.56 0.39 0.43
Overall 0.58 0.50 0.53 0.49 0.52 0.54 0.43 0.50

18.f Why do you go to school: because I want to get a degree and go to college
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.73 0.70 0.70 0.64 0.69 0.67 0.20 0.60
10 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.64 0.66 0.71 0.37 0.61
11 0.77 0.71 0.70 0.64 0.71 0.73 0.49 0.70
12 0.77 0.73 0.78 0.68 0.70 0.76 0.62 0.68
Overall 0.73 0.68 0.71 0.64 0.68 0.70 0.54 0.68

18.g Why do you go to school: because I want to acquire skills for the workplace
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.00 0.20
10 0.49 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.26 0.43
11 0.48 0.55 0.47 0.42 0.49 0.46 0.40 0.61
12 0.44 0.49 0.48 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.49 0.52
Overall 0.47 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.55

18.h Why do you go to school: because there’s nothing else to do
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.36 0.24 0.00 0.20
10 0.23 0.35 0.27 0.31 0.35 0.23 0.32 0.17
11 0.21 0.31 0.36 0.19 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.13
12 0.20 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.31 0.20 0.23 0.20
Overall 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.32 0.22 0.26 0.18

198
18.i Why do I go to school: to stay out of trouble (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.31 0.43 0.28 0.40 0.20
10 0.26 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.39
11 0.23 0.34 0.36 0.25 0.36 0.23 0.35 0.41
12 0.21 0.33 0.34 0.25 0.32 0.21 0.37 0.35
Overall 0.24 0.35 0.36 0.29 0.37 0.24 0.35 0.38

19. Have you ever skipped school? (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.51 0.66 0.49 0.58 0.58 0.53 1.20 0.75
10 0.60 0.94 0.85 0.75 0.72 0.66 1.18 0.95
11 0.72 1.01 0.99 0.82 0.83 0.84 1.38 1.10
12 0.89 1.14 1.19 1.05 1.06 1.01 1.37 1.21
Overall 0.66 0.92 0.86 0.78 0.78 0.74 1.35 1.14

20. Have you ever considered dropping out of school? (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.29 0.34 0.29 0.34 0.35 0.35 1.20 0.75
10 0.30 0.38 0.34 0.40 0.43 0.30 0.82 0.55
11 0.29 0.36 0.39 0.28 0.38 0.26 0.59 0.36
12 0.26 0.45 0.33 0.36 0.40 0.28 0.56 0.50
Overall 0.29 0.37 0.34 0.35 0.39 0.30 0.61 0.45

21.a Why drop out: The work was too hard (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.40 0.20
10 0.11 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.18 0.05 0.17
11 0.10 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.23 0.20
12 0.07 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.11
Overall 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.15

199
21.b Why drop out: The work was too easy (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.40 0.20
10 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.04
11 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03
12 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.07
Overall 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.05

21.c Why drop out: I didn’t like the school (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.20 0.14 0.40 0.00
10 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.17
11 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.29 0.18
12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.27 0.25
Overall 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.27 0.21

21.d Why drop out: I didn’t like the teachers (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.00 0.00
10 0.13 0.21 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.11 0.22
11 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.25 0.14
12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.18 0.12
Overall 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.19 0.14

21.e Why drop out: I didn’t see the value in the work I was being asked to do
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.40 0.40
10 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.22
11 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.25 0.14
12 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.19
Overall 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.21 0.18

200
21.f Why drop out: I was picked on or bullied (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.00
10 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.13
11 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04
12 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03
Overall 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.04

21.g Why drop out: I needed to work for money (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.20 0.00
10 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.13
11 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.22 0.10
12 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.16 0.14
Overall 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.17 0.12

21.h Why drop out: No adults in the school cared about me (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00
10 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.09
11 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.04
12 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.05
Overall 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.05

21.i Why drop out: Family issues (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.20
10 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.13
11 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.27 0.14
12 0.08 0.17 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.20 0.22
Overall 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.21 0.18

201
21.j Why drop out: Other (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.18 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.22 0.40 0.20
10 0.16 0.27 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.32 0.26
11 0.15 0.26 0.25 0.16 0.24 0.18 0.39 0.20
12 0.12 0.27 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.29 0.24
Overall 0.15 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.20 0.33 0.23

22. Have you been held back a grade level in school? (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.80 0.20
10 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.29 0.19
11 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.09
12 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.10
Overall 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.17 0.10

23. Do you believe that you are in danger of being held back a grade level this year?
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.60 0.40
10 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.26 0.16 0.31 0.38
11 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.30 0.15
12 0.08 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.38 0.17
Overall 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.35 0.18

24. Have you ever been bored in class in high school? (Rating scale of 0 = Never; 1 = Once or
twice; 2 = Once in a while; 3 = Every day; 4 = Every class)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 2.72 2.52 2.35 2.52 2.54 2.55 1.75 1.60
10 2.78 2.63 2.63 2.66 2.52 2.66 2.87 2.38
11 2.76 2.60 2.66 2.58 2.55 2.71 2.58 2.43
12 2.78 2.63 2.56 2.62 2.61 2.63 2.57 2.28
Overall 2.76 2.59 2.55 2.59 2.55 2.64 2.57 2.33

202
25.a Why bored: Work wasn’t challenging enough
(Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.29 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.20 0.20
10 0.32 0.28 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.05 0.22
11 0.34 0.25 0.27 0.18 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.25
12 0.38 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.34 0.30 0.23 0.18
Overall 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.21

25.b Why bored: Work was too difficult (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.28 0.33 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.29 0.20 0.40
10 0.28 0.38 0.33 0.27 0.37 0.36 0.21 0.22
11 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.25 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.31
12 0.23 0.30 0.31 0.20 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.24
Overall 0.26 0.33 0.31 0.25 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.26

25.c Why bored: Material wasn’t interesting (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.74 0.65 0.67 0.61 0.68 0.61 0.40 0.60
10 0.77 0.72 0.69 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.32 0.48
11 0.78 0.74 0.72 0.61 0.74 0.73 0.59 0.72
12 0.77 0.78 0.74 0.68 0.74 0.75 0.58 0.66
Overall 0.74 0.69 0.70 0.62 0.69 0.67 0.56 0.66

25.d Why bored: Material wasn’t relevant to me (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.20 0.00
10 0.40 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.34 0.16 0.13
11 0.42 0.31 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.36 0.20 0.35
12 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.27 0.31 0.34 0.23 0.26
Overall 0.39 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.31 0.21 0.29

203
25.e Why bored: No interaction with teacher (Rating scale of 0 = No; 1 = Yes)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.30 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.00 0.00
10 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.22 0.29 0.32 0.00 0.17
11 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.20 0.27 0.33 0.26 0.21
12 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.18
Overall 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.20

25.f Why bored: Other

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.48 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.55 0.44 0.60 0.20
10 0.44 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.35
11 0.40 0.49 0.45 0.36 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.44
12 0.37 0.47 0.41 0.40 0.37 0.46 0.40 0.34
Overall 0.42 0.47 0.45 0.41 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.37

26.a What excites/engages you: teacher lecture
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.70 0.89 0.99 0.93 0.98 0.80 0.20 1.20
10 0.74 1.06 1.04 0.98 0.88 0.91 0.71 0.58
11 0.82 1.05 0.99 1.12 1.19 1.01 0.90 1.09
12 0.85 1.05 1.27 1.21 1.29 1.14 0.97 1.23
Overall 0.77 1.00 1.06 1.04 1.07 0.95 0.92 1.12

26.b What excites/engages you: discussion and debate
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.56 1.23 1.48 1.30 1.25 1.39 0.40 2.00
10 1.67 1.44 1.59 1.51 1.35 1.58 1.12 1.00
11 1.76 1.74 1.64 1.81 1.67 1.72 1.39 1.58
12 1.79 1.74 1.85 1.83 1.95 1.84 1.46 1.75
Overall 1.69 1.51 1.62 1.58 1.52 1.61 1.40 1.63

204
26.c What excites/engages you: individual reading
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.02 1.11 1.12 0.87 0.95 1.10 0.40 1.00
10 1.02 0.96 1.03 1.05 0.87 1.19 1.06 0.86
11 1.04 0.98 0.96 1.05 1.10 1.06 0.95 1.15
12 1.05 1.00 1.04 1.13 1.04 1.26 0.98 1.21
Overall 1.03 1.02 1.04 1.01 0.99 1.15 0.98 1.16

26.d What excites/engages you: writing projects
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 0.90 0.89 1.08 0.80 0.98 0.94 0.80 1.60
10 0.93 0.88 1.02 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.82 1.00
11 0.95 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.84 1.16
12 0.97 0.89 1.13 0.95 1.04 1.11 0.99 1.13
Overall 0.94 0.89 1.05 0.89 0.99 0.98 0.93 1.14

26.e What excites/engages you: research projects
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.08 1.03 1.23 0.99 1.23 1.04 0.40 1.60
10 1.07 1.09 1.16 1.03 1.08 1.08 1.12 1.00
11 1.09 1.11 1.24 1.16 1.28 1.07 1.05 1.21
12 1.09 1.09 1.27 1.06 1.25 1.13 1.11 1.23
Overall 1.08 1.08 1.22 1.06 1.21 1.08 1.08 1.22

26.f What excites/engages you: group projects
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.65 1.52 1.77 1.49 1.56 1.55 0.20 0.80
10 1.63 1.62 1.72 1.52 1.52 1.60 0.94 1.14
11 1.59 1.65 1.79 1.73 1.82 1.61 1.94 1.42
12 1.54 1.67 1.81 1.68 1.69 1.55 1.49 1.44
Overall 1.61 1.61 1.77 1.59 1.64 1.58 1.34 1.40

205
26.g What excites/engages you: presentations
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.17 0.99 1.19 0.92 1.07 1.16 0.40 1.40
10 1.19 1.06 1.19 1.05 0.93 1.18 0.88 0.63
11 1.24 1.10 1.15 1.11 1.24 1.06 0.89 1.10
12 1.26 1.12 1.35 1.16 1.25 1.20 1.08 1.03
Overall 1.21 1.06 1.21 1.05 1.11 1.14 0.99 1.04

26.h What excites/engages you: role plays
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.25 0.99 1.29 0.90 1.03 1.13 0.20 0.60
10 1.24 1.00 1.26 1.02 0.88 1.22 1.12 0.67
11 1.24 1.15 1.11 1.06 1.17 1.01 0.90 0.98
12 1.22 1.14 1.23 1.18 1.16 1.16 1.05 1.07
Overall 1.24 1.06 1.23 1.03 1.05 1.13 0.99 1.00

26.i What excites/engages you: art and drama activities
(Rating scale of 0 = Not at all; 1 = A little; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Very much)

Grade HSSEE
Mean
High
School
A
High
School
B
High
School
C
High
School
D
High
School
E
High
School
F
High
School
G
9 1.41 1.33 1.47 1.13 1.28 1.23 0.60 0.40
10 1.43 1.16 1.40 1.18 1.19 1.37 1.41 1.05
11 1.41 1.45 1.43 1.28 1.40 1.25 1.20 1.31
12 1.40 1.39 1.65 1.38 1.33 1.40 1.23 1.42
Overall 1.41 1.32 1.47 1.23 1.30 1.31 1.24 1.33

206
APPENDIX F

TEACHER SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
BY THE PREVIOUS STUDY COHORT

Instructions: Read the statements below and place
checkmarks in the appropriate columns.

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

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

2. My students take pride in their schoolwork.

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

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

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

6. My students care about their school.

7. My students place a high value on learning.

8. My students have a voice in classroom decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. I can help my students think critically.

19. I can foster student creativity.

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

207
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Suggested personnel to interview: Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services, Principals, Assistant Principals of Instruction, School Board
Members, Counselors, Teachers, Support staff, Parent groups and community
groups, Extra-curricular Activities Leaders (minimum of 5 interviews)—maybe
focus group or department chairpersons or during a designated prep period.

Questions:

Tell me about this school/school district

What are you most proud of at this school/school district? What areas would you
like to improve within the school/school district?

What is the vision or mission of the school? Are there common goals in which all
stakeholders are focusing upon? If so, please tell me about them.

What are the factors that you feel contribute to student achievement at your
school/school district?

What role do you feel student engagement (defined by cohort group) contributes to
student achievement at your school/school district?

What do you feel are the strengths of the school/school district?

Would you consider your school/school district high performing? Why or why
not? If so, how?

Is your school/school district unique? If so, how?

How does the school/school district prepare students beyond high school?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This mixed-methods qualitative case study was designed to investigate the relationships of perceived factors including that of student engagement on improved student achievement of high school students within an urban-like school district. The study also examined the role of the central office leadership particularly that of the superintendent had on student achievement. The sample for this study included an urban-like school district in which all seven high schools were outperforming and exceeding academic expectations of similar schools with like demographics based on state and national accountability measures.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban magnet high school

PDF

Outperforming urban schools that are closing the achievement gap: a case study of Phoenix High School

PDF

The plight of African American males in urban schools: a case study

PDF

Outperforming nontraditional urban school: a high school case study

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of an urban school

PDF

Urban schools that have narrowed the achievement gap: middle school math achievement in an urban setting

Asset Metadata

Creator Frazier, Katherine (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/10/2008

Defense Date 03/19/2008

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

Tag instructional practices,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school culture,student achievement,student engagement,urban high school

Language English

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Fish, Steven (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member)

Creator Email Kathy.USC@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1093

Unique identifier UC1153567

Identifier etd-Frazier-20080410 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-56723 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1093 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Frazier-20080410.pdf

Dmrecord 56723

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Frazier, Katherine

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