University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

OVERCOMING A LEGACY OF LOW ACHIEVEMENT: EFFECTIVE
STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS AT A HIGH-PERFORMING, HIGH-POVERTY
CALIFORNIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

by
Shaana Baluch Berman

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

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Shaana Baluch Berman

ii
Acknowledgments

This work has taught me several important lessons. First, I now recognize that
all great endeavors are processes, not products. It is the process that should be
emphasized, because this is where learning and growth occurs. Products are reflective
of the choice, persistence, and mental effort one lends to a task. Next, I have become
aware that during times of great mental effort, it is preferable to have a partner who is
experiencing the same intellectual trials. To this end, I would like to thank Spring
Cooke, who provided much support to me during this process. I hope that I contributed
reciprocally to her growth. My family has always encouraged me to pursue my
academic goals. I would not be where I am today without their support. To my parents,
my brother, and my close-knit group of friends, I extend the deepest gratitude for
dealing with me during times of great stress. I would like to thank my husband Justin,
for providing the inspiration for the pseudonym used in this work, and for taking me on
walks in the park to remind me that indeed, there is life outside of the library! I would
also like to thank my chair, Dr. Rousseau, who facilitated professional as well as
personal growth over the past year. I am wholeheartedly appreciative of that. Finally, I
have developed a comprehensive understanding of the public education system in our
country. I hope to use the knowledge and skills I have developed as part of this process
to improve the experiences of students and families who are dealing with disabilities by
facilitating best practices in special education services. Every child has the right to
achieve his or her optimal human potential.

iii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ii

List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii

Abstract ix

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1
History of Students of Color in Public Education 1
African American Students in Public Education 2
Latino Students in Public Education 3
Native American Students in Public Education 5
Students of Color in Special Education 7
The Achievement Gap 8
Some Urban Schools Beat the Odds 10
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 13
Importance of the Study 13
Assumptions 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 17
Organization of the Study 18

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 19
The Achievement Gap and Education Reform 19
Students of Color in Special Education 21
Theoretical Framework 23
Common Structures and Systems in Effective Schools 24
Some Urban Schools Beat the Odds 25
The Impact of Structures and Systems on Instructional Practice 27
School Culture That Emphasizes High Expectations 28
Parental Involvement 30
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 32
Leadership: The Common Thread 35
Students of Color in Special Education 37
Special Education as a Vehicle for De Facto Segregation 38
Racial Disparity in Special Education 39
Poverty as a Flawed Explanation of Overrepresentation 41

iv
Structures, Systems, Instructional Practices, and Overrepresentation 46
Referral and Assessment of Students of Color 46
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Overrepresentation 49
Special Education Service Delivery Models and Overrepresentation 51
Conclusions 52
School Staff Perspectives about Race and Disability 53

Chapter 3: Resarch Methodology 56
Study Design and Research Questions 56
Sample and Population 58
Selection Criteria 58
Sampling Procedure 59
Participants 60
Instrumentation 61
Research Question Frameworks 62
Framework for Research Question 1 62
Framework for Research Question 2 63
Framework for Research Question 3 64
Framework for Research Question 4 64
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures 65
Data Collection Instruments 65
Site Visits 65
Data Analysis 66
Ethical Considerations 67
Summary 68

Chapter 4: Findings 69
Woodman Elementary School 70
Research Question 1 72
Publicly Reported Data 74
Special Education Students 81
Research Question 2 85
Character Education Program 86
Schoolwide Focus on Instructional Practice 90
Leadership 94
Data-Based Decision Making 99
Parental Involvement 103
School Culture/Climate 107
Focus on Achievement 109
Research Question 2a 110
Intervention Team Incorporated 110
Frequent Assessment and Monitoring Through OARS 112
Intersession and Front Loading 112

v
Perspective on Special Education 114
Research Question 3 118
Leadership 118
School Capacity 122
Culturally Relevant Instruction 124
Research Question 4 125
Increased Parental Involvement 128
Decrease in Special Education Referrals 129
Summary 132

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 133
Introduction 133
Purpose of the Study 134
Methodology 135
Summary of the Findings 135
Research Question 1 136
Analysis 136
Research Question 2 138
Analysis 139
Schoolwide Focus on Instruction 140
Leadership 140
Strategic Use of Data 141
Parental Involvement 141
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 142
Research Question 2a 142
Analysis 144
Research Question 3 145
Analysis 146
Research Question 4 147
Analysis 148
Implications for Practice 151
Recommendations for Future Research 152
Conclusion 153

Bibliography 155

Appendices 164
Appendix A: Administrator Interview Protocol 164
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 166
Appendix C: Classified Staff Interview Protocol 168
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol 170
Appendix E: Classroom Observation Protocol 171
Appendix F: Professional Development Observation Guiding Questions 173

vi
Appendix G: Leadership Team Meeting Reflection Questions 174
Appendix H: Photograph Journal of Artifacts at Woodman Elementary 175
School

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: National Third Grade Mathematics and Reading Achievement
in 2004 9

Figure 2: Sociocultural Influences on Student Achievement 24

Figure 3: Office of Civil Rights 2004 Compliance Data 45

Figure 4: Comparison of Woodman Elementary School Performance to Similar
Schools 74

Figure 5: Positive Trends in API Scores at Woodman Elementary 75

Figure 6: 2006 API Scores by Numerically Significant Subgroups 76

Figure 7: Ratio of Total Enrollment to Special Education Enrollment by
Ethnicity 80

Figure 8: Distribution of Students in Soft and Hard Eligibility Categories 81

viii
List of Tables

Table 1: Representation of Race and “Soft” Disability Category 44

Table 2: Triangulating Across Data Collection Instruments 62

Table 3: Student Performance Relative to 2005 Growth Targets in English
Language Arts 77

Table 4: Student Performance Relative to 2005 Growth Targets in Mathematics 78

Table 5: Student Performance Relative to 2006 Growth Targets in English 80
Language Arts

Table 6: Student Performance Relative to 2006 Growth Targets in Mathematics 80

ix
Abstract

Students of color educated in high-poverty, urban schools have traditionally
experienced low achievement. Some high-poverty schools serving large concentrations
of students of color achieve high levels of academic performance, however these trends
are not widespread. Systems and structures in these schools have been shown to
produce a positive impact on academic performance by facilitating effective
instructional strategies in classrooms. Specific and appropriate systems and structures
may also prevent or reduce the likelihood of erroneous referrals of students of color for
special education assessment. The present work uses sociocultural theory to frame an
analysis of systems and structures that promote student achievement in a high-
performing, high-poverty, urban elementary school, and emphasizes systems and
structures that reduce racial disparities in special education.

1
Chapter 1
Introduction to the Study

At the core of public education lies the concept of social mobility. Education is
presumed to be a major means by which individuals may transcend conditions of
poverty and increase their probabilities of achieving higher levels of wealth and/or
opportunities for a better quality of life. While this is certainly a noble concept, schools
are more often vehicles for reproduction of the social status quo for individuals of
traditionally marginalized backgrounds (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Students of color in
public education have long been subject to inequalities that are rooted in issues of race
and class (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Sadly, the inequalities of the past appear to
be resistant to the numerous attempts at systemic reform. From the civil rights
movement to the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), education reform has targeted the
reduction of disparities in public education. Yet a hefty achievement gap persists
between students of color, especially those educated in high-poverty schools, and their
more privileged peers. To fully comprehend the sociopolitical context from which this
achievement gap was born, the gap must be examined with regard to the disparate
histories of students of color.
History of Students of Color in Public Education
Students from African American, Latino American, and Native American
backgrounds have historically received inherently different treatment in public
education institutions. Federal policies regarding education of students of color from
these ethnic groups have been discriminatory from the beginning. Although the

2
sociopolitical histories of each of these groups are unique, their experiences in public
education have been similar in relation to the disparities between them and White
students. As a context for this study, the similarities in the experiences of these
historically marginalized groups will be examined with attention to legislation that has
impacted educational access.
African American Students in Public Education
Providing African Americans with public education was not a legal imperative
until after the Civil War (Stephan, 1980). Prior to and following the Civil War, the
majority of African Americans were denied the rights of citizenship, and access to
formal schooling. For example, Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) supported ‘separate but
equal” facilities as constitutional. The Plessy decision served as a legislative
springboard by which to justify the social separation of African Americans from White
students in public schools. Under the separate but equal doctrine, African American
children attended segregated schools of substantially lower quality in comparison to
their White counterparts.
Segregation was legally outlawed in the nation’s public schools following the
Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (1954) decision, which rendered separate
schools inherently unequal. Following this decision, public schools were forced to
desegregate. Forced desegregation led to “white flight” as White Americans utilized
their wealth and privilege to purchase homes in communities where schools did not
have large concentrations of African American students (Holme, 2002). While the
Brown decision was intended to foster equity for students of color attending public

3
schools, change did not occur immediately. Nevertheless, this legislation is considered a
landmark case, which set the stage for further legislation that sought to protect the rights
of students of color in public education.
Perhaps the most significant piece of such legislation was Title IV of The Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which declared, “no person in the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
assistance.” This act barred the use of federal funds for public schools engaging in
discriminatory practices; however, it intensified de facto segregation. African American
children continued to cluster in high-poverty areas as White Americans continued to use
their affluence and social dominance to engineer communities and schools that were
ethnically homogeneous (Knapp & Woolverton, 2004; Parvin, 1975). Spriggs (2006)
cites that the African American poverty rate is nearly twice that of the general
population hence the racial poverty gap remains. School-aged African American
children, therefore, currently predominate in the poorest communities and,
subsequently, the poorest schools.
Latino American Students in Public Education
The history of Latino American students in public education parallels that of
African American students in terms of disenfranchisement and inequality. Legislation
similarly reflects federal attempts to marginalize Latino students. The Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) ended the Mexican-American War. This legislation
contributed to public school segregation by limiting the citizenship of Latinos. Latinos

4
were a conquered people, and as such, policies relating to the education of Latino
students reinforced this inferior status. Until 1949, Latino students were placed in
separate schools, even in the absence of laws specifically prohibiting them from
attending integrated schools (Gonzalez, 1985). Exclusionary policies designed to limit
educational access of Latino students were enacted to justify segregation on the basis of
language differences. English-only policies were stringently applied in public schools,
which suppressed the language and culture of Latino students (San Miguel, 1986).
Following the Brown decision, effectual segregation affected Latino students, as
evidenced by patterns in housing, employment, and school performance (Losen &
Orfield, 2002). Latino families clustered in barrios, due to discriminatory practices in
the housing sector. These sections of the community, comprised of the poorest
community members, were considered the least desirable. In relation to employment,
utilizing Latinos as cheap labor seemed justified since public opinion characterized
them as intellectually, socially, and culturally inferior (Gonzalez, 1985). Gonzalez
(1985) also reports that in integrated public schools, students of Latino descent tended
to be placed in segregated classes for students demonstrating low ability, a practice that
appears to be linked to suppression of the Spanish language. Segregation of Latino
students in separate low-ability classes was justified on the basis of language
differences and the belief that low academic performance was associated with innate
intellectual deficiencies (Gonzalez, 1985; Valencia, 1998).
Educational outcomes for Latino students suffered, as evidenced by a consistent
pattern of poor school performance demonstrated in data from standardized math and

5
English-language arts, tests, dropout rates, and disproportionate enrollment in classes
for the cognitively impaired (San Miguel, 1986; Gersten & Woodward, 1994). These
patterns are still observed among Latino students today: they continue to exhibit
disproportionately low achievement on standardized tests and higher dropout rates
relative to White students (Gersten & Woodward, 1994; Suarez-Orozco, C., Suarez-
Orozco, M. M., & Doucet, 2004). Moreover, similar to African American
demographics, data show that students of Mexican-American descent tend to cluster in
high-poverty communities and schools (Garcia, 2004).
Native American Students in Public Education
Just as the educational histories of African American and Latino students reflect
inequalities in access to education, the educational history of Native Americans is
similarly afflicted. From the time when settlers first arrived in the New World, there
have been overt attempts to disenfranchise Native American people from their lands,
separate them from their cultural identities, and assimilate them into a Eurocentric
lifestyle (Adams, 1988; Lomawaima, 1993). Public education became the primary
method for holding out the promise of assimilation, but denying access to the means by
which it could be fully achieved. Efforts to educate Native American People may be
examined in terms of past assimilation practices (Adams, 1988; Lomawaima, 1993).
Considered heathens, the first mode of education for students of Native
American descent was the clergy-operated, federally subsidized mission. The
missionaries attempted to replace Native American cultures in order to civilize and
Christianize Native Americans. By the late 1800s, the federal government began to

6
operate off-reservation boarding schools and day schools. These institutions were
established under the assumption that removing children from their “savage” parental
influences would hasten the assimilation process (Lomawaima, 1993). Native American
students began attending public schools following enactment of the Johnson-O’Malley
Act in 1934, which authorized federal funding to public schools that enrolled students
from Native American backgrounds. In 1969, the failure of the nation to educate Native
American students was highlighted in the report Indian Education: A National
Tragedy—A National Challenge. The report revealed low educational achievement,
high dropout rates, and negative self-concepts among Native American students
(Whiteman, 1985). Congress responded to this tragedy by passing the Indian Education
Act in 1972. Title IV of this act addressed the specific and unique needs of Native
American People in public education.
By 2000, up to 63% of Native Americans resided in urban areas (Lomawaima,
2004). Of these, up to 90% attended public schools in high-poverty communities.
Statistics such as these reveal patterns of segregation that are reminiscent of those
experienced by African Americans and Latinos. In terms of educational outcomes,
students of Native American descent continue to receive disproportionately low scores
on standardized achievement tests and drop out of high school at disproportionately
high rates relative to White students (Lomawaima, 2004). Careful analysis of the
historical and current status of children of color in American education reveals the
connections between these statistics and the highly disparate access to education
experienced by students from cultural and linguistic minority groups. This evidence is

7
indicative of an underlying construct of race based on attribution of deficits and
individual limitations to students from particular backgrounds.
Students of Color in Special Education
Racial disparity is found in all facets of the public school, including special
education. Some researchers (e.g., Kirk, Gallagher, & Anastasiow, 2000) credit the civil
rights movement with stimulating advocacy for children with disabilities to receive free
and appropriate public educations. While this act was intended to reduce racial
disparity, many schools responded by disproportionately and inappropriately funneling
African American and other minority students into special education placements (Losen
& Orfield, 2002). Special education became a “ghetto within the public schools” (Meier
et al., 1989). Porter (1997) explains that such behavior was based on the inherently
racist beliefs that have become ingrained in the institution of public education.
Prior to 1975, most children with special needs were not allowed access to a
public education (Losen & Orfield, 2002). The Education for all Handicapped Children
Act in 1975 delivered significant protections to students with disabilities. The
Individuals with Disabilities Act—IDEA as it is now called—has improved the
educational experience for students with special needs by mandating that all students
have the right to a free and appropriate public education. Currently, over six million
students with special needs receive special education support and services under IDEA
(NCES, 2004). While many students obtain high-quality benefits provided for under
IDEA, a growing body of research suggests that students of color in high-poverty
schools are on the receiving end of a double-edged sword when it comes to special

8
education. Not only are they facing general educational environments founded on
decades of inequality, students of color are disproportionately referred for special
education assessment, inappropriately labeled as having a disability, and placed in
restrictive settings more frequently relative to White students (Losen and Orfield,
2002).
The Achievement Gap
The preceding discussion illustrates how the history of public education in the
United States is mottled by the struggles of traditionally marginalized groups to attain
equitable academic opportunities and outcomes. Considering how the histories of
groups such as African Americans, Native Americans, and Latino Americans are
embedded in a sociopolitical context characterized by inequality sheds light on the
current state of affairs in public education. Evidence presented in the contemporary
discussion confirms that students of color have historically encountered qualitatively
different educational experiences—and consequently, outcomes—than White students.
Further, careful analysis of these contrasting experiences provides evidence that they
contribute to the dramatic gap in academic performance that currently exists between
students of color and Caucasian students.
Reports such as A Nation Still at Risk (1999) and data from the National
Assessment of Educational Performance (NAEP), offer hard evidence of an
achievement gap between students of color and White students. In 2003, the NAEP
released data illustrating that a significant achievement gap persists. Moreover, students
designated as “low-income” were significantly more likely to score below basic levels

9
of proficiency. NAEP results from 2004 confirmed that African American and Latino
students continue to demonstrate low achievement on standardized mathematics and
reading tests relative to their White peers. Figure 1, adapted from these data, depicts the
achievement gap in mathematics and reading. As these trends illustrate, race-based
disparity has existed historically and persists currently in the nation’s public schools.
Figure 1. National Third Grade Mathematics and Reading Achievement in 2004

Given the sociopolitical context that frames the academic achievement of
students of color, the academic achievement gap frequently documented between them
and White students reflects a deeply embedded, institutionalized problem that has been
evident from the start of integrated public education. Those who claim racism and
discrimination in public schools are issues of the past ignore the larger race- and class-
based societal discrepancy that persists today and its reflection in public schools.

10
Some Urban Schools Beat the Odds
Although students of color educated in high-poverty schools appear to have the
odds stacked against them, researchers (e.g., Reeves, 2000; Izumi, 2002) have identified
clusters of high-poverty urban schools that are reaching superior levels of academic
performance among students of color. Some schools that achieve this kind of success
among students of color living in poverty appear to share certain structural and systemic
characteristics that influence instructional practices. For decades, researchers (e.g.,
Edmonds, 1979; Marzano, 2003) have attempted to isolate school-based elements
associated with elevated student performance. Structures and systems such as a positive
school climate, high degree of parental involvement, and use of culturally relevant
pedagogy have been offered as mediators of student achievement in effective schools.
Statement of the Problem
The legacy of low achievement among students of color has serious
ramifications of global proportions. Having large concentrations of this nation’s
population fail to reach basic levels of academic proficiency puts this nation at risk of
falling short in terms of competition in a global economy. Raising the achievement of
all students is crucial as the world increasingly shifts toward an economy heavily
dependent on a highly skilled labor force. Urban schools that manage to overcome the
legacy of low achievement and attain success with large concentrations of students of
color offer a set of promising practices that other urban schools must emulate. Failure to
transfer effective practices to other schools with similar demographic characteristics

11
leaves many students to endure the same practices that have historically resulted in low
achievement.
In addition to the achievement gap in general academic performance, racial
disparity in special education has specific implications for students of color as well.
Losen & Orfield (2002) explain that overrepresentation of students of color in special
education is reminiscent of overrepresentation in other statistics such as dropout rate,
low-track placement, suspension, and referrals to the juvenile justice system. Further,
students in special education that remain in school are likely to receive a “certificate of
completion” rather than a regular high school diploma, a practice that restricts access to
higher education. Culturally incongruous systemic and structural practices that result in
inappropriate placement in special education create barriers that impact the individual
human potentials of students of color. These conditions perpetuate a cycle that re-
creates and exploits an underclass.
While the literature supports that consistent implementation of high-quality
instructional practices facilitates high performance among students of color in schools
designated as high poverty, it remains unclear which practices prevent or reduce racial
disparity in special education in these schools. Moreover, while researchers (e.g., Losen
& Orfield, 2002; Donovan & Cross, 2002) have identified specific systemic and
structural factors that contribute to racial disparity in special education, and
instructional practices that maintain it, it remains unclear how specific structures and
systems operate at high-performing, urban schools to reduce overrepresentation of
students of color in special education classes. Failure to identify and implement more

12
universally salient, yet largely uninvestigated systems and structure operating in schools
perpetuates legacy of low academic achievement students of color and contributes to
erroneous identification of these students for special education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify promising schoolwide structures,
systems, and instructional practices in a high-performing, high-poverty school,
particularly as they pertain to reducing race-based disparity for all students, especially
students in special education. Because little is known regarding systems, structures, and
practices that prevent a student of color from being misclassified as a special education
student, this study attempts to fill this gap in knowledge; such a gap must be filled if we
are to develop school systems that are truly vehicles of social mobility for students of
color. This study documents systems, structures, and practices that are perceived to
facilitate achievement in urban schools with large concentrations of students of color as
a context for identifying strategies to reduce overrepresentation of students of color in
special education classes. The set of research questions that follows offers a solid
framework to guide this inquiry:

13
Research Questions
1. What are the trends and patterns in academic performance among students of
color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?
a. How do high-performing, high-poverty schools utilize specific structures
and systems to prevent or reduce overrepresentation of students of color
in special education?
3. How are the school’s organizational structures and systems implemented to
promote schoolwide effective classroom instruction that promotes student
learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s systems and structures?
Importance of the Study
Understanding how racial disparity in special education occurs is of paramount
importance when considering the achievement of students of color in high-poverty
schools. Some may suggest that students who are underperforming in school should
receive special education in order to narrow the achievement gap and “catch up” to their
peers. However, students of color typically do not return to the general education
classroom once they are identified with disabilities (Fierros & Conroy, 2002). While
many students receive high-quality support and services, students of color tend to be
placed in restrictive settings where they typically receive lower quality services,

14
curriculum, and instruction as compared to White students in special education. This
vicious cycle leads to the socioenvironmental “construction” of disability, as special
education becomes a life sentence for students of color with special needs.
Just as there is disproportionate representation of students of color in certain
education demographics, such as special education eligibility categories, and
underrepresentation of students of color in programs for the gifted and talented, there
are often dramatic demographic racial divides across societal variables such as the
nation’s workforce, jails, and opportunities for attaining adequate housing, health care,
and wealth (Losen & Orfield, 2002). Hence, once students of color are labeled, the label
may become “reified” (Goffman, 1963), or ingrained as a defining feature of their
identities, which limits their academic and societal opportunities.
If indeed racial disparity in special education is merely a hiding place for
institutionalized racism to breed and grow, disparity in special education must be
reduced immediately to narrow the achievement gap of students of color. All students
require culturally responsive teaching and instruction (Gay, 2000; Hollins, 1996). This
study holds particular salience for students of color, as they tend to experience
instruction that puts them at risk for erroneous special education identification because
it is not aligned to student culture (Gay, 2002). Researchers and practitioners will
benefit greatly from identification of specific, research-based practices that support all
students, as they endeavor to design optimal school environments for students from
diverse backgrounds.

15
Assumptions
The following list reports the assumptions that framed this study:
• Student achievement is dependent on specific structures and systems that
positively impact instructional practice.
• Data are a valid indicator of student performance.
• Respondents were honest reporters.
• Data were recorded accurately.
• The data collection instruments were developed during a summer research
design seminar. As these instruments were based on sound theoretical
frameworks, and were standardized across the research cohort; they were
considered valid and reliable measures.
• Schools were reflective of the sampling criteria outlined in chapter 3.
Limitations
The research cohort generated the following list of limitations during a research
design seminar conducted during the summer of 2007:
• Short time period for data collection: Data collection occurred over a one-month
period in the fall of 2007.
• Small sample size: Data was collected from one high-performing urban
elementary school.
• Participant bias: As the study involved voluntary participation, the researcher
had no control over who participated in the study nor control over any potential

16
bias inherent to participants. For example, some opinions might not be reflective
of all participants at a particular school site.
• Researcher bias: For example, the researcher determines which data are
collected and included in coding. Moreover, the data are analyzed through the
lens of the researcher, which could serve as a threat to internal validity (Patton,
2002).
Delimitations
The field of inquiry for this study was limited to promote in-depth analysis of
structures, systems, practices, and characteristics of implementation associated with
student achievement among students of color at one site. First, Asian American students
were excluded from the study, as this subgroup does not demonstrate the historical
trends of underperformance noted among African American, Latino, and Native
American students. In addition, data were collected from only one high-performing
urban elementary school in California, which limits generalizability to other schools or
districts. The school site studied was selected based on the following criteria, which
limits generalizability to school sites that do not fit these criteria:
• School site served a population comprising at least 75% students of color.
• School site was designated as high-poverty, as evidenced by at least 75% of
students on free or reduced lunch.
• School had made schoolwide growth in Academic Performance Index (API) of
at least 2 deciles in a 3-5 year time period.

17
• School did not demonstrate disproportionate representation of students of color
in special education classes.
Definition of Terms
API: Academic Performance Index: A numeric index ranging from a low of 200 to a
high of 1,000 that indicates a school’s performance level in California.
AYP: Annual Yearly Progress: A federal measure of school achievement.
High-performing school: A P–12 school site that demonstrates a schoolwide trajectory
of growth in API and AYP (e.g., moves at least 2 deciles in 3–5 years’ time) with
consistency across ethnic subgroups; a school that does not overrepresent students of
color for special education classification.
High-poverty school: A P–12 site where at least 75% of students are receiving free or
reduced lunches.
Organizational structures: Institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in
place by federal, state, or district policy or legislation; not subject to change at the local
school site (e.g., funding mechanisms, personnel policies, use of instructional time,
class size, program regulations).
Organizational systems: Coordinated and coherent use of resources (time, personnel,
students, parents, funds, facilities, etc.) at the school site to ensure that school visions,
missions, and goals are met (e.g., professional development, teacher collaboration,
parent involvement).
Special education overrepresentation: When the proportion of students of color in
special education classes is equal to or greater than 10% of the proportion of students of

18
color in general education classes when data are disaggregated by ethnicity (Reschly,
1997).
School climate: A characterization of the school environment and its perceived effects
on students.
School culture: The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that
characterizes a school.
Students of color: Students of African American, Latino American, or Native American
descent.
Urban: Located within a densely populated culturally, ethnically, and economically
diverse community; or, located within a densely populated metropolis with high
concentrations of students of color.
Organization of the Study
The present study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides a
sociopolitical context for the problem under investigation and a rationale for the study
by specifying the following elements: a historical overview, the problem statement, the
purpose of the study, the importance of the study, the research questions, the
assumptions, the limitations, the delimitations, and the definitions of salient terms.
Chapter 2 synthesizes literature relevant to the study and identifies gaps in the literature
that this study will address. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology utilized in the
study, while chapter 4 presents a comprehensive analysis of findings. Chapter 5 presents
conclusions as well as implications and recommendations for future research and
practice.

19
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
In 2000, Congress reported, “An educational emergency exists in those urban
and rural areas where there are large concentrations of children living in poverty”
(Goals 2000: Educate America Act, p. 115). Historically, high-poverty urban schools
with large concentrations of students of color have been associated with low
achievement. For example, Gardner and Miranda (2002) report that students attending
urban schools tend to score lower than students attending schools in more affluent
communities. Moreover, these authors state that students of color constitute a
significant percentage of students who attend schools in impoverished communities.
Disparities in terms of academic performance are commonly referred to as the
achievement gap. Given the highly disparate sociopolitical histories of students of color
in comparison to White middle class students, an achievement gap that carries the
undertones of race and class is a predictable consequence.
The Achievement Gap and Education Reform
Public and federal attention to the achievement gap began with the publication
of a highly charged report, A Nation at Risk (1983). This report revealed that American
students were attaining significantly lower standards of academic performance relative
to their international counterparts. The report warned that the future of the nation was
being threatened by a “rising tide of mediocrity” in America’s public schools. As
evidence of this rising tide, the report highlighted statistics that revealed “functional
illiteracy” and lack of “higher order intellectual skills” among the nation’s citizens. A

20
Nation at Risk placed the blame for these deficiencies squarely on the shoulders of
public education and stimulated a nationwide sense of discontent among the citizenry.
Standards and accountability-based reforms emerged from these sentiments along with
a national focus on improving student performance. For example, these reforms
required districts to report data on student performance that enabled policy makers to
detect trends in performance based on race and class.
While standards and accountability-based reform efforts were intended to
ameliorate weaknesses in public education, a follow-up work published in 1989, A
Nation Still at Risk, confirmed that American children were still underachieving in
comparison to students in other industrialized nations. In addition, disparities in
academic achievement were documented between students of color attending high-
poverty, urban schools and their White peers. A Nation Still at Risk deemed the
achievement gap “the next frontier” of the civil rights movement. This statement
reflects a connection to the sociopolitical histories of students of color and foreshadows
additional data showing disparities in academic achievement.
The NAEP, often referred to as the Nation’s Report Card, provides a “common
yardstick” by which to compare student achievement at national and state levels. In
2003, the NAEP released data illustrating that a significant achievement gap persists
between the achievement of students of color and their White peers. Moreover, students
designated as low-income were significantly more likely to score below basic levels of
proficiency. NAEP results from 2006 confirmed that African American and Latino
students continue to achieve at lower levels relative to their White peers. As these

21
trends illustrate, race-based disparity has existed historically and persists currently in
the nation’s public schools.
Students of Color in Special Education
As the data above indicate, there is a clear gap in academic achievement
between students of color and their White peers. Losen and Orfield (2002) report trends
regarding students of color in special education that reveal race-based disparity as well.
For example, African American children are 2.88 times as likely as White children to be
identified and found eligible for special education under the disability category of
Mental Retardation (MR) and 1.92 times as likely to be found eligible as Emotionally
Disturbed (ED). These authors contend that, once students of color are placed in special
education classes, they tend to experience lower quality education support and services.
Further, students of color tend to be placed in more restrictive settings that their White
peers, causing unnecessary segregation (Losen & Orfield, 2002). This practice may
serve as a barrier to high student achievement.
Losen and Orfield (2002) relate that these trends hold serious individual and
societal ramifications, as well as threaten dire consequences for the future of public
education in the United States. Disregarding racial patterns in special education is
tantamount to writing off the potentials of thousands of the nation’s children and
contaminates the organizational health that diversity brings to a population. Too, racial
disparity in special education has its beginnings in the same historical roots of inequity
that are part of this nation’s past. For example, Ferri and Connor (2005) examine the
sociopolitical histories of African American students and English-language learners and

22
highlight how de facto segregation was impressed on these students via low
expectations and institutionalized practices within a school. These authors illustrate that
as legislation was passed to prevent students with disabilities from being denied
education, clear patterns of overrepresentation emerged for students from African
American, Latino, and Native American descent. That these patterns coincide with
special education legislation and construction of special education eligibility categories
based on subjective decisions by key personnel at a school site suggests that current
structures, systems, and instructional practices are failing to meet the needs of students
of color (Ferri & Connor, 2005; Harry & Klinger, 2006; Losen & Orfield 2002).
Moreover, such practices lead to unnecessary segregation of students of color from their
mainstream peers (Losen & Orfield, 2002), a situation that mimics the sociopolitical
histories of such students.
Identifying structures, systems, and instructional practices that serve to keep
students of color from being misclassified into special education classes is of paramount
importance in addressing the achievement gap. However, an examination of the
literature documenting systems and structures that may prevent or reduce
overrepresentation of students of color in special education would be incomplete
without investigating how those systems and structures facilitate high achievement
among students in general. This review uses documentation of systems, structures, and
practices that facilitate student achievement in urban schools with large concentrations
of students of color as a context for identifying strategies for reducing
overrepresentation of students of color in special education classes. Finally, this work

23
identifies systems and structures that may prevent or reduce overrepresentation, and
directs the current inquiry by identifying gaps in the literature that this research will
address.
Theoretical Framework
The present review is anchored in the sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky,
1987). This theoretical framework proposes that learning (and subsequently,
achievement) is rooted in the interactions that take place in the social environment. For
the purposes of this study, the school and the classroom are identified as the social stage
upon which learning discourse occurs. Along these lines, structures and systems that
impact instructional practices in individual classrooms constitute the variables that
mediate student achievement. Systems and structures that contribute to a positive school
climate that facilitates achievement among students of color are reflected in the
instructional practices taking place in individual classrooms.
As this review will show, such systems and structures are particularly pertinent
to the academic performance of students of color attending high-poverty urban schools,
as these students are embedded in multilayered, sociopolitical environments.
Inappropriate and disproportionate placement of students of color in special education
classes is consistent with their inequitable histories. General and special education laws
and policies are structures are put into place by the federal government. Systems within
these structures are implemented by individual schools. This review will reflect on the
sociocultural systems and systems that prevent or reduce overrepresentation. Figure 2
represents sociocultural influences on student achievement. As shown, the academic

24
achievement of students of color is influenced by historical and contemporary societal
and educational factors, which give rise to school structural and systemic factors.

Figure 2. Sociocultural Influences on Student Achievement

Common Structures and Systems in Effective Schools
For decades, researchers (e.g., Edmonds, 1979; Levine & Lezotte, 1990;
Scheerens & Bosker, 1997) have attempted to isolate elements of schools that were able
to produce high student performance. These “effective schools correlates” appeared
consistently in schools achieving high performance, regardless of student backgrounds.
Marzano (2003) synthesizes previous works and arrives at the following list of school-

25
level factors that positively impact student achievement: (1) opportunity to learn, (2)
time, (3) monitoring, (4) pressure to achieve, (5) parental involvement, (6) school
climate, (7) leadership, and (8) cooperation. Hence, research has demonstrated the
association between high student achievement and the implementation of school-level
structures and systems. The findings from this research suggest that employing these or
similar structures and systems in urban schools may enable school staff to overcome the
unique challenges faced by students in high-poverty schools.
Some Urban Schools Beat the Odds
Students in high-poverty schools face a number of unique burdens. For example,
these students are often subjected to higher rates of violence, malnutrition, and
substandard housing (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Schools’ interpretations of these
sociocultural factors may mask the assets students of color bring to the academic setting
and contribute to deficit-based constructs of race that have been perpetuated throughout
American history. That is, the persistent poverty among people of color may reinforce
constructs of race that cause schools to view students of color as intellectually or
culturally inferior and reject the assets these students bring to the school setting. Beliefs
and practices carved from historical constructs of race may make educators in high-
poverty, urban areas view students with “deficit eyes.” Given their sociopolitical
histories and the current state of affairs in education, it is clear that students of color in
urban schools have the odds stacked high against their success. While this problem
appears impossible to solve, research has identified that there are some urban schools
managing to beat the odds. Further, evidence suggests that these schools employ

26
specific structures and systems that positively impact instructional practice, enabling
their students of color to overcome legacies of low achievement.
As stated, frequent documentation of low achievement and overrepresentation in
special education appears to reflect a suboptimal future for students educated in
particular locales. However, researchers have identified clusters of promising practices
that facilitate high achievement among students of color in urban schools. A pivotal
study in this regard is The 90/90/90 Schools case study conducted by the Center for
Performance Assessment in 2000. These schools shared the following demographic
characteristics: 90% of students were on free or reduced lunch, 90% of the students
were students of color, and at least 90% of students were achieving at high proficiency
levels. In addition, the schools in the study shared common organizational systems and
structures, as well as common instructional practices. All schools in the study
demonstrated a strong focus on achievement, clear curricular choices, an emphasis on
writing, frequent assessment of student performance, and collaborative scoring of
student work (Reeves, 2000).
In this study, the following common factors characterized schools that achieved
the most gains in student performance: time for collaboration that focused on
achievement, frequent feedback to students regarding their performance, schedule
changes to facilitate effective practice, teacher assignment practices, data collection and
analysis from multiple sources using formative assessment methods, common
assessment practices, effective use of school resources, effective professional
development, and implementation of an integrated cross-disciplinary curriculum

27
(Reeves, 2000). The underlying assumption of this work suggests that some high-
poverty schools can beat the odds if they consistently employ a series of effective
structures and systems designed to positively impact teacher quality and instructional
practice. Further, this study aligns well with Marzano’s (2003) synthesis of effective
schools correlates by illustrating that school-level factors enhance student achievement
in high-poverty, urban schools.
Additional research confirms that high-performing, high-poverty schools share
common structures and systems that support instructional practices in the classroom.
For example, Izumi and colleagues (2002) examined factors contributing to the high
achievement of students of color in eight California elementary schools. Common
themes emerged from interviews with school principals. Utilization of a research-based
curriculum that was aligned with content standards, an emphasis on parental
involvement, and teacher quality were cited as reasons for success. Principals in the
study were considered strong leaders with well-defined visions regarding effective
practices. These findings provide further support that specific organizational factors are
associated with high achievement of students of color. Data also revealed that consistent
implementation of these structures and systems impacts individual classrooms.
The Impact of Structures and Systems on Instructional Practice
The research described in the previous section illustrates that high-poverty
schools that manage to beat the odds and achieve high levels of student academic
performance among students of color share common structural and systemic elements.
The following structures and systems will be explored in more detail to examine how

28
they positively impact instructional practices in classrooms: school culture and climate
that emphasizes high expectations, parental involvement, and utilization of culturally
relevant pedagogy. Consistent implementation of these systems and structures may hold
particular salience for students of color attending high-poverty schools.
School Culture That Emphasizes High Expectations
Kannapel and Clements (2005) identify correlates of school cultures associated
with high student achievement in their analysis of common factors in eight high-
poverty, high-performing middle schools. These correlates include leadership that
fosters high expectations for students, staff, and faculty; collaborative decision-making;
parent and community involvement; and a commitment to equity and diversity. Schools
that encompass these correlates contribute to a positive school culture that is embedded
within the social stage on which maximal learning interactions may occur.
Kannapel and Clements (2005) report that principals of high-performing, high-
poverty schools communicated high expectations for all students. These expectations
led to a collective belief that all students were capable of high performance. It should be
noted that a school culture founded on high expectations for students of color runs
counter to expectations derived from historical constructs of race and the academic
performance of students of color documented in low-performing schools. The effects of
teacher expectation on student performance are well documented (Cooper & Good,
1982; Rist, 1970; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). A synthesis of literature on
expectations, school climate, and student achievement reveals that these factors are

29
linked. Further, structures and systems are linked to classroom practice and teacher
attitudes about students of color.
Katz (1999) shows how structural conditions such as tracking and high teacher
turnover rate may be linked to negative attitudes toward students of color. These
negative attitudes were associated with classroom practices such as the quality and
quantity of teacher-student relationships. Drawing from this evidence, teachers who
believe that some students are incapable of learning certain material, or that they do not
value the material, often initiate fewer and lower quality interactions with them. Cooper
and Tom (1984) show that teacher expectations are associated with classroom practices
in the following ways: number of academic teacher-student interactions and length of
time teacher maintains the interaction. Hence, teacher expectations are linked to the
emphasis Marzano (2003) places on the opportunity to learn as a crucial correlate of
effective schools. Teachers are “opportunity gatekeepers” and control which students
receive meaningful access to the curriculum.
These findings present evidence that expectations guide practice and influence
the school climate. Slaughter-Defoe and Carlson (1996) report that young African
American and Latino students in a high-poverty urban school viewed teacher-student
relationships as the most important dimension of school climate. Structures and systems
that lead to more equitable distribution of opportunities to learn contribute to a positive
school climate founded on high expectations for all students. Kannapel and Clements
(2005) found that principals can play an important role in shaping the collective belief
among teachers that all students can achieve high academic standards. A positive school

30
culture, then, is one that communicates the collective belief that all students are capable
of attaining superior performance goals and that all teachers are capable of delivering
high-quality instruction to meet the diverse learning needs in their classrooms.
Marzano (2003) reports that the use of a viable curriculum is essential to raising
student achievement. Marzano’s assertion about the significance of a viable curriculum
is consistent with the concept that high expectations are an important factor fostering
high academic achievement in schools with large concentrations of students of color.
Implementation of a rigorous curriculum communicates high expectations for all
students. High expectations embedded within the culture of the school can override the
effects of inaccurate assumptions about students of color held by some educators.
Parental Involvement
Parent and community involvement also characterize high-performing schools
(Kannapel & Clements, 2005). Research (e.g., Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Henderson &
Berla, 1994) indicate that parental involvement is linked to high student achievement.
Research also shows that parents of color from high-poverty communities are less likely
to be involved in schools. For example, parents of color may rarely be present at school
functions (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). These parent behaviors may lead to school staff
and faculty assumptions that parents of color do not value their children’s education. In
fact, the systems and structures of most schools are based on middle-class, dominant-
culture values and may act as race- and class-based barriers to parental involvement in
schools with high concentrations of students of color by creating distrust and resistance
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).

31
Parental distrust can also stem from minority parents’ perceptions of the school
as unwelcoming (McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000). These perceptions may develop
from minority parents’ own negative experiences with school or school demographics
that vastly differ from minority background. Lipman (1998) suggests that minority
parents’ own negative experiences in school may produce resistance to school
involvement. Parents of color may have experienced racism, discrimination, or failure
during their educational experiences. School demographics may create distrust, when
the majority of faculty and school staff largely represents the dominant culture. As
Lipman’s (1998) work implies, these circumstances create an unwelcoming atmosphere
for minority parents and reduce the opportunities for those parents to be involved.
In schools that create conditions that increase meaningful participation of
parents of color, however, the barrier of low parental involvement is ameliorated.
Teachers who encourage active, reciprocal interactions with students and their parents
activate essential discourse that enables more relevant instruction. Teachers are pivotal
in providing services to parents because they often have the cultural capital necessary to
communicate how to navigate the complex public institution of academia (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). Teachers may act as gatekeepers of important information such as dates
of important events and particulars regarding student progress. A shared vision among
parents and school staff that conveys advocacy and accountability to parents of color is
thus at the core of increasing their active engagement.
High-performing schools utilize specific strategies to increase parental
involvement from high-poverty communities. These strategies facilitate relationships

32
between schools and families that encourage positive interactions. For example, school
staff and faculty at high-performing schools actively target parent needs through
communication, personal contact, and policies that encourage parental involvement in
schools (Scribner, Young, & Pedoza, 1999; Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001).
These parental involvement systems facilitate meaningful relationships between
teachers and students, a connection whose importance has been established in multiple
studies of schools that promote high achievement (Christie, 2005; Henderson & Mapp,
2002; Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow, & Fendrich, 1999; Sanders, 1997; Tonn, 2005).
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Schools that have successfully promoted academic achievement among students
of color have nurtured a culture that supports high expectations and facilitated parental
involvement. In addition, schools that achieve high levels of performance among
students of color utilize culturally relevant instructional delivery techniques. Awareness
and utilization of culturally relevant pedagogy is absolutely essential to the education of
all students. Culturally relevant pedagogy is founded on the premise that educators
must recognize that learning differs based on student culture (Ladson-Billings, 2001).
Based on this premise, designing optimal learning opportunities for students of color
requires that educators recognize these differences and reflect them in instructional
practices (Villegas, 1991). For example, students who come from a culture that values
cooperation may benefit from learning opportunities that occur in pairs or in small
group.

33
Garcia (1994) explains that culturally competent educators are those who use
student culture as the basis for learning. These educators achieve high levels of
performance among students of color because they utilize their prior knowledge as the
foundation for learning new skills. Hence, recognizing, understanding, and building
upon the unique cultures of students of color provide the path to academic success.
Garcia (1994) also cites high expectations as critical to the delivery of culturally
relevant instruction. According to Garcia (1994), having high expectations for students
of color translates into instruction that emphasizes complex cognitive skills, such as
problem-solving, rather than simple recall tasks. These notions align well with
Marzano’s (2003) description of effective instructional strategies.
Multicultural education is another genre of research that informs culturally
relevant pedagogy. Banks (1993, 1994) defines multicultural education in terms of five
categories: content integration, the knowledge construction process, prejudice
reduction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture. These dimensions
inform practice by infusing those serving culturally and linguistically diverse students
with the tools they need to effect higher achievement. The equity pedagogy dimension
is salient as it provides an explicit link to instructional practice that benefits all students.
Equity pedagogy is defined as “teaching strategies and classroom environments
that help students from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups attain the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes needed to function effectively within, and help create and
perpetuate, a just, humane, and democratic society,” (Banks & Banks, 1995, p. 152).
These authors suggest that consistent implementation of equity pedagogy requires other

34
structural and systemic considerations. For example, schools must ensure that adequate
time for learning occurs by adjusting class length, arrangement of physical space, and
style of curriculum delivery. Hence, these authors provide an explicit link between
systems, structures, and instructional practices, as described below.
To design equitable academic experiences for all students, schools must attend
to factors such as class length and the physical environment of the classroom. Optimal
class lengths reflect enough time for students to engage in meaningful interactions in a
physical environment that enhances teacher-student interactions (Banks & Banks,
1995). Arrangement of space in a classroom can often reflect power distinctions and
can inhibit student learning (Banks & Banks, 1995). For example, a classroom that
reflects uni-dimensional transmission of information from teacher to student may have
chairs lined up in rows facing the teacher. This arrangement implies a “hidden
curriculum” based on control (Tye, 1987). A physical environment that encourages
students to actively create their own knowledge through meaningful social interactions
will be arranged in a different manner; for example, student desks may be arranged in
groups that facilitate cooperative learning or that encourage face-to-face interactions
among students, with the teacher acting as facilitator of knowledge construction.
According to Banks & Banks (1995), such an arrangement reflects alignment with
culturally mediated learning discourse styles. The social construction of meaning is
also evident in these works, reminiscent of Vygotsky’s (1987) sociocultural learning
theory.

35
As described above, teachers must attend to features of the physical environment
in order to promote learning among students of color. Just as the physical arrangement
of space can facilitate interactions that promote learning, use of culturally responsive
instruction within the instructional space facilitates learning. Nieto (1996) explains that
instruction is culturally responsive when it addresses different viewpoints. When a
classroom teacher encourages inclusion of multiple viewpoints, learning takes on
additional relevance for students (Padron, Waxman, & Riviera, 2002; Hollins, 1996).
Students then become active participants in their own learning, a notion that reflects
Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory (1987). Hence, in order for students to attach
meaning to learning discourse, educators must connect the discourse to student culture.
The preceding discussion connects the sociopolitical context to contemporary
low achievement of students of color, and highlights that despite deeply embedded
barriers to success, high-performing, high-poverty schools utilize strategic
implementation of certain structures and systems schoolwide to produce high
achievement among students of color by impacting instructional practice. Specific
structures and systems such as a positive school climate, parental involvement, and use
of culturally relevant pedagogy support students from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds in schools.
Leadership: The Common Thread
How do schools engineer optimal learning environments for students of color?
A common thread that links a high-performing school’s structures, systems, and
instructional practices into a supportive school climate appears to be leadership that

36
fosters consistent schoolwide implementation of these correlates. Early research on
school leadership focused on the principal (Bridges, 1982; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985). More recent literature reflects a change in the focus of school
leadership research. While the role of the principal continued to be emphasized, new
research began to identify “networks” (Rowan, 1990) whereby leadership activities
became distributed across multiple individuals and roles at school sites (Hart, 1995;
Heller & Firestone, 1995). Effective school leadership is currently conceptualized by
some theorists to deviate from the traditional hierarchical model and instead follow this
“distributed leadership pattern” (Elmore, 2000; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995; Wallace,
2002).
Harris (2002) reports that there are few studies of effective leadership in schools
facing challenges such as high degrees of poverty. However, the author reviews the
findings of a research study conducted by the National College for School Leadership
that investigated leadership models in urban secondary schools in “challenging
contexts.” Harris concludes that the distributed leadership model shows promise for
school improvement. By actively preparing others in the school to take on leadership
roles and supporting shared decision making, the principal creates a network of team
members with a common goal: facilitating student achievement. Having a common goal
unites team members in consistently implementing effective instructional practices.
While leadership patterns are unclear in high-poverty schools serving large
concentrations of students of color, it is likely that distributed leadership may contribute
to a school climate that facilitates achievement among these students.

37
Bolman and Deal (1991) suggest that integrated use of four organizational
frames enhances a leader’s effectiveness. The structural frame addresses formal roles,
policies, and structures within an organization. The human resource frame accounts for
the personal growth and feelings of individuals within an organization. The political
frame allows a leader to conceptualize stakeholders in an organization as constituents
with wants and needs that may conflict. The symbolic frame is a lens through which an
organization is perceived to have a specific culture. Symbols and rituals are utilized to
develop a common focus among employees. In considering application of these
concepts to schools, the principal typically holds the leadership role. Little is known
about how leadership behaviors in high-performing, high-poverty schools reflect these
frames; however, it is likely that effective school leaders utilize components of these
frames to facilitate consistent implementation of structures and systems that support
student achievement.
Students of Color in Special Education
As demonstrated, consistent implementation of structures and systems create a
social stage that facilitates success among all students who act on it. How does this
evidence apply to overrepresentation of students of color in special education? Just as
inquiry regarding racial disparity in the achievement of students of color is incomplete
without examining the sociopolitical factors that surround it, so too would inquiry
regarding racial disparity of students of color in special education be incomplete
without a similar discourse. Hence, the history of students of color as it pertains to
special education will be reviewed, followed by an examination of the structures and

38
systems that contribute to overrepresentation. Finally, structures and systems that serve
to reduce or prevent overrepresentation of students of color in special education will be
investigated to determine the next logical step in this research endeavor.
Special Education as a Vehicle for De Facto Segregation
Some researchers have suggested that the concept of special education evolved
as a vehicle for de facto desegregation (Losen & Orfield, 2002). This view is supported
by sociopolitical events. Passage of the Brown decision stimulated parents of students
with disabilities to lobby for educational equity. Artiles, Trent, and Palmer (2004)
provide a historical overview of students of color in special education and cite that legal
precedents such as Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) led to the passage of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act in 1975.
The Education for all Handicapped Children Act ensured the right of children
with disabilities to be educated in public schools and mandated that schools provide
special education and related services to meet the unique needs of these students. This
act was later amended in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Further federal attention to students of color in special education arose from
research that showed how previous legislation led to de facto segregation in schools as
students of color were funneled into special education classes, leading to racial
disparities in terms of both proportions and services (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004).
Amendments to IDEA in 1997 emphasized the needs of culturally and linguistically
diverse students. In addition, IDEA required schools to provide annual data reflecting

39
numbers of students of color referred for special education, numbers of students of color
receiving special education, extent of services, high school graduation rates, and
performance on state assessments (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004).
Racial Disparity in Special Education
Overrepresentation of students of color in special education classes has been
documented in the literature for decades (e.g., Mercer, 1973). Reschly (1997)
establishes that overrepresentation has occurred when 10% or more of the base
population of a particular subgroup is found in special education. Dunn (1968) cites
evidence of overrepresentation of African American students and English-language
learners from low-income homes in classes for the educable mentally retarded (EMR).
When assessed, a large percentage of these students did not demonstrate lower
cognitive functioning. Dunn suggests that students of color may have been experiencing
poor academic performance simply due to differences in race, class, language, or
culture compared to White students.
Mercer (1973) conducted a longitudinal study of special education placement
patterns at a California school and found that students of Latino descent were placed in
classes for the mentally retarded at a rate four times greater than their proportion of the
population. In addition, the rate of special education placement for African American
students was three times larger than their overall proportion. When data were
disaggregated by socioeconomic status, students from lower socioeconomic status were
two times more likely to be classified as mentally retarded relative to students from
more affluent homes. This evidence confirms that race and class were significant

40
predictors of special education placement. Fierros and Conroy (2002) point out that the
repeal of the law excluding Latino students from public schools coincided with creation
of the Educable Mental Retardation (EMR) label, which suggests that
overrepresentation is yet another symptom of institutionalized racism in the nation’s
public school system.
Additional research documents race-based differences in terms of type and
quality of special education service and level of restrictiveness. For example, Parrish
(2002) shows that African American students are more likely than White students to be
identified as needing intensive services and are more likely to be placed in restrictive
self-contained settings. Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda (2002) investigated the
pattern of English-language learner representation in a cluster of California urban
school districts with a large concentration of Latino students. They found evidence of
overrepresentation in 11 high-poverty school districts that served high concentrations of
Latino students, and cite that English-language learners were 27% more likely to be
placed in special education in elementary school. This figure nearly doubled at the high
school level. In terms of disability category, English-language learners were
significantly overrepresented in categories of Mental Retardation (MR) and Speech and
Language Impairments (SLI). In addition to being overrepresented in special education
categories, English-language learners were more likely to be placed in a more restrictive
special day class setting relative to non-language learners.

41
Poverty as a Flawed Explanation of Overrepresentation
Explanations of racial disparity have typically focused on poverty. The
following discussion provides evidence that this explanation is flawed. Given that there
are identified incidence rates of disabilities, one would expect the proportion of students
with special needs in the overall population of a school to mirror the proportion of
students identified in special education. That is, when demographic data are
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, one would expect a similar ratio of minority
students in both the overall population and in special education, but this is often not the
case. For example, Coutinho and Oswald (1999) demonstrate that ethnicity was a
significant predictor of placement in special education classes in their comparison of
race in the overall population and race in soft disability categories. Confirming this
evidence, Parrish (2002) reports that students of color, especially African Americans,
are overrepresented in nearly all eligibility categories and that this trend exists in nearly
every state. Moreover, English-language learners are significantly overrepresented in
categories such as specific learning disability and communication disorders (Artiles,
2000).
There are two main camps seeking to explain overrepresentation. It is well
established that many students of color live in poverty. Those who seek to explain
overrepresentation as a natural consequence of poverty might claim that since
minorities are more likely to live in impoverished communities, with less access to
high-quality health care or nutrition, it is probable that they would experience a higher
incidence of disability; that is, children exposed to poor prenatal care, inadequate

42
nutrition, and unstable environments may be more likely to have a disability. Since
students of color tend to live in high-poverty communities, perhaps overrepresentation
in special education is a predictable occurrence. However, the poverty as sole predictor
of overrepresentation argument appears flawed under scrutiny.
The flaw in this argument is explained in terms of disability categories (Losen &
Orfield, 2002). Thirteen eligibility categories are used to qualify students for special
education services. Of these, the distinction is made between “hard” and “soft”
disability categories. Hard disability categories are those that require a medical
diagnosis, such as Other Health Impaired. Soft disability categories, in contrast, are
often based heavily on subjective standards and do not require medical verification. If
poverty and associated factors were the primary causes of overrepresentation, one
would expect equivalent proportions of overrepresentation in both soft and hard
disability categories. This is not the case, however, as students of color, particularly
African American males, tend to be overrepresented in soft categories, such as
Emotional Disturbance (Losen & Orfield, 2002).
Losen and Orfield suggest that these dramatic patterns in the data contradict the
theory that poverty is to blame for these discrepancies. Rather, these authors suggest
that systemic, institutionalized racism and “the soft bigotry of low expectations” may
have been substituted for the intentional racism that is a dishonorable part of this
country’s history. As aforementioned, schools that communicate high expectations,
supported by a rigorous curriculum, achieve high levels of academic performance
among students of color (Kannapel & Clements, 2005). Schools that do not convey

43
these expectations commit soft bigotry by placing limits on the potential of students of
color and perpetuating a legacy of low achievement.
This soft bigotry decried by George Bush during a 2002 campaign speech to the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) calls attention
to the victimization of students of color being victimized by a pervasive educational
culture of low expectations to the extent that they are socially constructed to produce.
This notion is reflected in students of color being placed in disability categories because
they are perceived to be inherently deficient in some way. Their linguistic and cultural
differences are regarded as disabling conditions, and they are funneled into separate
classrooms that are often located at the rear of the campus. This soft bigotry is
presumed to contribute to overrepresentation of students of color in special education,
as well as the disparate opportunities to learn for students of color in general education
(Donovan & Cross, 2002; Losen & Orfield, 2002).
While African American students are the most severely overrepresented in
specific disability categories, patterns of disparity have also been documented for
English-language learners and Native American students. Though these patterns of
disparity may not be as severe, they still raise significant concerns. Fierros and Conroy
(2002) report that the repeal of the law in California excluding Mexican Americans
from White schools coincided with the creation of the disability category Educationally
Mentally Retarded. They note residual effects of this event in the overrepresentation of
English-language learners, who are primarily Latino, in states that have high numbers of
Latino immigrants.

44
Current data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights
(2004) illustrates that race-based disparities in soft disability categories persist in the
nation’s schools. For example, African American students continue to be
overrepresented in all three soft disability categories with the most severe disparities in
the Emotional Disturbance (ED) category. Latino and Native American students are
significantly overrepresented in ED and Learning Disabled (LD) categories. Table 1
reports these data. Figure 3 illustrates these data in a representation of soft disability
categories MR, ED, and LD.
Table 1. Representation of Race and Soft Disability Categories

African American Latino American Native American
Percentage of
Overall
Enrollment

7.75

47.25

0.90
Percentage of
Students Eligible
as MR

10.66

49.14

0.87
Percentage of
Students Eligible
as ED

20.19

25.94

1.58
Percentage of
Students Eligible
as LD

13.07

52.12

1.08

45
Figure 3. Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Compliance Data

It is clear to see from these data that students of color in California tend to be
overidentified in soft disability eligibility categories, in accordance with the patterns
described above. For example, African American students demonstrate the greatest
discrepancy in the category ED. Latino American students tend to be classified as LD,
while Native American students are slightly more likely to be designated as ED. These
trends support claims that students of color are disproportionately classified into soft
special education categories. Disproportionate representation of students of color in
these soft eligibility categories may be in part due to systems and structures in public
schools that are inappropriate for students of color. The section that follows connects
racial disparities in special education to structures, systems, and instructional practices.

46
Structures, Systems, Instructional Practices, and Overrepresentation
Research has identified school-level structures and systems that are particularly
important when examining overrepresentation of students of color in special education.
Researchers (e.g., Donovan & Cross, 2002; Losen & Orfield, 2002; Ysseldyke &
Algozzine, 1983) concur that disproportionate placement of students of color begins
with disproportionate referrals for assessment and special education eligibility. The next
section explores how the referral and assessment system in a school contributes to
overrepresentation. Further, research-supported structures and systems that may negate
these effects will be examined. Finally, gaps in current knowledge regarding reducing
overrepresentation of students of color by using culturally responsive methods of
referral and assessment will be identified.
Referral and Assessment of Students of Color
The special education referral and assessment process is a long and often
convoluted procedure that may culminate in students of color being inappropriately
identified for special education. Harry and Klinger (2006) suggest that structures and
systems such as assignment of low-quality teachers and fragmented instructional
delivery may increase pressure for staff to refer low-performing students for special
education. The pre-referral system is largely a general education function. The general
education teacher plays a pivotal role in this process, determining which students are
initially referred for special education assessment and establishing a critical setting
where student behaviors are informally assessed (Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979;
Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Klinger, 2006). Students of color are often

47
disproportionately referred for assessment (Losen & Orfield, 2002). Disproportionate
referral constitutes the first step on a slippery slope that causes many students of color
to slide into the pool of special education, where they tread water indefinitely. It appears
that faulty systems and structures, fueled by persistent constructs of race that assume
children of color are intellectually and culturally deficient, contribute to teachers and
administrators turning to special education as a way of removing students from the
mainstream environment rather than resolving learning difficulties in the general
education classroom (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Klinger, 2006).
According to Losen and Orfield (2002), race-based factors such as unconscious
bias and stereotypes often contribute to inappropriate referrals and the over-
identification of students of color for special education assessment. Neal and colleagues
(2003) found that teachers “perceived students with African American culture-related
(body) movement styles as lower in achievement, higher in aggression, and more likely
to need special education services than students with standard movement styles” (p. 49).
Moore (2002) states that teachers may rely on socially constructed schemas of “good”
students when deciding to make a referral. The good student schema tends to include
characteristics such as “European” and “middle class.” Students who have
characteristics that deviate from this schema may be referred to special education more
frequently, simply because their culturally embedded behaviors are different.
Given evidence that suggests a cultural mismatch leads to a large number of
inappropriate referrals of students of color for special education assessment, it appears
that lack of culturally relevant knowledge is present in many schools where students of

48
color, particularly African American students, are in attendance. Such a school climate
works against students of color and makes them susceptible to academic difficulties that
schools inappropriately address through special education. As noted in this work,
schools that achieve high levels of performance among students of color transmit high
expectations, utilize culturally relevant pedagogy, and facilitate parental involvement.
These schools are able to overcome a legacy of low achievement by implementing
effective structures and systems rather than low expectations for academic performance
and inappropriate referrals.
The referral and assessment process typically begins in general education:
therefore appropriate teacher preparation, induction, and professional development for
general educators, supported by schoolwide systems that promote a sociocultural
learning environment for all students, can improve the academic performance of all
students and improve teachers’ ability to make more appropriate referrals. A system that
may reduce the likelihood of an inappropriate referral for special education assessment
is a procedure for delivering pre-referral intervention. Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie
(1979) recommend forming Teacher Assistance Teams (TAT) of general educators to
engage in pre-referral intervention. This team’s function is to implement individualized
action plans to improve student achievement in the general education classroom. If pre-
referral intervention does not produce the desired results, the team then decides
collaboratively to refer for additional assessment. Chalfant, Pysh, and Moultrie (1979)
conclude that making pre-referral intervention a mandatory step in the referral and
assessment process may reduce the dramatic overrepresentation of students of color in

49
special education.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Overrepresentation
In addition to receiving culturally responsive referral and assessment
procedures, students of color need instruction that is congruent with their culturally
based learning experiences. Culturally relevant practice will help achieve high academic
performance. Guild (1994) suggests that learning styles among students of color are
embedded in their unique cultures. When a student’s culturally embedded learning
behaviors differ from a teacher’s instructional style, the student may have difficulty
processing information meaningfully (Allen & Boykin, 1992). For example, African
American students may be socialized with learning behaviors that utilize part-whole
relationships, which may conflict with linear-sequential teaching behaviors (Lum,
2003). This conflict results in a “pedagogically induced” learning problem (Cummins,
1984) whereby a student appears to have a learning disability but does not. Instructional
delivery that fails to account for ethnic and cultural differences among students of color
may contribute to overrepresentation in the LD category in this manner.
McMillon and Edwards (2000) explain how instructional behaviors influence
academic performance of students of color. These authors relate the story of “Joshua,” a
young African American child who was perceived as a “star student” in his Sunday
School class but was evaluated negatively in his predominantly White preschool class.
Joshua’s topic-associated discourse style did not match the topic-centered discourse
style of his classmates in preschool; hence he was viewed as “disobedient, aggressive,
and disrespectful.” In addition, the preschool class operated under an implicitly

50
sanctioned “hidden curriculum,” which conflicted with Joshua’s behavior style. These
mismatches led Joshua to miss many educational opportunities in his preschool class.
Mismatches such as these, over time, will prompt serious academic consequences for
students like Joshua as they fall further and further behind students socialized with more
academic behaviors that are congruent with the culture of schools.
In their analysis of cultural models and settings, Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) demonstrate that children from minority backgrounds are socialized with
different educationally relevant behaviors than children who are socialized with the
behavioral norms of mainstream society. Cultural models are shared mental
representations among members of a population that involve ways of interacting and
interpreting events. Cultural settings may be conceptualized as the “stage” upon which
social interactions occur, such as the context of the classroom. Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) found that Latino cultural models and settings are often incongruent
with traditional mainstream pedagogy. These differences cause minority students to
present themselves in ways perceived to be learning disabilities.
Mismatches between student learning behaviors and educator teaching behaviors
may also lead to inequitable distribution of learning opportunities. When minority
students are provided with fewer occasions to acquire information, their academic
performance suffers. Michaels (1981) affirms that access to literacy-building
opportunities may be differentially provided depending on the degree to which students
and teachers share a set of discourse patterns and common semantic decoding strategies.
Teachers then, act as gatekeepers to educational experiences and can either serve as

51
barriers or bridges to learning (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Since opportunities to learn are
essential to student achievement (Marzano, 2003), it can be posited that fewer
opportunities to learn, coupled with conflicting modes of interpreting information, may
place minority students at risk for low academic performance and for being placed in
special education settings. Teachers need to be aware of cultural differences in learning
behaviors and ensure that access to learning opportunities and feedback are distributed
equally among all students.
Special Education Service Delivery Models and Overrepresentation
As illustrated in this review, students of color are often overrepresented in the
LD category. One way a school determines LD is by administering an intelligence
quotient (IQ) test and then comparing academic performance with a student’s IQ.
Standardized tests such as these may be culturally and linguistically biased (Losen &
Orfield, 2002). With the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, states have the option of using
Response to Intervention (RTI) criteria, as opposed to classifying students as learning
disabled based on the IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria. Klinger and Edwards
(2006) report this tiered RTI model has tremendous implications for students from
culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds.
According to these researchers, RTI is a multitiered special education system
that outlines levels of support for students who are demonstrating low achievement. The
first tier involves evidence-based interventions delivered by culturally responsive
general education teachers. When students do not respond to this tier, a second tier,
characterized by intensive support that supplements the core curriculum, is

52
implemented. The third tier involves referral to a multicultural TAT or Student Study
Team. The final tier involves special education that is tailored to individual student
needs. Hence, this system acts as a support for students of color by reducing the
likelihood of erroneous special education identification.
Klinger and Edwards (2006) state that the RTI model may be a useful strategy
for reducing overrepresentation, but caution that the model could be “like old wine in a
new bottle” if educators do not take care to avoid deficit-based assumptions and
decision making. That is, an emphasis on intervention rather than culturally relevant
instructional practice in a school culture whose systems and structures demonstrate
respect for the cultures of all students, could be detrimental to the long-term efficacy of
RTI. Future research should address the value of this model in different demographic
contexts.
Conclusions
Losen and Orfield (2002) report that “a critical gap” exists between what is now
known and the knowledge necessary to improve the educational experiences of students
of color in this nation. Identifying specific, evidence-based structures and systems that
operate as overrepresentation reduction strategies may fill this gap. Systems and
structures that serve as reduction strategies must be aligned to ameliorate factors that
contribute to racial disparity. Warger and Burnette (2000) offer the following five
strategies for reducing overrepresentation: promote parental involvement and respect
for minority backgrounds, utilize culturally relevant curriculum, emphasize a strengths-

53
based approach to assessment, engage pre-service teachers in the local community, and
build faculty capacity to provide optimal resources and instruction to students of color.
While these strategies appear sound, what is not yet known is how a school
achieves consistent implementation of such systems and structures. Moreover,
conceptualizing reduction strategies in terms of systems and structures begs the
following question: What structures and systems are in place in a school that does not
disproportionately identify students of color for special education? In-depth research is
needed to address these questions.
School Staff Perspectives about Race and Disability
Consistent implementation of culturally responsive instruction may prevent
students of color from underperforming. In addition, a school culture composed of
specific elements may prevent or reduce overrepresentation of students of color in
special education. Such a culture emphasizes strengths rather than relying on a deficit
model. In addition, such a site consistently utilizes culturally relevant pedagogy and
referral techniques. High expectations for all students, with or without disabilities, are
communicated throughout the site. Parental involvement and respect for the home
culture serve a specific purpose. Moreover, it is hypothesized that such a culture is
characterized by schoolwide staff perspectives that special education is a service, not a
placement. Such a school culture is characterized by staff perspectives that view a
rigorous curriculum, supported by culturally appropriate pedagogy, as the right of all
children.

54
A major gap in the research literature concerns school staff perspectives on race
and disability. Those who operate from a deficit model of disability or minority may be
more likely to refer a student for special education assessment. Decisions made by key
personnel in the referral and assessment process are mediated by differences in the
perspectives of these individuals. In a school that does not erroneously refer students of
color for special education assessment, staff perspectives regarding delivering
instruction in a culturally appropriate context will reflect a construct of race that
supports students of color in their learning. How do individuals such as the referring
teacher, school psychologist, and parents interact to make a referral and placement
decision? Further, how are decisions related to student achievement coordinated by an
instructional leader who communicates expectations for all involved at the site?
This work will seek to answer these questions by conducting a qualitative case
study of a high-performing, urban elementary school in Southern California. Systems
and structures that are effective in maintaining comparable proportions of students of
color in both general and special education environments will be explored from the
perspectives of general education staff, special education staff, and parents of color.
This information is essential to providing free and appropriate public educations, as
mandated by federal legislation, to all school-aged students in this nation. The term
appropriate is salient in this regard: the study endeavors to raise awareness among
educators that what is appropriate for one child is not necessarily appropriate for
another. Each student and family of color achieving success and each educator that

55
facilitates this success must be given a voice so they may advocate for themselves by
contributing to the knowledge base of what works in urban schools.

56
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
As discussed in chapter 1, specific systems and structures support student
achievement in high-poverty schools that serve large concentrations of students of
color. However, little is known about how high-poverty urban schools utilize specific
structures and systems to prevent or reduce overrepresentation of students of color in
special education classifications. This study will help fill a significant gap in the
research database by identifying structures and systems specifically aligned to reducing
overrepresentation, which will aid in reducing the achievement gap between students of
color and their White peers. This chapter describes research methodology for the
present study, describes the research design, utilizes theoretical frameworks to frame
the research questions, and identifies procedures for data collection and analysis.
Study Design and Research Questions
This qualitative case study seeks answers to the following research questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns of student performance among students of color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?
a. How do high-performing, high-poverty schools utilize specific structures and
systems to prevent or reduce overrepresentation of students of color in special
education?

57
3. How are the school’s organizational structures and systems implemented to
promote schoolwide effective classroom instruction that promotes student
learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s systems and structures?
The research questions will be investigated by conducting a qualitative case
study of a high-poverty, high-performing Southern California elementary school.
Merriam (1998) provides a rationale for using the qualitative case study design.
According to the author, case studies are a useful approach when the unit of analysis is
a bounded system. As the unit of analysis in the present study is an individual school,
the case study approach appears to be the most effective way to extrapolate conclusions.
In addition to considering the unit of analysis, Merriam suggests that case studies are
particularly effective when investigating processes. As the majority of research
questions that frame this study focus on organizational processes, such as how systems
and structures support consistent implementation of specific instructional practices, the
case study approach appears to fit well within Merriam’s rationale. Finally, as case
studies can yield rich descriptive data that can be applied to develop insights (Merriam,
1998), this approach is particularly effective when exploring how a high-poverty urban
school achieves high levels of academic performance among large concentrations of
students of color.
While there are clearly strengths inherent to the case study approach, Merriam
(1998) identifies limitations such as time constraints; investigator bias; and issues
related to reliability, validity, and generalizability. The case study approach is limited

58
by the amount of time the researcher has to collect adequate data. In addition, as the
researcher is the primary source of data collection and analysis, bias on the part of the
researcher may skew results. For example, the researcher controls who is interviewed
and what elements of an interview are utilized to construct an interpretation of results.
Finally, as the case study does not utilize randomization, is difficult to replicate, and
depends on subjective interpretation to validate results, Merriam (1998) reports that
case studies are limited in terms of generalizability, reliability, and validity. To
ameliorate the effects of these limitations, this study will utilize triangulation of
multiple datasets. Triangulation methods will be discussed in the section titled
“Instrumentation.”
Sample and Population
The cohort utilized a specific set of selection criteria to identify high-poverty, high-
performing sites that served large concentrations of students of color in several
California school districts. This section outlines these selection criteria, describes the
sampling procedure, and identifies participants.
Selection Criteria
To be eligible to participate in the study, schools serving students from
preschool through 12th grade had to meet the following selection criteria determined by
a 17-member Ed.D. candidate cohort:
1. Has a current API score of at least 700 or demonstrates a schoolwide
trajectory of growth in API and AYP as demonstrated by at least 2 deciles
positive movement in 3–5 years’ time across ethnic subgroups.

59
2. Is a Title I school that identifies at least 75% of students as qualifying for free
or reduced lunches.
3. Serves a large (at least 60%) concentration of students of color.
4. Has a student population of at least 400 and above for elementary, 700 and
above for middle school, and 1,000 and above for high school.
5. Is located in an urban community.
It should be noted that schools serving large concentrations of Asian American
students were excluded from the study. Several researchers make distinctions between
the educational histories and academic achievement patterns of Asian American
students and those of African American, Latino, and Native American students
(Ancheta, 2000; Kim, 1999; Osajima, 2000). It should also be noted that Asian
Americans do not follow the same patterns of race-based disparity in special education
noted for these other subgroups. To control for these differences, the cohort defined
students of color in terms of African American, Latino, and Native American students.
Sampling Procedure
Following a comprehensive search on the California Department of Education
Web site, one high-poverty, high-performing California elementary school was
purposely selected for the case study based on the selection criteria outlined above.
Woodman Elementary School is located in the Marina Unified School District, a dense
urban setting. The list that follows outlines the school’s demographic and achievement
characteristics:
1. Is a high-performing school as evidenced by

60
a. 2006 API score of 757
b. 2006 statewide rank of 5
c. 2006 similar schools rank of 9
2. Is a high-poverty school as evidenced by
a. 100% of students currently on free or reduced lunch
3. Serves a large concentration of students of color:
a. 66% Latino American
b. 17% Asian American
c. 13% African American
d. 0.02% Pacific Islander
e. 0.02% Caucasian
Participants
To collect data from multiple sources that would aid in triangulation, the cohort
identified categories of school site individuals to participate in the study. Categories of
individuals that will directly inform this study include the following: administrator, lead
teacher, classroom teacher, special education teacher, school psychologist, general
education teacher (including at least one that has made referrals to special education),
and parents of color. Approximately 12 individuals participated in structured interviews,
classroom observations, and focus groups. In addition, the school provided the
following artifacts for analysis: copies of the school plan, student assessment data,
meeting agendas, character education curriculum, parent newsletters, and the master
calendar.

61

Instrumentation
A research cohort consisting of 17 Ed.D. candidates developed the
instrumentation for this study. Cohort members attending the University of Southern
California, advised by Sylvia Rousseau, Ed.D., met during the summer of 2007 to refine
research questions, develop appropriate conceptual frameworks for each research
question, design interview and observation protocols, and determine methods for
analyzing artifacts. Open-ended interview protocols were developed and standardized
across researchers. The cohort field-tested the interview questions to control for
ambiguity and ensure that questions elicited reliable responses. Protocols were
administered to administrators, teachers, parents, and other relevant site staff members.
Interviewees were asked questions and subsets of additional questions in the same order
to allow for triangulation of data. Table 2 illustrates the relationship between the
research questions and data collection instruments. The X on the table identifies how
and where data were collected to address the research questions. By triangulating across
multiple sources of data, the researcher enhanced reliability and validity of the study.

62

Table 2—Triangulating Across Data Collection Instruments
Interview
Focus
Groups
Observations Document
Analysis
Background of School (Demographics) X
Research Question #1: What are the trends
and patterns of student performance among
students of color?
X X
Research Question #2: What are the
organizational structures and systems that are
perceived to contribute to high student
performance in high-poverty urban schools
with large concentrations of students of
color?
X X
Research Question 2a: How do high-
performing, high-poverty schools utilize
specific structures and systems to prevent or
reduce overrepresentation of students of
color in special education?
X X
Research Question #3: How are the
organizational structures and systems
implemented to support schoolwide effective
classroom instruction that promotes student
learning?
X X
Research Question #4: How is the construct
of race reflected in the school’s structures
and systems?
X X X

Research Question Frameworks
Framework for Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What are the trends and patterns of student
performance among students of color?” The cohort used indicators of student
performance such as teacher-charted data, the school plan, Individual Education Plan

63
(IEP) documents, and other artifacts to answer the first research question. A
comprehensive set of data about the school provides insights as to how schools function
on behalf of all students and specific groups of students within the school. Hence, these
indicators are necessary to triangulate data across several sources of information.
Framework for Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the organizational structures
and systems that are perceived to contribute to high student performance in high
poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of color?” Subsequent to
the formulation of this primary research question, a subquestion was developed to
address structures and systems preventing or reducing students of color from being
over-identified for special education classification. This subquestion asked, “How do
high-performing, high-poverty schools utilize specific structures and systems to prevent
or reduce overrepresentation of students of color in special education?”
The second research question and associated subquestion reflect sociocultural
theory, which, as explained in chapter 2, provided a theoretical framework for the study.
According to sociocultural theory, learning is rooted in interactions that take place in
the social environment (Vygotsky, 1987). Figure 2 draws from this theory and
illustrates how structures and systems impact the social environment and, subsequently,
student achievement. The cohort used structured interviews, a parent focus group, and
classroom observations to answer the second research question.

64
Framework for Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “How are the school’s organizational
structures and systems implemented to promote schoolwide effective classroom
instruction that promotes student learning?” The cohort identified sociocultural theory
as providing the strongest theoretical rationale for this research question. Similar to
research question 2, this research question seeks process information regarding
implementation of systems and structures that are embedded in the larger social context
at the school. As the classroom is identified as the stage upon which learning discourse
occurs, and the systems and structures constitute the variables that impact student
achievement, implementation is considered a mediator of such systems and structures.
That is, it is hypothesized that high-performing schools are consistently implementing
systems and structures such that they positively influence instructional practice in
individual classrooms. The cohort conducted structured interviews and classroom
observations to respond to the third research question.
Framework for Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked, “How is the construct of race reflected in
the school’s systems and structures?” The cohort identified critical race theory as a
framework to guide responses to the fourth research question. Critical race theory
challenges historically constructed deficit notions of race (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995). It requires acting within perceptions of race and culture as a means of achieving
academic success (Au and Jordan, 1981). It is hypothesized that a construct of race that
challenges the construct created and perpetuated by Whites will be evident in the

65
systems and structures of high-poverty, urban schools that achieve high levels of
academic performance among students of color. The cohort used structured interviews,
parent focus groups, and classroom observations to respond to the fourth research
question.
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
This section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures utilized
to collect data for analysis.
Data Collection Instruments
The following instruments were designed by the research cohort and are
included as appendixes of this document:
Instrument 1: Administrator Interview Protocol
Instrument 2: Teacher Interview Protocol
Instrument 3: Classified Staff Interview Protocol
Instrument 4: Parent Interview Protocol
Instrument 5: Classroom Observation Protocol
Site Visits
Marina Unified School District (MUSD) requires researchers to complete an
application to conduct research prior to contacting individual school sites. The form was
completed in July of 2007 and submitted to MUSD for approval. Following approval
from the district, a phone interview was conducted to arrange a site visit with the school
principal. During this phone interview, the proposed research study was explained, the
data collection procedures were described, and a list of appropriate school site

66
participants and classrooms for conducting observations was generated. Contact
information for interview participants was obtained.
The site visit for this study was conducted during a seven-hour time period time
period in October 2007. The researcher conducted an initial 45-minute interview with
the administrator. Following this interview, the researcher conducted 30-minute
interviews with the following individuals: lead teacher, school counselor, support staff,
lead secretary, as well as any other individuals identified by school staff members. In
addition, the researcher conducted five observations in classrooms identified as
achieving high levels of performance among students of color. Finally, during the site
visit, the researcher collected relevant documents for analysis and other artifacts related
to the research questions.
Data Analysis
Upon culmination of the data collection phase of the study, the data analysis
phase began. According to Cresswell (2003), analyzing qualitative data involves several
components: preparing data for analysis, conducting various analyses, representing data,
and interpreting data (p. 190). The first step in the data analysis process was
transcription of interviews. The researcher transcribed interview and focus group
narratives and coded them manually, based on themes developed by the research cohort.
Information from documents and classroom observations was coded to support data
collected from interviews and focus groups. Following the coding process, major
findings of the study were categorized into themes. Themes are useful when considering
descriptive data because they allow the researcher to “build complex layers of

67
additional analysis” (Cresswell, 2003, p. 194). Finally, data were interpreted to shed
light on effective practices and to make implications for future practice.
Ethical Considerations
Merriam (1998) points out that ethical concerns related to both data collection
and dissemination of results are probable when utilizing a qualitative case study design.
Merriam (1998) recommends being conscious of one’s own individual and theoretical
lenses when collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data. To control for the potential
of researcher bias beyond placing conscious attention on one’s potential biases, the
current study utilized triangulation across multiple datasets and peer reexamination of
data (Cresswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998).
In addition to taking steps to reduce researcher bias, there are ethical
considerations that must be taken when working with human subjects (Patton, 2002). In
the present study, researchers delved into the sensitive nature of race, beliefs, and
achievement. Care was taken to avoid damaging anyone involved in the study by
designing and standardizing interview protocols intended to protect participants. The
university Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed all research protocols and
approved them, making certain that all necessary precautions to avoid psychological
harm to participants were taken. As aforementioned, the Marina Unified School District
conducted a separate screening of the research proposal and instruments prior to the
data collection phase to ensure that no district-level policies were violated.

68
Summary
Some urban schools have achieved high levels of performance across ethnic
subgroups. These schools have implemented systems and structures that are perceived
to support effective instructional practice. Further, schools that achieve these high levels
of student performance among large concentrations of students of color are less likely to
refer them for special education assessment. It is perceived that systems and structures
in high-performing, high-poverty schools, then, act as buffers to keep students of color
from being over-identified as special education students. Exploring the organizational
processes underlying high performance across subgroups in a high-poverty school
dictates that a case study design is the best method for investigating how specific
systems and structures support instructional practice and student achievement. Chapter
4 presents the research results as they shape findings from the multiple site case study
conducted by the cohort.

69
Chapter 4
Findings
The purpose of this study was to identify promising schoolwide structures,
systems, and instructional practices in high-performing, high-poverty schools,
particularly as they pertain to reducing race-based disparity for all students, especially
students identified with special needs. As described in chapter 3, a qualitative case
study approach was utilized to collect data from one high-performing, high-poverty
elementary school. The case study was designed to answer the following research
questions:
1. What are the trends and patterns in academic performance among students of
color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with
large concentrations of students of color?
a. How do high-performing, high-poverty schools utilize specific
structures and systems to reduce erroneous identification of students
of color for special education?
3. How are the school’s organizational structures and systems implemented to
promote schoolwide effective classroom instruction that promotes student
learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s systems and structures?

70
During an extensive qualitative case study process, the researcher uncovered
broad themes across data sources. To respond to the research questions that framed this
study, the researcher conceptualized these themes as broad structural and systemic
factors demonstrated in the data that comprise more specific substructures and
subsystems. Analysis of these data paints a picture of positive academic growth at
Woodman Elementary School. The next section shows trends and patterns in academic
performance among students of color. Additional sections show how Woodman
strategically implements specific structures and systems to facilitate student
performance in a school culture and climate built on a positive construct of race. To
frame research findings in each section, connections to theoretical frameworks
described in chapter 3 will be discussed.
Woodman Elementary School
As discussed in chapter 3, Woodman Elementary School was identified as a unit
of analysis for this study using a sampling procedure with selection criteria determined
by a 17-member Ed.D. candidate cohort. Woodman qualified for the study based on the
following criteria:
1. Is a high-performing school as evidenced by
a. 2006 API score of 757
b. 2006 statewide rank of 5
c. 2006 similar schools rank of 9
2. Is a high-poverty school as evidenced by
a. 100% of students currently on free or reduced lunch

71
3. Serves a large concentration of students of color:
a. 66% Latino American
b. 17% Asian American
c. 13% African American
d. 0.02% Pacific Islander
e. 0.02% Caucasian
When one walks onto the Woodman Elementary School campus, students
dressed in blue and white uniforms rush giggling up the stairs. The front of the school is
adorned with a large, brightly painted mural that depicts students of different
nationalities and a letter to the president of the United States. (Refer to appendix H for a
photo journal of the artwork displayed on the Woodman campus.) A red, white, and
blue mural on the opposite wall reflects that the school is a “star” campus for having
“Student Success, Terrific Teaching, and Academic Results.” The grass surrounding the
campus is well manicured and no trash can be seen. A multitude of parents, staff, and
students buzzes about comfortably. The initial perception of the atmosphere at the
school is reminiscent of being among family. There is something intangible about the
school that makes it somewhere one would like to stay for a time. The comfortable,
collegial ambiance at Woodman Elementary School may be one of many ingredients in
a recipe for academic success: trends and patterns in student performance across ethnic
subgroups reveal that the site has realized high levels of academic achievement.

72
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “What are the trends and patterns in academic
performance among students of color?” The theoretical framework that guided research
on this question is sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1987). According to this theory,
learning is a complex phenomenon influenced by interacting social components
embedded in a student’s environment. When considering the learning experiences of
students of color, it is important to note that their current educational experiences are
the product of their traditionally marginalized histories. Investigating trends and
patterns of student performance at a high-performing school that serves a large
concentration of students of color will guide additional research questions that address
how a school might be able to overcome the legacy of low achievement experienced by
students of color in this nation.
As described by interviewees, Woodman has created a tide of rising student
performance to combat the rising tide of mediocrity cited by A Nation at Risk.
Interviews, observations, data, and artifacts confirm a steady increase in student
performance over the past three years. Administrators, teachers, and parents reported
that the API scores at Woodman Elementary School have been consistently increasing.
This positive trend prompted one parent to seek enrollment at the school: “I saw that the
scores were just skyrocketing! Other parents told me I’d be crazy to put him somewhere
else,” she declared.
Additional interviews provided more evidence of the positive trend in student

73
performance at Woodman. For example, the reading coaches reported that Online
Assessment and Reporting System (OARS) data show advancement across subgroups.
In addition to an increasing API score, the decrease in special education referrals over
the last three years reflects another positive trend in student performance. It suggests
that students who were underperforming in the past, causing them to be placed in
special education, are now achieving at higher levels. Providing further support for the
positive trends in student performance, the principal commented that the turnaround in
student performance at the site has prompted recent visits from the district
superintendent.
Classroom observations corroborate interview data showing that students of
color are learning. Students demonstrated high levels of engagement in all classrooms
studied. They were observed participating in various degrees of self-directed learning
and self-monitoring as they checked their individual goals on classroom charts and then
returned to their seats to initiate assigned tasks. Classroom goal charts in all three
classrooms observed illustrated positive trends in performance across grade levels. (For
a sample of these goal charts, please refer to appendix H). In addition to being highly
engaged and self-regulated in their learning, students of color were also observed to
choose difficult tasks. In one class, students were nearly jumping out of their seats for a
chance to work on the “toughest math problem” on the board, suggesting that students
felt safe taking risks in class. Additional classroom observations reflected similar levels
of student engagement. Feeling secure enough to take academic risks where one may
fail to produce the correct answer reflects a classroom culture characterized by trust and

74
respect among students and teachers. This classroom climate mirrors the school climate
at Woodman. Marzano (2003) cites school climate as a correlate of an effective school.
Publicly Reported Data
Just as interviews and observations reflect that students at Woodman Elementary
are experiencing high levels of academic performance, artifacts such as documentation
collected from the California Department of Education (CDE) Web site also show high
levels of performance relative to schools of similar demographic characteristics. Figure
4 compares the 2006 API score at Woodman Elementary to scores of schools with
similar demographic characteristics in Southern California. Pseudonyms have been
used to protect the identities of similar schools reported in this figure.

Figure 4: Comparison of Woodman Elementary School
Performance to Similar Schools

With a respectable 2006 API score of 757, Woodman is considered a high-
performing school when juxtaposed with CDE data from five similar high-poverty

560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
Woodman
School A
School B
School C
School D
School E
School
2006 API Score
API Score

75
urban schools serving large concentrations of students of color. Care was taken to
ensure that similar schools selected for comparison were matched in terms of
percentages of particular subgroups and other selection criteria specified at the
beginning of this chapter.
The CDE reports that in addition to achieving a relatively high API score,
Woodman has met AYP growth targets for the past four years. Figure 5 illustrates the
positive growth in API scores in the years 2004-2007:

Figure 5: Positive Trends in API Scores at Woodman Elementary
School

As this figure illustrates, students at Woodman Elementary School have
experienced a strong positive trend in academic growth since 2004. It is interesting to

640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
API Score
Series1

76
note that from 2004 to 2005, the school’s scores demonstrate a large leap from 674 to
736, a change of 62 points. According to interviewees, this trend coincides with new
administration, a factor that will be discussed under Research Question 2. The positive
trend in API scores illustrated by Figure 5 is also reflected across numerically
significant subgroups, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure6: 2006 API Scores by Numerically Significant
Subgroups

From this figure, it is clear that Latino students, who comprise the largest
subgroup at the school, perform at a high level: 750. It should be noted that
comparisons to White students or other subgroups cannot be made at this time, as the
CDE does not report API scores for subgroups unless they are numerically significant.
As the data shows, Latino students, English-language learners (ELL), and
socioeconomically disadvantaged students are performing at similar high academic
levels. Moreover, it appears that (with the exception of Asian American students who

710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
1
Sub-groups
API Score
Asian
Latino
ELL
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged

77
are excluded from this study) English-language learners are experiencing the highest
levels of academic performance. Although Asian Americans are excluded from the
present work, Figure 6 illustrates that an achievement gap remains between Asian
Americans, a population that has not demonstrated the historical pattern of low
achievement, and Latino students at Woodman. The gap in the data shows that Asian
American students achieved an API of 811 while Latino students achieved an API of
750, a gap of 61 points. On a more positive note, these data show that English-language
learners are capable of high achievement in some schools.
Although some groups at Woodman were not considered numerically
significant, deeper analysis of student performance relative to state growth targets by
student subgroup lends some insights. For example, the 2006 growth target for English
Language Arts was 24.4% scoring at or above “proficient,” while in Mathematics the
2006 growth target was 26.5%. Tables 3 and 4 depict student performance
disaggregated by subgroup, relative to growth targets set by the state in 2006.

Table 3: Student Performance Relative to 2006 Growth Targets in English Language
Arts

Student Subgroup % At or Above Proficient 2006 Growth Target
African American 36.0 24.4
Latino 36.1 24.4
Pacific Islander 27.3 24.4
Asian American 45.4 24.4
English-language learners 34.2 24.4
Students with Disabilities 6.7 24.4
Caucasian Not numerically significant 24.4

78
From this table, it is clear that all student subgroups met 2006 growth targets in
English Language Arts, with the exception of students with disabilities. There is no
significant difference in the performance of African American students relative to
Latino students or English-language learners. Students from the Pacific Islander
subgroup are performing at levels lower than English-language learners, and the hefty
achievement gap between Asian American students and others is also evidenced in this
data. Such patterns may suggest that while the school is implementing some elements
that contribute to student success, this success is not equally distributed across all
student subgroups. Table 4 depicts student performance disaggregated by student
subgroup in Mathematics. These data may lead the school to reconsider its view that
students of color comprise a homogeneous group.

Table 4: Student Performance Relative to 2006 Growth Targets in Mathematics
Student Subgroup % At or Above Proficient 2006 Growth Target
African American 64.7 26.5
Latino 66.1 26.5
Pacific Islander *No data reported 26.5
Asian American 73.2 26.5
English-language Learners 65.7 26.5
Students with Disabilities 35.6 26.5
Caucasian Not numerically significant 26.5

This table evidences that students are achieving far above the 2006 growth target
for percentage of students proficient or advanced in mathematics. Students across all
subgroups, except Asian Americans and students with disabilities, are achieving at
similar levels of performance in this content area. Again, Asian students outperform

79
other subgroups by a significant margin. However, African American, Latino, Asian
American, and English-language learners are performing at levels that more than double
the state growth target in 2006. Even students with disabilities are achieving at levels
that exceed the growth targets in Mathematics. This strong, positive trend in
Mathematics performance is especially interesting, since a frequently cited correlate of
high student performance among interviewees is the Reading First Grant, which
provides for intensive literacy instruction. One might expect to see higher levels of
student performance in English Language Arts given this specific attention to literacy.
Data reported in the school plan shows that this discrepancy between English Language
Arts and Mathematics has existed since at least 2003.
Recent data showing student performance relative to 2007 growth targets reflect
some similarities and some differences in trends reported above. Table 5 represents
student performance relative to 2007 growth targets in English-language arts, while
Table 6 shows students performance relative to 2007 growth targets in mathematics.
State growth targets for the 2006-2007 school year have remained the same, according
to the CDE website.

80
Table 5: Student Performance Relative to 2007 Growth Targets in English-language
Arts

Student Subgroup % At or Above Proficient 2007 Growth Target
African American 31.3 24.4
Latino 36.9 24.4
Pacific Islander * 24.4
Asian American 46.9 24.4
English-language Learners 34.9 24.4
Students with Disabilities 19.6 24.4
Caucasian 55.0 24.4

Table 6: Student Performance Relative to 2007 Growth Targets in Mathematics
Student Subgroup % At or Above Proficient 2007 Growth Target
African American 50.7 26.5
Latino 68.2 26.5
Pacific Islander * 26.5
Asian American 80.2 26.5
English-language Learners 69.9 26.5
Students with Disabilities 40.4 26.5
Caucasian 60.0 26.5

These data illustrate that the discrepancy between English-language arts and
mathematics performance has persisted from the school years 2005-2006 to 2006-2007.
In fact, the trend has become stronger for all groups with the exception of African
American students, who performed at levels that were 64.7% proficient in 2006, as
opposed to 50.7% proficient in 2007. Although African American students exceeded
the growth target in English-language arts and mathematics, it should be noted that this
subgroup achieved the lowest level of proficiency, with the exception of students with
disabilities. Asian American students achieved the highest percentage of proficiency in

81
both content areas. All subgroups, including African Americans, experienced a positive
growth in English-language arts proficiency. It is notable that students with disabilities
experienced a positive change in English-language arts proficiency from 6.7% in 2006
to 19.6% in 2007.
The trends and patterns reported in this section confirm that students at
Woodman are experiencing high levels of academic performance. A deep analysis of
student performance in the English-language and mathematics content areas highlights
discrepancies in the performance of students of color from historically marginalized
groups. While Asian American students were excluded from this study, it is difficult to
ignore the large gap that exists between their performance and that of other ethnic
subgroups at Woodman. The data suggest that systems and structures in place at the
school may not be impacting the achievement of all students in an equitable manner.
Special Education Students
Disproportionate representation of students of color occurs when the proportion
of a particular ethnicity in soft special education disability categories is at least 10%
greater than the proportion of that ethnicity in the total enrollment of the school, when
data is disaggregated by ethnicity (Reschly, 1997). CDE data for special education
classifications at Woodman show that the school does not overrepresent students of
color in its special education classes. In a comparison of incidence of special education
classification and ethnicity, the number of students identified in soft disability
categories such as ED or LD is not disproportionate to overall school population. For
example, African Americans comprise 13% of the total school population at Woodman.

82
The percentage of African American students in soft special education eligibility
categories (LD, ED, MR) is 0.04% (See Figure 8). Hence, Woodman Elementary
School does not currently produce patterns of race-based disparity in its special
education program.
In studies reported by Losen and Orfield (2002), patterns in some schools
revealed near reversals of this ratio, a trend that may reflect constructs of race that are
based on a deficit model. Such a model may lead to students of color being
inappropriately referred for assessment (Harry & Klinger, 2006). Figure 7 shows 2007
CDE data for Woodman Elementary School regarding ratios of students enrolled in
special education relative to total enrollment by ethnicity:

Figure 7: Ratio of Total Enrollment to Special Education Enrollment by
Ethnicity

83

This figure illustrates that the proportions of students identified as having
disabilities are extremely low compared to proportions of subgroups in the overall
school population. Latinos have the highest incidence of identification (0.08%);
however, they constitute the largest subgroup at the site (66.0%). Asian Americans
show the lowest incidence of enrollment in special education classes (0.007%), a trend
that appears to be correlated with their wide margin of high achievement. In considering
special education enrollment by ethnicities, it is important to analyze the distribution of
students across soft and hard disability categories. Soft disability categories are those
that require a significant subjective component when determining eligibility, while hard
disability categories are those that are medically verifiable (Losen & Orfield, 2002).
Figure 8 illustrates distribution of students of color over soft and hard disability
categories at Woodman.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Native American
Asian
Pacific Islander
Filipino
Latino
African American
Caucasian
Student Ethnicity
Number in Special Education
Classified in Soft
Classified in Hard

84

Figure 8: Distribution of Students in Soft and Hard Eligibility
Categories

85
This figure illustrates that students of color do not appear to be overidentified
in soft eligibility categories such as Emotional Disturbance, Specific Learning
Disability, or Mental Retardation at Woodman. In fact, these data show that the
majority of students of color identified as having disabilities cluster in hard eligibility
categories such as Visual Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Other Health
Impairment. This trend, coupled with data presented in Figure 7, suggests that when
students have the opportunity to achieve high levels of academic performance, in
general education classes, they are less likely to be referred for special education
assessment. Investigating how Woodman achieves high levels of academic
performance across ethnic subgroups, then, may lend insights into which elements of
high-performing, high-poverty schools act as racial disparity reduction strategies as
they pertain to special education classification. What is Woodman Elementary School
doing to facilitate such high student achievement among students of color? Research
Question 2 addresses organizational systems and structures that may contribute to
student achievement among these populations.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the organizational structures
and systems that are perceived to contribute to high student performance in high-
poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of color?” As defined in
chapter 1, school structures consist of institutional mechanisms, policies, and
procedures put in place by federal, state, or district policy or legislation; they are not
subject to change at the local school site (e.g., funding mechanisms, institutional
mechanisms). School systems refers to coordinated and coherent use of resources

86
(e.g., time, personnel, students, parents, funds, facilities) at the school site to ensure
that school visions, missions, and goals are met (e.g., professional development,
teacher collaboration, parent involvement). The theoretical framework that provides a
foundation for the systems and structures involved in this research question is
sociocultural theory.
Sociocultural theory posits that learning is rooted in the interactions that take
place in a student’s social environment. From this theory, the academic achievement
of students of color is influenced by historical and contemporary societal and
educational factors, which give rise to school structures and systems. Historically,
students of color have been negatively impacted by structures and systems that are
embedded in unequal access to practices that result in high achievement. At
Woodman Elementary, students of color are achieving high levels of academic
performance. The sections that follow outline specific structures and systems at
Woodman that enable students of color to overcome the legacy of low achievement
experienced in many of the nation’s public schools.
Data suggest that the following systems and structures have the most impact at
Woodman Elementary School: character education program, schoolwide focus on
instructional practice, leadership, data-based decision-making, parental involvement,
and school culture/climate. These factors work together in an integrated approach to
student learning and achievement.
Character Education Program
The Society of Students (SOS) character education program aims to build
essential leadership skills in students. The schoolwide program, initiated by the

87
school counselor two years ago, was cited by the majority of participants as integral
to the vast academic improvement achieved over the ensuing two years. The program
uses structured teaching methods and role playing to teach students skills such as how
to negotiate conflicts appropriately, how to greet unfamiliar adults formally, and how
to acknowledge peers for demonstrating good citizenship. According to the counselor
who advocated that the program be implemented at Woodman, the SOS Program
“encourages students that we are all the same. We are all learners, and we all have to
respect each other, not just here at school but out on the street, walking home, in the
community. The program creates a common thread, a common language throughout
the school so that everyone understands what is expected of them.” This common
language embeds behavioral and social expectations into the foundations of the
school culture and climate. Using sociocultural theory as a lens, the SOS Program is
woven into the fabric of the school climate at Woodman, facilitating a positive
learning environment for all students.
A commonly cited phrase across interviews and observations, AP Scholar
Behavior, refers to the behavioral code students are expected to follow across
educational, community, and home settings. According to all teachers, the principal,
the vice principal, and the school counselor, students in each class worked together to
create class posters that defined AP Scholar Behavior. (Please refer to appendix H for
examples of these posters.) The researcher documented common elements of each
classroom poster. For example, all posters catalogued included definitions of what
was “AP Behavior” and what was “Not AP Behavior” for the following body parts:
hands, eyes, bodies, brains, and heart. Specifically, AP hands refers to keeping hands

88
quiet on the table, as opposed to fidgeting with items on one’s desk. During all
subsequent classroom monitoring, the researcher observed that the AP Scholar
Behavior poster was displayed in a prominent location, visible to all students. On one
occasion, when a student fidgeted in her seat, the teacher said softly, “Is that AP
behavior?” The student immediately reengaged with the assigned workbook task,
with no further intervention from the teacher. This example demonstrates how the
SOS character education program is associated with opportunity to learn and time on
task; these are factors that are consistent with Marzano’s (2003) discussion of factors
related to high student achievement.
Clearly, the SOS Program rewards students for demonstrating behavior that is
conducive to learning. More evidence for this notion is cited by a parent interviewee
who reported, “My son worked hard for the chance to wear an AP Scholar badge.”
Several younger students were observed wearing their AP Scholar badges during the
site visit. When asked why she was wearing a badge, one student proudly declared,
“I’m an AP Scholar!” In general, students at the school appeared comfortable, happy,
and confident. No evidence of students engaging in inappropriate or disrespectful
behaviors during recess or class time was observed. In fact, during a fourth-grade
classroom observation, as a student struggled to complete a computation on the board,
several other students called out encouraging remarks (e.g., “keep trying!”) or offered
to help.
It appears that giving students and staff a common language by which to
define appropriate behaviors and attitudes reduces the incidence of behaviors that are
not conducive to academic learning. Vygotsky (1987) emphasizes the role of

89
language as a psychological tool to help students adopt appropriate cognitive actions
in the learning process. The lack of a formal discipline policy at the school provides
strong evidence that the SOS Program in character education indeed reduces
behaviors that might detract from the learning environment. When requested to
elaborate on the school discipline policy, all school staff interviewed remarked that
there was no formal discipline policy. The principal stated that, while a formal policy
was “in the works,” it had been placed on hold, as there was currently no need for one
at the site. Hence, the SOS Program has contributed to a shared mental representation
among members of the Woodman school environment, which defines ways of
interacting and interpreting events. The SOS Program is evidence of a cultural model
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) that shapes the cultural setting and facilitates
educational access among students of color who may be socialized with different
educationally relevant behaviors.
The character education program at Woodman Elementary School reflects
sociocultural theory in several ways. First, the SOS Program may be construed as a
vehicle to drive social expectations into the learning setting. Having specific
expectations such as these is conducive to a safe and orderly environment, which
Marzano (2003) cites as a component of an effective school. The program impacts
learning positively by threading a common language, a behavioral code of conduct,
and a sense of equality through the school context. These social repertoires are woven
into individual classrooms. Adherence to these codes is symbolically rewarded and
hence socially reinforced by administering badges to students who follow the
program. Symbols of the program are documented schoolwide and in all layers of the

90
social structure. For example, administration, teachers, parents, and students are
aware of the program and what it means to be an AP Scholar.
Reinforcing scholarliness at the elementary level sets the social stage for
middle school by providing students with a set of foundational academic and social
skills that are critical to self-regulation and, therefore, learning. Moreover, students in
individual classrooms work together to construct their own posters, which serve to
guide their behavior. That students engage in constructing their own meaning using
specific words and phrases is reminiscent of Vygotsky’s (1987) premise that language
is a powerful and essential learning tool.
Schoolwide Focus on Instructional Practice
In addition to devoting instructional time to character education, all
interviewees reported an overall focus on instructional practice at the site, which was
supported by classroom observations and artifacts such as the Needs Assessment in
the school plan. The focus on instruction theme comprises the following systems and
structures: standards-based instruction, intensive literacy instruction, differentiated
instruction, and grade-level collaboration.
Evidence of schoolwide utilization of standards-based instruction is cited in
interviews, observations, and artifacts. Each teacher interviewed cited standards-
based instruction when asked what practices at the school led to high student
performance. During the site visit, the researcher noted that the current standards
were posted on the wall each classroom, or on the wall outside each classroom door.
(Please refer to appendix H for examples of these posters.) During classroom
observations, the researcher noted that teachers were indeed referencing the posted

91
standards during instruction. In addition to citing the standards, teachers and the
principal also reported that teachers and students engage in goal setting based on both
content standards and standards aligned to the school’s site-level goals. Both students
and teachers monitor progress toward meeting weekly, monthly, and annual
benchmarks.
Moreover, the curriculum was aligned across grade levels. For example, in a
first-grade class, a chart displayed class progress toward meeting “Level One Math
Facts.” A caption in student handwriting below the chart read, “When 18 of 20
students meet our Level One Math Facts, we will have a pizza party!” In a second-
grade class observation later that day, the researcher noted a similar chart, which
targeted Level Two Math Facts. As evidenced by this example, a significant
component of the standards-based instruction delivery model at the site appeared to
be schoolwide curricular alignment. Aligning the curriculum within and across grade
levels allowed teachers at the site to deliver instruction based on the standards in a
coordinated manner.
In addition to emphasizing curricular alignment and standards-based
instruction, the administration and all teachers reported that intensive literacy
instruction was integral to the improvements in student performance over the past
three years. In particular, the Reading First Program was considered to be responsible
not only for increases in academic performance but for increases in teacher efficacy
and overall school morale. The Reading First coach stated, “Teachers were doing the
best they could with the instructional strategies they had, but they didn’t seem to get
an increase in scores. Then in comes the Reading First Grant, and everything

92
changed!” A second-grade teacher reported, “It is really helpful that kids get strategic
intervention in reading that is meant just for their needs.”
It is interesting to note that while Reading First was frequently cited among
teachers, administration, and support staff as integral to high student performance at
Woodman, as noted in the discussion under Research Question 1, student scores in
Mathematics content standards were significantly higher than the growth targets set
by the state. With such an intensive focus on literacy, one might expect even higher
student performance on the English and Language Arts content areas; however, this
was not the case in 2006. As aforementioned, students at Woodman have
demonstrated higher achievement in Mathematics than English Language Arts since
at least 2003, according to the school plan.
A focus on adapting instruction to meet the needs of students functioning at
different levels in the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1987), that is,
differentiated instruction, was noted by the majority of interviewees as a key feature
of Reading First. Two structures that are notable within differentiated instruction are
workshop and flexible grouping. According to the reading coaches, workshop
consists of small group instruction that is built into the daily routine of several
classrooms. Students identified, through weekly assessment data, as “fragile learners”
rotate during workshop time through small group learning centers where they receive
specialized instruction. The reading coaches play a major role in the delivery of
workshop, as they are in classrooms five days per week to provide modeling and
support during workshop for general education classroom teachers. Flexible
grouping, another theme in this category, refers to what one teacher termed

93
“swapping.” That is, small groups of students who may need reteaching or intensive
instructional support may swap into another teacher’s classroom to receive additional
instruction. Each of these systems, workshop and flexible grouping, comprise the
delivery model for differentiated instruction.
Strategic identification of fragile learners is utilized in conjunction with
specialized academic support to provide all learners with the instructional foundation
needed to maximize learning and literacy at Woodman. The Reading First coaches
report a decrease in special education referrals coincided with the advent of Reading
First; however, no documentation was provided to support these statements.
An important component of the focus on instruction theme is grade-level
collaboration. All teacher respondents reported that workshop, flexible grouping, and
curricular alignment could not be accomplished without extensive collaboration
within and across grade levels. Teachers meet by grade level once per week to assess
student performance, share ideas, and determine action plans. A third-grade teacher
reported that schoolwide, there is an expectation that collaboration will occur, stating,
“We take and share from everybody, not just from within grade level.” A majority of
teachers described an effective teacher as one who collaborates to determine
instructional focus. These sentiments are consistent with Gallimore and Goldenberg’s
(2001) comments that suggest that in order for schools to provide culturally
appropriate instruction, they must create a school culture that facilitates adult learning
as well.
The schoolwide focus on instructional practice reflects sociocultural theory
because this school site norm is composed of research-based strategies working

94
systemically that have been transformed into specific pedagogical behaviors with
positive impacts on student achievement at Woodman Elementary School. Use of
standards-based instruction, delivery of intensive literacy instruction, delivery of
differentiated instruction, and grade-level collaboration among staff members are
elements of pedagogy that are highly valued by everyone at the school. These site-
level systems work in conjunction to counteract the historical legacy of low
achievement documented among students of color.
Leadership
As described, the schoolwide character education program and focus on
instructional practice at Woodman are considered systems that contribute to high
student performance. The next system most frequently cited by interviewees, and
supported by observations conducted during the site visit, is leadership. The systems
associated with leadership are principal visibility, accessibility, and charisma and
distributed leadership. Many interviewees reported that during the previous
administration, academic achievement was poor, staff and student morale was low,
and parents were less involved in the school. Comments made by staff regarding
years spent with previous administrations illustrate how bad things were perceived at
Woodman Elementary School in the past:
• “The kids were all sitting on dingy torn-up rugs that looked like someone had
been peeing on them for 20 years!”
• “The school had been in the dumpster for decades.”
• “There were chunks of cement lying around and boards with nails in
them...the place hadn’t had paint in 18 years; it was all peeling.”

95
• “The office had a stench you wouldn’t believe! It smelled like a dead animal!”
• “[The previous administration] created a lot of negativity. People were upset
all the time. Parents would see all this trash and want to see the principal but
s/he never had time.”
• “Parents didn’t really get involved because the gates would get locked right at
the first bell.”
These statements paint a dismal picture that certainly does not describe an optimal
learning environment. When one enters campus currently, there is no trash in the
courtyard; rather there are brightly colored roses in neat rows. Parents mill about
comfortably, and the principal can be seen smiling as he strolls past, chatting with
parents in their native Spanish, in the newly painted halls that are cheerfully
decorated with student work and diversity-themed murals. (Please refer to appendix H
for samples of these murals.) When asked what caused the positive academic changes
that began to happen three years ago at Woodman, all teacher respondents cited the
change in leadership. Specifically, the new principal’s charisma, use of symbolism,
and team orientation “got [them] steered in the right direction.” A fourth-grade
teacher, who had been at the school for 6 years, reported, “The very first day, the
principal had a toast with the staff and made us feel like he had faith in us and that we
would work together. That changed everything.” The principal’s effective use of the
symbolic and human resource frames (Bolman & Deal, 1991) are evident in these
examples.
Many interviewees reported that the principal’s leadership style led to better
outcomes for students. Moreover, the principal is reported to be highly visible on

96
campus. For example, he can often be observed watering the rose garden and
changing the trash bags with the custodian. These behaviors were cited as leading to
improved morale and sense of efficacy among parents, staff, and students. The high
degree of principal visibility has been documented as a correlate of high-performing,
high-poverty schools (Izumi, 2002). The principal’s high level of visibility may be
also construed as a symbol of his commitment to the school, consistent with Bolman
and Deal’s (1991) symbolic frame.
In addition, the principal is seen as being highly accessible to parents,
teachers, and students. According to the lead secretary, the principal has an “open
door policy and is always available and accessible to parents. He never tells parents
he doesn’t have time to speak with them.” Seven teachers commented that the
principal spends time building high-quality relationships with parents. Such attention
to relationships creates an atmosphere of trust, security, and comfort that is felt by
any person entering the campus. Interviews with staff members and parents who
characterized the atmosphere at the school as reminiscent of being with family
provide evidence of this trust, security, and comfort. As a new person entering the
campus, the researcher was received warmly by all interviewees. During classroom
observations, all teachers offered the researcher a seat at their desks and treated the
experience not as an intrusion, but as a welcomed visit. Some teachers even provided
the researcher with contact information and offered to support the research project
further if necessary. These examples are indicative of the positive atmosphere and the
level of trust cultivated by the principal and maintained by staff at Woodman

97
Elementary School. In addition, these examples reflect attention to the needs of
people in the school, consistent with Bolman & Deal’s human resource frame.
The researcher observed firsthand the commitment the principal has to his
students and their parents. When the researcher approached the principal in the office
for his scheduled interview, a small Latina girl, who appeared to be crying, was
sitting outside his office with her mother. In Spanish, the mother related that her
daughter had come home with $30 in her backpack. The principal immediately
bumped the interview and ushered the family into his office to deal with the situation.
It was noted that he spoke to the parent in accented, yet perfect Spanish. When the
family came out 10 minutes later, the little girl was smiling and the mother looked
pleased. As the principal said goodbye, he clasped the mother’s hand and looked
directly into her eyes. This anecdote provides a good example of how the principal
demonstrates his devotion to achieving positive outcomes for students at Woodman.
In addition, this example reflects a degree of parental trust, and evidences the
relationship the family has with school personnel. Practices that promote parental
trust have been cited as correlates of student achievement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002;
McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000).
In addition to noting the principal’s visibility, accessibility, and effective use
of symbols, the interviewees reported that the principal uses distributed leadership.
Such a style may also account for the increases in morale and motivation, as the
principal achieves buy-in from staff by allowing them to be part of the decision-
making process. For example, the school counselor, reading coaches, and all teacher
respondents stated that the principal advocates shared decision-making. The vice

98
principal stated that the principal “does a great job of empowering the teachers. He
facilitates and allows leaders to grow from every grade level. There are individuals
you guide through the process and then they can lead.” This comment supports the
principal’s cultivation of shared decision-making among staff. Artifacts such as the
school plan attest that distributed leadership is utilized as grade-level teams convene
once per month to review student performance data and monitor progress toward
classroom, grade-level, and school goals. Though the principal used to facilitate these
meetings frequently, he is now able to “sit back” as they run themselves.
The example above describes distributed leadership. In this leadership model,
the leader actively seeks to prepare others to take on leadership roles and coordinates
shared decisions that are aligned toward a common goal (Harris, 2002). Woodman’s
principal has developed a clear common goal and sub-goals that are aligned to
increase student achievement. At Woodman Elementary School, that common goal
has been defined by the principal as an 800 API score. The principal’s behaviors
effectively align all stakeholders at the school to orient their work around that
common goal. Moreover, the principal creates “networks” (Rowan, 1990) of teachers,
support staff, and parents who all take on leadership roles. By empowering others to
make decisions that advance Woodman students toward academic success, the
principal facilitates a shared construction of values and practices at the school. Hence,
it is clear that the system of leadership documented at Woodman reflects sociocultural
theory (Vygotsky, 1987). From these shared understandings among students, staff,
and parents, student achievement has experienced a rapid upward spiral. The

99
leadership practices documented at Woodman may be construed as a recipe for
success that other schools with similar demographic characteristics may model.
The characteristics and leadership behaviors articulated in this section are also
consistent with Bolman and Deal’s (1991) description of the four frames of
organizational leadership: structural, symbolic, human resources, and political. In
terms of the structural frame, the principal has addressed the infrastructure of the
school and designed a social environment that is conducive to both student and staff
learning. As to the symbolic frame, the principal attends carefully to symbols in the
school environment and uses them effectively to inspire parents, staff, and students to
achieve. In terms of the human resources frame, the principal is highly visible, is
completely accessible, and has demonstrated that he values empowering others to
lead. Vis-à-vis the political frame, the principal has addressed the needs of all
stakeholders involved in the school community to make them part of the same
coalition working toward higher student achievement. According to Bolman and Deal
(1991), an effective leader transcends a tactical approach to leadership by integrating
all four frames, as Woodman’s principal clearly does.
Data-Based Decision Making
Woodman’s systemic approach to data-based decision making is another
contributor to students’ academic achievement. Three systems frequently cited by
respondents and noted in artifacts and during observations are goal setting, data-
driven professional development, and use of an online progress-monitoring program.
Goal setting permeates the school community and reflects one way the school uses
data. Data guides the school in setting achievable goals and in monitoring progress

100
towards meeting them. Evidence of goal setting was discussed in 10 of 12 interviews
and was observed among teachers, administration, and students. Student goals are
displayed prominently in classrooms, and students constantly monitor their own
progress toward meeting individual and classroom goals. A second-grade teacher
reports that when she gives feedback on progress toward goals, “students are excited.
When they meet it or even when they don’t, we discuss what they did that led to them
meeting the goal, or what they could do next time to achieve it.”
Symbols within the physical environment communicate the schoolwide goal-
setting orientation. Large, vividly decorated bulletin boards illustrate the school’s
progress toward meeting the attendance goal and the performance goal of 800 set by
administration. Parents are made aware of school goals set by the administration
through the parent newsletter, which declares in bold font, “800 or BUST!” Even
students know the mantra “800 or bust,” according to the parents interviewed and the
school counselor. As indicated by the principal, “You can’t just have a goal. Anyone
can have a goal or dream, but how do you get there? You have to have realistic
strategies that put one foot in front of the other to march you up the ladder towards
that goal.” This statement is consistent with Bolman and Deal’s (1991) structural
frame.
To determine appropriate schoolwide goals, the school plan outlines a Needs
Assessment that breaks down student performance data by subgroup. Baseline data
were used to create a strategic action plan targeting achievement. The action plan is
carried out by conducting data-driven professional development. The majority of
teachers interviewed cited this system as integral to raising achievement. This

101
evidence is consistent with the findings of Pardini (2002), who suggests that when
data are used to frame professional development, better student outcomes are reached.
The principal observed that professional development used to consist of talking about
“nonsense.” Now, staff meetings and professional development are “geared toward
goals that pertain to student achievement.” All teachers interviewed confirmed that
data analysis occurs during grade-level meetings and staff development. When
teachers come together to evaluate student work, they become more focused on
instructional practices that facilitate achievement (Lewis, 2005).
Decisions such as who will be asked to attend intersession or who will receive
re-teaching or front loading are made following staff development meetings. A fifth-
grade teacher reports, “Professional development is really data driven. We look at
weekly assessment data, test data, CST scores, and school data and look for trends or
gaps. Once we identify a need, then we can fill it; that’s what we focus on.” A first-
grade teacher stated, “Everything is data driven at this point...our professional
development, our instruction, all of it.” Many respondents reported that attending to
student performance data during weekly professional development meetings enables
them to recognize when they need to adjust instruction to ensure that optimal learning
is occurring. Using sociocultural theory as a lens, professional development serves as
the social context for deriving meaning from student performance data.
A third component within the system of data-driven decision making is
schoolwide use of an online assessment and monitoring program. Woodman uses the
Online Assessment and Reporting System, which is a Web-based software tool that
facilitates data collection and analysis of student performance data. Teachers collect

102
data frequently and enter it into the computer. Every six weeks, teachers analyze
OARS data to determine who needs additional or modified instruction to meet
learning goals. According to the majority of teachers, OARS makes it clear which
students need extra help. As one teacher explained, “OARS allows us to see
performance over time and helps us detect trends and problems so we can provide
extra help or tutoring.” The principal utilizes the system as well, saying, “OARS
crunches the numbers so I can look at it by individual kid or by teacher.” Hence
OARS allows a comprehensive assessment of student performance, facilitating
effective instructional practice and goal setting. Use of the OARS program to conduct
frequent assessment and monitoring was documented in school artifacts as well, such
as in the parent newsletter, in the school plan, and within individual classrooms. (See
artifacts in appendix H.)
A schoolwide system of data-based decision making pulls staff members
together and orients them to the common goal of raising student achievement to the
desired benchmark, 800. This system provides the mechanics the school staff needs to
drive the entire site forward. Goal setting brings staff and students together by
creating individual goals that align to the overall goal of higher student performance.
Use of the OARS system facilitates frequent monitoring of and adjustments to the
“machine” as it moves toward its goal. Again, a shared perspective is at the core of
these systems, which reflects that the sociocultural variables operating at Woodman
positively impact academic performance of students.

103
Parental Involvement
The school plan outlines an accountability measure designed to “encourage
and promote parental engagement and satisfaction.” A focus statement elaborates:
“Parents will be encouraged to take an active role in the education of their children.”
Indeed, respondents indicated that while during previous administrations, parental
involvement was low, currently parents are taking an active role at the school.
Parental involvement is often cited as a correlate of student achievement, especially
among students of color (Kannapel & Clements, 2005; Henderson & Mapp, 2002;
Henderson & Berla, 1994). Three systems documented in the data provide evidence
of parental involvement at Woodman: parent and staff collaboration, “parent
information pipeline,” and Friday Family Workshop.
Both parents and teachers reported a high degree of collaboration between
their groups. There are several ways parents can become actively involved at the
school. For example, the Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) provides a venue for
parents to collaborate with staff. The PTO president stated that the organization
rewards students for perfect attendance and coordinates school fund-raisers. It is
important to note that the PTO, not the principal, issues the rewards at Woodman,
reflecting that parents are an active and integral part of the social learning
environment at the site.
The PTO president observed that parents feel welcome at the school and that
families perceive the school as an extension of the community. “It feels comfortable
and natural for my son to see me here. It’s like, ‘Hi, Dad!’ and he waves. It’s
effective to have parents visible at school, especially fathers.” The level of parental

104
activity currently documented at Woodman reflects the high degree of collaboration
observed both among parents and between parents and staff. Parent and staff
collaboration facilitates meaningful parental participation in individual classrooms.
That such parent participation is cultivated at the school is another example of the
human resources frame (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Parents are treated as key
stakeholders who contribute to achieving the school’s goals.
A facet of the PTO, the Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) program allows
parents to help in individual classrooms. A parent coordinator meets with teachers to
determine what kind of classroom prep is needed and communicates this information
to parent volunteers, who carry it out. A parent mentioned, “I feel important being
asked to do what is needed to help the teachers here.” In addition to the PTO and
VIPS programs, additional social settings are created for interaction and collaboration
between parents and staff. The principal and several teachers stated that the staff
holds monthly family breakfasts to build relationships with parents who cannot afford
to take off work to be involved during the latter part of the day. In addition, a parent
newsletter regularly sent home outlines school goals. The newsletter is written in both
English and Spanish. Too, while the principal is Caucasian, he speaks fluent Spanish,
making him accessible to more parents. In an example described in a previous
section, the principal’s Spanish fluency allowed him to defuse an emotional situation
between a parent and her daughter. In addition, the principal regularly meets with
parents and speaks to them in the language they are most comfortable with, which
tends to be Spanish. The ability to communicate effectively with parents of color
enhances parental comfort and desire to participate at the school. These examples

105
show how a high-poverty urban school transcends race and class-based barriers to
parental involvement such as distrust and resistance (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
All interviewees cited the Friday Family Workshop as a system within the
school that increased active parental participation and facilitated high student
performance. Friday Family Workshops are organized at the start of the year. Topics,
such as How to Help with Homework, are predetermined by the PTO and school
counselor. According to the Reading First coaches, these sessions are “content-based,
data-based instruction with the parents so they can learn where we’re going, why
we’re going there, and how they can support that academic growth.” Parents
commented that Friday Family Workshops are useful because they constitute a setting
that transmits the school’s expectations. “Now I have a place where I can ask if I
don’t know what he is supposed to be doing,” one parent stated. Consistent with
sociocultural theory, the Friday Family Workshop provides a context for constructing
meaning in a collaborative manner that facilitates significant parental involvement.
In addition to the PTO and Friday Family Workshop systems, the parents
interviewed provided evidence of a parent information pipeline. That is, parents who
had time to be actively involved in projects at the school and in the community made
an effort to communicate information to other parents about events such as parent
conferences, Back to School Night, and fund-raising activities. “It’s like a family
here,” said the PTO president. “We parents know each other personally. We actively
inform other parents about important things coming up here at the school.” A parent
information pipeline, whereby parents actively transmit information to other parents,
ensures that no one group is left out of the loop. Indeed, parents who did not speak

106
English were paired with a bilingual translator to ensure that they did not miss out on
important information such as when parent conferences would be held. This
information pipeline serves as a conduit for the transmission of social capital
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Parents who may retain greater degrees of social capital are
able to become gatekeepers of important information that they pass to other parents.
This role for parents is an important dimension of Woodman’s social learning
environment.
Active parental involvement in their child’s school may be construed as
evidence that the school communicates respect and value to the parents. Parents are
visible at Woodman, which is perceived to be a family environment by parents and
staff alike. They are perceived to be part of the school, not external to it. Again,
sociocultural theory is consistent with this description of the elements that make up a
learner’s educational environment. Consistent with sociocultural theories of learning,
the staff members are building a school culture that is compatible with students; home
and community cultures. Thus it is tapping into students’ social and cultural capital
as assets for constructing new knowledge.
It should be noted that most of the examples in the preceding discussion
involve Latino parents. As mentioned previously, Latinos students comprise the
largest population at Woodman. It should be noted that during the PTO meeting
observation, Latino parents were predominant group in attendance. A total of two
Caucasian parents attended the meeting on the day of the observation and no parents
from other easily distinguishable subgroups were present, so it is difficult to ascertain

107
the level of parental participation among other subgroups. This discrepancy will be
addressed in Chapter 5.
School Culture/Climate
Marzano (2003) cites that a school climate based on collegiality is a
component of an effective school. Woodman’s school plan includes an accountability
focus statement targeting school climate. Specifically, Woodman aims to “create an
organizational climate that will enhance and support societal expectations.” Staff
members observed that the overall climate is very positive for several reasons: the
team orientation at the school, the respect and “ownership” demonstrated for all
students, the focus on achievement, and the high expectations for all students and
staff. Evidence of these systems is noted in interviews, observations, and artifacts.
The first system, a team orientation, is reflected in comments made by administrators,
teachers, support staff, and parents.
The principal appears to be a key player in cultivating and transmitting a team
culture at Woodman. He targets the beliefs of staff members, which he feels will
empower them to become better educators. According to the principal, “You got to be
a little wizard and a little warrior to build up the belief system. I spend a lot of time
doing team-building activities to empower the teams and make them more solid.” The
Reading First coaches supported this statement, commenting that collegial
relationships exist at Woodman and that staff is very “welcoming and accepting of
one another.” The belief system is more than just a shared vision of high
achievement, the principal commented. “It’s more than that....It’s getting [teachers] to

108
believe that what they’re doing in the room is actually working and that the students
are advancing due to their practices.”
Teachers, support staff, and parents also reported that a team-oriented
environment exists at Woodman. For example, seven teachers used the word team
when describing the school culture and climate. “We are a community within
ourselves,” declared the school counselor. The school secretary stated that “it’s like a
family....Sometimes I feel like we’re married!” Parents of color cited “teamwork” as
something that the school was doing to help all students succeed. The PTO president
specified that there was a welcoming, familial feeling at the school and that parents
felt comfortable to “take on their roles” at Woodman.
Another feature contributing to the positive climate at Woodman is an attitude
of respect and ownership for all students’ progress and cultures. As one parent
commented, “All cultures come together at the school.” Evidence of respect for all
students was documented in interviews, observations, and artifacts. In terms of
interviews, the majority of respondents directly referred to this system. For example,
the Reading First coach stated, “We all own these children.” This attitude was
supported in statements by the administration and by teachers across grade levels. In
terms of observations and artifacts, attention to diversity was documented, which
supports a climate of respect and ownership for all students. The first thing that
catches the eye when entering the campus is a large, diversity-themed mural depicting
students from a multitude of ethnicities. Three other such murals, depicting symbols
such as flags and children from many countries and all types of ethnicities, were
observed on campus. In individual classrooms, the researcher documented diversity-

109
themed curriculum and student work. For example, student-drawn Mexican flags
were displayed proudly in the doorway of a first-grade classroom. Library books in
individual classrooms depicted students from different ethnic backgrounds. A
multicultural poetry book sat on a fourth-grade teacher’s desk. Hence, symbols
conveying respect and ownership for all students are embedded deeply into the school
environment (see appendix H).
Focus on Achievement
Another highly salient system that contributes to the positive school culture
and climate at Woodman is a schoolwide focus on achievement. This focus was
documented in interviews, observations, and artifacts. During interviews, all staff and
parents cited evidence of this achievement-oriented focus. The principal’s annual
theme, “Road to 800,” reflects this sentiment. Per the principal, the “road is paved by
the practices in the classrooms.” As mentioned in the previous section, a large
bulletin board located in a highly trafficked hallway proclaims, “800 or BUST!”
During all classroom observations, the researcher noted student-generated charts and
graphs that displayed current levels of student performance and the desired level of
student achievement. Even the parent newsletter contained a section devoted entirely
to desired levels of student achievement and outlined ways parents could help support
the school in its endeavor to reach the 800 score.
The positive school climate documented at Woodman Elementary School is a
reflection of the structures and systems at the site that support students of color in
their learning. Staff and parents work together as a team to fully integrate these
structures and systems and impact student achievement. The culture and climate at

110
Woodman may be conceptualized as a fabric woven from these structures and
systems that supports learning discourse. As the next section will illustrate, such a
culture and climate holds particular significance for students of color who are at risk
of being inappropriately identified for special education.
Research Question 2a
The subquestion for research question 2 asked, “How do high-performing,
high-poverty schools utilize specific structures and systems to reduce erroneous
identification of students of color for special education?” The following systems
interact directly to inform this subquestion: Intervention Team Incorporated, frequent
assessment and monitoring through OARS, intersession and front loading, and
perspective on special education. Each system reflects the process by which
Woodman Elementary School avoids racial disparity in its special education program.
Intervention Team Incorporated
Many staff members cited the school’s tiered intervention process as a system
that served as a racial disparity reduction strategy. According to the school counselor,
Intervention Team Incorporated (ITI) consists of credentialed special and general
education staff members who work on a case-by-case basis to ensure that effective
instructional interventions occur before referring a student for special education
assessment. The ITI system is reminiscent of the tiered RTI model described by
Klinger and Edwards (2006). “Most of the time, we stick to Level 1, the pre-referral
stage of the intervention,” reported the counselor. The Reading First coaches reported
that Intervention Team Incorporated served as a setting for bringing together all the
key players in a child’s education to brainstorm ways to differentiate instruction in

111
order to maximize student learning and “close the gaps.” This statement reflects
sociocultural theory, which emphasizes that learning is embedded in a social context
and that knowledge is constructed in an interactive manner. Instead of adhering to a
socially constructed concept of learning disability, educators at Woodman utilize the
ITI system as a setting to construct instructional intervention strategies.
Teachers across grade levels characterized the ITI as extremely important in
reducing their likelihood of referring a child for special education assessment. For
example, a first-grade teacher explained, “When we identify that a student might be
struggling, we call in the ITI team.” Another teacher described that when she first
began teaching at Woodman, the ITI team members shared new instructional
strategies with her and also made it possible for her to observe veteran teachers
employing a variety of instructional practices to ensure that all students were learning
the material. Four additional teachers commented that having ITI was an effective
resource that oftentimes acted as a buffer, preventing the referral of low-performing
students who would ordinarily be referred for special education assessment.
As discussed in chapter 2, whether or not a student receives effective
intervention during the pre-referral stage is often the deciding factor in terms of
making a formal referral for assessment (Harry &Klinger, 2006; Chalfant, Pysh, &
Moultrie, 1979). ITI is an effective system not only for providing general education
teachers with resources to improve their instruction but for communicating and
embedding the positive team culture and climate at the school. Without this system,
general education teachers may be more likely to inappropriately refer students who
are consistently performing below grade-level benchmarks. Another system, OARS,

112
allows teachers to “catch” these students before the academic gap becomes too wide
for pre-referral intervention to close.
Frequent Assessment and Monitoring Through OARS
As discussed in a previous section, OARS is an online assessment and
monitoring tool used schoolwide. Just as OARS is useful in determining instructional
focus, it also aids in reducing erroneous special education classification. The majority
of interviewees cited OARS as a reduction mechanism because it allows teachers to
identify students who may be struggling and “catch them in the nets of [the]
intervention team.” A first-grade teacher stated, “I use the OARS data to target
individual students who may be underperforming. Once we identify students who
need additional support, we can meet to determine the best course of action to
improve their performance.” This statement reflects the perspective that students who
are underperforming will benefit from strategic instructional intervention rather than a
referral for special education assessment.
Intersession and Front Loading
Often, the best course of action to take with a student who is not meeting
grade-level standards is to refer them to intersession. Woodman follows a year-round
schedule. When classes are “off-track,” the school provides intersession for at-risk
students. Teachers are paid in addition to their salaries to teach intersession. As one
teacher commented, “Teaching intersession helps with collaboration too, because I
still teach fourth-graders, but they may be someone else’s students.” It stands to
reason that this procedure also facilitates the documented sense of ownership for all
students at the school. During intersession, the primary practices used are reteaching

113
and front loading. Student progress is monitored during intersession, and staff
members report noticing improvements in terms of student engagement and
comprehension of curriculum when the regular class begins. For example, a third-
grade teacher reported that students who have participated in intersession appear to
have an easier time answering comprehension questions because they have already
been exposed to the general idea and the vocabulary of a new text. Another teacher
commented that students attending intersession come back “feeling so much power
and accomplishment; they are proud that they know all the vocabulary for the unit,
which is a confidence builder.” These statements reflect Woodman’s attention to the
emotional as well as cognitive development of students, a feature of sociocultural
learning theory (Vygotsky, 1987).
Intersession provides the context for re-teaching and front loading. This
system is part of a well-integrated academic intervention plan. Students who are at
risk and demonstrate gaps in their learning are identified and referred in a coordinated
team effort to reduce the gap. By providing another context in which students have
multiple opportunities to fully understand the material, Woodman facilitates higher
student performance among students who might otherwise be inappropriately referred
for special education assessment. How did these highly effective systems arise? It
stands to reason that the school culture and climate at Woodman supports the
implementation of structures and system that reflect the “no-fail” policy at the school.
Rather than let low-performing students fail, the school identifies them, and provides
them with frontloading and increased opportunities to learn material rather than
remediation in the form of special education services.

114
Perspective on Special Education
As stated previously, Woodman’s school climate is infused with an attitude of
respect and ownership for all students. This attitude may drive a particular
schoolwide perspective on special education that reduces the likelihood of
inappropriate referrals. Staff members at Woodman appear to harbor the belief that
special education is a service, not a placement. This perspective was noted in
interviews with the principal, teachers, and support staff. All three categories of
respondents discussed how academic intervention is best conducted in a child’s
general education classroom first. Students who are identified as needing more
opportunities to learn beyond the general education setting are referred to intersession
rather than being pulled out for a Resource Specialist Program (RSP). The principal
made the following statement regarding RSP: “Most kids do not benefit from RSP.
We are not going to waste our time here discussing how we can get kids into RSP
when we can do tons of other interventions that are better, with the idea of let’s not
get them identified.”
Reports by the counselor, teachers, and support staff describing that the
number of special education referrals have decreased since the principal joined the
school team three years ago suggest that the principal initiated this perspective.
According to the principal, Woodman used to run 100 SST meetings annually. He
explained that identifying children for special education “is a Band-aid and a way out
for the teacher. There is a psychological thing that goes on if they know that there is a
place to send a kid who is not performing well-like they’re off the hook a little.” To
combat this problem, the principal reported that he began to initiate a change in

115
thinking. He presented information to staff that demonstrated how, oftentimes, special
education does not work and students are never redesignated. “I’m a fervent believer
that you should do less remediation and more front loading,” he stated. Next, he said
that using team-building skills to bolster teachers’ belief systems and senses of
efficacy served as “hooks” to get them to change their attitudes and stop making hasty
referrals. These statements are consistent with the human resources frame (Bolman &
Deal, 1991).
The principal stated that once teachers believed that what they did in
individual classrooms worked to raise achievement among underperforming students,
they became more committed to utilizing a variety of instructional strategies and
interventions rather than referring students for special education assessment. In turn,
the attitude that special education was a set of interventions that began in the general
education classroom thrived among staff, as did an attitude of respect and ownership
for all students and their academic performance. Grade-level teams now meet
regularly to analyze student performance, identify students who would benefit from
additional opportunities to learn the material, and implement interventions as needed.
The perspective that students who are underperforming require pre-referral
interventions and frequent monitoring in their general education classrooms at their
home school supports that Woodman’s overall perspective is that special education is
a service or, rather, a set of tiered interventions implemented by the child’s classroom
teacher with support from other professionals when needed. Such a perspective is
highly salient when considering that Woodman does not appear to inappropriately
refer students of color for special education. Instead, the Woodman staff emphasizes

116
providing students with effective instruction prior to the academic gap becoming too
wide to close.
The Reading First coach corroborated that at Woodman, there is minimal
identification for special education because students with learning challenges receive
effective instruction in the general education classroom. “At this site, we say that the
best place for a child is their home school [with] their classroom teacher and the
support of credentialed, highly-qualified individuals,” she declared. The majority of
teachers interviewed demonstrated this perspective as well. A second-grade teacher
stated, “If our students didn’t have effective instruction from their classroom teachers,
we would probably be moving toward special education when it wasn’t necessary.”
These statements keenly reflect a perspective that special education is a service that
should be provided in a student’s general education classroom.
Observations at the school corroborate that staff at Woodman perceive special
education as a service, rather than a placement. For example, it is notable that that
there was no special education building or classroom at the site. There was a reading
recovery room; however, during a six-hour duration, only one student was served
there. Nearly all students requiring additional learning support received such support
in the context of the general education classroom routine. Coaches provided
scaffolding and modeling for the general education teacher. Students were rotated
through workshops or were swapped into a flexible group in a different classroom to
allow them opportunities to receive reteaching. These observations illustrate that the
staff makes every effort to provide intervention in the context of the general
education classroom.

117
In terms of additional evidence, data on the California Department of
Education Web site reveals that at Woodman, currently only 45 of the 573 students in
the 2007 reporting period were designated as special education students. This is only
8 percent. The distribution of these students over disability categories illustrates that
no one group is overidentified in any one category. That is, the number of students in
any subgroup identified as having a disability at Woodman is not disproportionate to
the percentage of that subgroup in the total population of the school, as described in
the discussion under Research Question 1. Moreover, students are distributed across
both soft and hard disability categories (see Figure 8). A high degree of students
clustered in soft disability categories would suggest that students are being
inappropriately referred and labeled. This evidence of equalized distribution is
consistent with a schoolwide perspective that special education as a service functions
as a reduction strategy. “We have a goal of reduction in identification,” reported the
reading coach. The school counselor also reported that in the past, there were referrals
made “many times per week” as opposed “only a handful per year,” the current
practice. Hence, the perspective on special education documented at Woodman
appears to be an effective reduction strategy. This outlook, coupled with systems such
as ITI and intersession, acts as instructional support for the general education teacher,
thereby reducing the likelihood of a special education referral being initiated. Each of
these systems operates in a coordinated manner to facilitate success among all
students by promoting effective instruction in classrooms. How is this coordination
accomplished? The next section analyzes how Woodman Elementary School
implements structures and systems to facilitate schoolwide effective instruction.

118
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How are the school’s organizational structures
and systems implemented to promote schoolwide effective classroom instruction that
promotes student learning?” The following systems and structures are salient in this
regard: leadership, school capacity, and strategic use of data. These provide insights
into the process by which the school implements systems and structures that have the
most impact in individual classrooms.
Leadership
A teacher who has been at Woodman for 5 years had insights regarding what
brought the school from the doorstep of Program Improvement to a high-performing
school that has attracted the attention of the state secretary of education: “It was
leadership! When our new principal came in three years ago, everything changed!”
Indeed, the majority of interviewees cited characteristics of the principal’s leadership
style when asked how the school achieves high levels of performance across
subgroups. These comments are consistent with early research in school leadership
that emphasized the role of the principal (e.g., Bridges, 1982; Edmonds, 1979;
Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). As mentioned in a previous section, distributed
leadership constitutes a system at the site that promotes motivation and buy-in among
teachers and support staff by empowering members of the school team to engage in
shared decision making (Harris, 2002). “When teachers are empowered, they are
receptive to feedback regarding their instruction, and student achievement goes up,”
explained the principal.

119
The principal has cultivated the physical environment to reflect that the school
is a place staff can be proud of. He leads by example: changing trash bags and
watering the roses when needed. He uses symbols such as bulletin board displays and
newsletters to transmit a shared focus on achievement to staff, parents, and students.
He engages staff in team building and has high expectations for them, just as he
facilitates a climate of high expectations for all students. Finally, the principal
believes in a distributed leadership model and acts to empower others to lead. Each of
these elements of leadership impacts what is occurring in individual classrooms by
creating a positive school culture and climate that supports teachers in delivering
effective instruction to students. Inherent to this school climate is the expectation that
students will meet their learning goals. Such an expectation trickles down into the
goal-setting behaviors observed in classrooms across grade levels and reflects the
high expectations described in Marzano’s (2003) discussion of effective schools
correlates.
In addition to transmitting a positive school culture and climate that supports
effective instruction, the principal conducts frequent observations and provides
feedback to classroom teachers. He said, “You have to be in classrooms, dropping
little notes of encouragement like, ‘Hey, that was excellent. Students were engaged
and learning.’” He elaborated that being in classrooms frequently allows him to be a
bridge connecting teacher practices, then added, “If I observe a great lesson, I share
the strategy. Then I offer to release the teachers so they can observe their colleagues,
or I’ll cover their class.” Frequent observations and feedback enable effective

120
instructional practices to move “beyond the egg carton” and spread to other
classrooms with similar learning needs.
The teachers perceive the principal’s presence in classrooms as opportunities
to improve practice. “I can always tell him, and the next day there is a plan for me to
check something out that might help,” stated a third-grade teacher. Frequent
observations and feedback are contexts for adult learning, which Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) posit are essential to cultivating the kind of cultural model that is
appropriate for students of color. Moreover, that the principal facilitates transmission
of effective practices by enabling teachers to observe colleagues reflects sociocultural
theory (Vygotsky, 1987) in that learning is an interactive, social process.
These actions taken by the principal have had a positive impact on staff
morale and feelings of efficacy. Increased morale and efficacy lead staff to support
suggestions made by the principal regarding implementation of systems and
structures. They are also highly motivated to implement them to the best of their
ability. For example, workshops and flexible groups are embedded into the school
day to provide contexts for reteaching. Artifacts confirm that leadership is integral to
the effective implementation of structures and systems that support instructional
practice. As noted in the discussion under Research Question 1, a jump in scores
coincided with the year the principal joined the school, and a steady increase in scores
has occurred ever since.
At Woodman, the principal’s leadership strategies are the common thread
tying other school-level structures and systems together to support student
achievement. At Woodman, leadership acts as an implementation strategy, a way for

121
systems and structures to be activated schoolwide resulting in effective classroom
instruction. The principal provides links to effective instruction by offering frequent
feedback on instruction and presenting opportunities to observe how other teachers
deliver instruction. Further, the principal has embedded time to analyze student
performance in the weekly routine of the school. Educators know where students are
in their development and are able to design instruction to move them forward, a
notion that is reminiscent of Vygotsky (1987).
Classroom practices at Woodman are reflective of the principal’s emphasis on
effective instruction. All teachers, both within and across grade levels, functioned as
a coordinated unit. Symbols of this coordination and shared mission such as similar
student goal charts, AP Scholar posters, and high levels of student engagement were
observed in all classrooms. Physical arrangement of classrooms facilitated
interactions both within students and between students and the teacher. For example,
most classrooms had student “islands” where students were seated in small groups
that were oriented towards the teacher. Adherence to the standards was observed in
each classroom. Posters that outlined the current standard decorated each classroom.
(Please refer to Appendix H). Teachers moved around frequently, giving feedback to
students and offering specific praise on student performance. The researcher noted
high student engagement among students in classrooms across grade levels. These
examples are evidence of instructional practices that have been cited as effective
schools correlates (Banks & Banks, 1995; Marzano, 2003; Hollins, 1996). The
principal has nurtured these practices and continues to help them thrive by using
school capacity efficiently, as the next section describes.

122
School Capacity
School capacity was cited in interviews and artifacts as a key factor driving
effective implementation of systems that positively impact instructional practice in
individual classrooms. Systems related to school capacity included the following:
strategic use of funds, effective use of time, and class size reduction.
The principal reported that freeing up some of the site’s Title 1 funding
allowed him to fund buy-back days. According to the principal, these days are fixed
on the school’s annual calendar and are used to accomplish grade-level collaboration
and curricular alignment. The majority of teachers interviewed cited buy-back days as
the context for data analysis, problem solving, and curricular alignment within and
across grade levels. “We talk about things like how Grade 1 math facts feed into
Grade 2 math facts,” stated a first-grade teacher, when she was asked what happens
during buy-back days. Another way funds are used strategically involves workshops,
intersession, and tutoring. Teachers reported that in the past, they felt they did not
have adequate time to engage in reteaching. Currently, funds are used to pay teachers
an hourly wage in addition to their salaries to teach intersession or tutor at-risk
students after school. Funds from the Reading First Grant support these additional
contexts for reteaching and differentiated instruction. Hence, strategic use of Title 1
funds allows the principal to build in adequate time to implement structures and
systems that facilitate student achievement.
In addition to strategic use of funds, effective use of time also supports
implementation of structures and systems that promote successful classroom
instruction. The principal reported that previously, teachers tended to “talk about

123
nonsense” during staff development time. Currently, the principal directs staff to
focus on how time is used in individual classrooms and during professional
development seminars. For example, the principal stated that he informed staff, “I
want to see in your minutes all the time you are spending studying student data.”
Teachers reported that taking accurate data consistently can be difficult. “I build time
into my instructional day to ensure that I am tracking student performance,” stated a
fifth-grade teacher. Effective use of time, then, allows systems and structures to be
embedded into the school routine and reflects Marzano’s (2003) emphasis on
opportunity to learn.
In addition to use of time, many teachers cited class size as a mediator of
effective instructional practice. “When I first got here, I had 35 students. It was
impossible to make sure they were all learning,” reported a fourth-grade teacher. The
Marina Unified School District has since implemented a class size reduction policy.
A smaller class size is felt to be conducive to developing relationships with students
and families by the teachers at Woodman. In addition, implementing differentiated
instruction and engaging in frequent assessment and monitoring “gets more difficult
the more kids you have,” a fifth-grade teacher stated. Clearly, class size represents a
structure that facilitates implementation of effective instructional practices in
individual classrooms and opportunities for meaningful learning to occur (Banks &
Banks, 1995).
Another frequently reported component of school capacity is strategic use of
data. Although data collection and use were discussed in a previous section, this
section addresses the use of data as an implementation strategy that supports effective

124
classroom instruction. Building in time to analyze student data enables teachers and
staff to identify at-risk students and provide intervention. Goal setting by both
teachers and students acts as a check-and-balance system to ensure that all students
are indeed receiving effective classroom instruction. As stated in a previous section,
the school plan details a Needs Assessment that reports a baseline of student
performance across subgroups and describes trends, strengths, and weaknesses. The
site uses this data to set reasonable school improvement goals. Individual and
classroom data is analyzed during professional development seminars to monitor
progress toward meeting goals. As evidenced at Woodman, in addition to being a
system that facilitates higher student performance, strategic use of data is an
implementation strategy that supports schoolwide effective instructional practice by
teachers.
Culturally Relevant Instruction
Across data sources, the absence of references to culturally relevant
instruction is notable when considering how a high-performing, high-poverty school
such as Woodman implements systems and structures to promote student learning. It
stands to reason that in a context that serves many students of diverse backgrounds,
making connections to student culture would be paramount. While attention to
student culture was documented among artifacts (see analysis of Research Question
4), no respondents mentioned use of culturally relevant classroom instruction during
interviews. It is true that Woodman has experienced high levels of academic growth
across subgroups. It is interesting to ponder whether or not this rate of achievement

125
would be accelerated even more if the teachers acknowledged and delivered
instruction that specifically targeted student culture.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “How is the construct of race reflected in the
school’s systems and structures?” The theoretical framework that guides this
discussion is critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Previous constructs
of race used deficit models to explain the achievement gap between students of color
and their White peers. For example, students of color were viewed as lacking
culturally appropriate knowledge, skills, and parental values to achieve academic
success (Yosso, 2005). Critical race theory, which has its origins in legal battles
fought during the civil rights movement, challenges the historically created constructs
of race that are based on a deficit view, and focuses instead on the unique set of
knowledge, skills, and attributes possessed by people of color (Ladson-Billings &
Tate, 1995). Components of multicultural education (Banks, 1993, 1994; Banks &
Banks, 1995), such as equity pedagogy, the knowledge construction process, and an
empowering school culture, also inform this analysis. The following themes in the
data reflect the construct of race at Woodman: attention to student culture, increased
parental involvement, and perspective on special education. The first theme, attention
to student culture, was documented in interviews, observations, and artifacts. While
this theme was present at the site, evidence shows that it may not be fully integrated
to reflect all student cultures at the school.
During school site observations, attention to multiple student cultures was
noted in symbols in the physical environment. For example, attention to diversity was

126
seen in the diversity-themed murals, which depicted children from a variety of
cultures. Parent bulletin boards and newsletters were displayed in both English and
Spanish. The principal was observed to switch to Spanish when talking with a Latina
parent. The researcher also documented diversity-themed curricular items, such as
books in classroom library areas, and multicultural music, which reflected Latino,
Native American, and African American cultures. While these observations show that
Woodman is attempting to address diversity and student culture, other evidence
suggests inconsistent implementation of a construct of race that supports all students
in an equitable manner. For example, there tended to be a focus on students of Latino
descent. In one classroom, student-drawn Mexican flags adorned the ceiling, but no
suggestion of other cultures was in evidence. Albeit small, other subgroups exist at
the school, yet these cultures did not appear to be recognized. The symbols in the
classroom environment depict the culture that is in the majority at the school, Latinos.
This observation does not reflect efforts toward prejudice reduction, a component of
multicultural education noted by Banks (1993, 1994).
In terms of artifacts, attention to diversity is noted in the school plan. The
Needs Assessment targets students of color and English-language learners
specifically. A strategic plan outlines an intervention approach for underperforming
English-language learners that includes differentiated instruction and parent training
components. In addition, an accountability measure in the school plan aims to
“enhance racial harmony and diversity management.” The aligned focus statement
specifies, “Opportunities will be provided throughout the year for various
multicultural curricula events that will promote community and appreciation for other

127
cultures as well as positive student self-esteem.” Demonstrating a commitment to
consistent recognition of student culture reflects a construct of race that advances
student learning (Banks & Banks, 1995). These statements demonstrate the
commitment Woodman staff has to diversity, but references to specific events that
celebrate multiculturalism were not present in the artifacts. If attention to many
student cultures were deeply embedded in the fabric of the school, one would expect
to see more evidence of this focus in the artifacts.
In terms of interviews, the majority of respondents echoed the principal’s
sentiment when he stated, “Most of the students here are students of color, so I guess
everything is geared to their achievement by default.” This sentiment does not align
with the artifacts and symbolism documented at the site. In fact, it seems reminiscent
of the “color blindness” described by Amanda Lewis (2003). Although most students
are of one background, they still need to develop multicultural lenses with which to
interpret their own experiences and to compete in a global marketplace. Neither the
principal nor other staff members shared ways in which the school helps students
develop these perspectives. While it is true that the majority of students attending
Woodman are Latino, there are some students of African American and Pacific
Islander descent. Woodman staff did not comment on how these populations were
addressed. In fact, the absence of such consideration implies that the needs of these
students may go unnoticed. As mentioned in chapter 2, students of color may have
different learning preferences (Allen & Boykin, 1992). Failure to attach importance to
the cultures of some students may lead staff to ignore the instructional needs of these
students, resulting in lower performance.

128
Being Latino in a school composed primarily of Latino students is a
drastically different experience than that of students who are African American in a
school that has few other students of that culture. While student performance overall
at Woodman is currently high relative to other schools of similar demographic
characteristics, perhaps it would be higher if these subtleties were acknowledged. In
addition, staff did not recognize the significant discrepancy between the performance
of Asian Americans and African American and Latino students. Analyzing these
trends using critical race theory as a lens might lend poignancy to this achievement
gap and offer strategies to reduce it (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, Yosso, 2005).
Increased Parental Involvement
According to staff at Woodman, there has been a relatively recent increase in
involvement from parents at the site. The school secretary reported that the school
makes specific efforts to involve parents and support diversity. She reported, for
example, that teachers celebrate cultural holidays and invite parents to bring in
traditional food and share about their culture with the rest of the class. These
examples reflect that cultural knowledge is socially constructed (Vygotsky, 1987;
Banks, 1993, 1994). They also may reflect a desire on the part of school staff to
create an empowering school culture for students of color (Banks, 1993, 1994). While
these examples illustrate that the school is making efforts to involve parents of color
and to celebrate diversity, use of holidays as the social contexts for attending to
cultures may be counterproductive to a construct of race that supports student
learning (Lewis, 2005). For example, elementary-aged students may perceive that an

129
appreciation of different cultures is only significant during holidays or Black History
Month.
Although the site uses cultural holidays frequently as a social context for
celebrating diversity, interviews with parents reflect appreciation for the school’s
attempts to recognize and involve them. Parents stated that there was a welcoming
atmosphere at the school, which made them feel comfortable being actively involved.
The PTO president stated that the school “has staff that speaks Khmer, Laotian,
Spanish....All the cultures come together at the school.” Teachers reported that venues
such as the Friday Family Workshop serve as contexts where parents and staff from
diverse backgrounds can form relationships. The school counselor and principal
reported that 40 parents attended a recent parent breakfast. Teachers reported that
attendance during parent conferences is “generally pretty good.” Building
relationships increases opportunities for staff and parents to develop an in-group
mentality that is rooted in a team effort to enhance student performance at Woodman.
That the recent increase in parental involvement coincides with the leap in academic
performance suggests that the construct of race at the school is one that supports
student learning in most cases.
Decrease in Special Education Referrals
A final theme that reflects the school’s construct of race is the decrease in
special education referrals reported by administration, teachers, and support staff. The
fact that special education referrals have decreased suggests a construct of race that
holds high expectations for all students. An atmosphere of high expectations for all
students is a salient feature of the school culture and climate and is consistent with

130
Marzano’s (2003) discussion of elements of effective schools. Although the principal
reported, “Everyone says that it takes more than just high expectations,” it appears
that uniformly high expectations at Woodman facilitate an overall school setting that
is conducive to student achievement across ethnic subgroups. These high expectations
are part of a construct of race that supports student learning and counteracts erroneous
identification of students of color for special education. Such expectations are
inconsistent with the deficit model so often associated with the low achievement of
students of color (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
High expectations were evident in the curriculum and in the classroom
experiences of students of color at Woodman. For example, the counselor reported
that in a fifth-grade class, students were analyzing Black themes in geography, a
complex cognitive task that reflects high expectations for students of color and shows
attention to student culture in the curriculum. Classroom observations revealed that
students at Woodman were encouraged to think critically and were given
opportunities to help each other during difficult tasks. A construct of race that
communicates to students of color that they have the tools to dictate their own
academic outcomes clearly supports students in their learning and reflects a belief that
all students are capable of rigorous academic pursuits (Nieto, 1999). Moreover, subtle
distinctions based on race exist in the overall approach at the school, as the
achievement gap between Asian American students and other subgroups suggests.
Additional classroom observations revealed that students of color appeared
comfortable making mistakes, viewing them as opportunities to learn the material.
These behaviors reflect task mastery orientations (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002), which

131
are highly salient in terms of student motivation and hence student performance.
Students who are not afraid of failure may be more motivated to learn the material
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002); they achieve higher levels of academic performance, and
are less likely to be referred to special education assessment. That teachers at
Woodman encourage task mastery orientations among students of color is another
reflection of their high expectations for these students and of a construct of race that
support students of color in their learning.
When students compare their performance to the performance of others, they
may experience decreased motivation and persistence during academic learning tasks.
Task mastery, by contrast, is associated with deeper levels of engagement in a task
and higher levels of persistence (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Hence, cultivating a task
mastery orientation among students of color challenges constructs of race that are
based on deficit views. Artifacts and observations corroborate that educators have
adopted a schoolwide emphasis on task mastery and student monitoring of
performance. Students appeared highly motivated and engaged during classroom
observations. Students were also observed to check their progress on goal setting
charts (please refer to appendix H) and initiate their own work. When student work is
publicly posted, educators may inadvertently build performance orientations by
leading students to compare their own performance against others (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002). It should be noted that students used pseudonyms on publicly
displayed goal charts, and were encouraged to check against their own previous
performance. This example again reflects task mastery rather than performance
orientation.

132
Summary
This chapter provided an in-depth analysis of the research questions that
framed this qualitative case study. Interviews, observations, and artifacts collected
illustrate a positive trend in academic performance among all student subgroups at
Woodman Elementary School. As described in this chapter, the school utilizes
specific schoolwide systems and structures to facilitate effective instructional practice
in individual classrooms. Consistent implementation of such systems and structures
contributes to the steadily increasing scores achieved by the students at the school.
Chapter 5 will present conclusions and implications for future studies.

133
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
Introduction
Students of color have traditionally experienced a legacy of low achievement
in public schools in the United States. Though research reveals clusters of high-
poverty urban schools that contradict these trends, these gains are not widespread.
Research (e.g., Kannapel & Clements, 2005; Center, 2002; Izumi, 2002; Reeves,
2000) has indicated that high-performing, high-poverty schools strategically
implement a set of systems and structures supportive of instructional practices that
facilitate student learning. Providing effective classroom instruction enabling all
students to learn prevents students, who have historically been at risk, from being
erroneously identified for special education placement. Systems and structures that
have been documented in the literature to positively impact student learning include
the following: school culture that emphasizes high expectations (Kannapel &
Clements, 2005), parental involvement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Henderson &
Berla, 1994), and use of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
Systems, structures, and instructional practices are elements that impact a
child’s learning. These elements are inherently social. Sociocultural theory
(Vygotsky, 1987) holds that to understand learning, one must investigate the external
social environment that frames a child’s experiences. Teaching and learning are
complex social interactions shaped by structures and systems in schools. Hence,
sociocultural theory provides a useful framework for investigating how some schools
overcome the legacy of low achievement experienced by students of color throughout

134
history. This study proposed that schoolwide implementation of systems and
structures such as these hold particular salience for students of color because they
promote instructional practices that support students of color in their learning.
Moreover, identifying practices that facilitate learning among students of color may
lead to identification of practices that prevent students of color from being
erroneously placed in special education classes.
Purpose of the Study
This qualitative case study is one of 17 in a thematic research cohort. The
purpose of this study was to identify promising schoolwide structures, systems, and
instructional practices in a high-performing, high-poverty elementary school that
pertain to reducing race-based disparities for all students. The current work utilizes
documentation of systems, structures, and instructional practices that facilitate
achievement among students of color as a context for reducing erroneous placement
of students of color in special education classes. The following four research
questions and subquestion framed this study:
1. What are the trends and patterns in academic performance among students of
color?
2. What are the organizational structures and systems that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance in high-poverty urban schools with
large concentrations of students of color?
a. How do high-performing, high-poverty schools utilize specific
structures and systems to prevent or reduce overrepresentation of
students of color in special education?

135
3. How are the school’s organizational structures and systems implemented to
promote schoolwide effective classroom instruction that promotes student
learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s systems and structures?
Methodology
As mentioned in the previous section, the current work utilized a qualitative
case study approach to collect data in one high-performing, high-poverty urban
elementary school that served a large concentration of students of color. The cohort
used publicly reported data such as API scores and student demographics to select
individual schools that met the sampling criteria for analysis. Once identified,
researchers were cleared through an Institutional Review Board process and initiated
the data collection procedure. Data was triangulated using multiple methods of data
collection. Data sources included the following: interviews with administrators,
teachers, support staff, and parents; artifacts such as publicly reported test scores and
demographic information, flyers, the school accountability plan, and photos; and
classroom observations. Interview data was transcribed, coded, and organized to
reflect broad patterns and themes. Elements of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1987)
and critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) were used to frame
interpretation of the data.
Summary of the Findings
The section that follows presents a summary and analysis of findings using
elements of relevant theories as lenses by which to interpret data.

136
Research Question 1
Following an analysis of trends and patterns in student performance data, the
following key findings emerged across data sources:
1. Across subgroups, students of color at Woodman are achieving at high
academic levels relative to schools of similar demographic characteristics.
2. There was a dramatic increase in student achievement from 2004-2005,
demonstrated by a positive change in API from 674 to 736.
3. Although excluded from this study, Asian Americans demonstrate
significantly higher performance than other ethnic subgroups in English
Language Arts and Mathematics.
4. Although intensive literacy interventions have been implemented,
academic performance in Mathematics is significantly higher than English
Language Arts performance.
5. Students of color are not overidentified in special education disability
categories relative to overall proportions in the total school population.
6. Students of color do not cluster in soft disability categories.
7. Interviewees reported that the number of special education referrals has
decreased significantly since 2004.
Analysis. As reported in chapter 4, there was a dramatic increase in API scores
at Woodman Elementary School in 2004. Interviewees reported that this increase
coincided with a change in administration, suggesting that characteristics of
leadership contributed to the gains in student achievement. Although interviewees
reported that this increase coincided with a decrease in special education referrals as

137
well, documentation confirming these reports could not be obtained, despite repeated
attempts to contact the school. More discussion regarding this trend is included under
Research Question 2. While publicly reported data illustrates that students are
performing at high levels across subgroups, an interesting trend is noted in the
discrepancy between scores in English Language Arts and mathematics. The majority
of participants in the study cited Reading First, an intensive literacy intervention
curriculum, as integral to increases in student performance at Woodman; however,
the improvement in student scores in Mathematics was significantly higher. In fact,
scores in math are nearly double the growth targets set by the state. Given the focus
on literacy instruction, one would expect English Language Arts scores to be higher
than Mathematics scores.
Cummins (1984) offers a potential explanation for the discrepancy between
English Language Arts and mathematics scores in his distinction between Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency Skills (CALPS). BICS refers to the general language skills that are used
to communicate, while CALPS refers to language skills that are associated with
literacy and cognition such as reading comprehension. According to Cummins,
students who are English-language learners develop BICS first, however it may take
five to seven years for them to develop CALPS. Hence, while English-language
learners may appear to be proficient in English, they may have not fully acquired the
cognitive academic language skills necessary to achieve high levels of performance
on standardized literacy assessments. The lag in English-language scores

138
documented at Woodman may be in part due to CALPS acquisition by English-
language learners.
While students of color perform at high levels in both content areas, a
significant achievement gap exists between the performance of Asian American
students and other students of color. In terms of special education students, trends in
ethnicity and eligibility category data reflect that Woodman does not overidentify
students of color overall or in soft eligibility categories. Special education students
are not meeting the growth target in English Language Arts, but they have exceeded
the growth target in mathematics. The trend of higher performance in mathematics
mirrors the same trend among the general population. These trends illustrate that
Woodman Elementary School is achieving high levels of performance across ethnic
subgroups, but it has not closed the achievement gap among ethnic groups and
subgroups. The section that follows outlines specific structures and systems that
appear to be correlated with the rise in student performance documented in the data.
Research Question 2
As aforementioned, school structures refer to institutional mechanisms,
policies, and procedures put in place by federal, state, or district policy or legislation;
they are not subject to change at the local school site (e.g., funding mechanism,
institutional mechanisms). School systems are coordinated and there is coherent use
of resources (e.g., time, personnel, students, parents, funds, facilities) at the school
site to ensure that school visions, missions, and goals are met (e.g., professional
development, teacher collaboration, parent involvement). Sociocultural theory
(Vygotsky, 1987) framed analysis of schoolwide structures and systems that

139
contribute to high levels of academic performance among students of color at
Woodman. The following systems and structures work together in an integrated
manner to facilitate academic performance among students of color:
1. A character education program (Society of Students) weaves educationally
relevant social behaviors into the culture of the school and contributes to a
safe, orderly, and positive learning environment.
2. A schoolwide focus on instruction has been achieved through adherence to
content standards, intensive literacy intervention, differentiated
instruction, and collaboration within and across grade levels.
3. The principal utilizes symbolic, structural, political, and human resource
frames to empower others to take on leadership roles.
4. The school uses data in multiple ways (e.g., professional development,
OARS, goal setting) to drive decisions.
5. There has been an increase in parental involvement recently, and parents
are active, meaningful participants at the school.
6. The team culture at the school is focused on achievement and contributes
to a familial atmosphere among students, staff, and parents.
7. While the school has implemented some elements of culturally relevant
pedagogy, adequate attention to the unique learning needs of students of
color is not yet fully developed.
Analysis. One of the most significant findings in this study involves the effects
of the character education program, Society of Students, at Woodman. This program
contributes to a positive learning environment for students of color by defining

140
educationally relevant social behaviors for students, staff, and parents. Schoolwide
implementation of the program has significantly reduced behaviors that are not
conducive to learning, which explains why no formal discipline policy exists at
Woodman. Because the program facilitates a common language from which students
and staff construct additional knowledge, the character education program reflects
sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1987). Coordinated use of this character education
curriculum has implications for other schools of similar demographic characteristics.
Schoolwide Focus on Instruction. In addition to the character education
program, evidence of a schoolwide focus on instruction that incorporates adherence to
content standards, intensive literacy instruction, differentiated instruction, and
collaboration is noted at Woodman. Vygotsky (1987) explains that children learn
within zones of proximal development, with adults providing scaffolding just beyond
their developmental levels. Using a standards-based curriculum may seem
contradictory to this notion; however, standards at Woodman are utilized within the
context of providing differentiated instruction and curricular alignment across grade
levels to ensure that students have foundational skills that serve as an “anchor” for
more complex skills. Time for collaboration is embedded into the school routine in
the form of weekly grade-level meetings and buy-back days.
Leadership. The principal appears to have had a key role in cultivating the
positive learning environment at Woodman. Comments made by interviewees suggest
that previous administration may have adhered to a more tactical approach to
leadership rather than addressing structural, symbolic, human resource, and political
frames, as the current principal does. Again, new leadership was also cited as a factor

141
in the giant leap in student achievement documented in 2004. The principal utilizes a
distributed leadership model, which appears to evoke buy-in and motivation among
staff, and encourages them to take on leadership roles.
Strategic Use of Data. Strategic use of data allows staff to conduct frequent
assessment and monitoring of students and of their own instructional practices. Data
also drives professional development, consistent with Pardini (2002). The OARS
software tool is especially salient in this regard, as it was perceived to facilitate
decisions to change instructional practices in individual classrooms. OARS data also
allowed teachers to determine which students would benefit from swapping, front
loading, or a workshop-style delivery of instruction. OARS and other software tools
that enhance performance monitoring may help other schools conduct adequate data
analysis.
Parental Involvement. The increase in parental involvement at the site may
have contributed to gains in student achievement. The team culture at the school may
have contributed to the reported increases in parental involvement and to the familial
atmosphere cited by interviewees. Parents are encouraged to be actively involved and
are provided with many social contexts to build relationships with staff and receive
training so they may be able to provide scaffolded support (Vygotsky, 1987) at home,
during homework time. The parent information pipeline documented at the school
allows transmission of key information from parents with more social capital
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997) to those who may have less access to essential information. It
is not known if staff members at the school encourage this behavior, or if they are

142
even aware of it. A network such as this may prove highly salient in schools serving
large concentrations of students of color.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. While the school clearly makes efforts to
address diversity (e.g.. school plan, murals), it appears that adequate attention to the
unique learning needs of students of color has not been fully actualized. For example,
staff did not mention utilization of culturally relevant pedagogy, nor did they
comment on how they attended to diversity. Several interviewees commented that
since the school was largely Latino, everything they did was geared toward the
achievement of students of color by “default.” This statement is reminiscent of a
color-blind perspective (Lewis, 2005) and is not considered useful when considering
that students of color, even those from the same ethnic background, are not a
homogeneous group. While students in all ethnic subgroups are performing at high
levels, an achievement gap remains. Perhaps this gap would be lessened if teachers
consistently implemented practices that supported the needs of all cultures.
Research Question 2a
Students of color who demonstrate low achievement are at higher risk of
being referred for special education assessment (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Once
referred, students of color tend to be erroneously classified as having soft disabilities,
which are those that require a heavy subjective component to assessment and
determination of eligibility (Losen & Orfield, 2002). Racial disparity in special
education is a concern because once placed in special education, students of color
tend to remain there, where they receive limited access to a rigorous curriculum and
high expectations, have fewer opportunities to interact with typical peers, and are

143
often highly stigmatized by peers and society (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Losen &
Orfield, 2002). Identifying strategies to reduce racial disparity in special education is
another way to narrow the achievement gap and the racialized differences in
workforce and housing patterns (Losen & Orfield, 2002).
Previous research suggests that strategic implementation of specific structures
and systems, such as a tiered intervention model that includes pre-referral
intervention (Klinger & Edwards, 2006; Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979) and use of
culturally relevant instruction (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Banks, 1993, 1994),
may act as reduction strategies that prevent inappropriate referrals of students of color
for special education assessment. This research proposed that schools that do not
overidentify students of color for special education would adhere to a particular
perspective regarding special education: that it is a service, not a placement. Results
indicate that staff members at Woodman perceive special education as a service to be
provided first in the context of effective instruction in the general education
environment. The following findings are highly salient as they lend insight into
reducing racial disparity in special education:
1. The school climate is infused with the perspective that special education is
a service to be provided in the student’s regular classroom rather than a
placement.
2. A tiered intervention model (ITI team) provides pre-referral intervention
in the general education classroom, and is perceived to be a resource that
reduces the general education teacher’s likelihood of referring a student
for assessment.

144
3. Frequent assessment and monitoring of student performance through an
online assessment and review software program enables staff to catch
students who are underperforming before their learning gaps become too
wide to close.
4. There is a focus on front loading rather than remediation; intersessions
provide the context for front loading to occur.
Analysis. The perspective that special education is a service to be provided
rather than a placement to segregate students contradicts placing students who
underperform in special education classrooms. At Woodman, there were no special
education classrooms on campus. The principal and several other staff members
voiced the notion that the best place for a student was in the general education
classroom at their home school. Providing effective instruction to all students in the
general education environment is central to this perspective. Conducting frequent
assessment and monitoring through OARS ensures that at-risk students are provided
with pre-referral intervention in their general education classrooms. If additional
intervention is needed, at-risk students are referred for intersession, which is a context
for frontloading material. It should be noted that intersession is provided when the
regular school is off track, therefore students in intersession are not missing
opportunities to learn and socialize during the regular school day routine. Coordinated
use of OARS and the ITI tiered intervention system, coupled with this service
perspective of special education, acts to prevent inappropriate referrals. This is a
highly significant finding as it applies to reducing racial disparity that often begins

145
with inappropriate referrals by the general education teacher (Chalfant, Pysh, &
Moultrie, 1979).
Research Question 3
While it is important to identify structures and systems that appear to
facilitate learning among students of color, investigating the process by which these
variables are implemented to promote schoolwide effective instruction is integral to
efforts that seek to generalize results to more schools. Sociocultural theory
(Vygotsky, 1987) was used to frame analysis of ways Woodman Elementary
implements systems and structures to enhance instructional practice. The findings are
listed below:
1. The principal is a charismatic leader who nurtures a school climate that
supports students of color and staff in their learning, and bolsters morale
and efficacy among staff and parents.
2. The principal has a key role in cultivating and facilitating transmission of
effective instructional practices through frequent observations and
feedback and a high degree of accessibility.
3. Features of school capacity such as strategic use of funds to implement
buy-back days and intersessions, effective use of time, and class size
reduction enhance teacher abilities to engage in effective instructional
practices.
4. Teachers in the study failed to cite culturally relevant instructional
practices as important when considering effective instructional practices
for students of color.

146
Analysis. Determining systems and structures that positively impact academic
achievement among students of color is integral to understanding why the high
performance at some schools has not generalized to additional schools. At Woodman,
the principal plays a key role in cultivating a positive school climate that supports
students of color in their learning. In addition, the principal creates opportunities for
teachers to build their repertoire of effective practices by providing monitoring and
feedback. Providing these learning opportunities has resulted in schoolwide
implementation of strategies that clearly benefit students. This finding has relevance
for administrators in schools with similar demographics who may not see themselves
as instructional facilitators.
The principal implements structures and systems by integrating four frames of
leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1991), which has resulted in a high degree of morale,
efficacy, and orientation toward achieving school goals. Goal setting at all levels in
the school serves as an accountability mechanism among students, teachers, support
staff, and parents.
Administration addresses structures such as class time, funds, and
instructional minutes strategically to increase opportunities to learn for students, staff,
and parents, resulting in a coordinated, efficient use of resources.
Again, it is surprising that interviewees did not cite multicultural education or
use of culturally relevant pedagogy during discussions of how the needs of students
of color were addressed. Research (e,g, Izumi, 2002; Reeves, 2000) suggests that
students of color benefit from these practices; however, it appears that they also
benefit from the structures and systems identified in Research Question 2. Given that

147
students of color are experiencing high levels of performance in the absence of being
provided comprehensive culturally relevant instruction, it may be that the systems and
structures described in this study support some appropriate instructional strategies,
but these are not sufficient for these students. Again, students of color may perform at
even higher levels when instruction is delivered in a manner that is consistent with
research-based strategies that also account for learning differences based on student
culture.
Research Question 4
In the past, a deficit model was used to explain the achievement gap that
exists between students of color and their White peers (Harry & Klinger, 2006).
Currently, theorists (e.g., Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) emphasize that the structures
and systems that operate in public schools are aligned to the mainstream White
culture, and hence special attention must be given to the cultures of students of color
in schools. Critical race theory posits that to successfully narrow the achievement
gap, educators must learn to recognize the racial elements that remain in public
schools and use strategies to eliminate them. Being color-blind (Lewis, 2005) is not
enough and actually ignores the history of oppression and low achievement
experienced by students of color. While Woodman Elementary School has made
efforts to celebrate diversity, the following findings reflect a construct of race that
supports students of color in some ways, but that is not fully embedded into the
school’s systems and structures:

148
1. Teachers held rigorous expectations for students from all ethnic subgroups
and encouraged a mastery orientation that supported students of color in
their learning.
2. While symbols of diversity were documented among artifacts at the
school, an emphasis on the dominant Latino culture was noted.
3. Although use of multicultural education appeared to be limited, parents of
color reported feeling welcomed and appreciated at the school; staff
reported an increase in the involvement of parents.
4. While parents were actively involved, the absence of parents from smaller
ethnic subgroups (e.g., African American, Native American, Pacific
Islander) was noted during observations and interviews.
5. Evidence of a task mastery orientation challenges historically created
constructs of race based on a deficit view.
Analysis. According to Woodman’s principal, “everyone” talks about high
expectations when considering academic achievement among students of color. Not
only do staff at Woodman hold rigorous expectations for students of color, all three
data sources reveal that they encourage mastery orientations among students as well.
During classroom observations, students of color were actively engaged in complex
cognitive tasks and charted progress toward meeting learning goals. Students
appeared to feel “safe” taking academic risks and accepting help from peers. Hence,
classrooms were comfortable havens of learning where students of color appeared to
have relationships built on trust with teachers and other students. The character
education program holds salience here as well, as it teaches students to show respect

149
for others and engage in “scholarliness.” Encouraging mastery orientations, as well as
teaching students of color to be self-regulated learners through goal setting, are useful
strategies to facilitate learning at Woodman. This information must be explored
further to document how mastery orientations inform instructional practices among
students of color.
Another key finding concerns the emphasis on the dominant Latino culture at
Woodman. While a plethora of artifacts reflects multiple cultures, care must be taken
to avoid ignoring the needs of students who belong to much smaller ethnic subgroups.
The perception that all students are of color and thus all strategies at the school must
be aligned to their progress by default is inherently flawed. Students of color do not
constitute a homogeneous population (Stanton-Salazar, 1997); therefore, they do not
have homogeneous learning needs. Efforts should be made to explore the educational
needs of all subgroups at the school.
It is interesting to note that while there appears to be limited use of
multicultural education at the school, parents of color reported feeling welcomed and
appreciated there. As the PTO president observed, “All cultures come together at the
school.” Staff members report an increase in the involvement of parents of color since
the administration changed. The school’s staff has created several social contexts
where meaningful interactions can occur between staff and parents of color (e.g.,
Friday Family Workshop, parent breakfast). Parents are actively involved in planning
these interactions and transmit information to parents who are not able to attend. This
“parent pipeline” is perceived to be an effective way of disseminating important
information to parents who may have less social capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).

150
These contexts facilitate adult learning; parents learn specific instructional skills,
which allow them to provide scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1987) at home to reinforce skills
taught in the classroom.
While the parent information pipeline appears to be an effective conduit of
social and cultural capital for the dominant Latino ethnic subgroup at Woodman,
parents from smaller groups were notably absent from the PTO meeting observed. In
addition, the applicant pool for parent interviewees lacked individuals from smaller
subgroups such as African Americans and Pacific Islanders. Although interviewees
commented that the school was a place for many cultures to come together,
observations did not support these statements. The absence of a representative
sample of parents and the emphasis on the dominant group noted in results may limit
generalizability of these findings to schools with similar patterns of parental
involvement.
A final, yet highly significant finding involves evidence of task mastery
orientations among students. Such orientations have been shown to increase student
engagement and persistence on tasks (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Indeed,
observations yielded many examples of highly-engaged students who were eager to
take on the most difficult math problem, confident even in the face of an error, and
determined to learn the material. That educators cultivated these mastery orientations
among students of color reflects a construct of race that is founded on high
expectations for all students. Such a construct of race certainly challenges previous
constructs that were based on a deficit view. More research needs to be done to

151
determine the degree to which mastery orientations impact student achievement in
high-poverty, high-performing schools.
Implications for Practice
American schools are struggling to meet a national imperative to close an
achievement gap that reflects a legacy of oppression and marginalization. Public
schools operate under the auspices of federal, state, or district imposed structures that
are embedded in this nation’s social and political history. Schools implement systems
within these structures that impact student performance by influencing instructional
practice. This study yields descriptions for practices that have appeared to be
effective in facilitating achievement among students of color at one high-poverty,
urban elementary school. These practices are listed below:
1. Administrators of high-poverty, urban schools will benefit from
recognizing schoolwide systems and structures that have been shown to
enhance achievement among students of color and applying this lens to
analysis of systems and structures that currently operate at their sites.
Administrators should target schoolwide implementation of systems and
structures such as a character education program, focus on instruction, use
of the four frames (Bolman & Deal, 1991), strategic use of data, parental
involvement, and positive team-based learning environment.
2. Cultivating a schoolwide perception that special education is a service,
rather than a placement, may act as a reduction strategy to
overrepresentation of students of color in soft disability categories.
Utilization of a culturally relevant, tiered intervention model that has a

152
significant pre-referral intervention component will support this
perspective. Attention to student culture within the context of intervention
(e.g., training in cultural differences in discourse style) may yield even
higher performance and subsequently fewer referrals for special education
assessment. Providing front loading rather than remediation is also salient
in this regard.
3. The principal has a key role in using school capacity effectively to achieve
consistent implementation of systems and structures that facilitate
academic achievement among students of color. In addition, the principal
can serve as a mediator or a barrier to the flow of effective instructional
practices.
4. A positive construct of race is reflected in systems and structures, which
may facilitate increased involvement from parents of color. Establishing
contexts for meaningful parent participation and setting up a parent
information pipeline by matching parents of color with other parents of the
same culture may positively impact student achievement.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research must be done regarding systems and structures in high-
performing, high-poverty schools. To this end, a study that compares findings from
the 17 members of this thematic dissertation cohort will yield additional insights into
schoolwide factors that have a positive impact on the academic performance of
students of color educated in these environments. Additional research that
investigates the role of online tools such as the OARS software system is needed to

153
determine how this factor enables more efficient monitoring of student performance.
Catching students before the academic gap becomes too wide to close is relevant
when considering reducing overrepresentation of students of color in soft disability
categories. The prevalence of mastery orientations in high-performing, high-poverty
schools must also be investigated. Schoolwide cultivation of mastery orientations
challenges historical constructs of race based on deficit views of student achievement.
The degree of impact such orientations have may yield important applications of
critical race theory. Finally, the perspective that special education is a service rather
than a placement is an integral component of a school culture that does not
inappropriately refer students of color for special education assessment and
placement. To validate this finding, it must be replicated at other schools that do not
overidentify students of color in special education classes.
Conclusion
It is hoped that this study will provide additional information that enhances
the experiences of students of color educated in high-poverty, urban schools. This
research contributes to the body of knowledge that addresses closing the academic
achievement gap. Systems and structures that currently operate in many of the
nation’s schools are embedded in a construct of race that does not support students of
color in their learning. At the core of structures that facilitate learning among students
of color are the instructional strategies they are founded on. Providing effective
instruction in a child’s general education classroom reduces their likelihood of being
inappropriately referred for special education assessment. Explaining a student’s low
achievement in terms of ineffective instructional practices rather than the presence of

154
a socially constructed, pedagogically induced learning “disability” (Cummins, 1984)
is central to the perspective that special education is a service, rather than a placement
for underperformers. Generalizing this perspective will certainly prove effective as a
reduction strategy.
All students deserve the right to achieve their maximum human potentials.
Schools must become more than reproducers of the historical patterns of low
achievement documented in the literature. They must become vehicles for students of
color to transcend their legacies of low achievement and become strong competitors
in today’s global economy.

155
Bibliography

Adams, D. W. (1988). Fundamental considerations: The deep meaning of Native
American schooling, 1880–1900. Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 1–28.

Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1992). African American children and the educational
process: Alleviating cultural discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy.
School Psychology Review, 21(4), 586–596.

Ancheta, A. (2000). Race, rights, and the Asian American experience. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Artiles, A. J. (2000). Factors associated with English learner representation in
special education: Emerging evidence from urban school districts in California.
Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.questia.org

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English-language learner
representation in special education in California urban school districts. In
D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Kuan, L. A. (1997). Learning disabilities research on
ethnic minority students: An analysis of 22 years of students published in
selected refereed journals. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12,
82–91.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Palmer, J. (2004). Culturally diverse students in
special education: Legacies and prospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks
(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 716–735).
New York: Macmillan.

Au, K., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a
culturally appropriate solution. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.),
Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography
(pp. 139–152). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. (1993, 1994). Multicultural education: Issues,
policies, and perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of
multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 152–158.

Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions,

156
practice. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (pp. 3–24). New York: Macmillan Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic
Books.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967–
1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12–33.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children, 7(2), 55–71.

Chalfant, J. C., & Pysh, M. V., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams—
A model for within-building problem solving. Counterpoint, 16–21.

Christie, K. (2005). Changing the nature of parent involvement. Phi Delta Kappan,
645–646.

Cooper, H. M., & Good, T. L. (1982). The relations between student achievement and
various indices of teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
577–579.

Cooper, H. M., & Tom, D. Y. H. (1984). Teacher expectation research: A review with
implications for classroom instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1),
76–89.

Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (1999). Ethnicity and special education research:
identifying questions and methods. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 66–73.

Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevendon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–32.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,

157
37(1), 15–24.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). In the shadow of Brown: Special education and
overrepresentation of students of color. Remedial and Special Education,
26(2), 93–100.

Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of
restrictiveness and race in special education. In D. J. Losen &
G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45–56.

Garcia, E. E. (2004). Educating Latino students: Past treatment and recent
developments in theory, research, policy, and practice. In J. Banks and C. A.
McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education, (pp.
331–347). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garcia, E.E. (2004). Understanding and meeting the challenge of student diversity.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gardner, R., & Miranda, A. H. (2002). Improving outcomes for urban African
American students. The Journal of Negro Education, 70(4), 255–263.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for
ethnically diverse students: setting the stage. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613-629.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special
education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60(4),
310–322.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994). Public Law 103-227. (31 March).

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

Gonzalez, G. (1985). Segregation of Mexican children in a Southern California city:

158
The legacy of expansionism and the American Southwest. The Western
Historical Quarterly, 16(1), 55–76.

Guild, P. (1994). The culture/learning style connection. Educational Leadership,
51(8), 16–21.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.

Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts.
Education Management, 22(1), 15–26.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J.K. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special
education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. Elementary
School Journal, 96(1), 9–28.

Heller, M. J., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership
for change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 95, 65–86.

Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is
critical to student achievement. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://
www.eric.gov

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory, Annual Synthesis, 2002.

Hollins, E. R. (1996). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social
construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 177–205.

Izumi, L. T., Coburn, K. G., & Cox, M. (2002). They have overcome: High-poverty,
high-performing schools in California. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research
Institute for Public Policy.

Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal
assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s education
and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, (27)6,
817–839.

Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (February 2005). Inside the black box of high
performing high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: The Prichard Committee for

159
Academic Excellence.
Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and
the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809–840.

Kim, C. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics and Society,
27(1), 105–138.

Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J. J., & Anastasiow, N. J. (2000). Educating exceptional
children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Klinger, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to
intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117.

Knapp, M. S., & Woolverton, S. (2004). Social class and schooling. In J. A. Banks &
C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3–
24). New York: Macmillan.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.

Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and
analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for
Effective Schools Research and Development.

Lewis, A. (2005). Race in the schoolyard: Negotiating the color line in
classrooms and communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Lipman, P. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. New York:
University of New York Press.

Lomawaima, K. T. (1993). Domesticity in the federal Indian schools: The power of
authority over mind and body. American Ethnologist, 20(2), 1–14.

Lomawaima, K. T. (2004). Culturally diverse students in special education. In
J. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education, (pp. 331–347). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lopez, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental
involvement: Lessons from high-performing, migrant-impacted schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 253–288.

160

Losen, D., & Orfield, G. (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Civil Rights
Project: Harvard Education Press.

Lum, D. (2003). Culturally competent practice: A framework for understanding
groups and justice issues. California: Brooks-Cole.

Marzano, R. J. (2003 2005?). What works in schools: Translating research into
action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

McDermott, P., & Rothenberg, J. (2000). Why urban parents resist involvement in
their children’s elementary education. The Qualitative Report, 5(3), 180–185.

McMillon, G. T., & Edwards, P. A. (2000). Why does Joshua “hate” school . . . but
love Sunday school? Language Arts, 78(2), 111-120.

Meier, K. J., Stewart, J., & England, R. (1989). Race, class and education: The
politics of second-generation discrimination. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.

Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

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

Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential
access to literacy. Language and Society, 10, 423–442.

Moore, A. (2002). African-American early childhood teachers’ decisions to refer
African-American students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 631–632.

Neal, L. I., McCray, A. D., Webb-Johnson, G. C., Bridgest, S. T. (2003). Effects of
African American movement styles on teachers' perceptions and reactions. The
Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 49–57.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Ogawa, R. T., & Bossert, S. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224–243.

Osajima, K. (2000). Asian Americans as the model minority: An analysis of
popular press image in the 1960s and 1980s. In M. Zhou & J. Gatewood
(Eds.), Contemporary Asian America: A multidisciplinary reader

161
(pp. 449–458). New York: New York University Press.

Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., & Rivera, H. H. (2002). Educating Hispanic
students: Effective instructional practices. Retrieved April 3, 2006,
from http://www.cal.org/crede/Pubs/PracBrief5.htm

Pardini, P. (2000). The history of special education. Rethinking Schools Online,
16(3), Retrieved April 2, 2006, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org

Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identification, funding, and provision of
special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in
special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Parvin, J. (1975). The effect of race on flight to the suburbs. The Journal of Political
Economy, 83(4), 865.

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

Perie, M., Moran, R., & Lutkus, A. (2005). Trends in academic achievement among
student groups. In NAEP 2004 Trends in academic progress: Three decades of
student performance in reading and mathematics (pp. 27–48). Retrieved May
20, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2005464_2.pdf

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and Applications (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Reschly, D. J. (1997). Disproportionate minority representation in general and
special education: Patterns, issues, and alternatives. Des Moines: Iowa
Department of Education.

Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and student expectations: The self-fulfilling
prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 411–451.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher
expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational
design of schools. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Sanders, M. (1997). Building effective school-family-community partnerships in a

162
large urban district (Report No. 13). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed at Risk.

San Miguel, G., Jr. (1986). Status of the historiography of Chicano education: A
preliminary analysis. History of Education Quarterly, 26(4), 523–536.

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.
Oxford: Pergamon.

Scribner, J. D., Young, M. D., Pedoza, A. (1999). Building collaborative
relationships with parents. In P. Reyes, J. D. Scribner, & A. Paredes-Scribner
(Eds.), Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning
communities, (pp. 36–60). New York: Teachers College Press.

Slaughter-Defoe, D. T., & Carlson, K. G., (1996). Young African American and
Latino children in high-poverty urban schools: How they perceive school
climate. Journal of Negro Education, 65(1), 60–70.

Spriggs, W. E. (2006). Poverty in America: The poor are getting poorer. The
Crisis, 113(1), 14–19.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 307–346.

Stephan, W. G. (1980). A brief overview of school desegregation. In W. G. Stephan
and J. R. Feagin (Eds.), School desegregation (pp. 3–23). New York: Plenum
Press.

Suarez-Orozco, C., Suarez-Orozco, M. M., & Doucet, F. (2004). The academic
engagement and achievement of Latino youth. In J. Banks and C. A. McGee
Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 331–347).
San Francisco, CA, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tonn, J. (2005). Keeping in touch. Retrieved June 16, 2007, from
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/06/08/39parentinvolvement.h24.html

Tye, B. (1987). The deep structure of schooling. Phi Beta Kappan, 69, 281–285.

U.S. Department of Education, (1995). National Center for Education Statistics.
NAEP 1994: Reading: A First Look (Revised ed.).

U.S. Department of Education (2004). Office of Civil Rights fall 2004 elementary
and secondary school civil rights compliance report: Projected values for the

163
nation and individual states. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from http://
vistademo.beyond2020.com/ocr2004rv30/xls/2004Projected.html

Valencia, R. R. (1998). From the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to Hopwood: The
educational plight and struggle of Latino students in the Southwest.
Harvard Educational Review, 68, 353–412.

Villegas, A.M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber & A. Carlton (Eds.),
The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum Press.

Wallace, M. (2002). Modeling distributed leadership and management effectiveness:
Primary school senior management teams in England and Wales. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2), 163–186.

Warger, C., & Burnette, J. (2000). Five strategies to reduce overrepresentation of
culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. Retrieved
April 19, 2006, from http://www.eric.gov/digests/E596.html

Whiteman, H. (1985). Historical review of Indian education: Cultural policies,
United States position. Wicazo Sa Review, 2(1), 27–31.

Yosso, T.K. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion
of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69-91.

Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1983). LD or not LD: That’s not the question!
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 29–31.

164
Appendices
Appendix A: Administrator Interview Protocol
1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe
contribute to your high student performance.
a. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these
systems and structures (practices)? If so, how did the school overcome
them or maintain them?
b. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last
3–5 years to improve student performance?
2. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all
students and respects cultural diversity?
3. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made
clear for teachers/students/parents?
a. How do you monitor student progress?
b. What assessment tools do you use?
4. How are the needs of students of color addressed in the School-Wide Plan?
5. How would you describe effective teaching at your site?
a. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet the
needs of all students?
6. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, that
demonstrates high student performance?

165
7. Describe your schoolwide discipline policy and how it impacts students of
color.

166
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol
1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe
contribute to your high student performance.
a. (Probe) Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining
these systems and structures (practices)? If so, how did the school
overcome them or maintain them?
b. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last
3–5 years to improve student performance?
2. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all
students and respects cultural diversity?
3. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are made
clear for teachers.
a. For students?
b. Parents?
i. How do you monitor student progress?
ii. What assessment tools do you use?
4. How familiar are you with the School Plan?
a. How are the needs of students of color addressed in the School-Wide
Plan?
b. How have you modified your instructional practices to reflect the
schoolwide plan for students of color?
8. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe
contribute to your high student performance.

167
• Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining
these systems and structures (practices)? If so, how did the
school overcome them or maintain them?
• Which are the three most effective things you have done over
the last 3–5 years to improve student performance?
9. How would you describe the school climate here?
a. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students and respect
cultural diversity?
b. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school climate?
10. What are the expectations for meeting academic achievement goals here?
a. Do you know how the students here are doing academically?
b. What indicators let you know how they are doing?
11. How are the needs of students of color being met at your school?
a. What is in place to support these students?
b. What is in place to support the staff?
12. How would you describe an effective teacher at your site?
13. How do you know when a teacher is doing a good job?
14. How do you see teachers and administrators using data?
a. Do you know when testing will occur? How do the students react to it?
How do teachers react?
b. Is it known throughout the school what is done with the data? How so?
15. Describe your schoolwide discipline policy and how it impacts students.
a. What happens when a student breaks a rule or makes a bad choice?

168
Appendix C: Classified Staff Interview Protocol
1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe
contribute to your high student performance.
• Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining
these systems and structures (practices)? If so, how did the
school overcome them or maintain them?
• Which are the three most effective things you have done over
the last 3–5 years to improve student performance?

2. How would you describe the school climate here?
a. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students and respect
cultural diversity?
b. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school climate?

3. What are the expectations for meeting academic achievement goals here?
a. Do you know how the students here are doing academically?
b. What indicators let you know how they are doing?

4. How are the needs of students of color being met at your school?
a. What is in place to support these students?
b. What is in place to support the staff?

5. How would you describe an effective teacher at your site?

169
6. How do you know when a teacher is doing a good job?

7. How do you see teachers and administrators using data?
a. Do you know when testing will occur? How do the students react to
it? How do teachers react?
b. Is it known throughout the school what is done with the data? How so?

8. Describe your schoolwide discipline policy and how it impacts students.
a. What happens when a student breaks a rule or makes a bad choice?

170
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol
Interview Questions

1. What is the school doing to help all students succeed?

2. How would you describe the atmosphere at the school?

3. How do you know what your child needs to learn?
a. How does the school communicate that?

4. How does the school address the needs of (ethnic subgroup) students?

5. How do you describe a good teacher?

6. What are some of the ways the school lets you know how your child is doing?

7. Describe the school’s discipline policy.
a. How does it support the learning of all students?

171
Appendix E: Classroom Observation Protocol
Research Question #1, 2, 3, and 4: Is there a range or variety of instructional
practices/ strategies used? Are they appropriate for the content and students?
Examples of instructional practices/strategies:
• Cooperative grouping
• Use of time
• Differentiated instruction
• Feedback to students
• Culturally relevant and responsive

Research Question #2: What visuals, symbols, and other items are posted in the
classroom?
Examples of items:
• Schoolwide discipline policy
• Images of people of color
• Classroom library
• School vision

Research Question #2: Physical class environment
Example of things to observe:
• Seating arrangement
• Teacher-student interaction
o Discipline

172
• Student work posted
o Feedback/Rubric
o Standard based
• Student engagement

173
Appendix F: Professional Development Observation Guiding Questions
• Does collaboration occur during and after professional development?

• Is there engagement among the staff?

• What types of data are being used? How are data used?

• Is professional development aligned to the vision?

• How are students discussed among teachers and other staff?

• Is the professional development geared toward teaching to standards mastery
or performance?

• Is the professional development practical and adaptable?

• Are the expectations clear for implementation of the professional
development?

• How are teachers held accountable for the professional development
provided?

• Is an evaluation tool used for the professional development?

174
Appendix G: Leadership Team Meeting Reflection Questions
1. To what extent was the meeting focused on the implementation of the school plan?

2. Does the leadership team analyze student achievement data in order to take
informed actions?

3. Did (or does) the leadership team discuss and plan for diversity-sensitive
(culturally relevant and responsive) learning environments?

4. How are the roles/work distributed among members of the leadership team?

5. Structure: Is the meeting for information or systems planning?

6. Is the meeting operational- or instructional-focused?

175
Appendix H: Photograph Journal of Artifacts at Woodman Elementary School

Mural at School Entrance The “Road to 800”

Goal-setting Content Standards

Goal Setting AP Scholars

176
AP Scholars AP Scholars

Diversity Diversity

Frontloading

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Students of color educated in high-poverty, urban schools have traditionally experienced low achievement. Some high-poverty schools serving large concentrations of students of color achieve high levels of academic performance, however these trends are not widespread. Systems and structures in these schools have been shown to produce a positive impact on academic performance by facilitating effective instructional strategies in classrooms. Specific and appropriate systems and structures may also prevent or reduce the likelihood of erroneous referrals of students of color for special education assessment. The present work uses sociocultural theory to frame an analysis of systems and structures that promote student achievement in a high-performing, high-poverty, urban elementary school, and emphasizes systems and structures that reduce racial disparities in special education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school

PDF

School-wide implementation of systems and structures that lead to increased achievement among students of color: a case study of a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

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

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty ubran schools

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

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

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

PDF

Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership, school culture, collaborative practice, and teacher beliefs: A case-study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high performing high poverty school

Asset Metadata

Creator Berman, Shaana Baluch (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/13/2008

Defense Date 03/28/2008

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

Tag instructional practices that promote high achievement,OAI-PMH Harvest,reducing racial disparity in special education,students of color

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart E. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email sbaluch@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1106

Unique identifier UC1165621

Identifier etd-Berman-20080413 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-53798 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1106 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Berman-20080413.pdf

Dmrecord 53798

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Berman, Shaana Baluch

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