University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A CASE STUDY:
SCHOOL-WIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION: LESSONS FROM HIGH-PERFORMING, HIGH
POVERTY URBAN SCHOOLS

by

Dana R. Croatt

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Dana R. Croatt

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES v

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction to the Study 1
Systemic Approaches to Foster Achievement 7
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 14
Assumptions 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 15
Organization of the Dissertation 16
Definition of Terms 16

CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review 19
Introduction 19
African American Educational History 20
Hispanic Educational History 25
Historical Impact on Today’s Schools 27
Organizational Systems and Structures Supporting Achievement 36
Conclusion 64

CHAPTER 3: Research Methods 66
Theoretical Framework 67
Study Design 70
Nomination and Selection Process 70
Instrumentation and the Data-Collection Process 75
Data Analysis 81
Validity and Reliability 83
Legal and Ethical Principles 84

CHAPTER FOUR: Findings, Analysis and Discussion 85
Research Questions 85
Data Findings 86
Analysis and Discussion 126
Summary 130

iii
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary, Conclusions, Implications and recommendations 131
Summary of Findings 133
Conclusions 138
Implications and Recommendations 142

REFERENCES 145

Appendices
APPENDIX A: ADMINISTRATOR PROTOCOL 153
APPENDIX B: TEACHER PROTOCOL 155
APPENDIX C: CLASSIFIED PROTOCOL 157
APPENDIX D: PARENT PROTOCOL 159
APPENDIX E: OBSERVATION GUIDE 161
APPENDIX F: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE 162
APPENDIX G: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATION GUIDE 163
APPENDIX H: PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION GUIDE 164

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Artifacts Collected.........................................................................................78
Table 2: Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions....................................79
Table 3: Detailed Process of Data Analysis ................................................................83
Table 4: Student Enrollment per Ethnicity..................................................................87
Table 5: Percentage of English Learners.....................................................................88
Table 6: Retention Rates .............................................................................................94
Table 7: Staff Demographics.......................................................................................98

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Special Education Representation......................................................................24
Figure 2: Student Enrollment .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 3: Overcrowding in Schools...................................................................................29
Figure 4: African American and Hispanic Special Education...........................................35
Figure 5: Systems and Structures Supporting Achievement .............................................36
Figure 6: Theoretical Framework......................................................................................69
Figure 7: General Data Analysis Process ..........................................................................81
Figure 8: School Enrollment by Ethnicity for 2007-2008.................................................87
Figure 9: API Growth from 2001-2007.............................................................................89
Figure 10: AYP Language Arts.........................................................................................90
Figure 11: AYP-Mathematics............................................................................................91
Figure 12: CELDT Annual Scores ....................................................................................93
Figure 13: Demographics of Students in Special Education .............................................96
Figure 14: Demographics of Students Disciplined............................................................97

vi
ABSTRACT
Historically students of color living in poverty have been provided
substandard educational opportunities. Still today, many schools in urban
settings with large concentrations of students of color who live in poverty
continue to provide educational opportunities with lowered expectations of the
students. Additionally, students of color are often over identified for special
education and provided educational opportunities away from the general
education population which promotes defacto segregation. Despite historical
sentiments however, schools in this setting exist that foster high student
performance and promote life long learners. This case study sought to identify
what organizational systems and structures support effective school-wide
instructional approaches that foster high student performance. One school that
met the required profile of the case study was identified and analyzed. Through
observations, interviews, and review of artifacts of this school it was determined
that structures in place from federal and state government, along with district
requirements provided a framework and funding for school systems to work
from. Structures include No Child Left Behind requirements, Title I, standards-
based instruction, assessments, and data analysis. Systems in place that promote
high achievement stem from leadership, a culture of high expectations,
professional development, and parental involvement. By way of these systems,
instructional strategies implemented that supported students benefited from the
mandated assessments and use of data driven decision making, standards-based

vii
instructional methods, professional development, professional learning
communities, reflective teaching, and home-school communication.
Additionally, to specifically support students of color, use of a culturally
relevant and responsive pedagogy was explored. Based on the findings of this
case study, it can be determined that when systems are in place to support
student achievement, students of color are less likely to be labeled with a
disability. Furthermore, with proper systems in place high poverty urban schools
with large concentrations of students of color should be able to replicate results
by building capacity in staff, maintaining high expectations for all stakeholders,
and applying school-wide instructional techniques that reflect a culturally
relevant and responsive pedagogy.

1
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Learning is a social endeavor, established and enabled by the people by whom
one is surrounded. The nation’s history has paved a road of perpetuated beliefs and
social constructs of race that have harmful and lasting effects on students of color
(Jimenez, Moll, Rodriguez-Brown, & Barrera, 1999). Historically, students of color
have been associated with low academic achievement. A glance through history clearly
indicates substandard education took place in social contexts that were often hostile and
harmful environments for many students of color (Stephan, 1984). Many reform efforts
in place attempt to equalize educational opportunities for students of color and those
who live in poverty. These efforts alone have not closed the achievement gap between
students of color and their White-counterparts. In fact, substandard education led to
many students of being color over-identified with disabilities, separating them even
more from their peers and supporting wrongful yet long-standing beliefs (Ferguson,
Kozleski, and Smith, 2001).
Despite historical sentiments and denial of justice, high achieving high poverty
schools with large concentrations of students of color do exist. Researchers have
identified structures and systems to support students of color and those who are poor in
achieving academic success. Structures refer to institutional mechanisms, policies, and
procedures put in place by federal, state, or district policy and are not subject to change
at local school sites. Systems refer to coordinated and coherent use of resources in

2
organizational frameworks constructed by the local school to ensure the school’s vision,
mission, and goals become attained.
Researchers found notable systemic approaches of professional development,
effective school-wide instruction and school cultures to have exceptional effects on the
outcome of students of color living in poverty. These approaches, when localized to the
specific needs of the school, work against old constructs of race and create new beliefs
throughout the school community (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001). Based on a
sociocultural theory of learning, professional development provides teachers the
opportunities to be introspective and face past beliefs. By doing so, teachers are able to
recognize and respond to the impact of their own beliefs on their students’ learning,
thus move forward by modifying their own instructional practice to better support their
students learning needs (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001). Additionally, school-wide
instructional practices can be effective when teachers are aware of culturally relevant
pedagogy. In order to empower teachers and students through professional development
and culturally relevant pedagogy, the role of the leader is to create a culture of high
expectations that is responsive to the culture of the school. Creating this kind of
professional development is more dependent on systems that support purposeful
professional development over extensive periods.
To combat the miseducation of students of color, especially those living in high
poverty urban areas, there have been many reform efforts. Most attempts at public
school reform efforts come from the court systems or federal government policies. Two
landmark court cases that declared separate facilities were unequal are Mendez v

3
Westminster in 1945 and Brown v Board of Education in 1954. Following the Brown
decision, came the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s which brought about
awareness of the disparities in education not only due to the segregation of races, but
also due to the lack of equality throughout the schools. Inequalities existed in the
quality of facilities, teachers, materials, and resources (Stephan, 1984). During the
1950’s, resistance to desegregate was so intense that the president, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, sent troops to previously all-white schools so African American students
could walk through the doors of the schools safely. The federal government became
much more involved in education in general under Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.
During this time of desegregation, there was evidence of a wide level of disparities in
income levels between white families and those of people of color. As part of the War
on Poverty and the Civil Rights movement, the federal government made its first
attempt at equalizing educational supports for poor students through the implementation
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965.
A later reform effort commissioned by President Ronald Reagan was A Nation
at Risk. A Nation at Risk, a study that highlighted the deficiencies in the quality of
education in the public school system, served as a structure in an attempt to create
greater effective instruction within the classroom. This structure placed special attention
on evaluating literacy levels, College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT)
achievement levels, and student output. A Nation at Risk offered recommendations of
standards to be valued with emphasis on specific content, teacher preparedness, and

4
leadership to meet the needs of our rapidly changing nation (United States Department
of Education, 1983).
After just ten years of reform efforts, the reauthorization of ESEA in 1994
established another structure, standards-based reform efforts in each state. The federal
government offered grant monies to states and local educational agencies when they
developed educational content and performance standards, benchmarks, and
assessments to determine adequate yearly progress of each school (United States
Department of Education, 2007).
Today, public schools are heavily controlled by the structural mandates from the
2002 reauthorization of ESEA, known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). An
overarching goal of NCLB caused stirring throughout local educational agencies. The
goal of NCLB is for all students to reach proficiency of grade level standards by 2014
based on their performance on standardized assessments. Instructional leaders and
educators face the challenge of carefully determining what instructional materials,
resources, and methodologies will support the diverse needs of their students in order to
meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency. Laws of NCLB extended federal reform
efforts between state and local education agencies regarding education policies and
practices (Sunderman, Orfield, & Kim, 2006). NCLB uses structures to hold states,
districts and schools accountable for using high standards when educating all children.
One structure in place is school-based accountability systems used to bring attention to
instructional practices, capacity of teachers, and the expectations teachers have for
students (Elmore & Fuhrman, 2001). NCLB requires more than just attention to

5
standards and assessments. Another structure focuses on teacher quality. It requires
teachers to be ‘highly-qualified’ in order to be in the classroom. Furthermore, a
structural support NCLB offers to schools who qualify is the Reading First program.
This program offers additional resources and attention to students in kindergarten
through third grade.
While attention focused on offering better educational opportunities for
students of color, especially those in high poverty urban areas, another historically
overlooked group began advocating for equalized education. Influenced by the results
of Brown v. Board of Education, people with disabilities along with their families and
friends began the fight to deinstitutionalize students with disabilities and educate them
within the public school system (Tilly, 2006). In 1975, Education for all Handicapped
Children Act (EHA) was introduced. EHA required that students with disabilities
receive a free and appropriate public education and an individualized education plan
while taught in the least restrictive environment.
Today the law known as the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA), has
undergone two reauthorizations since inception. Unfortunately, the laws of IDEA,
strongly misused by untrained education personnel working with students of color,
result in an over-identification of students of color labeled with a disability rather than
placing emphasis on the teacher’s style and skills of teaching (Harry & Klinger, 2007).
All too often, teachers refer students of color not meeting grade level benchmarks to
special education, leading to a disproportionate number of students of color with a
special education label. Thus, special education has become another tool to reinforce

6
historical constructs of race that perpetuate deficit beliefs about people of color and has
aided in de facto segregation.
There are a disproportionate number of students of color in special education,
especially those in poor communities. A case study from Harry and Klinger (2006)
looked at the special education placement process for African American and Hispanic
students in large urban districts. They found poor neighborhoods to have a higher risk
of inadequate schooling and an increase in the number of special education placements.
Research findings have attributed these numbers to teachers’ limited knowledge of the
curriculum and cultural understanding within schools. Teachers are quick to refer
students to special education when they perceive students to miss grade level
benchmarks or to have disruptive behavior in the classroom (Harry & Klinger, 2006;
Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). Referrals for what teachers consider inappropriate
behavior in high poverty urban schools with students of color often lead to special
education placements. While African American children only represent 16.3 percent of
the national school age population, they represent 31 percent of students labeled with
cognitive disabilities and 27 percent of students labeled with emotional disabilities
(Harry & Klinger, 2006). Latinos are overrepresented in the area of learning disabilities
(Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001).
Harry and Klinger (2006) found the highest rate of disproportionate placement
to be in categories determined by clinical judgment: cognitive disabilities, emotional
and behavioral disabilities. In categories with a genetic component such as Down
Syndrome, there are no discrepancies in racial/ethnic representation. The evidence is

7
glaring that students of color in high poverty areas are subject to lower educational
opportunities, creating achievement gaps between standards and performance (Harry &
Klinger, 2006). Limited awareness leads to an over-identification of these students to
special education (Harry & Klinger, 2006). Poor learning conditions attribute to
teachers’ ill-informed approaches to teaching to diverse populations, limited
curriculum, and poor instructional knowledge can convince students that they cannot
learn; thereby perpetuating beliefs prevalent in the dominant culture that students of
color cannot achieve to the extent of their White-counterparts (Darling Hammond &
Ifill-Lynch, 2006).
Systemic Approaches to Foster Achievement
Despite structures in place by the federal government, the miseducation and
over-identification of special education for students of color in high poverty urban areas
emphasize that structures in the form of legislation, policies, and court decisions alone
will not suffice. Localized systemic approaches are imperative to foster high
achievement in students of color in high poverty urban areas. Systems refer to
coordinated and coherent use of resources constructed by the local school site. Based on
a sociocultural theory of learning, the systems most effective in the achievement of
students of color in high poverty urban areas include professional development,
effective school-wide instruction, and school culture.
Professional Development
Professional development is one systemic approach to effectively supporting
students of color in high poverty urban areas. Through professional development,

8
leaders educate teachers and staff throughout the year so they are better prepared to
service their students. The school is a learning environment for teachers as well as
students (Blase and Blase, 2004). Research has found that successful schools and
principals provide systemic professional development to enhance the knowledge of
teachers (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996). Professional development needs to focus on all
students by training in multicultural education and awareness so teachers are informed
on ways to incorporate the rich backgrounds students bring with them into the
instructional settings (Moll, 2002; Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Additionally, training should focus on needs of the teachers so they are adequately
prepared to use curriculum (Joyce & Showers, 2002). When teachers are informed
about the curriculum they are to incorporate into their instruction, they have been found
to be more flexible by adapting curriculum to meet the needs of their students (Tilly,
2006).
Blase and Blase (2004) suggest that collaboration, a form of professional
development, allows teachers to discuss instructional strategies to ensure a culturally
relevant pedagogy is in place along with deep content knowledge. Focused
collaboration presents teachers with the challenge of identifying their beliefs about
students from different backgrounds that may negatively affect their instruction. This
time spent working together can give teachers opportunities to tackle old constructs of
race and work toward applying new instructional practices that are relevant and
responsive to students’ culture (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001).

9
Professional development is also a tool that can be used to enhance the
relationships and interactions between teachers and students. Banks, Cookson, Gay, &
Hawley (2001) suggest that when teachers are knowledgeable about curriculum and
students’ cultural backgrounds, they are invested in applying a culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy. Through the application of culturally relevant and responsive
pedagogy, students feel validated when they are able to contribute to lessons and see
themselves as an important part of the lesson (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Being informed through professional development also encourages teachers to
set higher expectations for their students (Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). The
more teachers are informed of how to respond to and utilize the rich information
students from different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds come to school with,
the higher the expectations will be (Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). Teachers’ high
expectations are paramount for student achievement; teachers with high expectations
give students something to value while setting goals to increase achievement. Students
need a reason that they will benefit from instruction (Ormrod, 2002). By keeping
expectations high, teachers and students will begin to build trusting relationships with
each other while learning to respect the differences each brings to the classroom
(Nelson-Barber, 1999). As students achieve the expectations of the school and build
stronger relationships with other students, old constructs of race are being challenged
and new constructs of race are being developed (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley,
2001).

10
Effective School-Wide Instruction
Effective instruction, promoted through structures and systems, is the most
critical and dominant variable in determining the success of students. How and what
teachers teach to students of color living in poverty has lasting effects on the
performance levels of these students (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001). Poverty,
although it may be a hindrance, is not determinative of what a student can achieve
(Reeves, 2004). Long-term poverty has different effects on students compared to short
term or situational poverty. Students who grow up in poverty often lack nutrition and
early developmental supports others receive naturally within the home (Brooks-Gunn &
Duncan, 1997). Therefore, it is imperative that schools provide the best educational
opportunities for students of poverty in order to foster academic achievement leading to
success later in life.
Cultural diversity and multicultural education are also major contributing factors
in the successful education of students of color (Ogbu, 1995). Successful teachers are
able to link cultural knowledge to the curriculum thus; they increase the potential for
gaining the trust of their students. Multicultural education allows for teachers and
students to work together, communicate, and find ways of teaching and learning
specific to individual needs (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001; Ferguson, Kozleski, &
Smith, 2001). An understanding established between the students and teachers can be a
critical catalyst to students learning (Nelson-Barber, 1999). Leaders are able to
empower teachers and students by way of professional development for teachers and

11
creating a culture within the school that highlights the differences students have to bring
to the school (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Unfortunately, for the sake of the students and the teachers, teachers in high
poverty schools with large concentrations of students of color are often misinformed of
what instructional practices will best meet the needs of their students (Moll, 2002).
Since the majority of teachers do not typically come from the same cultural background
as their students when working in schools with high concentrations of students of color,
they have limited background knowledge for understanding how to use cultural
differences to enhance the students’ education (Nelson-Barber, 1999). Instead, cultural
differences may work against the students. Teachers coming from a different cultural,
language, or socioeconomic background of their students often rely on belief systems
based on damaging historical constructs of race (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001). In
doing so, teachers from different backgrounds frequently take actions detrimental to
students. These actions include silencing them of their home language, misconstruing
student attitudes and behaviors, and expecting less of them academically. One of the
most devastating and consequential actions teachers in high poverty urban schools
commit with students of color is unwarranted referrals to special education (Harry &
Klinger, 2006). Teachers have the power to combat this over-identification of students
of color in special education by providing culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy
aligned with standards to meet the needs of students.
Culture within the School
While government decisions and funding have helped influence changes made
within the public school system, individual schools are ultimately responsible for the

12
academic achievement of the students enrolled. One critical element of a school that
fosters high achievement is a culture promoting a vision that all students can learn and
should want to learn (Darling Hammond & Ifill-Lynch, 2006). This vision, initiated by
leadership, is most effective when it is woven throughout the daily events of the school.
When this vision is established, emphasis is placed on the instruction of the students,
offering multiple measures operating systemically to meet the diverse needs of the
students (Darling Hammond & Ifill-Lynch, 2006).
The school culture that promotes high academic achievement treats teachers and
students as life-long learners. Cultural differences are celebrated by displaying student
work, recognizing traditions; ensuring books in libraries and classrooms reflect the
students at the school along with bringing the richness of students’ backgrounds into the
instruction (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001). A positive school culture also
ensures that a clear connection be made between school and home (Moll, 2002). By
doing so a cultural frame of reference is created which guides students’ behavior and
beliefs (Ogbu, 1995). In this type of learning environment, assumptions are made that
with proper teaching all students will achieve. This provides high expectations among
both the teaching personnel and the students through the process of goal setting.
Learning can be understood by referencing the sociocultural situation of the
students (Nelson-Barber, 1999). To further support the achievement of students of color
in high poverty urban schools, school culture should embrace the differences in the
students and draw on their strengths (Banks, et al, 2001). This culture will help create a
belief system within their students that they can and will be high achievers countering

13
past harmful beliefs about them based on constructs of race and history of
discrimination against their racial group (Ferguson, et al, 2001; Ladson-Billings &
Gomez, 2001).
Statement of the Problem
Many years of stereotyped beliefs about the potential of students of color living
in high poverty urban schools have led to a deep-seated disparity between schools in
high poverty urban and affluent suburban areas. Such differences allow the
achievement gap to remain intact. These differences also result in disproportionate
number of students of color placed erroneously in special education where resources are
also inadequate to meet their needs. Despite reform efforts and increased awareness
based on research, many high poverty urban schools with students of color are not
creating high academic achievers. While some schools are addressing the problem,
many are not. What remains unknown however is what organizational structures and
systems are most effective in schools that are producing high academic achievement
among students of color living in poverty and how can this knowledge be generalized to
other schools serving students of color who live in poverty.
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to delineate systems and structures that work together
to improve school-wide instructional practices leading to the high student achievement
of students of color in high poverty urban schools. This study will also identify how
these systems and structures support students of color living in poverty from being
overrepresented in special education. Knowledge gained from this study will provide

14
insight into performance trends of students of color when systems and structures are in
place to support them. This study will add to a body of knowledge working toward the
success of students of color who live in poverty. Information obtained will contribute to
other schools so they too can foster high academic achievement within their students of
color who live in poverty.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the trends and patterns of 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?
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to add to the body of research defining systems
and structures within organizations that promote school-wide instruction leading to
achievement in students of color living in high poverty urban areas. Failure to educate
students has a three-tiered impact: (1) Global impact and effects on the American
economy, (2) national implications of where people of color fall in society, and (3)
personal implications reflected in a person of color’s quality of life and ability to
contribute. Results from this study may be able to help failing schools by offering

15
research-based strategies thereby preventing future failures. Information taken from this
study will also benefit state agencies and local districts when planning reform efforts.
Assumptions
This study assumed that organizational systems and structures work together to
create equitable educational opportunities to promote high achievement in high poverty
urban schools with large concentrations of students of color.
Limitations
The data from this study, although carefully completed, does have limitations.
• The use of small sampling occurred due to time constraints; studying only one
school in a district from Southern California.
• Regardless of the researcher’s attempt to prevent biases, the researcher did not
have control over preexisting biases of those who participated in the study.
• Analysis of information triangulated from interviews, observations and artifacts
was up to interpretation of the researcher.
• Summaries may not represent all participant views due to the researcher looking
for themes emerging from the data.
Delimitations
External validity is impacted based on some delimitations.
• The use of purposeful sampling required the school to be selected based on a list
of criteria identified by the thematic dissertation group.
• Selection criteria limits ability to generalize since there was a narrow set of
criteria in place for the study.

16
• Small sampling and school location may limit the ability to generalize
information to other schools and districts.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. The first chapter includes
background information establishing the importance of understanding systems and
structures in place to support instruction of students of color living in high poverty
urban areas. It also includes a statement of the problem. In the second chapter, literature
relates major historical markers affecting students of color in school as well as the
theories of learning and systems and structures to support school-wide effective
instruction in schools are reviewed and synthesized. Chapter Three reviews the purpose
of the study, presents the research questions and describes methods used to administer
the study. In Chapter Four the findings reviews data collected related to the high
achievement of students of color in high poverty urban areas that have avoided being
labeled with a disability along with students with disabilities within the general
education setting. Finally, Chapter Five provides a discussion of connections between
the findings, prior research, and reviews implications this research may have on
organizations and policies which instructional leaders may employ to improve academic
achievement.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study the following terms have been defined:
Cultural Frame of Reference: Reference that guides peoples behavior from their point
of view of the given people (Ogbu, 1995).

17
Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy: Instruction that takes into account
and applies curriculum to students’ cultural, ethnic, language, and
socioeconomic background (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Disproportionate numbers: Having greater representation within a subgroup
compared to the number of students in the population as a whole. Some
researchers use plus or minus 10% to determine proportionality (Harry &
Anderson, 1994).
High Achieving: School-wide trajectory of API (if in California) and Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) growth over three years of all subgroups. There must also be a
minimum movement of two deciles within 3-5 years.
Professional Development: An overarching term for opportunities for growth within
The teaching profession. Professional development manifests itself in formal
off campus training, on-site training, collaboration opportunities, etc (Blasé
& Blasé, 2004).
School Culture: Something reflected in the environment of the school. It is present in
everyone and every environment consciously and unconsciously (Clarke &
Estes, 2002).
School-Wide Instruction: Consistent implementation of instruction throughout the
entire school.
Special Education: Services and supports designed to minimize the impact of
disability and maximize opportunity to grow and learn (Hehir, 2007).

18
Standards-Based Instruction: Use of curriculum and instruction that is aligned with
the Standards determined by the school or state.
Structure: Institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by federal,
state or district policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official structure
of schools; not subject to change at the local school site (i.e., personnel policies,
use of instructional time, program regulations).
System: Coordinated and coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students,
parents, funds, facilities, etc) constructed by the school site to ensure that school
visions, missions and goals are met (i.e., professional development, teacher
collaboration, use of time).
Tracking: A way to organize or segregate students based on ability level.

Urban: High population density and high concentration of students of color.

19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Historically, high poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of
color have been associated with low student achievement. In reviewing the history of
American education, there is one glaring detail that cannot be denied; students of color
have faced inequalities in their education since the inception of public education in
America. Belief systems have prevailed based on old constructs of race that have been
detrimental to student learning (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001; Ogbu, 1995).
Regardless of many reform efforts triggered by the civil rights movement and court
rulings, many students of color living in high poverty urban settings continue to be
educated in unequal schools. Many of the inequalities stem from teachers who are
uninformed on how to meet the needs of their students thus creating de facto
segregation within schools. One common modern form of segregation is the
inappropriate referral of students of color to special education (Harry & Klinger, 2006).
Despite historic denial of equitable opportunities to learn, there are high
achieving schools in high poverty urban areas with large concentrations of students of
color. Based on a sociocultural theory of learning, researchers emphasize that high
achievement in these schools is due to systemic approaches to professional
development, instructional practices, and school cultures that embrace the rich cultural
backgrounds the students bring to school (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Teachers who are empowered by understanding the richness cultural, racial, ethnic,

20
language, and socioeconomic backgrounds provide are able to weave this into their
instruction (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001). Students who are empowered by
rigorous culturally relevant and responsive instruction are able to achieve levels of
success that work against old constructs of race helping to redefine perceptions of
students of color (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001). Leaders who embrace the
power of knowledge and empower teachers and students create a culture within the
school of high expectations for all students. With these systemic approaches in place,
students of color receive an equitable education within the general education classroom
(Haberman, 1999).
African American Educational History
Historical trends in the education of students who are African American
originates with slavery when adult Africans were brought to America. Originally, slave
owners did not see a need to educate slaves beyond basic skills training for productive
slave labor on the plantation. Many of the slaves came to America with agricultural
skills. However, by 1794 the importation of slaves became illegal thereby creating a
need to educate the children of slaves for basic skills training since owners could no
longer buy young adults who already received basic skills training while in Africa
(Stephan, 1980). In the South, formal education posed a threat to Southern Whites and
the slave system. For this reason, learning to read and write or any other education that
extended beyond the skills needed to conduct slave labor was illegal for any African
American child in almost every slave state. Making education illegal served as a means
to increase repression of African slaves during this era (Weinberg, 1977). In the North,

21
African American students attended schools established for them, yet discrimination
remained strong and education remained as a privilege for the free African American
(DuBois, 1935). Only select African American students, particularly those who could
afford it, attended these schools. Even with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
many Whites were determined to keep former slaves in an inferior status to them; thus
there was no guarantee of an education, segregated or desegregated, for people of color
during that time (Stephan, 1980).
During the early 1900s industrialization prompted movement of African
Americans to central urban areas in search of factory jobs. This movement assisted in
separating African Americans from Whites as White people began moving to the
suburbs. Due to the limited educational opportunities, African Americans competed
with poor, uneducated Whites, for factory and labor intensive jobs that required limited
formal education. This competition threatened many Whites’ job security and increased
racial barriers still prevalent today (Stephan, 1980).
Racial barriers prevailed throughout the nation, separating African Americans
from the use of public facilities including schools. These facilities were separate and
unequal. Consequently, African Americans sought desegregation based on the
inferiority of resources, facilities, and opportunities to learn available to them (Stephan,
1980). They felt they had made major contributions to the economy and well-being of
the nation and were therefore entitled to equal rights.
It was not until Brown v The Board of Education in 1954 that any promise came
regarding educating African Americans in desegregated schools. Brown was a

22
compilation of five court cases all focused on the same premise; “separate is not equal.”
Arguments shared among all cases stressed that segregated schools affected the self-
esteem of African Americans thus increasing prejudices towards Whites (Bell, 1980).
Although the courts ruled against the plaintiffs, they did concur that separate schools
were unequal. This decision was the seed for mandating desegregation between all
minority groups. Following the Brown decision, the law required all public schools to
desegregate; however, heavy resistance persisted (Willie & Willie, 2005).
Resistance to providing equitable access to public education for all students
persisted after Brown v. the Board of Education. Although the courts had ruled,
attitudes based on racist beliefs did not change (Stephan, 1980; Bell, 1980). Many
schools were not motivated to desegregate until the federal government intervened and
supplied troops to offer safe passages to school for African American students
attempting to attend their neighborhood schools (Bridges, 1999). To aid desegregation,
a new Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964, retracted federal funds from any district
unwilling to comply with the law (Stephan, 1980).
The Brown decision required enormous amounts of effort and endurance from
the NAACP and families trying to receive the best education for their children.
Inconceivable level of resistance tested emotional stamina, hatred and violence that
permeated the South (Ladson-Billings, 2004). African Americans were bused long
distances and attended predominantly White schools with teachers who were unaware
of their cultural backgrounds and the need to maintain high expectations for these
students of color (Willie & Willie, 2005).

23
Since the federal government imposed laws requiring desegregation, new forms
of segregation emerged to construct and perpetuate the belief that African Americans
are not as intelligent as Whites are. Erroneous beliefs about African American
intelligence started during the slave era when slaves were not educated and denied their
cultural context. Slaves limited cleanliness and academic knowledge, although
prompted by the conditions imposed by their owners, created belief systems that
African Americans were unable to acquire or sustain standards of life as compared to
their White counterparts (Stephan, 1980). This belief system, constructed to justify
slavery, promoted various responses from many White families when the courts ruled to
desegregate schools (Bell, 1980). Some Whites responded to the court orders by
creating expensive private schools making it difficult for African Americans to afford or
access those schools (Ladson-Billings, 2004). Many White families moved from the
cities and into suburbs. Within districts, schools responded by tracking students or
identifying a large proportion of students with disabilities, sending them to self-
contained classrooms or schools (Oakes & Wells 1998,; Harry & Klinger, 2006). These
responses presented challenges to desegregating schools. The beliefs based on White
constructs of race that prompted these actions are the same beliefs that remain deeply
embedded in the structures and systems of American schools (Ladson-Billings, 2004).
They account, in large part, for the persistent inequitable opportunities to learn and the
large disparities in the academic achievement of students of color (Bell, 1980).
Current situations in schools demonstrate the role these historical factors
continue to play. According to the Public Policy Institution of California (2005), up to

24
sixty-four percent of elementary aged African American youth and forty-three percent
of high school students are enrolled in segregated low-income schools. Forty-one
percent of both elementary and high school age African American students attend
schools ranked low performing. Furthermore, there is an overrepresentation of African
Americans in special education; African Americans are twice as likely to be suspended
as their White counterparts (Ladson-Billings, 1989). Figure 1 provides a picture of this
over representation of African Americans in special education based. This information
is because African Americans represent less than a tenth of the total population of
California public schools, yet they represent special education well over their
percentage (California Department of Education, 2007).
Figure 1: Special Education

25
Hispanic Educational History
While segregation between Whites and African Americans was deep-seated in
the South, the Southwest was facing its own set of segregation issues between Whites
and Hispanics. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is a landmark event in the history of
Mexicans in the United States. This treaty granted the United States ownership over
many of today’s Southwest regions. This treaty claimed to award citizens of Mexico
and Spain who already occupied lands land grants and citizenship. However, articles
written in the treaty weakened the rights of the Mexicans and Spanish and declared
citizenship be granted to Mexicans “at the right time.” (Griswold del Castillo, 1990).
The statement put Mexicans in a status inferior to Whites and their rights became
jeopardized (Atkins, 1978).
Following the Treaty of Guadalupe, in the late 1800s, segregating Hispanic
students became a common practice (Rangel & Alcala, 1972). Students whose origin
was Mexico went to separate schools designated specifically for them. The priority was
to teach the White students therefore only a limited number of schools were available to
Hispanic students (Atkins, 1978; Weinberg, 1977). By the 1870s schools for Hispanics
increased dramatically due to the population growth, increased financial abilities on a
national scale, legal requirements and a greater awareness and acceptance of schooling
around the nation (Atkins, 1978). Despite the increase in schooling practices for both
White and Hispanic students, segregation remained high. In the beginning of the 1930’s
85% of Hispanic children were taught in separate facilities; schools or classrooms
(Valencia, Menchaca, & Donato, 2002). A major case brought to court by Hispanic

26
fathers in 1945, Mendez v Westminster argued that separate schools for children of Latin
decent was unconstitutional discrimination. The Ninth Circuit ruled that it was unlawful
to segregate Hispanic students (Wollenberg, 1976). The Brown decision followed the
Mendez decision, serving as a landmark case for the Hispanics also. Thurgood Marshall,
along with other lawyers, involved themselves in both cases; stressing the pursuit of
equal rights as a joint effort by African Americans and Mexicans. The cases favored the
rights of people of color and declared separate schools are unequal, therefore Hispanic
students were to be educated in desegregated schools (Willie & Willie, 2005).
The language needs of many of the children became a basis for Whites to
argue that a separate school was necessary for the education of Spanish speaking
students. Language became the new means for segregating Hispanic students since race
and ethnicity were no longer legal means for segregation (Valencia, Menchaca, &
Donato, 2002). Many districts offered segregated schools up until sixth grade. The
stated intention of the segregated school was to teach English. Once Hispanic students
in the segregated schools achieved a certain level of English language acquisition, they
transferred to English-speaking schools. Students who transferred continued with their
language differential despite training at the primary school. Negative effects emerged
due to the cultural and language differences between students and instructional staff,
prompting large proportions of Hispanic students to drop out of school. Graduation
rates continue to be considerably lower for Hispanic students compared to their peers
from other racial backgrounds (Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato, 2002). The trend has
continued up to the present. Drop out rates for Hispanic students are disproportionately

27
high (California Department of Education, 2007). Figure 2 demonstrates the
disproportionate number of Hispanic students dropping out compared to their
counterparts. An example of the high drop out rate taken from California Department
of Education demonstrates the continuing trend for students of color who live in high
poverty urban areas.
Figure 2: Student Enrollment

Historical Impact on Today’s Schools
Although there are some high poverty urban schools with large concentrations
of students of color that are beating the odds, belief systems based on race and class that
developed throughout American history have shaped behaviors affecting social and
educational inequalities of today (Payne, 1996). Such behaviors have contributed to de

28
facto segregation.
Disparities in Education of Students of Color
Even with the efforts of Brown and the Mendez case, racial segregation
continues to thrive in urban settings across the nation (Orfield, 2001). De facto
segregation is apparent in the nation’s schools today due to segregation by
neighborhood ethnic composition and income levels. Housing patterns, employment,
and immigration predict that urban communities will represent a disproportionate
number of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and people in poverty (Ladson-
Billings, 2004). Urban public schools have a history of high numbers of students of
color. Statistics from 1968 indicate that 50 percent of Hispanic students attended
schools where they were the dominant culture while more recent statistics from 1999
indicate 79 percent of Hispanic students attended schools with large concentrations of
students of color (Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato, 2002; Orfield, 2001).
Segregation in schools due to housing patterns, employment, and immigration,
although not ideal, is not the singular factor creating disparities throughout the
educational system (Orfield & Yun, 1999). The problem also, lies in belief systems that
students of color who live in poverty are unable to be academically successful. Practices
based on this belief emanate throughout many high poverty urban public schools
serving students of color still today. These negative beliefs limit the educational
outcomes of students of color, especially those living in poverty (Jimenez, Moll,
Rodriguez-Brown, & Barrera, 1999). Common disparities these students face are
overcrowded schools, tracking systems, and overrepresentation in special education. As

29

the literature identifies, these disparities are detrimental to the success of students of
color (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001).
Overcrowding
Many students of color attend schools that are overcrowded compared to the
schools of their White counterparts. Figure 3 raises a level of concern by providing a
clear representation of students of color attending overcrowded schools.
Figure 3: Overcrowding in Schools

Overcrowded schools provide less than desirable learning environments. This
however is just one disturbing fact involving the schooling of students of color.
Another disturbing fact is the segregation of students of color within public schools

30
(Orfield & Yun, 1999; Frankenberg & Lee, 2002). Segregation within schools has
prevailed for many reasons. Two apparent reasons segregation thrives in public schools
today is due to systems within the schools that track students based on perceived ability
and the over identification of students of color labeled with a disability.
Tracking Systems Supporting De Facto Segregation
Tracking has been one systemic force used to maintain segregation of students
of color. Tracking systems create divisions among students based on socioeconomic
status, perceived academic ability, and racial background. Most commonly used in
middle and high schools, tracking separates students based on perceived abilities thus
exposing students to dramatically unequal and different levels of curriculum (Oakes &
Wells, 1998). Many lower track classrooms have fewer resources, less powerful
learning environments, and low-level curriculum (Oakes & Wells, 1998). Lower tracks
are also known for larger numbers of high poverty students of color in both segregated
and desegregated schools with a disproportionate numbers of African American and
Hispanic representations (Oakes & Wells, 1998; Tomlinson, 2005; Williams, &
Reisberg, 2003; Pagnow, 2006). Concurrently, through tracking, lower expectations are
created for students in the lower track; however, research proves students’ academic
achievement increases when surrounded by grade level peers who are high achievers.
Tracking’s chief effect is to separate certain students and identify them as students
unable to learn (Betts, Zau, & Rice, 2003). Johnson (2002) explains one specific
example of the downside of tracking systems in her book Using Data to Close the
Achievement Gap. She describes how tracking is significantly detrimental to the

31
learning of English Learners at year-round schools. Her studies have found that many
year-round schools with large concentrations of ELs track these students in one track
thus restricts them from taking alternative higher-level courses in different tracks
(Johnson, 2002).
Some schools around the country adopted reform efforts to create systems
within the school that focus on all students learning together by abolishing their
previous tracking systems. Teachers and students have felt the positive benefits of
teaching to all students in heterogeneous grouping; however, the reform did come with
much resistance. School change agents faced challenges of deep-seated beliefs of
limited intelligence, ability, and racial differences of students of color and those living
in poverty (Oakes & Wells, 1998).
Special Education Supporting De Facto Segregation
Special education is the worst form of tracking; once students are in it is almost
impossible to get out. Overrepresentation of students of color in special education
suggests that systems and structures in place are not supporting these students therefore;
referrals to special education occur and contribute to continued segregation within
schools. The segregation that goes along with the label of special education has long
lasting effects on students (Harry & Klinger, 2007). Only 16.3 percent of the national
school age population is African American, yet this subgroup represents 31 percent of
students labeled with cognitive disabilities. Additionally, statistical findings provide
data that demonstrates students of color who live in poverty are at an increased risk of
being labeled with a disability (Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). Figure 2-4 presents

32
a clear picture of the overrepresentation of African American and Hispanic students in
special education in California public schools.
One special education label over-used for African American males is
“emotionally disturbed.” While the label commonly used for English language learners
that supports segregation within schools is “learning disabled.” Language barriers
between students and teachers influence the over-identification of English learners (EL)
as students with learning disabilities (Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). Language
differences add to teacher’s erroneous perceptions of students’ academic abilities (Harry
& Klinger, 2007).
Over-identification of students of color in special education has become a
common practice. By identifying students as having disabilities, labels are attached to
these students and they are often sent to separate schools, self-contained classrooms,
and resource rooms to be taught (Harry & Klinger, 2007). Fifty percent of students
labeled with a disability are educated in separate facilities, be it classrooms or schools
(Wagner, 2003). Exclusionary practices result in a high level of negative stereotypes on
students with identified disabilities and to low academic achievement for students with
these labels (Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). Separate classrooms are often
associated with simplified curriculum (Williams, & Reisberg, 2003). The social context
within the educational environment should be a primary focus since evidence suggests
social opportunities provide students with additional opportunities to engage and
increase achievement in academics (Blanton, Moorman, Hayes, & Warner, 1997;
Cohen, & Loewenberg-Ball, 2001).

33
Special education originated as a plan to support students with learning
differences: however, through the course of time, too much energy spent on labeling the
students took away from time spent on supporting their educational needs (Tilly, 2006).
This labeling itself is a problem because it provides excuses for lowered expectations,
reasons to segregate students, and more opportunities for students to fall behind.
Consequently, students labeled with an emotional disability drop out at twice the rate of
their nondisabled peers and only 15 percent continue on to higher education (Hehir,
2007).
There are many reasons why over identification of students of color exists in the
schools today. One reason is due to the highly subjective process of identifying students
as emotionally disturbed (ED), educable mentally retarded (MR), or having a learning
disability (LD) (Harry & Anderson, 1994). The only reason a teacher needs in order to
refer a student for ED is that the behavior the student exhibits causes discomfort for the
teacher. Once the referral and the identification process begin, teachers complete rating
scales, checklists and questionnaires about the student. Depending on the teacher’s
views of the child, the results of the checklist could be skewed (Harry & Anderson,
1994). Students given the label emotionally disturbed face belief systems that they are
unable to handle their emotions. Beliefs persist, thus producing certain expectations for
the types of behaviors a student with an emotional disturbance will exhibit. African
American students are significantly overrepresented in this category of disability.
Figure 2-4 exhibits this overrepresentation making clear the distinction between total

34
African American student enrollment in California (7.5 percent) and total representation
with students with an emotional disturbance (22 percent).
Determining a learning disability appears to be less subjective because this
process requires a discrepancy between IQ and academic achievement tests. However,
since White middle-class people created IQ tests, these assessment tools are
representative of the White middle-class cultural notions about thinking logically. Many
students growing up in African American and Hispanic cultures most likely grow up
with to different building blocks based on cultural differences thus generating a
different style of logical thinking rather than specific skills needed to perform well on
an IQ test. Two well-known cases arguing against the disproportionate number of
African American males in special education include Johnson v. San Francisco Unified
and Larry P. et al. V. Wilson Riles et al. Rulings from these cases revealed IQ tests of
African American students to determine eligibility for special education are unlawful
(Harry & Anderson, 1994). Since schools are now unable to use discrepancy as a way
to identify students, they have begun labeling students as having educable mental
retardation. This label has been widely abused creating overrepresentation of African
Americans in special education (Harry & Anderson, 1994).
Only 16.3 percent of the national school age population is African American, yet
this subgroup represents 31 percent of students labeled with cognitive disabilities.
Additionally, statistical findings provide data that demonstrates students of color who
live in poverty are at an increased risk of being labeled with a disability (Ferguson,
Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). Figure 4 presents a clear picture of the overrepresentation of

35
African American and Hispanic students in special education in California public
schools.
Figure 4: African American and Hispanic Special Education

36
Organizational Systems and Structures Supporting Achievement
Figure 5: Systems and Structures Supporting Achievement

Despite these historical sentiments and the actions they produced, research-
based organizational structures and systemic practices do exist and contribute to high
student performance in some high poverty urban schools with large concentrations of
students of color. There are reform efforts: federal and state mandates, and local district
policies and structures in place to address inequalities for students of color. However,
research shows that focused and localized systems attentive to racial, ethnic, language,
and socioeconomic backgrounds of students working within the structures in place have
Structure:
NCLB
requiremen
ts
System:
Positive
School
Culture
System:
Empoweri
ng
Leadership
Structure:
State
Standards
Structure:
District
Structures
System:
School-
Wide
Instruction
System:
Prof.
Dev.

37
the greatest potential for fostering high achievement in high poverty schools with large
concentrations of students of color.
Systems and Structures in Effective Schools
Studies completed since the late 1970s, looked for schools that created high
achievers despite cultural differences, racial, or socioeconomic backgrounds. Many of
these studies originated in response to the Coleman Report that focused on the
education of all students. The report noted that most students attended schools in which
they were the dominant culture. Additionally, findings suggested similarities between
teacher training, salaries and curriculum for schools with predominantly White students
and those with students of color (Coleman, 1968). Findings suggested a gap of two
years between White students and students of color (Schugurensky, 2002).
The Coleman Report inferred high poverty schools with students of color could
not be as successful as White suburban schools. He based his findings on factors he
believed significant to achievement that were present in both the home and school
settings across environments. Coleman concluded students of color living in poverty
could not benefit from the factors present in schools the way White students could
(Coleman, 1968). What he failed to recognize was that his study focused on structures
in place in all schools studies. Structures are institutional mechanisms, policies, and
procedures put in place by federal, state or district policy. These structures are not
subject to change at local school sites. Localized systems in place to augment or change
the structures did not appear in his study. Consequently, this conclusion sparked an

38

interest in many researchers to counter Coleman’s findings that students of color and
students in poverty could not achieve at the same levels as White-suburban students.
Edmonds is one such researcher who sought to contradict these allegations
(Sudlow, 1985). In 1979, Edmonds, along with other researchers, successfully found
schools that met the criteria for high achieving, high poverty schools with large
concentration of students of color (Edmonds, 1986).
Edmonds (1986) research concluded that schools could be effective in high
poverty urban areas with high concentrations of students of color given that systems are
in place in schools to supplement or mitigate the effects of existing structures.
Structures in this study refer to institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in
place by federal, state or district policy. Systems are the coordination and coherence of
resources at the school site ensuring attainment of the schools’ visions, missions, and
goals.
Systems Edmonds found to be essential determinants of student success include
an emphasis on instructional practices and a school culture of high expectations within a
safe and orderly learning environment. He also found that reinforcement of leadership
positively affected teachers, school culture, and academic instruction. Today,
researchers are adding to Edmonds list of systems in place that foster student
achievement in high poverty schools with large concentrations of color. The sections
that follow explore finding from these researchers more thoroughly.
To understand the direct correlation between structures in place and localized

39
systemic efforts in affecting student performance in high performing urban schools the
following systems are presented: professional development, instructional practices, and
school culture that promotes high achievement. School-wide commitment to the
implementation of these systems supports students’ academic success in high poverty
urban schools with students of color; therefore, the role of leadership in implementing
systems is addressed. These systems and structures rely on a sociocultural theory of
learning. Systemic approaches to create an appropriate sociocultural context for
learning works against old constructs of race that are harmful to students of color.
Professional Development
Professional development is one highly effective systemic approach to
supporting students of color in high poverty urban areas. Through effective
professional development, teachers are able to uncover and identify their personal
beliefs toward different cultural, racial, language, and socioeconomic backgrounds
(Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001). Additionally, teachers become aware of
historical influences on cultures and social classes along with effective teaching
methodologies that influence student involvement and promote success. When
professional development teaches how histories and cultures of today influence
learning, teachers are able to grapple with their past beliefs and consider new
knowledge to institutionalize school-wide instructional practices that enhance student
performance and combat old belief systems (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Access to professional development plays a vital role in enhancing the
knowledge and skill levels of educators beyond the scope of cultural knowledge.

40
Through professional development, teachers gain knowledge on how to utilize
evidence-based curriculum to its maximum potential. Teachers also learn how to assess
student learning and use disaggregated data in order to provide a clear picture of what
students have learned and in what areas they continue to require support or reteaching
(Johnson, 2002). Professional development fuses knowledge of cultural differences,
instructional strategies, and curriculum knowledge providing teachers with culturally
responsive and relevant instructional strategies and techniques proven to impact the
learning of students of color living in high poverty urban areas (Banks, Cookson, Gay,
& Hawley, 2001; Cohen & Loewenberg-Ball, 2001).
The school is a learning environment for teachers as well as students (Blase &
Blase, 2004). School leaders play an important role in influencing the learning of
teachers by providing working conditions that expand their teaching repertoire. They
have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic
influences on learning with guidance to synthesize and enact various effective teaching
strategies (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001). It is
imperative to build capacity in staff so that all students can learn through the systematic
efforts of multiple professional development opportunities (Ferguson, Kozleski, &
Smith, 2001). Most teacher preparation programs teach basic teaching approaches;
however, teachers require supplementary training based on the culture and make-up of
the school where they teach. Additionally teachers must learn appropriate ways to teach
curriculum in a culturally relevant and responsive manner (Banks, Cookson, Gay, &
Hawley, 2001; Ferguson, Kozleski, Smith, 2001; Tomlinson, 2005; Ladson-Billings,

41
1989). For this reason, professional development becomes a critical system within the
school to enhance the capacity of educators in order to create high achievers in high
poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of color.
Professional development is an overarching term used to define the opportunity
for staff members to learn. Effective leaders implement a whole system of professional
development to support teaching and learning throughout the school year (Blasé &
Blasé, 2004). One approach is using external opportunities of professional development
through the promotion of attendance at conferences, workshops, and seminars. A
second systemic approach effective leaders use is offering internal professional
development opportunities structurally embedded within the school calendar using
formal staff developments, collaboration, and mentor programs (Blasé & Blasé, 2004).
How systemic the approach to staff development is determines the effectiveness
of professional development offered throughout the school year (Blasé & Blasé, 2004).
Extensive research by Joyce and Showers (2002) advises leaders to provide frequent
formal staff development opportunities that concentrate on emergent instructional
needs. Staff development should focus on developing and sharing instructional
strategies that promote achievement with the students whom teachers are responsible to
teach (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2001; Tilly, 2006). By making professional development
systemic, leaders make the staff development meaningful for the teachers attending. In
addition, Joyce and Showers have found that effective leaders provide staff
development that encourages instructional innovation. Encouraging instructional
innovation allows teachers to take risks in their instructional practices by applying new

42
techniques and strategies. Joyce and Showers also identified the importance of leaders
encouraging teacher input in the design and content covered in the staff development,
along with allowing for optional attendance to the trainings. Finally, their data
concluded attendance of the principal augmented formal staff development (Joyce &
Showers, 2002).
Different from formal staff development trainings, collaboration is another
systemic approach to professional development. When teachers work together to tackle
old beliefs and acquire new knowledge a culture of collaboration is developed.
Systemically building a culture of collaboration in high poverty schools with students of
color has had powerful effects creating a community of life-long learners (Blasé &
Blasé, 2004). In order to develop a culture of collaboration, successful leaders have
structured their school schedules to allow for built-in collaboration time for teachers in
like grade and content levels to meet. In some cases, successful principals encourage
informal collaboration by offering duty-free lunchtime to promote teachers to get-
together and share ideas. Some principals provide informal collaboration opportunities
for teachers through the participation in special projects (Blasé & Blasé, 2004).
Collaboration induces reflective practices among staff members and encourages
staff to identify what curriculum is essential for all students to learn the standards. It
also provides an opportunity for teachers to review disaggregated data and identify
which students need additional support. From this knowledge, teachers are able to target
certain students, plan instructional strategies that coincide with curriculum available to
them, and determine a pacing guide to guarantee the standards be addressed in their

43
instruction (Fischer & Johnson, 2006; Lachat & Smith, 2005; Mazano, 2003; Ladson-
Billings & Gomez, 2001).
A study on the effects of collaboration on students of color and students living in
poverty by Ladson-Billings and Gomez (2001) highlights the power of collaboration
and the influence teachers working together have on certain students. The school used
in this case study was targeted because data indicated that students of color and students
that live in color were not meeting basic levels on standardized tests despite the school’s
overall high test scores. Researchers Ladson-Billings and Gomez pulled a group of
teachers who volunteered their time into a collaborative group to study what the effects
on working together could be. The researchers’ only role in the collaborative meetings
was strictly to provide a question for the group to focus on at each meeting (Ladson-
Billings & Gomez, 2001).
Based on the observations in the meetings and within classrooms, the
researchers noted valuable changes that occurred overtime that influenced performance
and outcomes of students of color and students living in poverty. Through the process
of collaboration, teachers started listening to one another changing the way they saw
themselves as teachers as well as how they viewed their students. This allowed teachers
the opportunity to develop better ways to serve their students. The collaborative group
also started using disaggregated data, which helped them identify and realize certain
students were not meeting basic levels of proficiency. It is important to note, that the
researchers let the teachers come to this conclusion using data and conversation. When
the teachers realized students of color and students living in poverty were the only

44
students not meeting standards, they planned how to use curriculum and change
instructional practices to better meet these students’ needs. By the end of the school
year, all students met benchmarks according to yearly-standardized assessments
(Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001).
Professional development can also take the form of a teacher mentor program.
Many districts in the state of California provide a systemic mentor program for new
teachers through the Beginning Teacher Support Assessment (BTSA) program. BTSA
provides new teachers with instant feedback from their mentors and establishes formal
collaboration time so new teachers can learn from guided practice instead of trial and
error (Darling-Hammond, & Rustique-Forrester, 1997). Teacher mentor programs have
resulted in lower attrition rates for new teachers. This is especially important in high
poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of color since they typically
have inordinate levels of teacher mobility (Sunderman & Orfield, 2006). High attrition
rates equates to frequent hiring of new teachers. Ladson-Billings (1995) explains
students of color need the best training with willing and competent teachers; therefore,
the time spent with mentor teachers is critical.
Teacher training is vital in the success for students, especially students of color
who live in poverty. Since many of the teachers teaching students of color who live in
poverty come from a different cultural background, they often view and expect students
of color to adapt to the cultural belief system of the teachers. When students of color do
not adhere to the expectations of their teachers, they face the potential consequence of a
special education referral. On the contrary, when teachers are trained to understand and

45
apply cultural, racial, ethnic, language, and socioeconomic differences into their
instruction, more time is spent on teaching to the students within the context of the class
and less time on harmful referrals to special education (Nieto, 2004; Banks, Cookson,
Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
School-Wide Instructional Practices
Consistent school-wide implementation of effective classroom instructional
practices foster high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color. Culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy refers
to teachers reflecting on and supporting students’ differences when planning instruction.
Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley (2001) describe culturally relevant and responsive
pedagogy as instruction that takes into account and builds on students’ racial, ethnic,
cultural, language and socioeconomic backgrounds. Teachers who apply such an
approach use curriculum in place along with knowledge students bring into the
classroom in order to enhance students’ knowledge (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley,
2001).
Before school-wide implementation of effective culturally relevant pedagogy
can occur, teachers must be properly trained and supported in multicultural
communication and understanding (Nieto, 2004; Banks, Cookson, Gay & Hawley,
2001). This training will expose teachers’ beliefs and challenge them to think beyond
historical sentiments into how and in what ways their students can be successful (Banks,
Cookson, Gay & Hawley, 2001; Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001; Ladson-Billings,
1995). With the proper understanding of the various cultural differences, teachers are

46
less likely to over identify students of color in special education. Instead, they will
respond to different learning needs of the children in their classrooms. Teachers can do
this by differentiating instruction, implementing research-based interventions, and
utilizing cultures and languages students bring to the classroom (Hudler, 2006; Banks,
Cookson, Gay & Hawley, 2001; Jimenez, Moll, Rodriguez-Brown, & Barrera, 1999).
Ultimately, what the teacher does in the classroom creates the largest impact on
student achievement (Frey & Fischer, 2006). Student achievement depends largely upon
the overall effectiveness of the teacher. Effective teachers in high poverty urban areas
serving large concentrations of students of color employ rigorous research-based
instructional strategies that align with standards, maintain unyielding classroom
management practices and fluently design curriculum that matches the cultural,
language and socioeconomic needs of the students (Marzano, 2003; Banks, Cookson,
Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Most states have initiated standards-based reform obliging public school
districts to adopt textbooks and learning materials aligned with the standards.
Standards-based instruction entails connecting curriculum and instruction to the
standards set forth by the state. Instructors use assessments to determine whether
students are meeting standards or need further instructional support (Johnson, 2002). To
augment the structures in place by state requirements, Marzano (2003) and Springboard
Schools (2005) describe how schools have taken systemic approaches to help students
of color meet the grade-level standards within high poverty urban schools. They
ascertain that in addition to a culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy, students’

47
success increases when a guaranteed and viable curriculum aligned with state standards
is systemically enforced.
In conjunction with a guaranteed and viable curriculum aligned with state
standards Marzano (2003) and Springboard Schools (2005) address the importance of
curriculum fostering challenging goals along with timely feedback incorporated into
instruction. Formative assessments, frequent measures of student understanding and
ability, are tools teachers use to accomplish goal setting and feedback opportunities.
Researchers suggest that systematic and appropriate use of formative assessments
aligned with standards can drastically improve student achievement in high poverty
urban areas (Marzano, 2003; Tilly, 2006).
Through his own studies of 90/90/90 schools, Reeves (2004) is able to support
Marzano’s and Springboard Schools’ claims to the importance of standards-based
instruction. This study identifies schools with 90% students of color, 90% of the
students are on the free and reduced lunch program and 90% of the students are
proficient on standardized assessments. From his research, Reeves determines that
when standards used to implement, monitor, and assess as a means to guide instruction,
students are able to succeed. Although there are differences among the schools
regarding implementation of curriculum, there are organization structural and systemic
consistencies evidenced in each school. These consistencies include writing
requirements, performance assessments, teacher collaboration, and attention specifically
on learning using rigorous standards (Reeves, 2004).

48
In a study of eight high poverty urban schools in the Los Angeles profiled in,
They Have Overcome; High Poverty, High-performing Schools in California, Izumi
(2002) uncovered curriculum used and instructional methods that fostered high
achievement consistently throughout the schools. He found that each school provided a
systemic approach to teaching language arts. Curriculum was standards-based, taught
through both direct instruction, and differentiated instruction approaches. He found
teachers who offset varying student abilities by differentiating curriculum using small
group direct instruction lessons (Izumi, 2002).
Effectively run differentiated classrooms include teachers using a variety of
graphic organizers, reading materials are available at different levels, and small group
direct instruction occurs for those who need the addition support (Tomlinson, 2005).
Furthermore, teachers who incorporate differentiated instruction value the use of small
flexible learning groups, use a variety of teaching materials to address needs, and utilize
flexible pacing. Differentiated classrooms also require students to work at a level that is
challenging, yet interesting and allows choice. This choice creates a novel learning
environment that connects to their prior knowledge (Tomlinson, 2005).
Direct instruction and differentiating curriculum are two instructional
approaches to supporting students of color living in poverty in the general education
setting. However, to foster success in all content areas and reduce the risk of over-
identification of students of color living in poverty to special education a school-wide
systemic approach, Response to Intervention (RtI), has stood the test of time (Tilly,
2006). RtI is a school-based early intervention model designed to keep students in the

49
general education classroom and properly identify students with special needs. This
approach, adopted into the revised Individuals with Disabilities Act, allows schools to
use some special education funds toward intervention programs (Tilly, 2006).
RtI is a three-tier model with special education being the final tier. Fine-tuning
general class instructional practices and screening for students in need of additional
assistance is the first tier of RtI. The second tier reflects tutorial services, encompassing
a system of accountability and collaboration (Fuchs, Douglas & Fuchs Lynn, 2001).
As a way to support students who are falling below expectations, RtI suggests
weekly assessments and collaboration to monitor progress and determine whether
interventions are working through the tutorial process. By conducting weekly
assessments and collaborating, staff can make changes to the curriculum and instruction
in order to increase student achievement as needed (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2001; Tilly,
2006). As teachers review what their students have learned or need to learn, some
changes they may choose to make that foster success are to provide additional
scaffolding of curriculum, provide small group instruction to review materials, or use
peer modeling to support students (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001). The assessment
process should be culturally sensitive and include multiple methods to collect data: oral
responses, organizing information provided, demonstrating knowledge by completing a
task, or written response. Ideally, multiple methods of assessment used help to combat
racial, ethnic, language, or socioeconomic differences (Banks, Cookson, Gay, &
Hawley, 2001).

50
A formal data access plan used in RtI helps set up timelines for access to data,
along with specification of how to disaggregate the data. Data used is dependent upon
localized school sites. Schools that have weekly, monthly or semester assessments use
these data tools to identify students falling behind (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001).
The data will contribute to the teachers’ ability by effectively targeting students’ needs
and adapting instructional strategies based on areas of weakness identified in the data
(Lachat & Smith, 2005). In order to use data effectively, teachers require training
through professional development opportunities. When teachers are informed of how to
use the data they are able to take the time to review assessment results, determine what
changes may need to be made with the curriculum, measure what concepts should be re-
taught, and plan for future assessments (Fischer & Johnson, 2006; Johnson, 2002). By
using data in this way, the general education setting meets the students’ academic needs
thus fewer referrals for special education. The ultimate goal of RtI is to keep students
from the labels and stigma of special education when there is evidence to suggest that
given the proper supports, the students are able to learn the curriculum and learn it to a
level of proficiency. The success of this model will have a direct impact on students of
color living in high poverty urban areas since they will receive supports from highly
trained and supported teachers who maintain high expectations for their students (Tilly,
2006).
A significant body of research identifies the use of culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy along with rigorous standards-based curriculum students of color
in high poverty urban areas as means for producing higher levels of academic

51
achievement. Learning is a social endeavor by which people acquire knowledge from
the experiences and actions that surround us (Moll, 2002). How teachers respond to the
students, encourage questions, teach and interpret the content all affect the learning
process of students (Cohen, & Loewenberg-Ball, 2001). Pedagogy that understands the
diverse learning needs of the students and adapts curriculum as seen fit by the teacher
fosters achievement through social and cultural learning opportunities (Tomlinson,
2005; Nelson-Barber, 1999).
School Culture that Promotes High Achievement
Leaders shape the organizational culture in high poverty schools contributing to
the effectiveness of a school’s achievement levels (Haberman, 1999). To create a
culture of high achievement, leaders instill a school-wide vision declaring a
commitment to student learning by maintaining high expectations for all students
regardless of their racial or socioeconomic background (Haberman, 1999). They do this
by embracing the use of professional development and school-wide culturally relevant
and responsive pedagogy aligned with standards. By empowering teachers with tools to
be responsive to cultural differences and empowering students with instructional
strategies that work, leaders build trusting relationships throughout the school and
community.
As Clarke and Estes (2002) describe, culture is something that is present in
everyone and every environment consciously and unconsciously. Culture is reflected in
our understanding of what we value, who we are, and how people work as an
organization. For this reason, providing student of color in high poverty urban areas a

52
learning environment with a culture of high expectations is prudent to enhance their
achievement.
High expectations are critical for student achievement and should permeate the
entire school climate and culture. Students must value what they are learning and
believe they will benefit from tasks required of them that support learning (Ormrod,
2002). Students are motivated to achieve when their sense of efficacy is high. Students
who feel they can achieve will or at least be motivated to achieve (Pintrich, 2003). In
order to promote self-efficacy among students within a culture of high expectations
school staff should provide competence promoting feedback, encourage mastery on
challenging tasks, set up instruction so when errors due occur it is within an overall
context of success, and utilize self-comparison opportunities rather than comparison to
others (Ormrod, 2002). A culture that thrives on student differences encourages self-
efficacy among students and works to redefine constructs of race (Jimenez, Moll,
Rodriguez-Brown, & Barrera, 1999).
The entire school staff plays a role in developing and sustaining a school culture
of high expectations. In addition to increasing teacher capacity and the staff’s
willingness to build on student differences, leaders endorse their vision of high student
achievement by encouraging student work that is reflective of grade-level standards be
showcased throughout the hallways of the school (Marzano, 2002). This provides all
members of the school community the opportunity to reflect on the achievement of
others and take pride in their school.

53
Leaders and other school staff encourage relationships with students and their
families by providing meaningful and inclusive activities that attract a wide variety of
students and their families (Nieto, 2004; Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001).
Inclusive activities provide opportunities for the school community to work together
toward common goals. According to Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley (2001), recent
research suggests student involvement in extracurricular activities contributes to
academic performance and positive interracial relationships. When students participate
in activities interracially, they too have the opportunity to learn about different cultures,
values, and beliefs.
School culture promotes high achievement in students of color when staff
members affirm students’ racial, ethnic, language and socioeconomic identities in a
comprehensive, inclusive way (Nieto, 2004; Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001;
Jimenez, Moll, Rodriguez-Brown, & Barrera, 1999). Some approaches that foster a
culture that embraces differences, values family cultures, and provides for a culturally
responsive and relevant pedagogy include the following:
• Encourage parents to use native language at home through speaking and
reading.
• Allow students to work together in same-language groups for some
cooperative group activities.
• Ask students to discuss and teach their cultural backgrounds and language to
other students and the teacher.

54
• Allow students to use their native language during non-academic settings
(Nieto, 2004).
Inclusion in the general education classroom produces higher academic
achievement for all students, including those students labeled with disabilities (Wagner,
2003). Students labeled with disabilities need help in organization, learning strategies,
social skills, and self-management and benefit from learning from their nondisabled
peers (Williams, & Reisberg, 2003). Expectations are usually higher in the general
education setting. High expectations are extremely important for all students, including
those labeled with a disability (Hehir, 2007).
Effective leaders have in place a logical decision making framework that guides
instruction for teachers to abide by that coincides with the school culture of high
expectations (Tilly, 2006). This framework works to prevent the over-identification of
students of color in special education by encouraging staff and students to recognize
that all students can and will learn in the general education classroom given the
appropriate supports are in place. RtI is reflective of many of these features.
Leadership as the Common Link
In the late 1990s four groups of researchers focused on the instructional
leadership strategies in over 395 high achieving high poverty urban schools with
students of color throughout our country. Taken from the data, a common link between
schools was that all school principals maintained the effective school model. Principals
did so by creating systems within their schools to ensure a safe and orderly environment
on campus, a culture of high expectations including, a clear and focused vision, strong

55
home-school relationships, standards-based curriculum and opportunities to learn for
both the students and the staff (Lyman and Villani, 2004).
All principals sampled demonstrated a vision that all students can learn and
should want to learn. Regardless of the common threads between so many schools, no
two principals were the same, yet all schools expressed the belief that students of color
living in high poverty urban areas could learn as well or better than their White middle-
class counterparts (Lyman and Villani, 2004).
Leadership may be the single most important aspect of effective school reform
in high poverty urban schools (Sunderman, Orfield, & Kim, 2006; Haberman, 1999;
Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). Effective leadership puts in place systems, based on
organizational structures, within the school community to enhance learning
opportunities for all students. Examples of systems effective leaders develop are
professional development opportunities and required use of culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy along with standards-based instruction. Leaders can identify
whether teachers are providing effective instructional practices by way of informal
observations and walk-throughs (Ginsberg & Murphy, 2002). Exemplary leaders in high
poverty schools also create a positive school culture aligned with a vision that all
students can learn (Haberman, 1999).
To be truly effective, leaders build leadership teams to create a culture within
the school that institutes a culture of high expectations for both students and staff along
with norms of conduct to promote professionalism and collegiality (Marzano, 2003;
Darling Hammond & Ifill-Lynch, 2006). Leadership teams assist in gaining support and

56
creating a shared vision communicating a commitment from staff to student learning
reflected throughout students’ work (Hord, 1997). Using leadership teams, leaders are
able to bring in new ideas and people to help teachers understand innovative concepts
when working with students of color who live in poverty (Johnson, 2002). Another way
to foster this is through collaboration.
In their book, Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal (2002) identify
effective leaders as being able to draw on various approaches to leadership. They
provide a four frame reference to assist leaders in conceptualizing their organization and
how to manage it in order to gain the most success. Their theory behind the four frames
suggests successful leaders utilize different leadership frames until they understand the
challenge they are up against and determine how to move forward with appropriate
systems to make the change. Using more than one frame, or perspective, is expected
and most common among successful leaders. Although effective leaders use more than
one frame at any given challenge, each frame takes on its own image: (1) structural
frame; (2) human resource frame; (3) political frame and (4) symbolic frame. As
outlined below, each frame offers unique methods for attaining organizational goals:
1. Structural frame looks comparable to a factory or machine. Rules, roles,
goals, policies, technology and the environment are the central concepts of
this approach. The leadership image is that of social architecture. The basic
leadership challenge is to attune structure with task, technology and the
environment.
2. Human resource frame is comparable to a family approach. Its central

57
concepts revolve around needs, skills, and relationships. Empowerment best
describes its image of leadership. The basic leadership challenge from the
human resource approach is alignment between the organization and human
needs.
3. Political frame is comparable with a jungle. Power, conflict, competition,
and organizational politics are the central concepts to this approach. Leaders
using this frame create an image of advocacy and their basic leadership
challenge requires developing agendas and remains power based.
4. Symbolic frame compares metaphorically to a circus, temple or theater. This
view thrives on culture, meaning, ritual, ceremony, stories, and heroes.
Symbolic leaders are inspirational. Their largest challenge is to create faith,
beauty and meaning (Bolman & Deal, 2002).
Edmonds (1986), Marzano (2002), and other researchers identified leadership
qualities that exemplify the use of the four frames when creating systems that work with
given structures to foster high student achievement of all students regardless of racial
background and socioeconomic status. School leaders face organization structural
mandates from the federal government, state requirements, and their local district. Such
structures include standards-based instruction and accountability measures based on
state assessments. By using these organizational structures as a guide, effective leaders
develop systemic methods within their schools to promote high achievement in all
students. Examples of how effective leaders utilize the four frames as a guide to
developing systemic approaches that foster school-wide effective instruction in the

58
areas of creating a culture of high expectations, providing appropriate and effective
professional development opportunities, and the use of standards-based curriculum are
described below.
To begin with, a leader who creates a culture of high expectations in a high
poverty urban school with large concentrations of students of color most likely weaves
together three frames; structural, human resources, and symbolic. By way of the
structural frame, successful leaders prepare for change within a culture by strategizing,
setting goals, and keeping the organization focused on the goal of high achievement
(Bolman & Deal, 2002). Through the human resource frame, successful leaders
promote professional growth and support to staff when faced with challenges to their
previous belief systems. Leaders who value the human resource frame help individuals
by confronting deep-seated belief systems that poor students of color are unable to learn
to the same level as their White counterparts (Bolman & Deal, 2002). Finally, perhaps
one of the most effective frames used when creating a culture of high expectations that
values cultural difference is the symbolic frame. Such as the name of this frame,
successful leaders who utilize the symbolic frame bring in symbols to the organization.
Symbols of high student achievement go from examples of student work that is meeting
or exceeding standards, to vision statements stating the belief that all students can and
will learn. Additionally, the symbolic leader develops shared values and creates
opportunities for negotiation to understand the goal better (Bolman & Deal, 2002). The
symbolic leader also understands the importance of celebrating achievements at various
stages of the students’ development of the school’s progress toward high achievement.

59
Embracing professional growth among staff adds to the culture of the school the
leader creates. Professional development takes a lot of planning from leaders in the
school organization; therefore, successful leaders combine both structural frames and
the human resource frame in order to provide meaningful growth. In Joyce and
Showers’ (2002) book, Student Achievement through Staff Development, they point out
the importance of a systematic approach to staff development. This is through the
structural frame. While planning staff developments, successful leaders align topics
with instructional needs and school goals of high student achievement (Bolman & Deal,
2002). Furthermore, the human resource frame is reflected in successful leaders while
planning for staff development when the leaders focus on needs of their staff members,
helping individuals grow through trainings and developed collaborative relationships
(Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Bolman & Deal, 2002). By way of the human resource frame,
effective leaders determine professional development based on school-wide goals
(Johnson, 2002).
Successful school leaders who value the organizational structure of standards-
based reform utilize and develop skills around standards-based curriculum and
culturally relevant and reliable pedagogy. They do so through the human resource and
symbolic frames. Since the organizational structures of the district determine most of
the curriculum used in schools, the human resource frame is evident when leaders
provide professional growth opportunities. These opportunities allow teachers to
understand how to apply the curriculum to meet the needs of their individual students.
When teachers are familiar with how to implement curriculum, they have higher levels

60
of student achievement (Tilly, 2006). Additionally, successful leaders use the symbolic
frame by celebrating students’ successes when students meet standards. Leaders also
reflect on the vision of the school when staff members challenge the use of the
curriculum provided. The structural frame is useful in ensuring that professional
development is systemic and not episodic.
Urban Schools Fostering High Achievement
A review of more recent case studies identifies common systems and structures
that promote effective school-wide instructional practices for students of color living in
poverty confirms Edmonds research of effective schools. The first case study presented
identifies systemic approaches to supporting students of color who live in poverty in
both elementary and middle schools. The second case study reflects specific effective
school-wide instructional practices based on the systemic supports placed by the
leadership.
In the first case study, Hawkins (2007) narrowed in on sixty schools in high
poverty urban areas with large concentrations of students of color in Rhode Island.
Schools selected for this study demonstrated steady growth and progress according to
state assessments. In 2000, these schools were underperforming. By 2005, these schools
were successful in closing the achievement gap for all students. Growth in both the
areas of mathematics and language arts helped close the achievement gap.
Reform efforts varied throughout the schools depending on the academic level
of the students. At the elementary level, most changes emphasized systemic reform
focused around curriculum and professional development. To advance achievement in

61
language arts, the elementary schools trained teachers to use a balanced literacy
program that worked on vocabulary building, writing, and self-selected reading. The
teachers then adapted their instructional practices to include read alouds and utilize
teacher-directed reading in the classroom. Another way schools worked to increase
student achievement in language arts was by instilling a culture of expectations
throughout the school that all students were to read at home every night.
In the area of mathematics, teachers collaborated on ways to best support
struggling students. From this collaboration, teachers created small math groups within
their classrooms as a means to offer in-depth instruction. In both language arts and
mathematics, teachers used instructional methods that provided immediate feedback.
Furthermore, based on the systemic supports, teachers were able to teach all students
within their general education classrooms.
Middle schools made structural changes in conjunction with systemic changes
focused heavily on professional development. A major structural change reconfigured
the daily schedule. All middle schools established block scheduling for language arts,
emphasizing an importance of high expectations in this content area. Additionally,
built- in collaboration time was established. This created opportunities for teachers to
plan curriculum and analyze student work. Collaboration time also allowed general
education teachers to work special education teachers to learn more about scaffolding
the curriculum and differentiation. Along with collaboration time, other professional
development available assisted in building capacity within teachers. As part of the

62
professional development, leaders created the opportunity for teachers to observe one
another as a means of further develop their own teaching practices (Hawkins, 2007).
In the second case study by Carolan and Guinn (2007), specific emphasis was on
how organizational structures and systems support inclusive pedagogy in the San
Francisco area. This case study was much smaller and included only data collection
from only five teachers. The teachers interviewed and observed in this study identified
systemic approaches their leaders created that helped to foster classrooms that reflect
inclusive culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy. One systemic approach was the
use of multiple strategies to create a culture of high expectations and the importance of
a safe learning environment for students as well as staff members. Another systemic
measure was professional development targeted toward teacher collaboration. During
collaboration, teachers reviewed student work and analyzed data. By doing so, teachers
were able to adapt their curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of their individual
students.
Systemic support from the leadership allowed teachers to create successful
learning environments for their students. Through knowledge gained from collaboration
and other professional development, teachers promoted high achievement within their
classroom. Carolan and Guinn identified four common themes rooted in each of the five
classrooms that cultivated high achievement:
1. Teachers personalized the curriculum and scaffolding as needed.
2. Teachers set goals for individual students and were flexible in order to
achieve the desired outcomes.

63
3. Teachers were experts in the content they were teaching.
4. Classrooms were caring and thrived on the differences of each student
(Carolan & Guinn, 2007).
Comparing both the Carolan and Guinn and the Hawkin’s case studies
demonstrates systemic approaches that support high achievement of students of color in
high poverty urban. These systems, along with structural supports, influence effective
school-wide instructional practices. Specific systems and instructional practices
reflected in both case studies include:
• Strong instructional leadership provided a vision for their schools.
• A culture of high expectations focused on achievement.
• Professional development included training on research-based practices.
• Staff hired was highly qualified and committed, trained, and responsive
to the needs of the students.
• Teams of teachers took time to analyze students work.
• Teachers used multiple forms of assessment.
• Differentiated instruction used throughout the day.
• Instructional time increased to improve literacy.
• Schools involved the students and parents in the learning process more
frequently and made the school a safe place to learn and be
• Inclusive strategies engaged students with disabilities (Carolan & Guinn,
2007; Hawkins, 2007).

64
The findings from the Carolan and Guinn (2007) and the Hawkins (2007)
parallel the large amount of research around a sociocultural theory of learning. The
evidence above strengthens the previous research that emphasizes the need for systemic
approaches to enhance instructional practices and school culture.
Conclusion
All students deserve appropriate attention at throughout their educational
experiences to obtain high outcomes given their unique combination of educational
needs and abilities. Students of color living in high poverty can perform up the
expectations set for them given they are allowed equal opportunities in a school who’s
culture promotes high achievement for all students and values cultural differences
amongst the school population. Leaders within the school are able to create this culture
of high expectations that work against the old constructs of race using systemic
approaches. They do so by empowering staff through professional development focused
on cultural awareness and instructional practices, along with empowering students by
promoting school-wide culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy aligned with
standards.
Schools must systemically reengineer basic structures in place so learning can
occur. By way of effective professional development, school-wide instructional
practices and a school culture that promotes high achievement, early interventions will
eliminate over-identification of students of color and students in poverty. Professional
development that challenges teachers to identify and grapple with their belief systems
about students of color who live in poverty helps to remove old constructs of race that

65
are damaging to students of color (Banks, Cookson, Gay, & Hawley, 2001). Instruction
that reflects students’ cultural, racial, ethnic, language and socioeconomic backgrounds
encourages students to participate in the learning process and promotes high
achievement.
A house is only as beautiful as the people inside. Organizational structures may
provide a blueprint of how to build a school, but the systems in place to support the
people inside is what makes one school more effective than the next. Students of color
living in high poverty urban areas need systemic approaches to make their house as
beautiful as the next.

66
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
This study was designed to delineate organizational systems and structures that
promote promising instructional practices that support students of color in high poverty
schools to be high academic achievers. Many studies have measured and determined
best practices in teaching in general. Numerous studies define how poverty influences
educational outcomes. Statistics released describe educational outcomes of students of
color. Relatively few studies examined how best practices implemented through
organizational systems and structures work in urban schools where the majority of
students attending are students of color living in poverty. Even fewer studies have
attempted to define and publicize how and in what ways these systems and structures
foster best instructional practices to support students of color living in high poverty
urban areas. In addition to investigative studies of instructional practices for all
students, the design of this study encompassed how these practices, implemented
systemically, prevent students of color from the over-identification in special education.
This study was conducted under the auspices of the University of Southern California’s
Rossier School of Education in a thematic dissertation group chaired by Dr. Sylvia G.
Rousseau.
This chapter includes the research questions for this study, the design of the
study as well as a rationale for the case study approach. Additionally, sampling
strategies and the data collection process, including instrumentation are described.

67
Theoretical Framework
This study worked with a theoretical framework developed through
contributions from the thematic group. This framework guided the development of the
research questions in order to understand how organizational systems and structures
promote effective school-wide instruction that fosters high academic achievement in
students of color who live in high poverty urban areas. The framework, as demonstrated
in Figure 2-1, captures three critical elements that affect high student performance: 1)
historical, societal, and educational influences, 2) contemporary societal and
educational influences, 3) school site systemic and structural influences.
Historical, societal, and educational influences contribute to the negative impact
of the treatment of people of color in the nation’s history. African Americans began
their history in America as slaves, deprived of connections to their African cultures as
well as education in America that included reading and writing (Stephan, 1980). White
government overpowered Hispanics and a limited number of students received
education in separate schools (Atkins, 1978). These disparities fostered many harmful
beliefs about students of color and their ability to learn (Stephan, 1980). Through many
efforts of Civil Rights activists, court mandates declared, “Separate is unequal.”
Contemporary societal and educational influences have responded to the Civil
Rights Act and court mandates. Since the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, major
changes occurred in the public education system in efforts to better support students of
color and those living in poverty. In efforts to create schools that are more equitable
across the country, the federal government has taken a stronger role. Structures

68
provided by the federal and state government require standards-based efforts to be made
in education and accountability systems to be in place to monitor student and over-all
school performance (Sunderman, Orfield, & Kim, 2006). Despite these large-scale
reform efforts, an achievement gap continues to exist, students of color continue to be
overrepresented in special education, and historical sentiments prevail in much of
today’s society (Ladson-Billings, 2004).
Regardless of the continued barriers, localized district and some school site level
systemic approaches to change are able to work within government structures
established to foster high student achievement for students of color living in poverty.
Researchers identified systemic approaches that influence this achievement. Some of
the most influential systemic approaches in producing high academic achievers among
students of color living in poverty consist of professional development, culturally
relevant and responsive pedagogy, strong leadership approaches, and a positive school
culture.

69
Figure 6: Theoretical Framework

The research questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What are the trends and patterns of 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?
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?

70

Study Design
This study represented a case study design that explored a phenomenon:
systems and structures that support instructional practices for students of color who
attend urban, high-poverty high-achieving schools including considerations of students
with disabilities (Merriam, 1998). It offers an in-depth look at a phenomenon in real-
life settings using perspectives of the participants involved (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).
This case study was “extreme” because its purpose was to identify instructional
practices that produce high achievers in what many consider extreme cases (Patton,
2000).
Nomination and Selection Process
Sample and Population
This study utilized purposeful sampling by gathering in-depth data from a small
number of information-rich cases. While purposeful sampling posed some limitations
for the researcher because the information attained was very site specific, this approach
did provide opportunities to gain in-depth insights regarding the systems and structures
that support high achievement (Patton, 2000). This study purposefully sought schools
located in urban centers with students of color who live in poverty yet are high
achievers. Nomination started with a pool of schools, mainly from California, then
narrowed down based on established criteria from the dissertation group. Schools
chosen for this study had to meet the following criteria:
1) The school selected for this case study had to be in an urban setting.

71
An urban school, as defined by the dissertation group for this study, is
one situated within a high population density and is in an area rich in
diverse racial and ethnic culture.
2) The school was to be located in an area of poverty as indicated by
seventy-five percent of more of the student population receiving free
and reduced the lunch program.
3) The school had to be recognized as high achieving based on the
definition of high achievement delineated by the thematic dissertation
team: school-wide trajectory of Academic Performance Index (API)
and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) growth evidenced over three years
among all subgroups. There must also be a minimum positive
movement of two deciles within 3-5 years, based on California
Standards Testing and school ranking.
4) The number of students at the nominated school site identified with a
label of special education could not exceed ten percent of the student
population.
Connecting with Individual School Sites
Once schools that met the criteria were identified, researchers contacted
individual school sites via telephone and electronic mail. One school was chosen for the
case study based on permission of site and district level administration, and ability to
meet required criteria established by the research group.

72
Selected School
Calvin Elementary School met the criteria established by the dissertation team.
It is one of 60 elementary schools in the nation’s most diverse school district. Out of the
90,000 students enrolled in the district, 65% of the students receive free and reduced
lunch. The demographics include a variety of student backgrounds: 4% Asian, 1%
Pacific Islander, 4% Filipino, 50% Hispanic, 18% African American, 17% White and
6% Multiple ethnicities.
The district is highly innovative, emphasizing proficiency of all students. It has a
highly qualified staff and frequent rich professional development opportunities. The
past three awards received since 2003 evidence their success. In 2003, the district was
awarded the Broad Prize for Urban Education and received a grant of $1 million. They
were later nominated for the same award in 2007. Also in 2007, the district received the
Golden Bell award, which recognizes outstanding performance and safe learning
environments for students.
Calvin Elementary School, a K-5 multi-tracked year round school, reflects the
success of the district even though the demographics are much different. The vast
majority of students attending Calvin Elementary School are students of color, with
only nine students being White. Eighty-three percent of the students are Hispanic or
Latino, eight percent are Asian, seven percent are African American, and one percent is
Pacific Islander. Moreover, all students who attend Calvin Elementary School receive
free and reduced lunch.

73
The school encountered pressure from the State Department of Education in
1999 when it was one of the lowest performing in the district. At that time, a new
principal was appointed and has been there ever since leading reform efforts to promote
proficiency in all students. Those efforts were made clear in 2003 when Calvin
Elementary School made the most gains out of all elementary schools in the district.
The school implemented programs that supported literacy, standards-based instruction,
professional development. It also hired highly skilled teachers, and incorporated
instructional strategies that support all students assisted in the improved student
performance. By 2003, Calvin Elementary School began receiving awards of academic
excellence for their improvements. Awards range from district level awards to national
honor. In 2004 Calvin Elementary School received the California Distinguished School
Award and is being considered again for the 2007-2008 school year.
Beginning in 1999 when the Academic Performance Index (API) first began
evaluated schools’ effectiveness, Calvin earned only 545 points out of 1000. Today, it
has improved to an API of 768. Based on last year’s California State Assessments;
35.8% of the students are proficient or advanced in English/Language Arts while 60%
of the students are proficient or advanced in mathematics.
School Participants
Twelve participants were selected to partake in formal interviews. Stakeholders
interviewed included the principal, certified staff as recommended by the principal,
based on the academic performance of their students and on the “volunteer” status of

74
the participant. The same applied to the selection of the classified staff members, and
the parent who volunteered to participate. Specific participants included:
The principal. The principal was appointed to this school eight years ago
regardless of her disinterest of being a principal. She came to the school with a strong
background in special education and curriculum and instruction. Her role in the district
prior to being a principal included planning and implementing district-wide professional
development.
Resource Specialist: The reading resource specialist was hired days before the
principal and has collaborated with her. Before becoming the reading specialist, she
worked in another school within the district as a general education teacher of primary
grades.
Resource Support Personnel: She worked in special education throughout the
district for 31 years; seven being at this school. She is treated as part of the staff.
Custodian: This custodian retired shortly after the interview. He spent his last
thirteen years working at this school.
Parent: As a parent of six children, her youngest is the only one left at this
school. She is the head of the Recreational Aides. Here, she oversees all the children on
the playground.
Fifth Grade Excel/GATE Teacher: Although her eighth year teaching and at this
school, this is her first year teaching the Excel/GATE class.
Fifth Grade Teacher: This teacher switched twelve years of teaching third
graders to fifth grade this year.

75
Fourth Grade Teacher: The fourth grade teacher began her teaching career at
this school under the administration of this principal. She has taught fourth grade for six
years.
Third Grade Teacher: As this year marks her twenty-first year at the school, this
teacher has been through many changes.
Second Grade Teacher, Excel: This teacher has worked at the school for twenty-
seven years. He began his teaching career in kindergarten and remained there for twelve
years. Following that experience, he was a reading specialist and then a third grade
teacher. He is now working with the excel scholars of second grade.
First Grade Teacher: This teacher has been with the school for few years and
has taught first grade.
Kindergarten Teacher (Full-Day): This bilingual teacher began ten years ago as
the only full-day kindergarten teacher. Today she shares that role with two other
teachers. Her job is to work with students with the lowest English language acquisition;
teaching them the kindergarten standards, while assisting them with their language
development.
Instrumentation and the Data-Collection Process
The three methods of data collection included artifacts, interviews, and
observations. Triangulation provided by these three methods support reliability and
validity of the study (Patton, 2000). The research team worked collaboratively to
determine concise research questions based on the theoretical framework included in
this study.

76
• The first research question focused on the final component of the
theoretical framework that relates to student outcomes in academic
achievement in high poverty schools with large concentrations of
students of color.
• The second research question connected with the overall theoretical
framework used to guide this study. It sought to identify what systems
and structures in place appear to influence and support high achievement
in students of color in high poverty urban schools.
• The third research question targeted school-wide implementation of
instructional practices.
• Finally, the fourth research question focused on historical and current
societal and educational influences by identifying constructs of race at
work within the school. It also helped to identify school site systemic
and structural influences on the constructs of race.
Information from the literature guided the dissertation group to identify the
theoretical frame and research questions to channel the data collection. After the
identification of research questions and theoretical frame, the next step included
determining the criteria for selecting schools to participate in the case studies. Lastly,
the group worked collaboratively to develop instruments for interviews and
observations.
Prior to conducting any interviews or observations, the thematic group attained
informed consent from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in accordance to their

77
guidelines. After receiving approval from the district, the researcher contacted the
school-site administrator in order to guarantee the participation, flexibility, and time
required from the school staff. To ensure accuracy, transcription of interviews occurred.
Data Collection Instruments
Artifacts consist of rich sources of data that reveal equities and inequities within
a school’s systems (Merriam, 1998; Johnson, 2002) Artifacts collected reflect the
school culture and the systems in place. For example, information taken from the
collected artifacts provided insight into how students were instructed, graded,
disciplined, and recognized throughout the school. A complete list of artifacts collected
can be found in Table 1.

78

Table 1: Artifacts Collected
Artifacts Research
Question #1:
Performance
Trends
Research
Question #2:
Systems and
Structures
Research
Question #3:
School-wide
Instruction
Research
Question #4:
Constructs
of Race
Collected From
Administration:
Meeting Agendas

x

x

x

x
Master Calendar x x x x
Classroom
Configuration

x

x

x

x
School-Wide
Discipline Plan

x

x

x
School-Wide
Schedule

x x
Ethnicity of Staff x
Mission/Vision
School Site Plan

x

x

x
Parental Involvement
Plan

x

x

x
Professional
Development
Agendas

x

x

x
School Site Council
Agendas

x

x

x

District Assessments x x x
Referrals x x x x
Volunteer Schedule x x x
Grading Procedures x x
Blank Report Card x x
Collected From
Teachers:
Assessments

x

x

x

x
Curriculum x x x x
Grading Rubric x x x
Grading Procedures x x x
Classroom Discipline
Plan

x

x

x
Volunteer Schedule x x x

79

Interviews

Interviews were one principle method of data collection utilized in this study.
Each interview lasted 30-45 minute and occurred only once for each participant.
Educational research typically uses interviews to collect data that are not readily
observable including: interests, values, and inner experience (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).
The thematic dissertation team collaboratively developed interview questions for semi-
structured interviews. Each stakeholder subgroup had designated interview questions
that reflected the research questions of the case study. Table 2 identifies how the
interview questions align with the research questions of the case study. Designated
interview questions per stakeholder subgroup included up to eight open-ended questions
followed by possible probing questions. According to Merriam (1998), open-ended
questions allow for the greatest response from stakeholders. Prior to the use of questions
for the actual case study, all questions were field tested to establish internal validity.
Table 2: Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions
Interview
Questions
Research
Question #1
Research
Question #2
Research
Question #3
Research
Question #4
Question #1 X X
Question #2 X X
Question #3 X X
Question #4 X X
Question #5 X X
Question #6 X X X X
Question #7 X X X

80
Observations
Interviews alone were not conducive to providing enough data since teachers
mainly responded to instructional practices they carry out in their own classrooms;
therefore, school-wide observations added a means to understand happenings beyond
those individual classrooms (Merriam, 1998). The classroom of each teacher
interviewed was observed once for a time period that was the least disruptive to
instruction, ranging between 45 minutes to one hour. Observations created an
opportunity for researchers to witness systems in place that supported the high
achievement of students of color attending a high poverty urban school. Through the
collaboration process, the dissertation group developed observation instruments that
focused on key categories and some examples aligned with the established research
questions of the study and the theoretical framework. The observation instruments
reflected sociocultural theories of learning and emphasized the interaction between
teachers and students and among students in a standards-based curriculum. Three
observation instruments developed guided the data collection process to ensure the
researcher captured the scope of the daily life of the school. Additionally, guided
protocols were devised to facilitate data collections for three predetermined activities:
classroom instructional practices, professional development, and a leadership meeting
as well as hall and playground interactions. The observation protocol came from models
developed by Patton (2000) who recommended scripting versus a checklist to ensure the
researcher captured the depth and breadth of each observed setting.

81
Data Analysis
Figure 7: General Data Analysis Process

Some data analysis occurred with data collection as recommended by Merriam
(1998) and Cresswell (2004). Figure 7 shows the basic structure of the data analysis
process used. The researcher started with the first step from Cresswell (2004) by
preparing and organizing data for analysis. The research questions for the case study
provided a framework two organize the data. Data organization resulted in categories
and themes that aligned with the research questions so it was retrievable during
intensive analysis following the data collection (Patton, 2000). Once the data were
organized, the researcher read the data looking for trends and patterns. Next, the
researcher coded the data using a numbering system based on similar categories and
topics that emerged from the data as they aligned with the research questions. Each
topic addressed in the data had a number assigned to it. After coding the data, the

82
researcher spent time describing the school community members, setting, themes
consistent with the literature review and categories that surfaced. Following the coding,
descriptions, and categorizing, the researcher represented findings by way of a
narrative. A narrative analyzing the phenomenon and data collected painted a portrait of
the school. This included direct citations from participants and a comparison of results
from the study and literature and theories on the topic (Cresswell, 2004). Finally, the
researcher derived categories and themes consistent with the literature review from the
data to describe the phenomenon. By linking the categories and concepts established,
inferences were made to generate theories that helped answer the research questions
(Merriam, 1998). Table 3 describes specific steps used throughout the data analysis
process.

83
Table 3: Detailed Process of Data Analysis
Step One:
Organize and Prepare
• Sort and arrange the data
• Transcribe interviews
Step Two:
General Sense
• Read through all data
• Reflect on the overall meaning
• Record general thoughts about data
Step Three:
Coding
• Create and label categories
• Organize the material into
“chunks”/categories
Step Four:
Description
• Generate a description of the
setting/people/categories/themes
• Detail rendering of information
• Generate small number of
themes/categories
• Display multiple perspectives
Step Five:
Representation
• Narrative passage to convey the findings
of the analysis
• Detail discussion of themes
• Discussion with interconnecting themes
• Present a process model (grounded in
theory)
Step Six:
Interpretations
• Meaning of the data
• Lessons learned
• Researcher’s personal interpretation
• Meaning derived from comparison of
the findings to literature/theories
Source: Cresswell (2002)

Validity and Reliability
To guide in the data analysis process to confirm findings and assist with validity
of the research the researchers used triangulation (Cresswell, 2004). The researcher
recorded and transcribed all interviews then read the transcriptions thoroughly and
divided them into themes that coincided with the research questions. The use of
consistent, field-tested interview questions helped ensure the validity and reliability of
the study.

84
Legal and Ethical Principles
Before research began, the University of Southern California’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB) approved the study. Participants of the study were exclusive to
adults, i.e., teachers, parents, classified staff, and administrators. Observations of
classrooms and hallway activities took place under the context of typical educational
activities; study findings and the narrative do not include the identities of students.
Individual student records were not a part of this study. Teachers removed students
name prior to submitting student work samples for data collection. Interviews only took
place with adults. Adult participation was voluntary and information remained
confidential.

85
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
Chapter Four reviewed the results of a case study of the efforts and
achievements of a high performing school located in a high poverty urban area
supporting large concentrations of students of color. One school was chosen for this
case study in order to gain in-depth knowledge of the systems and structures within one
high poverty urban school with large concentrations of students of color that foster high
levels of success. A case study design was used as a holistic approach that concentrated
on the description of a singular unit.
The results reviewed reflect findings in relation to the following four research
questions:
5. What are the trends and patterns of performance among students of color?
6. 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?
7. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
8. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?
This study explored the systems and structures within Calvin Elementary School
perceived to foster high student performance. Five instruments were developed to
collect data relevant to the research questions of the study. The instruments included:
(1) Interview Protocols (Appendix A-D); (2) Observation Guides (Appendix E-H).

86
Interview protocols designed by the thematic dissertation group targeted stakeholders to
be interviewed; therefore questions reflected structure and word choice specific to the
interviewee. Observation guides used provided structure for observing meetings, staff
developments, classrooms, and the physical environment. Data were gathered using
interviews, observations, and the collection and analysis of artifacts allowed the
researcher to triangulate the data. The results reviewed in Chapter Four directly reflect
the research questions and were followed by in-depth analysis and description.
Data Findings
Research Question 1: Trends and Patterns
The first question asked, “What are the trends and patterns of performance
among students of color?” To analyze the trends and patterns at Calvin Elementary
School a variety of data was needed to understand how the school functioned on behalf
of students’ of color growth and development.
Before beginning the analysis of the data, it is important for the reader to understand the
demographics of Calvin Elementary School. Nearly all of the students are students of
color. Only nine students are White in a school of 1040 students. Figure 8 represents the
student ratio per demographic category for the 2007-2008 school year. Table 3
represents a comprehensive look at the student demographics from 2001-2008. Figures
later in this section will compare the student ratios to identify trends and patterns of
students of color at Calvin Elementary School.

87
Figure 8: School Enrollment by Ethnicity for 2007-2008

Table 4: Student Enrollment per Ethnicity
Source: California Department of Education

2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
School
wide

1168

1123

1142

1143

1146

1074

1045
America
n Indian
or
Alaskan
Native
4 3 2 0 0 0 0
Asian 75 68 71 73 72 65 62
Pacific
Islander

22

13

17

14

7
8 11
Filipino 4 4 2 2 9 6 11
Hispanic
or Latino
925 916 933 946 961 911 857
African
America
n
134 111 107 98 89 73 94
White/no
n-
Hispanic
4 8 10 10 8 7 9

88
Since the 2001 school year, enrollment at Calvin Elementary School has
decreased; however, based on the data, the demographics of the school have changed
little. Hispanic students remained the majority of the population. African American and
Asian students made up the next largest subgroups. Consistently, Native American,
Filipino, Pacific Islander, and White/Non-Hispanic students represented about three
percent of the student population.
Calvin Elementary School also has held a large number of English Language
Learners. The primary non-English language was Spanish. Khmer or Cambodian was
the next largest number of non-English language spoken at Calvin Elementary School.
Table 5 provides a detailed description of the languages spoken other than English over
the past six years.
Table 5: Percentage of English Learners
Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit (2002-2007)

2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
School-
wide
79% 78% 69% 67% 67% 64%
Spanish 74% 73% 65% 63% 63% 60%
Khmer
(Cambodian)
1.6% 2% 2.5% 2.7% 2.3% 2.4%
Vietnamese 1.2% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%
Samoan <1% <1% <1% 0% 0% 0%
All Other
Non-English
Languages
<1% <1% <1% <1% 0% <1%
Hmong <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%
Lao <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%
Filipino <1% <1% 0% <1% <1% <1%
Cantonese <1% <1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

89
Despite the large numbers of ELL students, Calvin Elementary School made
steady academic growth based on the California State Test (CST) scores as measured by
the Annual Performance Index (API). Growth became apparent beginning in 2001.
Each subgroup made progress and met annual goals consistently, with the exception of
2006 when there was a slight dip in test scores. This is demonstrated in Figure 9. Prior
to 2002 API scores remained in the 500 range.
Figure 9: API Growth from 2001-2007

Looking specifically at patterns of performance in the area of Language Arts,
school-wide, Calvin Elementary School steadily made progress with a larger percentage
of students performing within the proficient or advanced proficient level based on CST

90
results. Figure 10 provides a picture of student performance based on Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP).
Figure 10: AYP Language Arts
0
3.25
6.5
9.75
13
16.25
19.5
22.75
26
29.25
32.5
35.75
39
42.25
45.5
48.75
52
55.25
58.5
61.75
65
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
School-Wide School-Wide
African
American
African
American
Asian Asian
Hispanic Hispanic
English
Learners
English
Learners
Students with
Disabilities
Students with
Disabilities
School Year

California Department of Education
Percent At or Above Proficiency

At Calvin Elementary School an achievement gap exists between Asian students
and the Hispanic and African American students in the area of Language Arts.
Nonetheless both Hispanic and African American subgroups met AYP growth
requirements according to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Asian students
increased their rates of proficiency from 2003-2005, but actually decreased the
percentage by ten percentage points in 2006 and 2007. Since the 2002 assessments,
Hispanic and African American students made considerable growth, doubling the
number of students performing at or above proficiency. The percent of Hispanic

91
students at proficient or above range increase by 16 percent, while African American
students scoring in the proficient or above range increased by 20.8 percent. English
Learners increased the percentage of students proficient or above by 12.6 percent. The
results for students with disabilities results were extremely scattered. The percentage of
students with disabilities achieving proficient or above in English language arts
decreased by 6.8 percent since 2001.
Looking at patterns of performance in the area of mathematic, Calvin
Elementary School made notable growth school-wide since 2001 according to CST
results. Each subgroup met AYP goals each year since 2001. Figure 11 provides a
picture of student performance based on AYP.
Figure 11: AYP Mathematics
10
13.75
17.5
21.25
25
28.75
32.5
36.25
40
43.75
47.5
51.25
55
58.75
62.5
66.25
70
73.75
77.5
81.25
85
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
School-Wide School-Wide
African
American
African
American
Asian Asian
Hispanic Hispanic
English
Learners
English
Learners
Students with
Disabilities
Students with
Disabilities
School Year

California Department of Education
Percent At or Above Proficiency

92
According to the results of the CSTs, Hispanic students and English Learners
progressed consistently with the school-wide growth. All groups doubled their percent
proficient or above since 2001 with 60 percent of the students fitting in that category.
African American students also doubled their percentage of students proficient or above
since 2001. An achievement gap exists between this subgroup and Hispanic students,
Asian students, and English Learners. Aside from 2004 and 2005, African American
students’ proficiency in mathematics was at a minimum 10 percent less than the other
subgroups and up to 25 percent less, falling below even students with disabilities in
2003. Asian students still outperform all other subgroups. Students with disabilities
made the least amount of growth with a decrease in the percentage of students at or
above proficiency since 2001 by 1.5 percent. Between the years 2005 and 2006 a drop
occurred in all subgroups. Each subgroup, with the exception of African American
students, dropped within 12 percent. The number of African American students
measuring in the proficient to advanced levels dropped 20 percent during that year.
The number of Spanish speaking students has declined steadily since 2001. In
2001 there were 756 Spanish speaking students while in 2006 there were only 509.
With the decline in number of Spanish speakers, a decline of students testing at the
beginning and early intermediate levels also occurred. Consistently, the intermediate
level maintained the largest number of students tested and students categorized as
advanced maintained the smallest numbers of students. Figure 12 represents testing
results from the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) from 2001-
2007.

93
Looking at the data it is evident that, as the percentages at the beginning and
early intermediate levels decrease, there is little increase at the early advanced or
advanced levels with the exception of 2003-2004. Also, in 2006-2007 the percent of
ELL at beginning and early intermediate levels increased. This shift appears to mirror
the drop in the CST scores from the same school year.
Figure 12: CELDT Annual Scores
0
160
320
480
640
800
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
226
215
238
66
11
55
138
277
109
31
72
105
268
148
48
34
151
284
108
16
25
108
260
106
7
63
129
231
77
9 Advanced
Early
Advanced
Intermediate
Early
Intermediate
Beginning
School Year
Number of Students Tested

Source: California Department of Education
Regardless of the large numbers of ELL students, retention rates at Calvin
Elementary remain low. According to data provided by the school office for the 2007
school year, there were no kindergarten retentions. Still, two percent of the student
population was retained. Retention rates were higher in first and third grade. Figure 18
displays the number of students retained per ethnic make-up. Hispanic students retained
represented exactly the same percentage of representation at Calvin Elementary School.

94
Similarly, Asian and African American students were retained equally based on their
representation at the school. This is described in Table 6.
Table 6: Retention Rates

Hispanic African
American
Asian Total
First Grade 9 1 1 11
Second Grade 2 0 0 2
Third Grade 7 1 0 8
Fourth Grade 0 0 0 0
Fifth Grade 1 0 1 2

The percentage of students labeled with a disability at Calvin Elementary School
fell much below the national average. Only three percent of the school population was
labeled with a disability, while the national average is around ten percent. One reason
for this low identification may be that students who lived in the boundaries of the
school that have moderate to severe disabilities attended an alternative school site. This
has implications for the categories of special education for which students are
identified. Another reason that will be addressed in greater detail later in this chapter
may be the level of general education support students receive before referral to special
education. Nevertheless, the ratio of students with disabilities at Calvin Elementary
School fits closely with the ratio of students enrolled per ethnic make-up with the
exception of the Asian population. At the time the data were collected, there were no
Asian students receiving special education services. Figure 4.8 creates a picture that can
be compared with Figure 4.1 to better understand representation of students based on
their ethnic make-up.

95
In addition to students who received special education support for the 2007-
2008 school year. Data were provided regarding referrals to special education by the
site Resource Specialist. In the 2006-2007 school year, eight referrals were made. Two
of the referrals were students who came to the school that year from another state. From
August 2007-February 2008, only one special education referral was submitted by the
staff members of Calvin Elementary School.
This graph clearly shows that the representation of students with special needs is
proportionate to the size of the ethnic group in the school. Based on the numbers of
students receiving special education, the percent of each population in special education
is quite small. Only 2 percent of Hispanic students and less than 1 percent of African
American students and students in the Other category receive special education. These
numbers are reflective of students labeled with Learning Disabilities, Autism, and Other
Health Impairments. Students with more severe cognitive and behavioral needs receive
support at an alternative setting. Therefore the numbers of students in special education
is most likely lower than if the district provided all supports for students with
disabilities at their homeschools. Regardless, based on the data provided, there does not
appear to be an overrepresentation of students of color in the areas often over-identified
as mentioned in the literature review. Figure 13 provides a provides a picture of the
ethnic backgrounds represented in special education at Calvin Elementary School.

96
Figure 13: Demographics of Students in Special Education
20
1
2
Hispanic
Asian
African
American
Other

According the staff members at Calvin Elementary School, student discipline
was rarely a concern. The principal explained that a good discipline policy is a good
lesson plan. She stated that if students were engaged they did not have time to get into
trouble. This statement may hold true based on the data provided of the number of
students disciplined during the first two-thirds of the 2007-2008 school year. According
to the discipline summary by ethnic code from Calvin Elementary School, out of the
fifty-two discipline actions documented, only four incidents were from females. Figure
14 represents a discipline summary based on the students’ ethnicity. These data showed
there to be a disproportionate number of students labeled in the Other category who
received disciplinary action. Additionally, Asian students represented only 2 percent of
the discipline reports. African American students’ incidences of discipline reflected
only 11 percent of incidents reported, while Hispanic incidences represented 32 percent
of reported discipline actions.

97

Figure 14: Demographics of Students Disciplined

Staff Demographics
The demographics of the staff, although not reflective of the vast majority of
students of color, did offer varying cultural backgrounds. Classified staff represented
the greatest number of people of color, while certified staff and administrators reflected
the student demographics even less. These data reflect one of the five tenets of Critical
Race Theory which refutes the claims educational organizations state regarding
colorblindness, equal opportunity, objectivity, meritocracy, and race neutrality
(Solorzano, 1998). The data provided demonstrates that the majority of people of color
who worked at the school held classified positions. Certified staff and the
administration were White, nearly the opposite of the actual ethnic make-up of the

98
students who attended Calvin Elementary School. Table 7 demonstrates the comparison
of demographics between the staff and students.
Table 7: Staff Demographics
Asian Filipino Hispanic A.A. White Am. I.
Classified 7% 0 48% 30% 11% 4%
Teach/cert 7% 2% 25% 5% 60% 2%
Admin. 0 0 0 0 100% 0
Students 6% 0 84% 9% <1% 0

In summary, in a school with the majority of students being students of color,
Hispanic, African American, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American Indian, it appeared
that representation based on ethnicity in special education and disciplinary actions were
reflective of the student population. Academic assessments, although they demonstrated
a steady progression of school-wide growth, indicated that Asian students outperform
the entire school and African American students proficiency rates were lower than the
school-wide average. Finally, staff representation did not reflect the high percentage of
Hispanic students that attended Calvin Elementary School.
Research Question 2: Organizational Structures and Systems
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?” Analysis of the
organizational systems and structures perceived to promote high student performance
was facilitated by patterns revealed from the collection of artifacts. Interviews and
observations supported the patterns disclosed from the artifacts. The theoretical
framework used to guide this data analysis stemmed from Edmonds’ effective schools

99
research and that of later data collected points to additional systemic efforts specific to
schools with large populations of students of color.
Structures
Structures, as defined by the thematic dissertation group, are institutional
mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by federal, state or district policy and
legislation or widely accepted as the official structure of schools not subject to change
at the local school site (i.e., personnel policies, use of instructional time, program
regulations). Federal regulations from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and state
regulations that complied with NCLB required Calvin Elementary School to teach with
a scientifically based curriculum. Calvin Elementary School’s high poverty level and
previous low reading scores qualified them as a Title I and Reading First school.
Title I is a federally funded program which allocates money to state agencies to
pass along to local education agencies servicing high numbers of students living in
poverty. The allocated money contributed to additional services offered at Calvin.
Funds assisted in the payment of resource specialists, interim schooling for students not
meeting benchmarks and for professional development opportunities. Title I offered
additional learning opportunities and academic support in order to assist children in
meeting state standards and master challenging curriculum.
Reading First is also a federally funded program that provided additional funds
to support reading instruction in the general education classroom. Funds were to be used
for staff development with the expectation that teachers will be trained in scientifically
based methodologies screening and diagnostic tools.

100
Calvin Elementary School is required by law to follow the structures set by the
state. The state of California has created standards at each grade level that students are
expected to meet or exceed. In order to measure the standards on a yearly basis,
California requires the administration of standardized assessments. Additionally, for
English Learners the State Board of Education required the schools to use the English
Language Development Test (CELDT) to classify and monitor student progress.
Calvin’s school district monitored progress and fulfillment of state regulations
by maintaining timelines for assessments to be completed. The district also required the
school to analyze the data presented in assessment results in order to plan for future
staff development as well as to determine alternative teaching methods that may better
suit the needs of the students. The district used innovative practices to restructure
instruction based on data collected. For example, they altered the way math instruction
was taught and allowed teachers to determine what concepts they felt pertinent to teach
in order for students to meet the grade level standards. During the observation process,
three teachers demonstrated the new math instruction called Map 2D. Each teacher
consistently applied the teaching strategies they stated they learned through training. To
begin the lesson they state the objective to be taught. Then, they instruct as a whole
group and model how to solve and think through the problem. The next step asked for
students to participate in the problem solving. Finally, the students worked through a
few problems as the teachers walked around the room to assess whether the students
understood the concept. Depending on the number of students who had difficulty

101
understanding the concept the teacher either worked individually with students or
repeated the process to the whole group.
Another example of a structure the district provided was Thinking Maps. The
district encouraged the use of Thinking Maps; Calvin Elementary embraced Thinking
Maps and incorporated them across all grade levels, including kindergarten. The use of
Thinking Maps is a primary instructional tool consistent across grade levels from
kindergarten through fifth grade as part of their daily instruction. In the early grades,
children learn how to understand the thinking maps. In the upper grades, the
expectations of how students use Thinking Maps changes to recognizing how to apply
the maps based on what type of thinking students are being asked to do. These maps
consist of a system of eight graphic organizers used throughout the grade levels. In
addition to a definite way of organizing the information graphically, each thinking map
has a thinking process label attached to it. For example, circle maps are used and
labeled ‘Defining in Context,’ bubble maps are used for ‘Describing Qualities,’ and
flow maps are used for ‘Sequencing.’ The purpose of thinking maps is to provide a
common visual language for students to use in their learning community in order to help
students adopt cognitive processes for learning and continually assess their progress.
Through the triangulation process of data collection, it was apparent that
Thinking Maps were systemic throughout the school. A three-page typed explanation of
Thinking Maps was included in the Calvin Elementary School information packet.
Teachers applied them to nearly every lesson observed. If Thinking Maps were not a
part of the lesson, evidence of the use of Thinking Maps hung around the classrooms.

102
Also, in all staff interviews, Thinking Maps were mentioned by all teachers interviewed
as something they feel has helped students succeed. The use of Thinking Maps is also a
topic of many staff development trainings. Teachers implied that when they learn new
teaching strategies they also learn how to incorporate the use of Thinking Maps.
Systems
Using the structures in place from the federal government, the state and the
district, Calvin Elementary School had a number of systems that appear to be the root of
success in this high poverty urban school whose enrollment is nearly all students of
color. According to Edmonds (1986), schools can be effective in high poverty urban
areas with high concentrations of students of color given that the systems in place
supplement or mitigate the effects of existing structures. Systems reflect coordinated
and coherent use of resources constructed by the school site to ensure that school vision,
missions and goals are met. Over the past six years, these roots have been nourished,
therefore creating a school of high academic achievement. This nourishment came from
the principal who was newly assigned to lead the school in the 2001-2002 school year.
Insight from her employees and families created a clear perspective on her role in the
success of the students and the staff. One veteran staff member explained, “We all
realize we have a strong administrator, you know the guiding force-someone with a
vision beyond September-July.” Every interviewee concurred with this statement.
Multiple researchers identified leadership as the single most important aspect of
effective school reform in high poverty urban schools (Sunderman, Orfield, & Kim,
2006; Haberman, 1999; Schherrens & Bosker, 1997).

103
Professional Development. As an instructional leader, the principal created
multiple monthly professional development opportunities that reflected the vision and
expectations of the school. Professional development is one highly effective systemic
approach to supporting students of color in high poverty urban areas (Banks, Cookson,
Gay & Hawley, 2001). In the beginning of the year, professional development focused
on empowering leadership throughout the school, creating a positive school culture and
school-wide instructional practices.
In addition to mandated professional development offered per the district, the
principal created a school schedule that required staff meetings twice a month that were
considered by all as professional development, “Most of our meetings are not
informational meeting. All of our meetings are mostly professional development. We
have training in EEEI format, data analysis, thinking maps, technology, and Map 2D.”
Between staff meetings (staff development) and grade level meetings, the site
has evolved to a professional learning community. Teacher collaboration occurred
weekly at a minimum. Reviewing the school schedule revealed the teachers met as a
grade level three times per month. Teachers explained that time was spent analyzing
data gathered monthly by teachers from benchmark assessments. They took turns
weekly to discuss students who are underperforming and identify various instructional
practices to explore that may foster growth. At those meetings the team would
determine all avenues to best support the student’s individual needs. Through this
process each grade level collaborated with the resource specialists for assistance in
teaching students who did not meet benchmarks. Time allotted for collaboration went

104
beyond the weekly meetings. According to teachers interviewed, release time offered in
conjunction with grade level needs allowed more time for cooperative lesson planning,
observing one another, and data analysis.
As observed during staff development and reflected throughout the interviews,
resource specialists at Calvin Elementary School worked closely with their assigned
grade level and met consistently as a group with the principal. Their role with the each
grade level was defined strictly by what the data presented the needs of the students to
be. Resource support efforts included demonstrating model lessons for teachers and
scheduling meetings with individual teachers to help enhance instructional practices.
Their role with the principal allowed them to provide feedback on supports in
classrooms, give progress updates, and plan for professional development opportunities.
Through the professional learning community of Calvin Elementary School, the
systemic approach of school-wide instructional practices was apparent. All teachers
interviewed stated the importance of consistency throughout grade levels in using
specific instructional approaches. For example, all teachers incorporated Thinking Maps
into their daily routine. They also incorporated the strategy of front-loading information
to students. As one teacher explained in an interview, front-loading provides students
with an academic language and assists students in making connections to what they
already know and what they are about to learn. Differentiated instruction emanated
from the classrooms during the observations. Teachers observed monitored and adjusted
their teaching styles to fit the knowledge level of their students based on formative and
summative assessments. Those observed and interviewed explained that they constantly

105
monitor and adjust their instruction based on daily performance and weekly quizzes. To
support students needing additional review, teachers explained they provide small group
instruction.
In order to enhance their instruction further, teachers explained that the
principal required each grade level to create a rubric for teaching the new math
program. Teachers worked together to create a rubric that incorporated professional
teaching standards, scientifically-based methodologies, and consistent feedback.
According to the teachers, once the rubric was completed they evaluated one another
based on the four points.
Calvin Elementary School’s use of frequent professional development
demonstrated the leadership’s realization that the school is a learning environment for
teachers as well as students just as Blasé and Blasé (2004) recommend. Access to
professional development plays an important role in enhancing the knowledge and skill
level of educators. The professional development offered at Calvin Elementary School
was inline with suggestions from Johnson (2002). It allowed teachers to gain knowledge
on how to utilize evidence-based curriculum, assess student learning and use
disaggregated data in order to provide a clear picture of what students have learned and
determine areas that require support and reteaching.
Parental Involvement. A system that appeared to be a priority with all school
community members was the implementation of a plan by which to increase parent
involvement and increase home-school communication. Over the past three years, the
principal worked with the parent liaison to encourage stronger ties between home and

106
school. Parents were offered classes and babysitting during the classes to help them
understand their role as parents to help their child be academically successful. Parents
and students signed compacts in the beginning of the year that stated they would attend
parent conferences. Teachers reached out to parents to schedule conferences around the
parents’ schedules. They also provided opportunities for parents to be on campus at
monthly ‘read-ins’ where families came and read with their child in the classroom.
Calvin Elementary School functions in a way recommended by Edmonds (1986)
in which the systems supplement the existing structures. The staff at Calvin Elementary
School took structures from federal, state, and district initiatives and embraced them as
a cohesive team through the facilitation of a high-directive high-supportive instructional
leader. By way of an instructional leader with high expectations of the staff and the
students in a professional learning community atmosphere, the work of staff, students
and parents create a climate at the school that the persons interviewed in the school
perceive to contribute to the high academics of their students.
Research Question 3: School-wide Implementation of Systems and Structures That
Supports Effective Classroom Instruction to Promote Student Learning
The third question asked, “How are the organizational systems and structures
implemented to support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes
student learning?” The framework used to answer this question explicitly stressed two
structures and five systems that appear to foster school-wide effective classroom
instruction based on the triangulated data. The two structures included mandated
assessments and the use of standards-based instruction. The five systems began with the

107
influence of the instructional leader; therefore the four frames of leadership proposed by
Bolman and Deal (2002) served as a framework to analyze how the systems were
implemented. The systems consisted of 1) the use of standard-based instructional
methods, 2) professional development, 3) professional learning communities, 4)
reflective teaching, and 5) home/school communication.
Mandated Assessments and Data Driven Decision Making
Structures in place that assisted in fostering school-wide effective instruction
include the use of mandated assessments and standard-based curriculum and instruction.
Aside from the once a year California Standards Test, Calvin Elementary School must
complete the OARS assessment five times per school year since they are a Reading
First school. The OARS assessment monitors students’ ability to read by breaking down
the reading process from basic phonological awareness, blending sounds, and
recognition of sight words to reading fluency and comprehension. The data is used to
assist in teachers’ decision making about instructional practices.
In addition to the OARS assessment, the district also required multiple
assessments throughout the year. District assessments included a writing-baseline and
trimester assessments: basic math facts, trimester math facts, math chapter tests, and
benchmark assessments. Each grade level submitted student data related to student
performance based on the required assessments per the district calendar schedule. All
teachers completed a data analysis worksheet provided by the principal of Calvin
Elementary. Assessment results were divided into categories based on achievement.
Once data were inputted into the charts, teachers responded to two questions. The first

108
question worked as a guiding tool to analyze the data; “What patterns do you see?” The
second question served as an evaluation tool to prompt teacher reflection; “What will
you do to increase the strengths of your current students and to improve their areas of
need?” Finally the grade level representatives collected all data analysis sheets and
submitted them to the principal according to the district calendar timeline.
Taking into consideration the district timelines to turn in data, the teachers
determined when to administer assessments with their students each month and created
a monthly assessment calendar of data. Following the data collection, they submitted
their analysis to the principal and resource specialists at the designated times. Each
month, the collected data became an instrument for making decisions and was used at
the grade, classroom, and individual levels. Through the data collection and analysis
process the principal set high standards amongst the teachers. This high standard was
evidenced through the principal’s requirement that teachers take responsibility for
deciding the corrections necessary to their instruction using the mirror analogy, which is
explained later in the chapter, to ensure all students meet the standards. One teacher
defined the principal’s expectations when using data, “What is really important is that
we look at the data: we make statements about what we see, and then what is most
important. We write what the students’ next steps will be.” The data analysis process
occurred with the support of grade-level teams and resource specialists since they
collaborated about the data collected.
Teachers at Calvin Elementary School were instructed on how to collect data,
disaggregate data, and interpret data in order to provide a clear picture of what the

109
students have learned, along with areas where students need additional support just as
Johnson (2002) suggests in her book Using Data to Close the Achievement Gap. Based
on information collected through interviews, observations, and artifacts, it was evident
that the staff at the school used data collected from their students to make instructional
decisions.
Standards-Based Curriculum. Benchmark assessments served as a means of
accountability and provided data for teachers and the principal to reflect on and guide
decisions. As the principal stated, “We collect data and we are making decisions based
on data. It doesn’t drive instruction, it drives teacher decision making.” However, in
order to attain benchmarks, teachers needed to teach to the standards. To assist in
standards-based instruction, the district adopted state approved text books that aligned
with the state standards. Each grade level used the same publishing company for the
individual content areas. Teachers and administrators at Calvin Elementary School
looked beyond the text books to enhance the curriculum and promote high student
performance.
Implementation of the reading curriculum from Open Court is an example of
how Calvin Elementary School used data and collaboration to facilitate greater student
academic achievement. One teacher explained it best, “We got the Open Court reading
program. We started with it; we started making progress with it, but then we saw where
it had its shortcomings, where it wasn’t working for the students. We had to have staff
development to look at it again and see how we could use the program more effectively.
What we realized is that the Open Court program was more input, telling and telling the

110
students what to do. It wasn’t really structured in an EEEI (Essential Elements of
Effective Instruction) format where you are engaging students, checking for
understanding, using guided practice, and bringing it back when they didn’t
understand.”
Organizational Systems for School-wide Classroom Instruction
As Edmonds (1986) research concluded when schools in high poverty urban
areas with large concentrations of students of color supplement or mitigate the effects of
the existing structures with organizational systems, they foster the greatest student
achievement. Although the principal refused to take credit for the successes of the
school, staff members provided evidence in the interviews of ways the principal made
the difference at this school. According to the staff, the principal took the structures in
place and embedded systems them into the systems of Calvin Elementary School within
the structures by way of professional development trainings, collaboration
opportunities, and the evaluation process. She challenged her staff to reflect on what
they did and what they may do to better support their students. The Open Court example
is just one of many the staff shared as they defined how the leader utilized nearly all
staff meetings as opportunities for staff development. Another example included the use
of a staff meeting to analyze student data and develop a school-wide plan to support
students who did not meet the benchmarks. This was evidenced during an observation
of a leadership meeting at which the principal and resource specialists created an
agenda and planned for questions and responses the staff may have at the meeting
regarding the concerning data. Teachers also stated they used staff meetings as a time to

111
review instructional strategies they were expected to apply in their classrooms.
Staff Development. Looking through the lens of structural and human resource
leadership frames, the principal used all staff meetings as staff development at Calvin
Elementary School according to the teachers interviewed. Ongoing and consistent staff
development occurred in order to foster highly qualified and trained teachers just as
Joyce and Showers (2002) suggest as an imperative part of an effective school. The
school leadership determined the staff development topics deemed necessary to attain
results in achieving school-wide goals. Just as Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) suggest,
trainings should focus on developing and sharing instructional strategies that promote
achievement with the students whom teachers are responsible to teach. Trainings
included teaching techniques such as front-loading information, thinking maps,
curriculum, phonemic awareness, benchmarking, MAP (math) strategies and lesson
design, Madeline Hunter’s Essential Elements of Effective Instruction (EEEI) lesson
design, and strategies for English Learners: SDAIE, and ELD. The principal also
offered voluntary professional development on campus Tuesday evenings in what she
named “Tuesday University.” At Tuesday University new teachers learned techniques
already in place and expected at Calvin Elementary School. Veteran teachers who
attended revisited strategies previously learned and reflected on how they apply the
strategies in their own classrooms.
Standards-Based Instructional. The principal used the structural frame of
leadership as she provided professional development opportunities to enhance teachers’
knowledge of the expected instructional practices and ensure consistency throughout the

112
school. As evidenced by interviews and observations, the principal required teachers to
implement standards-based instructional practices at every grade level through the use
of the following pedagogy: Thinking Maps, reading comprehension strategies, math
problem solving, front-loading, ELD, SDAIE, Essential Elements of Effective
Instruction (EEEI), MAP structured lessons, and Guided Reading. Since all grade levels
are expected to understand and implement these curricula and instructional strategies,
consistency is evidenced throughout the school.
Thinking Maps were a strategy applied throughout the school at all grade levels.
As the grade levels increased, the teachers taught students higher levels of thinking by
way of the Thinking Maps. To augment the use of Thinking Maps, teachers have been
trained in other instructional strategies. The principal expected all teachers to implement
EEEI instructional practices from Madeline Hunter in their daily lesson design. Multiple
teachers described the EEEI format of lesson planning during the interview process.
During the observations, teachers who taught a whole group lesson were observed
applying Madeline Hunter’s teaching strategies. EEEI strategies consist of teachers
center lessons that engage students, check for understanding, use guided practice, and
monitor and adjust lessons as needed based on observations during instruction.
Calvin Elementary consistently implemented school-wide effective classroom
instructional practices in order to foster high student performance in their high poverty
urban school with nearly all students of color. The consistency of effective instruction
aligned with the recommendations of Banks, Cookson, Gay, and Hawley, (2001).
Additionally, the staff applied a systemic approach using Thinking Maps and EEEI

113
strategies in all instructional areas. This coincides with the findings of Izumi (2002) in
his study of high poverty high performing schools. His research uncovered that schools
that had a systemic approach to teaching language arts fostered high performance. He
also recognized that teachers offset varying student abilities by differentiating
curriculum and using small group instruction lessons.
Teacher Evaluations Foster Reflective Teachers. Through the lens of the
structural and human resource frames, the principal created a culture of high
expectations for the staff as well as the students. One example of the high expectations
placed on staff to implement effect instruction transpired through an alternative
evaluation process promoted by the principal as a way to support the teacher as a
decision maker within his or her own classroom. The intention of the alternative
evaluation process was for the teacher to be reflective and identify what s/he did well
along with determine areas that needed further development. The principal assisted the
teacher in seeing what s/he is did well in the lesson as she provided clarification,
feedback, resources and/or support in the areas the teacher saw growth needed.
Calvin Elementary School implemented two methods of evaluation as explained
in the interview process: videotaped lessons and colleague observations. The first
method required teachers to videotape their instruction with the students as the visual
and the teacher in the background teaching. Following the lesson, teachers listened to
their lesson as they observed their students engagement during the lesson. After the
teachers reviewed the video tapes by themselves or with a colleague, they then
evaluated themselves and reflected on what they did well and what areas needed

114
improvement. As a conclusion to the evaluation, they have a ‘knee-to-knee’ with the
principal. At that time, the two of them watched the video while the teacher addressed
strengths and weaknesses. Together they determined what avenues to explore for
professional growth and determined individual goals that align with the school goals.
The second form of evaluation used at this school is among colleagues.
Proficient teachers evaluate teachers rather than an administrator. Teachers had release
time to observe one another. Following the observations, they met as a grade level and
discussed what they saw and liked. Prior to the observations, each grade level set a
focus for the observation. The focus may remain for the year or may change for every
observation, depending on the group decision.
The year this research study took place, Calvin Elementary School worked to
incorporate two additional methods of evaluation to augment those methods already in
place. First, the school added grade level walk-throughs where teachers evaluated each
other and took ideas from other classrooms to use in their own. One teacher described
the process as follows, “We did our first walk this trimester. We are going to talk about
what we liked and what we didn’t like. I have seen some things I really like that I am
already using in my classroom and I have already seen results. It was like, ‘Oh, look
how fast they are learning’ just by copying my friend in another classroom. I didn’t
think about it, so we are advancing in that way. It is a way to collaborate, but it is what
makes this school such a great school.”
The other evaluation tool the principal implemented the year the research took
place was created by the teachers at each grade level. This tool consisted of a four point

115
rubric used to assess math instruction. Four categories deemed important for an
effective lesson provided the framework for the rubric: format consistency, active
participation, intervention, and assessment, differentiation, usage of language of the
discipline and pacing.
Research Question 4: Constructs of Race
The fourth research question asked, “How is the construct of race reflected in
the school’s structures and systems?” Constructs of race have been outlined in this
section by dividing the analysis into two parts; constructs of race and culturally relevant
and responsive pedagogy. The theoretical framework of culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy as described in works of Ladson-Billings and Banks, Cookson,
Gay and Hawley assisted in analyzing the patterns of constructs of race reflected in
Calvin Elementary School’s systems and structures.
Constructs of Race
In a school of 1045 students with only nine students not students of color, the
common response from staff regarding support of students of color was, “That is all we
have.” Instead of focusing specifically on the cultural and language differences the
students bring, the principal focused attention and training on the basis that Calvin
Elementary School’s population that qualified as 100% free and reduced lunch. One
teacher explained, “In terms of culture, instead of dealing with individual cultures, we
sort of deal with kids in poverty. That is really what plays out here.” Although the staff
stated they recognized the differences students brought into the classroom, their main
efforts went toward understanding students of poverty. According the principal, they

116
did this with the influence of Ruby Paine, an author who informs people of the culture
of poverty.
Professional development occurred to inform teachers of the differences of
student upbringing in a poor home and the demands of the middle-class institution they
run. However, limited evidence was provided through interviews, observations, or
artifacts to support teacher training on multicultural communication and understanding
as Nieto (2004) and Ladson-Billings and Gomez (2001) suggest as vital. They imply
that multicultural training exposes teachers’ beliefs and challenge them to think beyond
historical sentiments regarding race, ethnicity, and language.
Ruby Paine’s book causes much conflict with Critical Race Theorists because it
creates a deficit view of people living in poverty. Ruby Paine (2005) suggests that
people in poverty exhibit certain behaviors, speak a different way, and look at the world
differently than people in the middle and upper classes. Although her writings may
provide that viewpoint, the staff at Calvin Elementary used the ideas that children living
in poverty need to attend a school with high expectations and it was their job as teachers
to provide tools for them to maintain a lifestyle of lifelong learners. They did not view
them as flawed because of their poverty. This was evidenced in all interviews,
observations and the review of artifacts. These children were expected to learn, and if
they did not meet benchmarks, the teachers took responsibility through their systems
described in research questions two and three.
Emphasis placed on educating students in poverty did not prevent the staff from
acknowledging that all of their students are students of color. Yet, it appeared to mask

117
the need for culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy. During the interview process
staff were asked specifically how they supported students of color. The majority stated
that the entire school was students of color therefore everything they did instructionally
supported students of color. According to Banks, Cookson, Gay, and Hawley (2001)
teachers should consider what students have to offer and needs they bring based on the
different kinds of knowledge and experiences they have developed within their specific
cultures. It appeared as though the teachers did not recognize a distinction between the
various ethnic, race, and language backgrounds of their students until the question
regarding data analysis came up. At that point, teachers stated that the latest data
exhibited student in the English Only (EO) category did not make the gains as their EL
students. From that information, they staff reflected on their teaching and supports for
the EO students to determine what changes to their instruction were needed. According
to two teachers, up until that point the English Only subgroup, which consisted mostly
of African American students, received general education supports despite their
language differences. Based on the most resent data however the resource specialists
and teachers realized they needed to incorporate EL strategies for African American
students as well, although state and federal structures provide few resources for their
language differences.
The teacher evaluation process, as described in data findings and analysis of
research question number three, is another indicator of constructs of race. Through the
examples of the evaluation process, it is implied that teachers take responsibility for
effective teaching without blaming the students or treating them as if something is

118
wrong with them. If students demonstrate through formative and summative
assessments that they are not mastering a concept, the teachers were expected to
identify how they should make changes. Moreover, each evaluation tool monitors for
student engagement. It was explained by one teacher interviewed that if a student does
not look engaged when the principal enters a classroom, the first thing she will ask is,
“Why wasn’t s/he engaged?” or “What will you do for that student to engage him/her?”
This teacher also explained that the principal does not allow for excuses based on what
the child did wrong. Instead she placed responsibility on what the teacher did not do.
This may explain why all classroom observations completed for the research study
noted all students were engaged in the learning process. Teachers suggested that when
they are uncertain how to engage some students in their classrooms they seek out the
resource specialists to facilitate strategies that may support the student’s needs.
As mentioned earlier in the chapter, the staff at Calvin Elementary School
collected and analyzed data regularly. When teachers obtained data for benchmark
assessments they responded to two questions: What patterns do you see? and what will
you do to increase the strengths of your current students and improve the areas of need?
This process allowed the staff to notice two trends that later impacted their instruction.
The first trend indicated that English Only students, primarily African American
students, underperformed English Learners. From the data analysis process, the staff
determined that they needed to alter some of their instruction for the English Only
students to include more language based approaches. According to teachers
interviewed, they came to this conclusion based on their belief system that the English

119
Only students came from a background of poverty; hence their exposure to academic
language may be limited. This suggestion made by some staff indicate a deficit view
rather than an awareness of the language differences that African American students
may possess are based on their cultural language structure rooted in a rules-based
syntax that carries over from their West African languages, continued segregation, and
lack of exposure to mainstream English (Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001).
The second school-wide trend observed at the time of the research study
determined that some students did not pass benchmark tests even though they had
passed them three months prior. The principal discussed the situation with the
specialists and planned for the next staff meeting to focus on understanding the findings
and determine the next steps. At the staff development, the staff analyzed through the
‘mirror lens’ and determined how they would alter their instruction and assessments to
ensure greater progress.
According to the staff interviewed, the data analysis and staff development
process helped them make the gains they did. The teachers stated they took
responsibility for their students by tracking progress through data collection then
monitoring and adjusting their lessons to meet the students’ needs. At Calvin
Elementary School special education referrals happened as a last resort after in-class
interventions and support from the general education resource specialists first took
place. The staff used student data and the help of their colleagues to determine general
education interventions that may suit the individual needs of the students who
performed below benchmarks.

120
As evidenced through observations and interviews, students that met the
eligibility requirements for special education remained in their general education
classrooms with the exception of the time spent in the resource room to work on their
IEP goals. The special education teacher was consistent with the school-wide standards
of high expectations, instructional strategies and standards-based curriculum for all
students. To meet their needs with the same instructional materials, she altered the
pacing and her instructional approach. For example, during the math lesson students had
the opportunity to work through problems at their pace. Students who completed the
work earlier than others practiced multiple problems, while students who needed extra
time and assistance from the teacher received it. Additionally, she utilized high school
tutors to work one-on-one with students for additional support. During the observation a
high school tutor assisted one student by reading the Open Court story while the special
education teacher remained working with a group of five other students.
Instead of over-identifying students for special education, the school used many
general educational supports and interventions to enhance the students’ academic
growth. The interventions applied at Calvin Elementary School coincide with the
Response to Intervention model identified in Chapter Two (Tilly, 2006). Resource
specialists for reading and English emersion provided small group instruction to
students needing the additional support. This support was most commonly offered
through a small group instruction model occurring daily to weekly depending on the
level of need of the students being supported. The resource specialists worked closely
with general education teachers through collaboration and modeling of lessons so they

121
may better support the students in the classroom. Modeling of the instructional
strategies took place on an as needed basis. If teachers were new to the school or had
less experience, using some teaching techniques proven to be successful for students
with language differences, the resource teachers spent more time working within the
classroom to guarantee follow through and consistency of strategies they taught the
students during small group instruction. Also, one resource specialist was assigned to
the kindergarten and supported the three full day classes for students with limited to no
English by working in the classroom for one hour per day during small group work
time. Finally, the stress of parental involvement demonstrates the principal’s attempt to
reach out to parents and respond to specific needs based on ethnicity, background, and
culture.
The principal, acting in the human leadership frame, required parents to get
involved and be a part of parent information meetings. According to the parent
interviewed, “When the principal had her meetings, we had to come…she forced the
parents to get involved.” This parent, who is African American, explained that some
African American families did not like to attend the meetings because there was so
much time spent with the translations for the Spanish speaking families. According to
the parent and another teacher, the principal responded by offering meetings specific to
African American parents and brought in a guest speaker who was an expert in
empowering African Americans in the education process.
Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy
Culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy as described by Banks, Cookson,

122
Gay and Hawley (2001) are instructional practices that take into account and builds on
students’ racial, ethnic, cultural, language, and socioeconomic backgrounds. According
to this group of researchers, teachers who apply such an approach use the curriculum in
place along with knowledge students bring into the classroom to promote learning.
Teachers at Calvin Elementary School received an incredible amount of
professional development on site. Data collected suggested professional development
worked toward establishing standards of quality in instructional practices along with
fostering home-school relationships and communication. Teachers were given training
on instructional strategies that were rigorous, standards-based, and structured yet little
evidence provided revealed professional development worked toward training regarding
students’ cultural, language and socioeconomic needs of the students just as Banks,
Cookson, Gay and Hawley (2001) deem necessary for successful culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy.
Based on agendas from one professional development opportunities in May
2007, some attempts were made to train teachers on culturally relevant and responsive
pedagogy. The first involved kindergarten and first grade teachers who reviewed
vocabulary development strategies and the English Language Development (ELD)
calendar and concepts. Time was allotted for teachers to develop ELD lessons for the
next year.
Embedded in all professional development opportunities both scheduled and
through staff meetings, the principal stamped the teachers’ thoughts with the analogy of
window versus mirror statements. The analogy of window versus mirror statements

123
permeated the school and was a common language used throughout the school. The
statement was described by one staff member as follows, “When one is looking through
a window, they can only see the home environment, parents, age, poverty, etc, but they
cannot change any of them. When one looks into the mirror the opportunity to reflect on
‘What can I do?’ occurs.” Staff challenged themselves and one another to evaluate their
beliefs and thoughts as they analyzed data, planned instructional strategies, and
collaborated with one another asking each other, “Is that window or mirror statement?”
These trainings and reflections challenged staff to think beyond historical sentiments
into how and in what ways their students can be successful just as Ladson-Billings
(1995) suggested. Although this method required teachers to take responsibility for their
teaching, there was limited evidence to support reflection and awareness of how the
students’ ethnic, culture, and language background may be used to enhance instruction
and learning (Banks, Cookson, Gay & Hawley, 2001).
Using reflective teaching strategies teachers modified and adjusted their
instruction as needed throughout the day in order to meet the needs of their students.
Many teachers explained that they used Front-loading as a teaching tool prior to
beginning a new lesson. This instructional strategy applies what the children already
know to the new concept that will be taught and is evidence of culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy. Once the lesson began, teachers and the principal explained how
they used formative assessments. Teachers stated they evaluated student achievement in
every lesson. When necessary, they stopped their lesson and reviewed with the students
what they needed in order to move forward. In other instances, teachers recorded which

124
students required additional instruction in order to master a concept and meet grade
level standards. From there, these teachers planned for and created small group
instruction opportunities to review concepts. Regardless of what teaching strategy the
teachers’ utilized one pattern was clear: all students were engaged in the learning
process and time on task was critical.
These actions fell in line with recommendations by Marzano (2003) and
partially supported the findings of Banks, Cookson, Gay and Hawley (2001). They
stated that effective teachers in high poverty urban areas serving large concentrations of
students of color employ rigorous research-based instructional strategies that align with
the standards, maintain unyielding classroom management practices and fluently design
curriculum that matches the cultural, language, and socioeconomic needs of the
students. Researchers Banks, Cookson, Gay and Hawley (2001) add that students’
backgrounds should be embraced and built upon within the school environment. In all
observations, teachers applied fluid lessons that aligned with the standards and
exhibited exceptional classroom management. Teachers had prepared lessons and began
lessons by stating the objectives that aligned with the standards. They modeled the
thinking process and steps needed to complete a task and allowed students to work
independently. While the students worked independently, the teachers monitored their
work and provided feedback immediately. Although the teachers knew they were being
observed it did not appear to influence the flow of the lesson. Students appeared to be
engaged in the lessons and demonstrated an understanding of their expectations during
large and small group instruction and independent practice.

125
Observations of transitions from recess to instruction indicated the value of
instructional time. As students walked into their classrooms, they prepared themselves
by having the necessary materials out and positioning themselves informing the teacher
they were ready to learn. From that point forward, teachers stated expectations and
lesson objectives. High expectations radiated throughout the school.
In order to support students to achieve the high expectations, the school used
funds from federal and state programs to incorporate resource specialists into the
educational program by supporting students who did not meet benchmarks. Many of
these supports were through push-in models where teachers and specialists work
collaboratively in the general education setting by providing small group instruction or
modeling teaching that supports EL learning. The kindergarten program is one example
of how Calvin Elementary teachers utilized the specialist and responded to students’
language needs. In the full-day immersion kindergarten class, an ESL specialist assists
during small group instruction one hour per day. Additionally, the general education
teacher was fluent in both English and Spanish. Even though the instruction was in
English, when students were observed speaking Spanish as a response, the teacher
responded back to the child in both English and Spanish. Students were allowed to
speak to one another in their native language. This correlates with Banks, Cookson, Gay
and Hawley (2001) found imperative for success of students from different cultural,
ethnic, language, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Rather than the teacher quieting the
students’ native language, she embraced what they had to offer to the class while
teaching them the language of the discipline in English.

126
Analysis and Discussion
The study sought to understand contributing factors to school-wide
implementations of effective classroom instruction in a high poverty, high achieving
school with large concentrations of students of color. To accomplish this task, the data
was presented contextually using the overarching frameworks of sociocultural theory of
learning and the systemic approaches to school efforts along with conceptual
frameworks pertinent to each research question. Throughout the delivery of the data,
analysis and connections to information from literature review in Chapter Two were
made. This section brought together the data from all research questions to answer two
basic questions regarding the findings. First, what existing factors contributed to school-
wide implementation of effective classroom instruction; and second, what unanswered
questions remain? Understanding these two areas are critical when determining and
learning likely reasons for the high success rates at Calvin Elementary School.
Numerous themes emerged during the data analysis process related to school-
wide implementation of effective classroom instruction. These themes reflect the work
of researchers focused on high achieving high poverty schools and instructional
practices that support students of color as discussed in Chapter Two. Some issues
surfaced that may threaten future success rates at Calvin Elementary School if left
unattended.
Contributors to School-Wide Implementation of Effective Classroom Instruction
Instructional Leadership. The principal at Calvin Elementary School proved to
be an instructional leader. Built into the master schedule were designated staff

127
development opportunities by way of staff meetings. At those meetings, the principal
and other staff members instructed the staff on instructional practices that may
supplement the standards-based curriculum. As observed, the principal applied the use
of Thinking Maps at staff meetings, modeling the procedures, effectiveness, and intent
of them. Staff meetings were also spent analyzing student data and determining as a
school the instructional changes necessary to promote academic growth. By guided
discussion and allowing for teacher input, the principal created a culture of shared
beliefs and a family like environment.
The principal appeared to value the ideas of her staff members and reminded
them to use ‘mirror’ statements when looking at data and making adjustments to
instruction. She also fostered reflective teachers through the use of collaboration, data
analysis, and the teacher evaluation process. Using the human resource, structural, and
symbolic frames of leadership taken from Bolman and Deal (2002), this leader created a
culture of high expectations for her staff and the students.
Culture of High Expectations. High expectations are critical for student
achievement and should permeate the entire school climate and culture regardless of
racial or socioeconomic background (Haberman, 1999). Staff acknowledged students’
background of poverty and worked to create a family environment where the students
felt comfortable to learn. The family environment maintained high expectations as
exhibited by standards-based instruction, the use of benchmarks and data analysis,
application of thinking skills based on the Thinking Maps in all academic areas,
collaboration with the staff and student engagement.

128
The entire school staff appeared to be invested in the success of their students,
thus the staff created a safe and orderly environment for learning. This was
demonstrated from playground and classroom observations. On the playground,
students were equally as engaged in various activities structured by the recreation aides.
In the classroom, teachers applied instructional strategies consistent across grade levels.
This allowed students to familiarize themselves with strategies to help them access the
core curriculum. These strategies also required teachers to be prepared for every lesson;
the teachers stated objectives, modeled, provided support, and feedback. In all
classrooms observed, students were actively engaged in the lessons and activities.
Teachers took responsibility for their teaching and what their students learned
during the school year. They were expected to monitor and adjust their instruction based
on the formative and summative data. The staff at Calvin Elementary School applied
reflective teaching strategies consistently throughout the data analysis and teacher
evaluation process. Teachers also worked collaboratively, reflecting, reviewing data,
and learning varied instructional techniques that may better support their students.
Effective Staff Development. Professional development is one highly effective
systemic approach to supporting students of color in high poverty urban schools.
Effective staff development can fuse knowledge of cultural differences, instructional
strategies, and curriculum knowledge providing teachers with culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy. At Calvin Elementary School, staff development was offered
almost weekly through the use of staff meetings and built-in collaboration.

129
Staff development offered focused on school-wide instructional practices and
data analysis. There was a lack of evidence to suggest staff development trained the
teachers on culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy. Instead, staff development
trained the staff in understanding how to use data to drive their instructional practices.
They reflected on what the data presented and determined how they should make
changes to their instructional strategies.
School-Wide Instructional Practices. Consistent school-wide instructional
practices foster high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color. Culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy is
reflective teaching that supports students’ differences when planning instruction and
builds on students backgrounds (Banks, Cookson, Gay & Hawley, 2001). At Calvin
Elementary School all staff implemented Thinking Maps into their daily curriculum.
Additionally, they planned lessons using Madeline Hunter’s Essential Elements of
Effective Instruction. The school recently began implementing frontloading as another
tool to enhance their standards-based curriculum.
The teachers participated in continuous staff development and collaboration to
determine specific instructional approaches needed. All teachers interviewed stressed
the need for small group instruction. Many explained they use small group instruction to
review concepts with students and provide additional support to build skills.
Furthermore, general education teachers reached out to resource specialists as needed to
work with students in small groups. To ensure the teaching from the resource teachers

130
was generalized into the classrooms, resource specialists conducted lessons to the entire
class to model best practices for the general education teachers.
Finally, the principal modeled her expectation of what instruction should look
like by conducting lessons in classrooms around the school. When she did this, the
teachers and the principal explained she implemented the Thinking Maps, frontloading,
and other instructional strategies expected of the entire school. Following the lesson,
she met with the teacher to discuss areas of strength from her lesson and areas that may
need altering. The entire staff recognized their role in responsibility for educating the
students and applying the school-wide instructional strategies.
Summary
This chapter presented the data extracted from Calvin Elementary School
through artifacts, interviews and observations. The data was analyzed based on the four
research questions that structured the case study. As the data was presented, a
discussion of how the organizational systems and structures in place supported the high
achievement of the students at Calvin Elementary School.
Patterns and trends surfaced quickly from the data. It became apparent that the
leadership at Calvin Elementary School created a culture of high expectations for staff
and students. Through the use of data analysis, collaboration, staff development,
standards-based instructional practices and resources provided through structures, the
school succeeded in increasing student performance through general education
interventions and supports.

131
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Review of Literature
Historically, students of color have been provided with less than substantial
learning opportunities and associations were formed that they could not perform at the
same academic level as their White counterparts. Thankfully, despite societal set-backs,
students of color have persevered. There are high achieving, high poverty schools with
large concentrations of students of color. With specific structures and systems to
support students and families, students of color perform proficiently to meet academic
benchmarks. Additionally, with proper supports in place, students of color in the high
achieving schools are less likely to be identified as having a disability. Instead, general
education teachers apply culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy, high
expectations, and general education interventions to meet the needs of all their students
(Tilly, 2006; Marzano, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Organization structures that pre-empted change stemmed from court cases
declaring ‘Separate is Unequal’ (Stephan, 1984). This ruling was followed by the Civil
Rights Movement in the 1960s. Slowly, the Civil Rights movement initiated many
political actions intended to support students of color. Today, public schools are
heavily controlled by the federal government with structures that influence states’
requirements to educate all students. States have acquired accountability structures that
local districts must adhere to. Failure to adhere to these regulations can result in serious
consequences (Sunderman, Orfield, & Kim, 2006). Local districts have responded by

132
creating their own structurs making systemic changes to support students. Effective
schools develop systems that contribute to higher student achievement for all students,
including students of color. These systems include leadership, culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogy, high expectations, professional development, and a school culture
of high expectations that embraces the diversity students bring to the school (Marzano,
2002; Banks, Cookson, Gay & Hawley, 2001; Haberman,1999; Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Purpose of the Study
This study was designed to delineate organizational structures and systems that
work together to improve school-wide instructional practices leading to high student
achievement of students of color in high poverty urban schools. The researcher
identified performance trends of students of color when systems and structures are in
place to support them. Further, the study sought to determine whether these supports
many have contributed to a reduction in special education referrals and identification.
Finally, the dissertation study sought to gain knowledge about how the construct of race
is reflected in the systems in place in high achieving schools with students of color. The
research questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the trends and patterns of 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?

133
3. How are the organizational systems and structures implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?
Summary of Findings
Analysis of the collected data for this case study led to the findings summarized
for each research question. The summary is presented below.
Research Question 1. Calvin Elementary School was a Title I school with 100%
of the student population receiving free and reduced lunch. Nearly all students attending
the school were students of color. The most highly represented population in the school
were Hispanic students, making up 82 percent of the student body. African American
students reflected the next highest subgroup of students of color, yet they only represent
9 percent of the student body. Asian Americans were the third largest subgroup
representing 6 percent. Nearly 70 percent of the school represented English Language
Learners.
Since 2001, standardized test scores in both English language arts and
mathematics steadily improved bringing the school’s API scores up from 586 in 2001 to
an API score 768 in 2007. Asian American students demonstrated the highest level of
proficiency in both academic areas tested. Hispanic students and English Learners
proficiency levels mirrored that of the school-wide average, while African American
students proficiency levels only mirrored that of the school-wide average two out of the
six years analyzed.

134
Retention rates of students at Calvin Elementary School reflected their ethnic
subgroups’ percentages of representation in the school demographics. Additionally, the
number of students who received special education was disproportionately less than the
national norm. Special education represented only 3 percent of the entire student
population.
The largest discrepancy in ethnic representation surfaced from the make-up of
the staff compared to the student body. Although less than 1 percent of the student body
was White, over 60 percent of the teachers were White and only 25 percent of the
teachers were Hispanic.
The results of these findings were significant to the study because data provided
clearly identified a school with such a large student body of students of color all
receiving free and reduced lunch made significant academic gains. Data was clearly
defined to support the low numbers of students referred to special education. Results
from this research question created a foundation for the other three research questions.
Research Question 2. This question served to answer what organizational
structures and systems were in place at Calvin Elementary School that appeared to
support high student performance. The researcher uncovered basic structures that all
public schools, especially those with high numbers of students who live in poverty, are
required to adhere to. First, federal requirements of No Child Left Behind created a set
of guidelines for states and districts to follow when determining curriculum and
assessments. Because of the high poverty population, Calvin Elementary School
qualified as a Title I school entitled to additional funds to support students. They also

135
qualified as a Reading First school, a program that granted funds for additional
resources to support reading in the general education setting. Secondly, state standards
and assessments placed requirements for the district. Based on these requirements, the
district provided the school with multiple structures. Not only did they enforce district
assessments, standards-based curriculum, and various instructional strategies the school
was expected to apply, they also provided multiple professional development
throughout the school year to build capacity within the staff.
According to Edmonds (1984), systems that augment structures already in place
may produce higher achieving students in areas with students living in poverty. Systems
Calvin Elementary School incorporated as part of their school culture included
leadership, professional development, and parental involvement. The principal acted as
an instructional leader on campus orchestrating multiple efforts throughout the school.
For instance, she created a myriad of opportunities for professional development at the
school level. She required two staff meetings per month which served as staff
development. During the meetings, staff worked together to analyze student data,
review/learn instructional techniques, and identify appropriate evaluation tools for
teacher assessment. Teachers were also provided built-in collaboration time on a weekly
basis. The data collected also revealed the influence of parental involvement. Over the
past three years, through the school’s parent liaison, the principal incorporated multiple
opportunities for parents to become more active in their child’s educational experience.
Results from this research question suggest that all schools in high poverty areas
have comparable structures in place from the federal and state government. For this

136
reason schools looking to make change should reflect on how they use the structures in
place to guide systems at the individual school sites. Furthermore, schools in need of
reform can incorporate the systems in place at this school which may foster change if
generalized appropriately.
Research Question 3. This question sought out to identify how school-wide
structures and systems support effective classroom instruction to promote student
learning at Calvin Elementary School. Revealed from the data collected were systems in
place to support the district structure of mandated assessments. The principal at the
school used data to focus on instructional decision making (Johnson, 2000). She also
required staff to augment the standard-based curriculum with Essential Elements of
Effective Instruction lessons.
As mentioned above, professional development played a large role in the school
culture. Staff received training during bi-monthly staff meetings, collaboration periods
and an optional Tuesday University that the principal provided for teachers. These
trainings supported the systemic approach to consistent school-wide instructional
practices. One key instructional practice at the school was the application of Thinking
Maps. The trainings and expected consistency of instructional practice created a
professional learning community. In the professional learning community, teachers
collaborated about instructional practices and student performance; they developed
teaching evaluation tools, reflected on their methodologies, and planned future
instruction. Finally, the school embraced parental involvement with the help of the
parent liaison. Teachers were required to reach out to parents to review student progress

137
and to be involved in the school’s learning community.
The findings from this question were significant because the use of data driven
decision making and building capacity within the staff were stressed. From this, it can
be concluded that when teachers are informed and supported students can and will
achieve.
Research Question 4. The final question that drove the research reviewed how
the construct of race was reflected in the school-wide structures and systems. The
researcher determined from the data collected a lack of evidence that the school
intentionally embraced racial, cultural, and language backgrounds. Many staff members
interviewed explained that all of their students were students of color. They stated that
they did not see differences within each ethnic group. The data did not indicate that the
teachers saw culture as an important factor in understanding their students. Professional
development and instructional practices focused on standards, data and some English
immersion support. Although these systems deem imperative to a highly successful
school, researchers state the importance of a culturally relevant and responsive
pedagogy as essential tools for teaching students of color (Banks, Cookson, Gay &
Hawley, 2001; Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Findings guided by this research question were significant for both Calvin
Elementary School and other schools with students of color. Research promotes the use
of a culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy to support students of color in the
schools. Since Calvin Elementary School has made such progress over the years and the
scores have nearly plateaud the past three years incorporating a culturally relevant and

138
responsive pedagogy may prove to make the difference the students need to make
additional gains.
Conclusions
Areas of Notable Accomplishment
The case study of Calvin Elementary School’s implementation of effective
school-wide instructional practices unveiled many notable accomplishments. The most
significant accomplishments consist of the following:
1. The school used government funding for Title I and Reading First to employ
highly qualified resource specialists to collaborate with all grade levels, provide
small group instruction for EL students and students not meeting benchmarks,
and model instruction in the classrooms.
2. Structures from the district that require benchmark assessments, standards-based
curriculum, and professional development provide a framework embraced by the
principal and instructional staff to promote student achievement.
3. Through the structural frame of leadership, the principal provided clear
expectations of effective school-wide instructional practices by incorporating
staff development into their staff meetings, requiring grade-level collaboration
to focus on grade-level goals that address the school goals, and modeling
instruction in classrooms.
4. The uses of an innovative, structured teacher evaluation process enforced by the
principal provided teachers with a means to be reflective in their teaching, take
responsibility for their instruction, and collaborate with staff and the principal

139
regarding instructional performance compared to the high expectations set forth
by the principal. The teacher evaluation tools included video taping lessons with
teachers reviewing them, reflecting and then meeting with the principal to
discuss strengths and weaknesses. Another evaluation tool was being
incorporated the year of the case study. This tool was a rubric that each grade-
level developed to assess teacher effectiveness during math instruction.
5. The culture of the school was one of high expectations for students and staff.
Staff members interviewed and observed expressed and demonstrated a
commitment to their students’ academic growth. Each staff member stated the
importance of structured lesson design, the use of consistent teaching
techniques, supporting all students in their classroom, and collaborating with
other staff to gain knowledge and problem solve.
6. Within the past three years the school embraced the concept of parental
involvement. All staff interviewed expressed methods to incorporate the
students’ families into the classroom. A parent liaison developed programs for
parents to attend and provided positive reinforcement to families who
participated in activities on campus. The principal required teachers to reach out
to all parents during parent teacher conferences as well as send positive notes
home to parents periodically throughout the school year.
7. Special education services were provided to students after all general education
interventions were exhausted. Collectively the school was able to support
students within the general education setting by 1) teachers altering their

140
teaching based on formative and summative assessments, 2) providing small
group instruction and 3) working with general education resource specialists.
Therefore a disproportionate number of students of color labeled with a
disability did not exist at Calvin Elementary School.
Areas of Ongoing Need & Unanswered Questions
Although Calvin Elementary School demonstrated strengths in school-wide
instructional practices to support students of color who live in poverty, some questions
remain. The questions surfaced from the data along with the limited time frame of this
study. These questions and areas for future consideration are outlined in this section.
1. At Calvin Elementary School many supports were in place to help students
reach the benchmarks and learn thinking strategies with the goal they will be
able to apply the thinking strategies throughout their lives beyond elementary
school. Yet, benchmarks and student progress were posted throughout
classrooms and the main hallway of the school. Some researchers argue that
these practices contribute to a culture of performance learning rather than
mastery learning (Covington, 2000). The question that remained unanswered
was: How does the emphasis on scores impact students’ ability to maintain
knowledge from one year to the next? A longitudinal research study would most
likely assist in answering this question.
2. Despite the many systems in place to support effective instruction, little
evidence supported the use of a culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy.
Instead, the school emphasized the background of poverty and insinuated a

141
‘color-blindness’ approach when considering their student body. The data of
African American students showed that they consistently performed lower on
CSTs than other subgroups at Calvin Elementary School, yet most teachers and
the principal spoke of ‘all students being students of color’. By placing emphasis
on the background of poverty suggested the school applies a deficit approach
when considering instructional practices. Research has made a strong case that
poverty does not define students nor determines their ability to achieve
academically. This emphasis on poverty may have created a heavy reliance on
intervention instead of trying to understand how attention to students’ cultural
backgrounds can lead to appropriate first teaching. The cultural make-up of the
school is rich with ethnic, racial, and language backgrounds that are available as
assets to build on when planning instruction. One question to consider is if the
staff is trained on understanding how to bring students’ cultures into the
classroom, employing a culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy, would
student achievement increase? A second question to ask is would the gap close
between African American students and the other subgroups?
3. The principal at the school came to the school when it was in need of reform.
She implemented high expectations of the staff and provided staff development.
As an instructional leader, she modeled her expectations according to the data.
Additionally, she applied structure to the data analysis process, instructional
practices, teacher evaluations, and collaboration opportunities. The question

142
remains, when this principal moves on, will the school maintain the same high
standards and levels of success?
4. Based on observations made around the school, there were few symbolic
expressions, aside from student benchmarks posted on the main hallway and in
classrooms, to promote performance. Classroom walls were covered with
benchmark data, student work, and hand-written instructional tools. A question
to consider is would posting symbolic references specific to the cultural
backgrounds of the students promote greater student engagement in learning and
higher academic performance?
Implications and Recommendations
An analysis of this case study’s findings yielded implications for districts and
schools seeking to understand effective school-wide instructional practices that foster
high student performance in high poverty urban schools with large concentrations of
students of color. Additionally, the findings also revealed further questions to consider
in future research.
Implications for High Poverty Urban Schools with Large Concentrations of Students of
Color
The conclusions and findings of this case study resulted in the following
implications for high poverty urban schools and districts seeking to develop effective
school-wide instructional practices that foster high achievement for students of color.

143

1. School districts must apply a structural foundation that requires data driven
decision making, use of standards-based curriculum, and professional
development reflective of district goals for schools to develop systems around.
2. A leader who uses a structural approach to maintain high expectations and build
capacity in the staff is an essential element to an urban school with large
concentrations of student of color living in poverty.
3. Staff development opportunities that foster consistency in instructional practices
and focuses on applying data to guide instruction is essential to building
capacity among teachers.
4. A culture of high expectations for all members of the school community places
an importance on time on task and educational opportunities. These high
expectations lead to reflective teaching practices and teachers who take
responsibility for their own instruction. They also support student learning and
performance outcomes.
5. Finally, high expectations for parents encourages them to participate in their
child’s academic growth.
Recommendations for Future Research
Findings from this study resulted in the following recommendations for future
research in the area of effective school-wide instructional practices in high poverty
urban schools with large concentrations of students of color.

144

1. Since Calvin Elementary School will be offering EL support for the English
Only, primarily African American students, a follow-up study on African
American students’ performance may provide evidence for whether additional
language support benefits African American students in public schools.
2. If the school implements a systemic approach to increase the use of culturally
relevant and responsive pedagogy, a longitudinal study that analyzes the process
from its inception through years of development may provide great insight to
future educators and urban schools with large concentrations of students of
color. What may be gained from this study is an identification of obstacles
leaders and staff face in transforming their thought process to focus on bringing
in students’ race, ethnicity, and language backgrounds into the classroom.
Researchers may also gain insight into how the implementation of a culturally
relevant and responsive pedagogy affected student performance.
3. The school used for the case study is one of many high poverty urban
elementary schools with large concentrations of students of color in a large
district. Results of this study could be duplicated at the other school sites.
Following a year of duplicating the structures and systems of Calvin Elementary
School, a study to evaluate the ability to generalize the structures and systems
into similar schools may add to the growing body of research of school reform
specific to high poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of
color.

145
REFERENCES
A Nation At Risk(1983) Retrieved February 28, 2007.
www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.

Atkins, J. C. (1978). Who will educate? The schooling question in territorial New
México, 1846-1911. University of New Mexico, Alburquerque.

Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W, et al (2001). Diversity within unity:
Essential principals for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi
Delta Kappan. Bloomington. Vol 83, pg. 196.

Bell, Derrick, (1980) Brown v. Board of education and the interest convergence
dilemma.| Harvard Law Review. Vol. 93, No. 3,

Betts, Julian R., Zau, Andrew C., & Rice, Lorien A. (2003). Determinants of student
achievement: New evidence from San Diego. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy
Institute of California.

Blasé, J & J. (2004). Handbook of Instructional Leadership: How Successful
Principals Promote Teaching and Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Blanton, W., Moorman, G., Hayes, B., & Warner, M. (1997) Effects of participation
In the Fifth Dimension on far transfer. Journal of Educational Computation
Research, 16, 371-396.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2002). Third edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice
and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyd, V. (1992). School context: Bridge or barrier to change? Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

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

Brown, T. (2007) A new approach to attention deficit disorder. Education
Leadership. 64(5).

California Department of Education. Educational Demographics Unit (2007).
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/

California Graduation Rates: A Hidden Crisis. (2004).
www.wested.org/online_pubs/cde.gradrateII.pdf

146

Carolan, J., & Guinn, A., (2007) Differentiation: Lessons from master teachers.
Educational Leadership. 64(5).

Clarke & Estes (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
Type of performance solutions. Atlanta GA. CEP Press.

Cohen, D. & Loewenberg Ball, D. (2001) Making change: instruction and it
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan. 83. No 1

Coleman, J. (1968). The Concept of equality of education opportunity. Harvard
Educational Review, 38, 7-22.

Covington, M.V. (2000) Goal Theory, Motivation and School Achievement: An
Integrative Review. Annual Review of Psychology. 51, 171-200

Cresswell, John, W., (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches 2
nd
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Croninger, R., G. & Lee, V., E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high
school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance.
Teachers College Record. V103, no. 4. pp 548-581.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Rustique-Forrester, E. (1997). Investing in quality
teaching: State-level strategies. Education Commission of States.

DuBois, W.E.B. (1935) Black reconstruction. New York: Russell & Russell.
“Educational Resources and Outcomes in California by Race and Ethnicity.”
California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles. Public Policy Institute of
California. February 2005.

Elmore, R., & Fuhrman, S. (2001). Holding schools accountablee: Is it working?.
Phi Delta Kappan. 80. no. 1.

Ferguson, D., Kozleski, E., Smith, A., (2001) On…transforming, inclusive schools: a
framework to guide fundamental change in urban schools. National Institute
forUrban School Improvement.

Fischer, D., & Johnson, C., (2006). Analyzing student work. Principal Leadership.
Education Module. 7(2).

Fuchs, Douglas & Fuchs Lynn (2001) Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint
For practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children.
Sept/Oct.

147
Galimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.

Giangreco, M. (2007). Extending inclusion opportunities. Education Leadership.
64(5).

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007) Eight Edition Educational Research-AN
Introduction, Pearson Education Inc.

Ginsberg, M. B. & Murphy, D. (2002) How walkthroughs open doors. Cooperating
School Districts of Greater St. Louis, Inc. pp. 1-5.

Grendler, M. (2005) Chapter 12 Alberto Bandura’s Social Cognitive Views of
Learning. Learning and Instruction: Theory Into Practice. Columbus OH:
Pearson Prentice Hall 342-379.

Griswold dl Castillo, R. (1990). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A legacy of
conflict. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Harry, B. (1992) Restructuring participation of African American parents in special
education. Exceptional Children. 59(2). 123-131.

Harry, B. & Klinger, J. (2007) Discarding the deficit model. Educational
Leadership. 64(5).

Harry, B. & Anderson, M. G. (1994) The Disproportionate placement of African
American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. The
Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 63, No. 4, Pedagogical and Contextual Issues
Affecting African American Males in School and Society. pp.602-619.

Harry, B., & Anderson, M. G., (1994) The Disproportionate placement of African
American males in special education programs: A Critique of the process.
Journal of Negro Education. 63(4).

Harry, B., & Klinger, J. (2007) Important instruction for students with learning
needs: Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership. 64(5).

Hawkins, V. (2007) Narrowing the gap for special needs students. Educational
Leadership. 64(5).

Hehir, T. (2007) Confronting ableism. Educational Leadership. 64(5).

148
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Retrieved April 24, 2006 from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/welcome.html

Izumi, Lance T. (2002). They have overcome: High-poverty, High-performing
schools in California. Pacific Research Institute.

Jimenez, R., T., Moll, L.C., Rodriguez- Brown, F., & Barrera, R.B., (1999). Latina
And Latino researchers interact on issues related to literacy learning. Reading
Research Quarterly, Vol.34, No. 2. (pp. 217-230).

Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. California: Corwin Press.

Joyce, B. & Calhoun, E.F. (1996). Creating learning experiences: The role of
instructional theory and research. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum and Development.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002) Student achievement through staff development
(3
rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Knapp, M.S., & Needels, M. (1990) Review of research on curriculum and
Introduction in literacy. In M.S. Knapp & P.M. Shields (Eds.), Better
schooling for the children of poverty: Alternatives to the conventional wisdom
(Vol. 2) Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Kohn, A (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores,
ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lachat, M.A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high
schools. Journals of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333-349.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995) Social and institutional analysis toward a theory of
culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32,
No. 3. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Gomez, M L., (2001). Just showing up: Supporting early
Literacy through teachers’ professional communities. Phi Delta Kappan.
Bloomington. Vol. 82. pg. 675.

Louis, K.S. & Kruse, S.D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on
reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

149
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into Action.
ASCD: Alexandria, VA. This was an ASCD book and you likely have it one your
shelf somewhere.

McDermott, R.P., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 26(3). (pp. 324-248)

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

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Moll, A. (2002) Transforming teacher preparation programs for diverse classroom in
public and private urban, suburban, and rural school settings. 2002 AACTE
Annual Meeting. New York, NY.

Moll, L.C., Diaz, E., Estrada, E., & Lopez, L.M., (1992). Making context: The social
construction of lessons in two languages. In M. Savaria-Shore & S.F.Arizu
(Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnographies of communication in multiethnic
classrooms. (pp. 339-363). New York: New Garland.

Nelson-Barber, Sharon (1999) A better education for every child: The dilemma for
teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Chapter 2.

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming Diversity: the Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural
Education. 3
rd
edition. Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Chapter 10

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

Oakes, J., & Wells, A. S., (1998). Detracking for high student achievement.
Educational Leadership. Vol. 55 Research Library Core.

Ogbu, John U. (1981) Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological
perspective. Child Development. Vol. 52, No. 2. pp. 413-429.

Ogbu, J. (1995) Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and
consequences-Part 1. The Urban Review. 27(3)

Ormrod, J.E. (2002) Chapter 12. Cognitive factors in learning. Educational
Psychology: Developing Learners.4
th
Edition. 388-425.

150
Pintrich P.R. (2003) A Motivation Science Perspective on the Role of Student
Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(4) 667-686.

Pagrow, S. (2006). Restructuring high-poverty elementary schools for success: A
description of the hi-perform school design. Phi Delta Kappan. Bloomington.
Vol 88.

Rosenholz, Susan (1989) Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and
commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary
School Journal. v89, 4.

Rosetti, Z., & Tashi, C. (2002) Outing the prejudices making the least dangerous
assumption. The Communicator.

Rueda, R., Gallego, M., & Moll, L. (2000) The Least restrictive environment. A
place or a context? Remedial and Special Education. 21(2).

School of Public Health and Health Professions. (2002). Special education laws.
www.atto.buffalo.edu/registered/ATBasics/Foundation/Laws/specialed.php#EH

Solórzano, D. (1998) Critical race theory, racial and gender microaggressions, and
the experiences of Chicana and Chicano Scholars, International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 11,121–136.

Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.
New York: Elsevier.

Schwarz, P. (2007) Special education; Services not a sentence. Educational
Leadership. 64(5).

Standton-Salazaar, R., D. (1997). A Social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational
Review. v67, no. 1. pp. 1-40.

Swanson, Christopher B. Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t? A Statistical Portrait of
Public HighSchool Graduation, Class of 2001. Washington, DC: The
UrbanInstitute, Education Policy Center, February 25, 2004.
Schugurensky, Daniel. (2002). History of education: Selected moments of the 20
th
century. Toronto, Canada: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of
the University of Toronto.

151
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: Pleum Press.

Sunderman, G., Orfield, G., & Kim, J. (2006) The principals denied by NCLB are
central to visionary school reform. The Education Digest. 72(2).

Tharp R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1991) Chapter 4. The Social Organization of Assisted
Performance. In Rousing Minds to Life. New York: Cambridge University
Press. 71-92.

Thompson, E. T. (1975) Plantation societies, race relations and the South: The
regimentation of populations. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Tilly, David W. (2006). Response to intervention: an overview---what is it? Why do
it? Is it worth it? The Special Edge. Winter/Spring Volume 19.

Tomlinson, C. (2005). Traveling the road to differentiation in staff development.
National Staff Development Council. JSD. 26(4).

United States Department of Education. www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/sec1112.html

United States Department of Education.
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., and Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, Desegregation, and
Integration of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities. In R. Valencia,
Chicano School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future (2
nd
ed.), pp.
70-109.

Valencia, R., & Villarreal, B.J., (2003). Improving students’ reading performance via
standards-based school reform: A critique. The Reading Teacher. Research
Library Core. Vol. 56. pg. 612

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (1993). What makes a
difference? Influences of post school outcomes of youth with disabilities.
Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Education

Weinberg, M. (1977) A chance to learn. Cambridge University Press

Weiner, L. (2003) Why is the classroom management so vexing to urban teachers?
Theory Into Practice. 42(2)

152
Williams, G., & Reisberg, L. (2003) Successful inclusion: Teaching social skills
through curriculum integration. Intervention in School and Clinic. 38(4) p. 205-
210.

Willie, C.V., & Willie S.S., (2005). Black, white, and brown: The Transformation of
public education in America. Teachers College Record. Vol. 107 n 3 p 475-
495.
Wollenberg, Charles. All Deliberate Speed: Segregation and Exclusion in California
Schools, 1855-1975. Chapter 5, "The Decline and Fall of Separate But
Equal." Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976 caleducation.com

United States Department of Education. www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/sec1112.html
United States Department of Education. www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Yosso, T. (2005) Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education. University of
California. Vol. 8, No.1, pp-69-91.

Zuckerbrod, Nancy (2007) Law may accommodate learning disabled. Washington
Post. Associated Press. SFGate.com

153
APPENDIX A: ADMINISTRATOR PROTOCOL
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ______________________________ Date: __________________

Name of Person Interviewed:___________________________________________

Position: ____________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: _________Time Ended: __________ Total Time: _______

Introduction:
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of
color. Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge and
innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire educators
to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 30-45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions

1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe
contribute to the high student performance.
a. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last 3-5
years to improve student performance?
b. (Probe) Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these
practices and policies? If so, how did the school overcome them or
maintain them?

2. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all students
and respects cultural diversity?

154

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?
b. What is your role in helping teachers provide effective instruction?

6. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, that
demonstrate high student performance?
b. What is your role as a school leader in guiding the use of data to improve
the school climate and classroom instruction?

7. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how it impacts students of
color?
a. Does your discipline policy help students adopt behavior that contributes
to their learning?
b. Please give an example.

155
APPENDIX B: TEACHER PROTOCOL

TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ______________________________ Date: __________________

Name of Person Interviewed:___________________________________________

Position: ____________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: _________Time Ended: __________ Total Time: _______

Introduction:
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of
color. Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge and
innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire educators
to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 30-45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions

1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe
contribute to your high student performance.
• (Probe) Has your school encountered any obstacles in
maintaining these practices and policies? 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. What role do teachers play in maintaining a climate in the school that engages
all students and respects cultural diversity?

156

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 school-
wide plan for students of color?

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 including students of color?

6. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, that
demonstrate high student performance?

7. Describe your school wide discipline policy and how it impacts students?

157
APPENDIX C: CLASSIFIED PROTOCOL

CLASSIFIED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ______________________________ Date: __________________

Name of Person Interviewed:___________________________________________

Position: ____________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: _________Time Ended: __________ Total Time: _______

Introduction:
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of
color. Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge and
innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire educators
to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 30-45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

Interview Questions
1. Describe the practices and policies at your school site that you believe contribute
to the high student performance.
• Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these
practices and policies? If so, how did the school overcome them
or maintain them?
• Which are the three most effective things the school has done
over the last 3-5 years to improve student performance?

158

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?

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?
b. How do the students react to testing?
c. How do teachers react?
d. Is it known throughout the school what is done with the data?
e. How is it made known?

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

159
APPENDIX D: PARENT PROTOCOL

PARENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

School Name: ______________________________ Date: __________________

Name of Person Interviewed:___________________________________________

Position: ____________________________________________________________

Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Time Started: _________Time Ended: __________ Total Time: _______

Introduction:
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying
systems and structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools with students of
color. Through the nomination process, your school was identified as a high-achieving
urban school. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve
high levels of student performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge and
innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire educators
to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 30-45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

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 sub-group) students?

5. How do you describe a good or effective teacher?

160
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?
b. Do you consider the discipline policies fair for all children?
c. Can you give an example of its fairness?

161
APPENDIX E: OBSERVATION GUIDE

Leadership Team Meeting
Questions for Reflections

To what extent was the meeting focused on the implementation of the school plan?

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

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

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

Structure: Is the meeting for information or systems planning?

Is the meeting operational- or instructional-focused?

162
APPENDIX F: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE

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:
• School wide 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 student
o Discipline
• Student work posted
o Feedback/rubric
o Standard based
• Student Engagement

163

APPENDIX G: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATION GUIDE

Research Question # 1, 2, 3, and 4:
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 is 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?

164
APPENDIX H: PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION GUIDE
Physical Setting: To allow readers to visualize the setting, the researcher will record
the following observations during each visit:
School grounds
• Wall postings
• Samples of students’ work
• School calendar for academic year
• Visual of school goals / mission / vision
• Symbolic representations (drug free zone, anti-violence, college paraphernalia,
culturally relevant items)
• Cleanliness (trashy, odor, graffiti, insects)
Classroom specific
• Wall postings
• Samples of students’ work
• Classroom calendar
• Classroom schedule
• Classroom rules or expectations
• Culturally relevant items
• Location of classroom (bungalow, main building, isolated, included)
• Cleanliness (trashy, odor, graffiti, insects)
• Classroom spacing (proximity of students’ desks to one another and teacher)

165
Social Climate/Environment: During each visit, the researcher will record elements of
human interactions.
School-wide environment
• Adult-Adult and Adult-student interactions (use of greetings, use of names,
friendliness, smiles, affect)
• Group dynamics (how students organize themselves; by gender, ethnicity, age)
Classroom climate
• Structure, order, rigidity of classroom environment; is teacher in control of class,
students out of their seats, loud talking, on task
• Group dynamics (how students organize themselves; by gender, ethnicity, age,
or teacher assignment)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Historically students of color living in poverty have been provided substandard educational opportunities. Still today, many schools in urban settings with large concentrations of students of color who live in poverty continue to provide educational opportunities with lowered expectations of the students. Additionally, students of color are often over identified for special education and provided educational opportunities away from the general education population which promotes defacto segregation. Despite historical sentiments however, schools in this setting exist that foster high student performance and promote life long learners. This case study sought to identify what organizational systems and structures support effective school-wide instructional approaches that foster high student performance. One school that met the required profile of the case study was identified and analyzed. Through observations, interviews, and review of artifacts of this school it was determined that structures in place from federal and state government, along with district requirements provided a framework and funding for school systems to work from. Structures include No Child Left Behind requirements, Title I, standards-based instruction, assessments, and data analysis. Systems in place that promote high achievement stem from leadership, a culture of high expectations, professional development, and parental involvement. By way of these systems, instructional strategies implemented that supported students benefited from the mandated assessments and use of data driven decision making, standards-based instructional methods, professional development, professional learning communities, reflective teaching, and home-school communication. Additionally, to specifically support students of color, use of a culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy was explored.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Organizational systems school leaders implement to facilitate effective classroom instruction in urban schools: a case study

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

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

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

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

PDF

Improved math achievement in an urban high school: a case study of a high school in the Vista Unified School District

PDF

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

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Croatt, Dana R. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/09/2008

Defense Date 04/08/2008

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

Tag high poverty schools,instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair), Marsh, David D. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email danacroatt@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1259

Unique identifier UC1169430

Identifier etd-Croatt-20080609 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-74216 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1259 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Croatt-20080609.pdf

Dmrecord 74216

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Croatt, Dana R.

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