University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of academic success with students of color: what really matters? 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 STUDY OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS WITH STUDENTS OF COLOR: WHAT
REALLY MATTERS? LESSONS FROM HIGH-PERFORMING, HIGH
POVERTY URBAN SCHOOLS
A CASE STUDY

by

Jeanique Wells

_________________________________________________________

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Jeanique Wells

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I thank God for all of my blessings. I also want to thank
Elaine Kay Alford for being the most wonderful best friend and sister that anybody
could ever ask for. This is dedicated to you E. I know you are looking down from
heaven and smiling at me. Your energy and determination for me to complete this
challenge is what carried me through. You will be with me at the commencement
ceremony because you will always live in my heart. I love you my sister and miss
you more than you could have ever imagined!
Many thanks also goes out to my son, Jorden for being so patient and helpful
throughout this journey, which seemed to be a lifetime in the eyes of a twelve year
old. I also have to thank my family and friends who kept Jorden busy on the
weekends so I could write and/or study. That includes mom, papa, mama and BB,
Aunt Wanda, Keisha, the Alford Family, and the Jackson Family. I could not have
done this without you all.
I further extend expressions of gratitude to all the computer wiz kids who
helped me design the graphs and charts that seemed to overwhelm me each and
every time. That would be Robin Jackson, Araceli May, and Dr. Charmaine Mercer.
What seemed so small to you meant the world to me. And to all my unofficial editors
in the preschool support services office, thank you.
Last, but not least, thanks goes out to the entire Trojan Family! Thank you
Dr. Stowe and Dr. Rousseau for your continued academic guidance and also for your
understanding during my recent time of grief. To my thematic group and Thursday

iii
night cohort who shared the ups and the downs and showed me so much love and
support, thank you. Fight On!

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………….. ii
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………... v
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………….. vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ……………….. 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………… 21
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ………………… 52
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION …… 67
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS …………………………… 124

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………. 140
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………….. 147

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Impact of Leadership on Student Achievement ……………….. 11
Figure 2. Theoretical Framework ………………………………………… 58
Figure 3. Research Questions/Theoretical Framework Matrix …………… 59
Figure 4. Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions ……………. 61
Figure 5. Artifact/Document Matrix ………………………………………. 64
Figure 6. Process of Data Analysis ………………………………………… 66
Figure 7. API Scores from 2005-2007 for Stellar, District, and State ……… 73
Figure 8. Percent At or Above Proficient ………………………………….. 76
Figure 9. Mean Scale Scores by Subgroup ……………………………….. 79
Figure 10. Truancy Rate …………………………………………………… 80
Figure 11. Sample Individual Learning Plan: ELA Goal …………………. 92
Figure 12. Relationship between Leithwood’s Core Practices
and Principal’s Actions ……………………………………………………. 102

vi
ABSTRACT
This case study examined what is known and what is not known about
academic success among students of color at one high-performing, high-poverty
urban school. Based on a sociocultural theory of learning, the study focused on
identification of systems and structures that were perceived to contribute to high
student achievement among students of color. In addition, the study focused on the
extent to which implementation of systems and structures supported school-wide
effective classroom instruction. Other theories around race, pedagogy, systems, and
capital contributed to the exploration of four research questions aiming to find out
more about educating students of color in high-poverty schools.
Interviews, observations, and artifact/document analysis were used to collect
data. The results demonstrated consistent academic progress among students of
color. However, there were significant discrepancies in the rate and extent of
progress. The findings further suggested that professional development and the use
of assessment data to inform decisions were both structures and systems. Other
significant structures included the use of scientific, research-based instructional
strategies, hiring highly qualified teachers, and reduced class sizes. The most
influential systems included leadership as an overarching factor, which impacted
structures as well as other systems such as goal setting and collaboration. Findings
also suggested that academic success among students of color is closely associated
with the presence of effective classroom instruction. The construct of race was

vii
discussed and found to require further investigation of its influence on teaching and
learning among students of color.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Introduction
Historically, high-poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students
of color have been associated with low student achievement. This relationship
between students of color and low student achievement has been well researched for
decades and clearly documented by numerous studies (Blanchett et al., 2005; Slavin,
1998). Educational researchers, policymakers, school administrators, parents, and
students alike have opinions regarding the causes of underachievement among
impoverished students of color. The sheer volume of current and previous research
that has been designed to contribute additional understanding to this phenomenon
represents its significance in our society.
A brief examination of the history of education among students of color will
demonstrate how educational inequities in the past have influenced the current
condition of education. This method of examination is based on a theoretical
framework that encompasses the influence of societal and educational factors (both
historical and contemporary) on school site systems and structures, which ultimately
impact student achievement.
Background of the Problem
Patterns of inequity in education derive from the longstanding American
tradition of inequality based on various factors such as race, ethnicity, social class,
income, and gender. Allen & Chung (2000) support the notion of patterns of inequity
with their assertion that America’s current racial and ethnic reality is based on a

2
“history that included the enslavement of Africans, the conquest of Indians and
Mexicans, the exploitation of Asian and other nonwhite labor, and past-and
continuing-racial/ethnic discrimination” (p. 796). These past and continuing racial
and ethnic discriminatory behaviors suggest the need for an intervention that
acknowledges our educational system as a micro system, nestled within the context
of America’s overarching stratification systems.
According to Ladson-Billings (2006) the United States is riddled with a
legacy of educational inequities based on race, class, and gender. These educational
inequities have been manifested in various ways based on different classifications of
people of color. Latina/o students were denied equitable and high-quality education
as far back as 1848, while many American Indians were limited to vocational and
trade curricula. African Americans were altogether forbidden to learn to read during
the era of enslavement, which created an unyielding discrepancy in knowledge that
has had long-term effects.
Discrepancies in knowledge were planted more than 200 years ago and have
somehow managed to survive in our current society based on the will of man to
reproduce them. Today, this discrepancy is more commonly referred to as the
achievement gap which represents gaps in achievement between students of color
and white students (Ladson-Billings, 2006). In 2005, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) confirmed that the gap for fourth graders in reading
achievement was more than 26 points, while the gap in mathematics achievement
was more than 20 points. For eighth graders, the gap in reading achievement was

3
more than 23 points, while the gap in mathematics achievement was more than 26
points. (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Other research findings such as the one from the
American Educational Research Association (AERA) further support the reality of
the achievement gap. According to AERA “by 12
th
grade, the average African-
American and Hispanic student can only do math and read as well as a white eighth
grader” (AERA, 2004 in Weiher & Tedin, 2006, p. 963).
This gap in achievement has persisted over time and is a top priority for
American citizens as evidenced by its unprecedented political attention. The National
Governors’ Association (2005) asserts the achievement gap “is one of the most
pressing education-policy challenges that states currently face” (Ladson-Billings,
2006, p. 1).
Research further demonstrates how current gaps in achievement are
connected to discrepancies in the quality of instruction between students of color and
white students. Peske and Haycock (2006) studied teacher distribution and found that
high-poverty, high-minority schools were much more likely to be staffed by teachers
with less experience, education, and skill in comparison to low-poverty, low-
minority schools. These findings cannot be ignored as students of color continue to
represent more and more of the public school population. In 2000, Johnston and
Viadero reported that African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians
accounted for one-third of 54 million children in the nation’s K-12 classrooms; and
that number may grow to two-thirds in the next 15 years.

4
The number of students of color enrolled in the nation’s public schools has
continuously risen since the early 1900’s (Banks, 2004). In the 1980’s discrepancies
in student achievement became more pronounced domestically and more problematic
internationally, as students of color began to markedly represent more of the
American public school population. Students of color were found to be significantly
underachieving in comparison to their white counterparts domestically; while
American students in general were found to be underachieving in comparison to their
counterparts internationally. This perceived substandard level of achievement among
all American students served as a catalyst to record national attention on student
achievement in America. This is evidenced by studies such as A Nation at Risk, A
Nation Still at Risk, and TIMSS, which will be examined in detail in the following
discussion (NCEE, 1983).
Condition of Education
A growing trend of educational mediocrity and underachievement was
discovered in 1983 by the NCEE, in its now infamous report to the nation entitled A
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A Nation at Risk was an
eighteen month study that included a variety of international comparisons which
addressed different educational domains and found that education in America was
eroding. Fascinating statistics from the report propelled public concern about
students’ academic achievement to the forefront of debates in the United States.
Fifteen years after A Nation at Risk was published, a follow-up report was
released that provided an update on the status of the nation’s educational system. A

5
Nation Still at Risk: An Education Manifesto, was the result of a conference held by
various education reformers in 1998, which declared that educational mediocrity was
unfortunately, still acute in America’s schools (Anonymous, 1998).
This notion of underachievement was further confirmed by the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS was spearheaded in
1995-96 by the International Association for the Evaluation of Education
Achievement (IEA) and was the largest and most comprehensive international
education study in world history (DOE, 1997).
A half-million students from 41 nations were tested in 30 different languages
in grades four, eight, and twelve to compare academic achievement in the areas of
mathematics and science. The results showed that student achievement of American
fourth graders in both mathematics and science was above the international average.
Eighth grade achievement for American students was above the international average
in science, but below the international average in mathematics. Finally, American
twelfth grade students faired the worse with both science and mathematics
achievement below the international average and among the lowest of the 21 TIMSS
countries (Cochrane, 1999). Within this context, American students of color scored
disproportionately worse than their white counterparts.
These research findings set the stage for what is currently happening in
educational reform today. Initial focus on the underachievement of American
students in general, led to widespread national recognition of underachievement

6
specifically among African-American and Hispanic students. This recognition gave
way to the most recent educational reform effort, No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
NCLB is a federal law that was enacted on January 8, 2002 which mandates
that all students in all grades meet the state academic achievement standards for
mathematics and English-Language Arts by 2014. Among many notable features of
NCLB, is the requirement for states to publish achievement results separately for
racial and ethnic groups. Raising achievement levels among racial and ethnic
minorities in an effort to close the achievement gap is an explicit goal of federal
policy for the first time in our nation’s history (Ferguson, 2002). This unprecedented
emphasis on the achievement of subgroups is of special interest because that is
essentially what this study aims to address; the historical association between
impoverished students of color and low student achievement; and how to overcome
it.
Poverty and Student Achievement
The association between poverty and lack of access to resources is believed
to put students of color at a huge educational disadvantage. Research has shown that
children from impoverished families are disproportionately represented by students
of color (Blanchett et al., 2005). Students of color and their families are “more likely
to suffer from the ills of poverty” which influences their success in school (Slavin &
Madden, 2006, p. 390). Studies also show that there is a crisis in equity at these
schools with heavy concentrations of impoverished students in relation to

7
opportunities and outcomes. Slavin (1998) found that high-poverty schools receive
much less resources, supports, and per-pupil funding than low-poverty schools.
Social capital theorist Pierre Bourdieu conceptualized these differences in
access to equal educational opportunities as a tool of reproduction for dominant
groups to help maintain structural constraints and unequal access to institutional
resources based on class, gender, and race (Dika & Singh, 2002). This suggests that
failing to provide disadvantaged students with equal educational opportunities and
resources serves as a function to maintain and secure the societal position of more
advantaged students.
Other findings on poverty and outcomes suggest that “children in families
with income below the poverty level are nearly twice as likely to be held back a
grade level as their more advantaged classmates” (Garcia, 2002, p. 25). Taylor
(2005) further claimed that family income is still a reliable indicator in predicting
student performance. She found that “students who live in poverty are not only more
likely to underachieve than their peers from middle- and high-income households,
they are also at risk of not completing school” (p. 53). These findings clearly
represent the crisis in equity that Slavin (1998) discussed and furthermore lend
support to his notion of variation in outcomes based on social class and ethnicity.
Despite the historical association between impoverished students of color and
low student achievement, significant academic gains have been observed in various
schools throughout the nation that demonstrate certain practices (Carter, 2000;
Marzano, 2003). Studies have shown that “schools can have a tremendous impact on

8
student achievement if they follow the direction provided by the research” (Marzano,
2003, p. 4). Although practices may vary somewhat among schools, there is much
overlap in the research findings of common practices that are highly effective in
high-poverty schools.
According to Marzano (2003) there is more than 35 years of research to guide
schools in a highly effective journey toward enhanced achievement for all students.
He discusses a range of structural and systemic practices that contribute to increased
student achievement. The most significant school-level factors that Marzano found
across researchers in hierarchical order include: curriculum, goals and feedback,
parent/community partnerships, school environment, and professionalism and
collegiality (Marzano, 2003). Amid these multiple factors, this study will focus on
the impact of leadership in the implementation of systems and structures such as
curriculum and goals, parent partnerships, and professionalism and collegiality to
influence improved student learning. Leadership will be discussed first and within its
own realm because of its overarching influence on the effective implementation of
structures and systems.
Structures and Systems
For the purpose of this study, structures have been operationalized by the
Ed.D. thematic group as top-down institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures
established by federal, state, or district policy and legislation. There is little control
over organizational structures at the school site level. Standards-based instruction,
budgeting, funding, resources, hiring policies, time allocation, class size, and spacing

9
are examples of organizational structures. The extent of carefully planned out
operations of these variables at individual school sites reflect the systems at that
school.
All structures and systems are heavily influenced by leadership factors
according to Marzano (2003). The conceptualization of leadership varies according
to the context in which it is discussed. As such, the discussion will focus on school
site leadership, without prejudice toward state and district level leadership and the
substantial influence they also have on student achievement.
Leadership
In high-performing, high-poverty schools, research shows that leaders
contribute to high student achievement in a number of ways. Establishing a school
culture and climate of learning as a primary goal is a foundation of increased student
achievement. Expectations for academic excellence are promoted for all students and
are consistent with the shared mission and vision of the school. There is also a
distinction of appropriate handling by the leader of schools’ budget, resources, and
supports which improve instruction (Bell, 2001; Duke, 2006; Laitsch, 2005, Ragland
et al., 2002).
Educational research studies cite leadership as a key factor which influences
student learning outcomes. Decades of extensive empirical research have shown that
leadership is a central part of school effectiveness (Huber, 2004). Leadership,
according to Leithwood et al., (2004), “not only matters: it is second only to teaching
among school-related factors in its impact on learning” (p. 1).

10
Leadership has an overarching influence on multiple structural and systemic
practices which in turn, collectively influence student achievement (Marzano, 2003).
The manner in which these practices are managed is representative of one’s beliefs
and style of leadership and varies greatly among leaders. Different styles of
leadership and subsequent management of these practices lead to wide variation in
student achievement. This study will focus specifically on curriculum and goals,
parent partnerships, and professionalism and collegiality as systems that are
influenced by leadership to collectively influence student achievement (Figure 1).
Curriculum and Goals
Izumi (2002) asserts it is “no exaggeration to say that a well-implemented
research-proven curriculum is likely the key factor in determining student
performance” (p. 47). At the core of curriculum and goals is the actual material that
is being taught and how that material is selected. The material should be chosen
based on standards and assessments required by the state and school district. The
material should furthermore be clearly communicated by school site leadership so
that all teachers and students know what is expected of them (Corallo & McDonald,
2001; Johnson & Asera, 1999).
This alignment between curriculum and state standards should guide the
development of corresponding learning goals. Like the curriculum, the learning goals
must be clearly communicated and should reflect expectations of school-wide
academic success. Every teacher must buy-in to the goals in order that they not be
compromised in the privacy of individual classrooms (Carter, 2000).

11

Figure 1. Impact of Leadership on Student Achievement

Leadership

Curriculum
and Goals

Professionalism
Collegiality

Parent
Partnerships

12
Parent Partnerships
High-performing, high-poverty schools acknowledge and respect parents as
partners and resources. These schools rely on parents to help them understand
students’ needs that go beyond the classroom (Ragland et al., 2002). Student learning
is not limited to the school campus and is expected to continue into the home
environment (Carter, 2000). This philosophy is encouraged by asking parents for
their time, ideas, and cooperation. These schools work hard to establish networks for
parents to become a part of their child’s educational experience, in hopes of
producing parents who show an interest in their child’s education and are willing to
invest in it (Ragland et al., 2002). Regardless to their level of involvement at the
school, there is frequent communication with parents to keep them apprised of their
child’s progress and various strategies the school employs to increase student
learning outcomes for all students (Duke, 2006; Laitsch, 2005).
Professionalism and Collegiality
The main idea behind professionalism and collegiality is improvement in the
quality of instruction. Both professional development and collaboration are used as
mechanisms to strengthen the teaching skills of teachers. According to Carter (2000)
“the inadequate training of teachers is the single most debilitating force at work in
American classrooms today. Overcoming this failure is perhaps the single greatest
accomplishment of high-performing, high-poverty schools” (p. 17). Thus, student
achievement is improved at these schools through strong professional development
that is aligned with the needs of teachers to implement quality instruction (Corallo &

13
McDonald, 2001). Teachers are afforded opportunities to work, plan, and learn
together which results in teachers that feel more effective and more willing to put
forth their best effort (Johnson & Asera, 1999).
Statement of the Problem
The unprecedented challenge to educate an increasingly diverse student
population has not been resolved. Americans continue to face the large task of
improving student performance among multicultural, multilingual, and
disadvantaged students (Lee, 2004). Public schools in the United States have
produced varying degrees of student achievement levels throughout the past century,
which includes a history of high student achievement in low-poverty, low minority
schools; and low student achievement for students of color in high-poverty schools.
According to Ladson-Billings (2006), these educational inequities were originally
formed around race, class, and gender. Although these inequities have receded in
some areas, they remain pervasive in the realm of race.
In order to improve the instructional quality of the American educational
system, practitioners have used research in providing structural and systemic
practices that promote high student achievement. Research demonstrates how
variation in the implementation of structural and systemic practices can promote high
student achievement at some high-poverty schools with large concentrations of
students of color. Yet, a lack of consistency exists in the ability of these schools to
implement effective structures and systems that promote high academic achievement
among impoverished students of color.

14
Although some high-poverty schools with large concentrations of students of
color do promote high academic achievement, this trend has not generalized across
most schools with similar demographics. Therefore, the manner in which specific
structural and systemic practices are implemented to consistently support school-
wide effective classroom instruction at high-poverty schools with large
concentrations of students of color must be identified.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to identify the organizational structures
and systems that enable teachers to deliver effective classroom instruction in high-
performing, high-poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of
color. It was also designed to advance understanding of how specific organizational
structures and systems are implemented to significantly influence effective school-
wide instructional practices. Based on the purpose of the study, four research
questions were developed, as stated below.
Research Questions
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 structures and systems 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?

15
Significance of the Study
This study is important because it will provide new and additional
understanding on the epidemic of disproportionate underachievement among
American students of color. Disproportionate underachievement of poor students of
color is more popularly known as the achievement gap, which refers to the gap in
academic achievement between minority and disadvantaged students and their white
counterparts (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Understanding why and how the achievement
gap persists is critical to developing an effective resolution.
An in-depth investigation of the epidemic will help education researchers,
policymakers, site administrators, teachers, community stakeholders, and parents to
better understand why far too many students of color continue to disproportionately
underachieve, thus, sustaining the achievement gap. Despite significant amounts of
research, Ladson-Billings (2006) contends that we study poor African-American,
Latina/o, American Indian, and Asian immigrant students, but fall short of providing
remedies that help them to solve their problems. Consideration of the findings of this
study is essential to the resolution of this problem to the extent that previously
employed ineffective strategies are eliminated, and more students of color achieve
academic excellence through effective practices.
In the absence of resolution, many Americans fear the worst for the future
welfare of America. Alan Greenspan (former Federal Reserve Chairman) explains
his biggest fear for America’s future, “competitively speaking” as the poor job we’re
doing in education. He further states his belief that resolution of our educational

16
problems will help us “maintain the very extraordinary position the United States
holds in the world at large” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 9). Gaps in academic
achievement carry consequences according to Professor Emeritus Robert Haveman
of the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Education. Our failure to invest in
the education of impoverished children may “lead to a variety of social problems
(e.g. crime, low productivity, low wages, low labor force participation) that require
on-going public investments” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 5). Therefore, it is logical
for educational research studies such as this one to acknowledge the need for further
study as significant and to regard this matter with the utmost urgency.
Limitations
Due to constraints on time and resources, the study was limited to data that
was collected from one public elementary school in Los Angeles County for the
duration of ten weeks in Fall 2007. Therefore, the research findings are limited in
their ability to be generalized to other settings. Participant bias may also be a
limitation of the study to the extent that participants’ personal perceptions of stimuli
influenced their responses. In addition, researcher bias cannot be ruled out due to the
reliance on researcher interpretation in the analysis of data.
Delimitations
A descriptive, analytic case study approach was used that led to data
collection from one heavily impacted public elementary school in Los Angeles
County. Data collection was designed to illuminate the most relevant information on
the essential elements of effective instruction in high-performing, high-poverty urban

17
schools. This limits the ability to generalize the results of this study to other settings.
The qualitative design which encompassed voluntary participation of people chosen
based on pre-selected criteria further limits the generalizability of the results. Pre-
selected criteria included:
• Urban schools with high concentrations of students of color.
• High rate of poverty based on 75% or more students eligible for free
and reduced meals.
• High-performing schools based on school-wide trajectory of API and
AYP growth over three years for all subgroups; minimal movement of
2 deciles within 3-5 years.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were operationally defined for the purpose of this study,
based mostly on the EdSource online glossary (2007).
Academic performance index (API): A number summarizing the performance
of a group of students or a school on California’s standardized tests.
Accountability: The idea that school administrators and teachers should be
held responsible for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or
sanctioned based on their success or lack thereof in doing so.
Achievement Gap: Consistent disparity in student achievement between
impoverished students of color and their white counterparts.
Adequate Yearly Progress: A set of annual academic performance
benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and subpopulations of students are

18
supposed to achieve if the state receives federal funding under Title I, Part A of the
federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Assessment: A system for testing and evaluating students, groups of students,
schools, or districts.
Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of performance
expected of students and teachers for improvement purposes.
Content Standards: Standards that describe what students should know and
be able to do in core academic courses according to grade level.
Equity: Educational impartiality that ensures all students receive fair
treatment and have access to the services they need in order to receive high-quality
education.
High-performing: School-wide trajectory of API and AYP growth over three
years which includes all subgroups; minimal movement of 2 deciles within 3-5 years.
High-poverty: Minimum of 75% of students on free/reduced lunch.
Performance standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level
students should be expected to master the content standards.
Professional development: Opportunities for staff to develop new knowledge
and skills to improve their teaching ability. Also known as “staff development” in
some literature.
Reform: A change effort that is undertaken to improve the educational
system.

19
Sanctions: The consequences imposed for not meeting expected performance
outcomes in some accountability systems.
Standards-based reform: Shift in education policy and school reform toward
reaching consensus on and establishing standards for what students need to know
and be able to do at each grade or developmental level.
Structure: Institutional mechanisms, policies, and procedures established by
federal, state, or district policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official
formation of the school; not subject to change at the local school site.
Students of color: Historically disenfranchised populations such as African
Americans and Hispanics.
System: Coordinated and coherent use of resources at the school site to
ensure that a school’s mission, vision, and goals are met.
Urban: Densely populated; diverse
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 helped establish the foundation for the research study. It included a
broad overview of the study and was further broken down into several parts leading
to the specific details of the study. A review of literature will be presented in Chapter
2, which covers relevant information pertaining to what we know already based on
previous research findings. Chapter 3 provides the research methodology, including
the qualitative nature of the design and relevant sampling information. Chapter 4
presents the results/findings of the research conducted at one heavily impacted
elementary school. Conclusions, implications for policy and practice, and

20
corresponding areas of interest for future research studies will be provided in
Chapter 5.

21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
“Together, we must build an America that offers the best education to all our
children – wherever they live, whatever their background,” (Kerry, U.S. Democratic
candidate for President, 2004). This charge to offer the best education to all children
has been a daunting task for the American educational system. Volumes of past and
current research confirm disproportionate underachievement among students of color
in high-poverty urban schools (Blanchett et al., 2005).
In 2002, Garcia found that “nonwhite and Hispanic students drop out of high
school at two to three times the rate of white students” (p. 27); while 29% of white
13-year-olds performed below grade level in 1989 compared to 38% for blacks and
38.4% for Hispanics. Miseducating diverse children in poverty, according to
Haberman (2003), is predictable, explainable, and not a series of accidental,
unfortunate, or chance events. Instead, Haberman suggest that these inequities in
education are related to a historical American socio-political climate, which protects
and preserves unearned privileges for middle class whites. The rigidity of this socio-
political climate has compelled the federal government to respond with various
policies over the years.
According to Peske & Haycock (2006) the federal government has tried to
address this problem of educational inequities for more than 40 years now. The
introduction of the Title I program and affirmative action serve as examples of the
government’s efforts to level the playing field for poor and minority students. Today,

22
federal laws are still being developed in an effort to address the problem. Policies
such as No Child Left Behind reflect the most recent efforts to reduce gaps in
achievement by forcing states and districts to identify and address educational
inequities in high-poverty and high-minority schools (Peske & Haycock, 2006).
Although federal laws have not eliminated educational disparities, research
findings have shown that “many schools serving poor, minority, and non-English-
speaking students are doing quite well academically” (Duke, 2006, p. 3). In addition,
a slight reduction in the equity gap between students of color and other children in
the areas of reading, SAT scores, and dropout rates has been found (Darling-
Hammond, 1998; Slavin, 1998).
Research has further shown that impoverished students of color are
demonstrating academic gains in schools that have implemented structural and
systemic practices that have been proven to be effective in improving student
achievement. This was demonstrated for example, by Samuel Carter (2000) through
his research on 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools that he says did not
succeed by chance. Instead, he attributed their success to hard work, sensible
teaching philosophies, and leadership factors that could be replicated (Carter, 2000).
Within this framework, there are specific structural and systemic practices that have
been consistently identified as key factors that encourage high student achievement
in high-poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of color.
This literature review will explore the structural and systemic practices that
have been linked with high-performing, high-poverty schools so that the current

23
study can build upon the platform they establish. Within this context, a considerate
amount of attention will go to the role of leadership in creating systems and
structures that improve student achievement for impoverished students of color.
History of Public Education in America
Driven by the desire to conduct a nationwide study on the condition of
education, Secretary of Education T. H. Bell created the National Commission on
Excellence in Education in 1981. The Commission’s task was to study the quality of
the American educational system and prepare a report for the nation. This legendary
report was released in 1983 and came to be known as A Nation at Risk (Bell, 1993).
The 18 month study included data from: papers commissioned from experts
in education; testimony at eight meetings, six public hearings, two panel discussions,
a symposium, and series of other meetings; previous analyses on educational
problems; letters; and descriptions of outstanding programs and promising practices
in education (NCEE, 1983).
The findings shocked the nation with accusations of educational erosion in
America that the report predicted would inevitably lead to deterioration of the United
States. The report found that American students were educationally inferior in
international comparisons with other industrialized nations. Functional illiteracy was
found to be pervasive in America, with 23 million adults and approximately 13
percent of all 17-year-olds struggling with simple reading, writing, and
comprehension tasks. A variety of other findings in the report suggested that

24
educational mediocrity in America was threatening the nation’s global
competitiveness (NCEE, 1983).
Based on the findings, the report concluded that improvement in the areas of
content, expectations, time, and teaching would improve the outcomes of public
education in America. Recommendations were developed that corresponded to each
suggested area of improvement. The recommendations implied that America’s
schools could be repaired; student achievement was not fixed and would improve if
schools followed the recommendations of the report. In an effort to gauge the extent
of change in American students’ achievement, an educational review was conducted
by influential educators, community stakeholders, and policymakers in 1998. The
result, an updated publication entitled A Nation Still at Risk, painted a grim, but
different picture than the original report.
In the fifteen years that had passed since the publication of the original
report, A Nation Still at Risk reported that a whole generation had gone through the
school system; however, more than 6 million American students had dropped out of
high school completely. Of the ones who reached the 12
th
grade, over 10 million
hadn’t learned to read at a basic level, over 20 million couldn’t do basic math, and
almost 25 million didn’t know the essentials of U.S. History. The numbers in
minority communities were disproportionately worse, with 13% of all blacks aged 16
– 24 not in school and with no diploma in 1996. In addition, 17% of first-generation
Hispanics had dropped out of high school, with 44% of them Hispanic immigrants.
College bound students evidenced the aforementioned statistics as 30% of the

25
incoming freshmen required remedial training in reading, writing, and mathematics.
These findings demonstrated that the American education system was still failing
some students, which were predominantly African-American and Hispanic students.
Unlike the original report, A Nation Still at Risk emphasized the stark
difference in academic achievement among American students. Disparities paralleled
the longstanding history of inequity of power in the United States. A dual school
system was reportedly being created that was separate and unequal. The nation was
reminded that select groups of people have a lot of power and influence over our
educational system who may or may not be vested in substantial change that would
benefit all children in America (Anonymous, 1998). According to Kincheloe (1999)
in Blanchett et al., “Existing hierarchies of power work to ‘undermine the
educational progress and economic mobility of nonwhite and poor students’ (p.
221)” (2005, p. 74). This power structure serves to maintain privileges for
advantaged students and limit privileges for the disadvantaged.
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) further
documented disparities in academic achievement in the areas of math and science.
TIMSS was coordinated by the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA) in 1995-96 and was the largest and most
comprehensive international study on student achievement ever done (NCES, 1996).
TIMSS presented mathematics and science as unique academic areas that
require higher order thinking skills, which are universally associated with more
prestigious careers and a better quality of life. This is important and relevant to the

26
current study to the extent that the American culture questions the ability of African
American students to excel in these “hard science” areas of achievement (Moses-
Snipes & Snipes, 2005); hence, creating an expectation of underachievement in math
and science achievement for African-American students.
A brief review of the TIMSS study and the findings will lead into a
discussion on math and science achievement specifically for students of color in the
United States. According to Cochrane (1999), data was collected from one-half
million students in 41 nations to assess mathematics and science achievement
internationally. In the United States, data was collected from more than 33,000
students in the 4
th
, 8
th
, and 12
th
grades in over 500 schools. The results indicated that
American students were among the lowest scoring students internationally, after
matriculating from elementary to high school (Cochrane, 1999).
Among American students, Johnson and Kritsonis (2006) maintain that
researchers are increasingly dismayed by the disparities in mathematics achievement
of African Americans, as well as other ethnic groups. They present the findings of
various researchers which claim that African-American students consistently score
below the national average in mathematics achievement. They also present data from
NAEP in Owen (1991) which found that at age 9, African American students ranked
at or about 11 percentage points below the national average. The discrepancy
increases to 15 percentage points at age 13, and 17 percentage points at age 17.
These findings of the gradual decline in academic competence, and
subsequent lack of academic achievement of American 12
th
graders overall, is

27
consistent with previously stated research findings from A Nation at Risk and A
Nation Still at Risk.
The connection between these studies is the overwhelming evidence of a
steady decline in educational skills in the United States, in addition to the marked
discrepancy in achievement between students of color and other children. This
reality thrust the issue of education to the top of the list of concerns for Americans.
In 1993, education was described as a major, high-priority national concern, as well
as a state and local responsibility (Bell, 1993). At that time, education had never
received so much attention on a national level. The concern of American citizens
forced the United States government to take a closer look at its past remedies and
develop a plan of action for the future that was different and extraordinary. Thus, No
Child Left Behind was born and marketed as the ultimate solution to America’s
educational crisis.
NCLB placed unprecedented emphasis on closing inter-group educational
disparities in an effort to help all American students obtain what Brown v. Board of
Education fell short of in 1954, which was access to equal educational opportunities
(Blanchett et al., 2005). The following discussion on equal educational opportunities
will demonstrate the importance of access to opportunity for students of color and
the lack of progress that has been made on their behalf.
Equal Educational Opportunities
A review of the history in education proves that disparities in the American
educational system date as far back as the late 1800’s (Lyons & Chelsey, 2004). The

28
most dramatic example of this was the prohibition of education for African-
Americans. Ladson-Billings (2006) noted that while white students were privileged
to quality education, African-American students were prohibited altogether. Other
ethnic minorities were also denied access to quality education, which established a
huge educational wedge between the haves and have-nots.
Landmark court cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954 lend support to the well established
connection between race and equal educational opportunities. Kahlenberg (2001)
noted that the decision in the Brown case focused on race and desegregation instead
of equal educational opportunity, which is really the source of conflict. Gross
differences in current student achievement indicate that attempts to desegregate
American students did not level the educational playing field for students of color.
Data shows that schools have regressed to levels of segregation noted in the 1960’s,
prior to court ordered desegregation ( Orfield & Lee, 2004 in Blanchett et al., 2005).
As such, access to resources and quality educational opportunities disproportionately
favor schools with predominantly white students. Hence, the lack of access to equal
educational opportunities is suspected as the foundation on which generations of
impoverished students of color continue to disproportionately underachieve.
Theories of capital are grounded in the assumption that access to resources
and opportunity are the cornerstones of obtaining and retaining power in America.
The following research studies illustrate how social and cultural theories of capital

29
are used to explain the relationship between equality and success, or the lack thereof,
for impoverished students of color in the United States.
Social and Cultural Capital
Social capital is defined by Lin (2000) as “investment and use of embedded
resources in social relations for expected returns” (p. 786). After an extensive review
of empirical research studies on social capital, Lin (2000) found that disproportionate
social resources contribute to social inequality. Examples of this are demonstrated by
marked disparities in socioeconomic status’ and quality of life between advantaged
and disadvantaged populations of people. Lin developed an explanation for this
phenomenon based on two principles.
According to Lin, the first principle reflects structural practices which are
highly dependent on processes of historical and institutional constructions; whereas
unequal opportunities are afforded to members of different groups based on race,
gender, religion, or other constructed characteristics. The second principle assumes a
general networking tendency which is the likelihood of individuals to interact with
others that share similar characteristics. When combined, these two dynamics
produce differential access by social groups to social capital. In essence, access to
social capital is determined by a social groups advantaged or disadvantaged
structural position and their associated social networks (Lin, 2000). This explanation
is applicable to impoverished students of color, whose life history is riddled with
unequal access to educational opportunities based on their disadvantaged structural
position and associated support groups (e.g. ethnicity and low socioeconomic status).

30
These disparities in access to social capital are illustrated by Blanchett et al. (2005)
who reported that schools comprised of mostly African-American and Hispanic
students are deemed high-poverty; and more likely than low-poverty schools to have
high staff turnover, few highly qualified teachers, limited access to technology,
educational specialists, resources, and extracurricular activities.
Similar results were found in a research summary on unequal opportunity,
race, and education by Darling-Hammond in 1998. She studied and found that the
“U.S. educational system is one of the most unequal in the industrialized world, and
students routinely receive dramatically different learning opportunities based on their
social status” (p. 1). As evidence, Darling-Hammond illustrated disparities in
spending between the wealthiest 10% and poorest 10% of U.S. schools districts;
whereas the wealthiest 10% spend almost 10 times more than the poorest 10% of
U.S. school districts. Additional research findings on economic capital from Slavin
and Madden (2006) are consistent with the claims made by Darling-Hammond. They
found that students of color typically attend schools that are far less funded than
schools that are attended by whites.
In addition to social capital, theories of cultural capital contribute equally
compelling explanations for persistent underachievement of impoverished students
of color. This evidence is clearly communicated in a research summary entitled:
“Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical
Developments” that was conducted in 1988 by Michele Lamont and Annette Lareau.

31
The purpose of their study was to add clarification to the relationship
between cultural factors and maintenance of social stratification systems. Lamont
and Lareau focused heavily on the writings of Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude
Passeron, who were the original creators of the cultural capital concept. They also
studied American literature on cultural capital to compare and contrast with the
original work.
Lamont and Lareau found that cultural capital had been operationalized in
many different ways. The ideology of cultural capital being used as a vehicle for
exclusion was one of the most poignant and well known dimensions of the original
work. In school settings in particular, this meant that students were excluded and
rendered powerless, if they had not acquired certain “high status” cultural signals
(e.g. certain attitudes, preferences). Schools were characterized as institutionalized
systems that represented the experiences of the dominant class, as opposed to
socially neutral institutions (Lamont & Lareau, 1988). Their revised definition of
cultural capital was based primarily on this school of thought, and too, encompassed
the idea of social and cultural exclusion based on institutionalized cultural signals.
These findings are especially relevant to students of color in high-poverty
schools, who indeed possess a different set of cultural cues than that of the dominant
culture in American schools. In Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) it was noted that
numerous research studies confirm that “cultural patterns that are markedly different
from school norms and expectations can interfere with the creation of optimal
learning environments for some children (e.g., Au & Mason, 1981-1982; Valdes,

32
1996)” (p. 46). In another study, it was also found that minority children and youths
tend to experience feelings such as anxiety, depression, and fear when the cultural
factors in their world (e.g. home and ethnic community) are belittled or degraded by
another (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). These kinds of feelings and emotions carry
potential consequences in terms of student performance.
Other research studies on cultural capital demonstrate consistency and
support for the aforementioned findings. In 1982, Annette Lareau conducted a study
with the purpose of finding out how social class factors influenced parent
participation in their children’s education. Lareau collected data from one first grade
classroom in a working class community and another first grade classroom in a
professional middle class community. The working class population consisted of ½
white, 1/3 Hispanic, and the remainder black or Asian. The professional middle class
population consisted of virtually all white. For six months, Lareau conducted
participant observations and in-depth interviews with parents, teachers, and
principals with regard to formal requests of teachers and school administrators for
parents to participate in their child’s schooling. She also studied the quality of
parent-teacher interactions at school.
The findings of this study suggest that parent responses to teacher requests
were significantly higher at the upper-middle class school. Factors that influenced
parent participation in schooling were: parents’ educational capabilities; their
perspective on teacher responsibilities; information they had on schooling; time,
money, and material resources from home. This information was interpreted by

33
Lareau as an indication of the positive relationship between the level of parental
involvement and the parents’ class position, and to the subsequent social and cultural
resources afforded by that social class (Lareau, 1987). In addition, Lareau reported
the results noted above suggest that “social class position and class culture become a
form of cultural capital in the school setting (Bourdieu 1977a; Bourdieu and
Passeron 1977)” (Lareau, 1987, p. 82).
Access to resources and resulting opportunities is the common theme among
all of the research studies presented on capital. Overall, these findings suggest that
impoverished students of color continue to experience substandard academic
achievement and subsequent lowered quality of life because of structural processes
in the United States which inhibit their ability to obtain capital. If this is true, then
efforts should focus on restructuring high-poverty schools with large concentrations
of students of color so that equal resources and opportunities are provided. The exact
resources needed to improve student achievement for impoverished students of color
are debatable.
Nonetheless, educational research studies have shown that research based
structural and systemic practices contribute to high student performance in high-
poverty urban schools. The following review of these studies will focus on the
overlap in the literature which may reveal common practices among high-
performing, high-poverty schools that can be replicated in similar settings.

34
High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools
A number of research studies have focused on the success of high-poverty
schools. The topic is intriguing because of the massive number of high-poverty
schools that produce underachieving students. Kahlenberg (2001) reported that the
high-performing, high-poverty schools in Samuel Carter’s study stand in contrast to
7,000 schools nationally that have been identified as high-poverty, low-performing
schools by the Department of Education. This staggering realization has driven more
and more educational researchers onto the campuses of high-performing, high-
poverty schools to find out how they are beating the odds.
This literature review will examine various research findings on successful
schools which serve high concentrations of poor students, typically students of color.
Out of four well known studies (presented below), there was some variation in the
enrollment, grade spans, ethnic composition, and specific rate of improvement.
Nevertheless, they included schools whose student achievement was above the state
averages; student populations of predominantly African-American and Hispanics;
and lastly schools with the majority of students receiving free and/or reduced lunch.
The individual details and findings of each study will be presented first and then
followed by a comprehensive discussion in the end, of the overlap in the research
findings.
The profiles of 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools were presented by
Carter (2000). The schools that Carter studied included 3 charter, 3 private, 1
religious,1 rural, and 15 public nationwide, with at least 75% of the student

35
population on free and/or reduced lunch. The majority had building-wide averages of
or above the 66
th
percentile on national academic achievement tests, with eleven of
them at or above the 80
th
percentile (Carter, 2000).
Data was collected from principals, teachers, students, and parents through
interviews, site visits, and document analysis of test scores and background
information on school history, policies, and procedures. From this data, Carter
identified seven common traits of high-performing, high-poverty schools related to
leadership, goals, quality instruction, assessment data, discipline, parent partners, and
effort (Carter, 2000).
In 2002, Lance Izumi released his research findings on eight high-performing
elementary schools in California with high concentrations of impoverished students.
The parameters of Izumi’s study included schools with at least 80% of the students
on free and/or reduced lunch, a ranking of seven or above on the academic
performance index (API), and student populations of majority African-American or
Hispanic students (Izumi, 2002).
Based on in-depth interviews with the school principals, Izumi developed a
list of factors that schools should focus on in order to overcome the challenges
associated with poverty, family background, racial diversity, limited English
speakers, and standardized test bias. These factors were related to: curriculum,
teaching methods, standards-based goals, assessment data, professional development,
teacher quality, discipline, and funding (Izumi, 2002).

36
In yet another study, Johnson and Asera (1999) examined nine urban
elementary schools serving students of color in poor communities who had shown
remarkable success. The schools they studied were in urban locations nationwide
with the majority of students meeting low-income criteria; including seven schools
that had at least 80% low income students. The student populations were
predominantly African-American with some Hispanic and Asian. Furthermore, they
chose schools that had assessment data available for at least three years. They also
chose schools with mathematics and reading achievement that was “higher than the
average of all schools in the state (or higher than the 50
th
percentile if a nationally-
normed assessment was used)” (p. vii).
The results of this study indicated important similarities in the change
strategies used among the nine schools to raise student performance. These strategies
were related to: leadership, goals, discipline, shared responsibility, time allocation,
data use, standards-based instruction, teacher training, collaboration, parent
involvement, and persistence (Johnson & Asera, 1999). Careful and well thought out
implementation of these systems is the differentiating factor at these nine schools
that helped increase student achievement.
The fourth study, conducted by Ragland et al., (2002), differed from the
others by focusing on high-performing, high-poverty schools that exempted very few
students with disabilities from the state’s accountability system. Five elementary
schools in Texas were chosen who met the state’s high standards through their stellar
attendance and student performance on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

37
(TAAS). Of the five schools, three had reasonably low numbers of students receiving
special education services, while the other two slightly exceeded the state average
(Ragland et al., 2002).
Three schools were located in a large urban area and the other two were in
smaller rural areas. The student population was predominantly Latino at four of the
schools and majority African-American at one. Over 85% of the students qualified
for free and/or reduced lunch at three schools, while the other two schools had
slightly more than half of their students on free and/or reduced lunch.
Data was collected through open-ended interviews, focus groups,
observations, and student records (which included special education documents).
Like the other studies, participants included school administrators, teachers, parents,
and students; however, this study also involved district administrators who
supervised special education personnel.
The authors found that similar strategies were being used among the schools
to help improve student achievement. These strategies were associated with: goals,
expectations, leadership, collaboration, assessment data, school culture, persistence,
parent involvement, and special education processes (Ragland et al., 2002). In this
study, both structural and systemic practices are at work that support high student
performance.
The overlap between the research findings demonstrates that some practices
are more common in these settings than others. Factors that appeared consistently
among all four studies, as practices that are associated with improving student

38
achievement include the following which are not listed in any hierarchical order:
leadership, goals, use of assessment data, parent partnerships, and quality instruction
(Carter, 2000; Izumi, 2002; Johnson & Asera, 1999; and Ragland et al., 2002).
Additional practices that appeared in some studies, but not all included: curriculum,
expectations, disciplinary procedures, collaboration, professional development,
shared responsibility, persistence, time allocation, and funding/budget.
Out of the many common practices that were identified across studies on
high-performing, high-poverty schools, curriculum and goals, parent partnerships,
and professionalism/collegiality were specifically chosen for examination in this
study. Each of these three practices will be individually discussed in the following
section; followed by an in-depth discussion on leadership, which was also cited as
one of the common practices that impacts student achievement in high-performing,
high-poverty schools.
Curriculum and Goals
The National Center on Educational Accountability (NCEA) identified
curriculum and academic goals as one of five organizing themes used to study best
practices in higher performing schools, which is consistent with Marzano’s
previously discussed findings (2006). Although many aspects of curriculum impact
student achievement, content and opportunity are emphasized in the literature
(Marzano, 2003; NCEA, 2006).
Concrete knowledge of the material that is expected to be taught and learned
is a common characteristic of high-performing, high-poverty schools (NCEA, 2006);

39
whereas the content should be clearly communicated to teachers and other relevant
support staff. Schmoker and Marzano (1999) assert that teachers should not have to
choose what material will be selected or omitted in a haphazard fashion because it
creates chaos. They further argue that coherence instead of chaos can be
accomplished by aligning the content with clear, intelligible, and manageable
standards.
Alignment between content and state standards should lead to well defined
desired learning goals, which in turn, should provide direction for classroom
teachers. Schmoker and Marzano (1999) claim that “teachers make independent and
idiosyncratic decisions regarding what should be emphasized, what should be added,
and what should be deleted” (p. 19). Under the direction of explicit and measurable
learning goals, teachers can better focus on relevant learning material.
NCEA (2006) found that improvement planning is driven by explicit and
measurable goals that are based on data and aligned to standards. In addition, Clark
and Estes (2002) assert that goals that are challenging, concrete, and current are the
most effective. This implies that clarification of challenging and current learning
goals can help to alleviate misinterpretations of content and standards that typically
lead to lowered student performance. This ideology of the connection between state
standards, and curriculum and goals further addresses the issue of equal
opportunities to learn.
Students are held accountable for material they learn, as well as material that
they may not have had an opportunity to learn or study. The opportunity to learn or

40
study standard material increases when district and school curriculum and learning
goals are aligned with state standards. This can also serve to offset low expectations
and subsequent lowered learning goals in high-poverty schools. The establishment of
state standards that all schools are accountable for is designed to promote high
expectations across the board, regardless of color, race, class, or ethnicity (EdSource,
2007). A well established myth is that high-poverty students are destined for low
academic achievement and research has shown that this expectation does in fact
impact student achievement (Laitsch, 2005). However, federal mandates help to
counteract individual low expectations of impoverished students by requiring that all
students meet state standards which reflect high student performance.
Believing that every single student can be a high-achiever and
communicating that belief to students in the classroom is common for teachers in
high-performing, high-poverty schools (Laitsch, 2005). Not only do teachers
promote a culture of high-achievement for all students, but so does the school
administration and community at large. According to Renchler (1992) the optimism
of teachers for high-achievement is partly due to the school climate of learning as a
primary goal.
The idea of learning as a primary goal is further advanced through the use of
“learning communities”. According to Haberman (2004) a learning community is an
environment in which everybody involved is invested and committed to lifelong
learning for themselves, as well as students. In addition, a learning community
fosters a culture of inquiry for all participants, which is often reflected in team

41
meetings, grade-level meetings, and focus groups for professionals and students.
Learning is accepted as the primary purpose for associating. Therefore, learning
outcomes are also accepted as the primary criteria for evaluating the success of their
work. The use of learning communities was cited by several principals as a valuable
tool that supports high-quality instruction. (NCEA, 2006).
Parent Partnerships
All four research studies on high-performing, high-poverty schools
emphasized the importance of school relationships and interactions with parents. The
extent of parent involvement varied across schools, but they all used whatever level
of parent involvement they had to their benefit. Carter (2000) noted that the high-
performing, high-poverty schools don’t allow a lack of parent involvement to excuse
them from high student performance. Instead they develop support networks for
parents to help them improve their ability to help their child. Examples of this
support include parenting classes, literacy classes, and workshops on multiple topics
as needed.
All parents need to have is an interest in their child’s education and the
school does everything in its power to nurture that interest. Carter (2000) also noted
that parental support may tend to increase once the school has shown parents that
high academic achievement can be accomplished with their children.
Johnson and Asera (1999) found that schools can earn the confidence and
respect of parents by demonstrating genuine efforts to meet the needs of the students.
Like Carter, Johnson and Asera (1999) found that “improved school achievement led

42
to increased parental involvement” (p. 19). They also found that parental
partnerships are further encouraged by school environments that are warm and
welcoming. High-performing, high-poverty schools treat parents as equals,
regardless of their background characteristics. Parents are made to understand their
importance and belonging in the school community. Parents are spoken to and
communicated with in terms that are familiar. Educational jargon and lingo are
avoided with clear communication and parent participation as the goal (IDRA, 1997;
Johnson & Asera, 1999).
Parent involvement was emphasized at all of the high-performing, high-
poverty schools studied by Izumi (2002) and Ragland et al., (2002). Parents were
viewed as sources of information to help the schools provide appropriate support and
connect with struggling students. Across studies, the research demonstrates that
effective parent partnerships can be established in high-poverty schools. In addition
to the implementation of other critical practices, high-performing, high-poverty
schools strive to make parents active participants in their child’s educational journey.
Nevertheless, a lack of parent partnerships is not used or accepted as an excuse for
poor student performance.
Professionalism and Collegiality
Professional/Staff development is frequently cited as a factor in high-
performing, high-poverty schools. Professional development should be aligned with
the needs of the teachers as it relates to effective instruction. Teachers should be able
to identify student areas of need based on frequent and regular assessment and

43
testing. Frequent and regularly scheduled assessments and testing is used to inform
decisions and make necessary adjustments. Data collection and analysis helps
administrators and school staff to determine whether or not students are meeting
their performance goals. By continuously monitoring student progress, schools are
able to identify areas of need and respond with immediate intervention strategies
(Corallo & McDonald, 2001; Duke, 2006). In this way, student learning outcomes
drive the content of professional development. Professional development comes in
many different forms. Scheduled and regular grade level meetings, peer coaching,
and traditional workshops are all utilized as vehicles of professional development
(Corallo & McDonald, 2001).
Teachers can also identify their own areas of need through collaboration
efforts. According to Lanich (2005) teachers in high-performing, high-poverty
schools collaborate frequently and regularly. Historically, teaching has been an
isolated event. However, there is a shift from isolation to collaboration. Teachers are
working together with various school leaders, principals, math & literacy coaches,
content specialists, and colleagues to figure out what’s working (Duke, 2006). They
use grade level meetings and school improvement teams as a venue to share
information and experiences. They work collectively and cooperatively with a focus
on improving student achievement. Teachers use the time together to reflect on their
own practices and make adjustments. Problem solving together is useful for teachers
with students who are not performing at desired levels. The collaboration efforts are
not seen as a weakness because all teachers are involved. Classroom observations are

44
common and expected. The less qualified teachers are not judged or made to feel
inferior. Instead, collaboration is seen as a progressive means of student
achievement. (Corallo & McDonald, 2001).
The supports provided to teachers through collaboration and professional
development help them to be more successful and efficacious, which is then reflected
in their interactions with students. The more high-achievers teachers produce with
high-poverty children, the more they start to believe in their ability to replicate it
with other high-poverty children (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). This assertion reflects
the value of professional development and collaboration in the pursuit of raising
expectations, goals, and ultimately performance for impoverished students of color.
Overall, the findings imply that there are a variety of routes that can be taken
to reach the same destination. On one hand, the route that each high-poverty school
chooses to take to reach high-performance is subject to the individual characteristics
of the school. On the other hand, high-poverty schools would be remiss not to
consider common practices that have already been used in similar settings that have
improved student achievement.
The previous section of this literature review identified leadership as one of
the common factors that influences student achievement at high-performing, high-
poverty schools. Yet, there is some degree of uncertainty in regard to the role of
leadership in creating the systems and structures that ensure high-poverty schools
function to increase academic achievement. The way school leaders successfully and
consistently support school-wide effective classroom instruction in unknown. This

45
review will add clarity by presenting the findings of several empirical studies,
research summaries, and theoretical literature on leadership practices and student
achievement.
Leadership
According to Bolman and Deal (2003) leadership is “a subtle process of
mutual influence fusing thought, feeling, and action to produce cooperative effort in
the service of purposes and values embraced by both the leader and the led” (p. 339).
In this case study, this system falls within the context of mutual influence between
thoughts, feelings, and actions of principals, teachers, and school site staff to produce
a cooperative effort in raising student achievement for impoverished students of
color.
Teachers’ feelings and perspectives, in particular, are heavily weighted in all
of the empirical data on effective leadership in this review. This demonstrates why
the role of mutual influence is important in defining leadership. The role of mutual
influence starts with the thoughts and behaviors of school principals which affect the
feelings, perspectives, and behaviors of classroom teachers, which affects classroom
instruction, which affects student achievement, which ultimately reflects the success
or lack thereof of the school and associated leadership. This cycle of mutual
influence is demonstrated in the following research studies.
Blasé and Blasé (2000) conducted a study on principals’ behaviors that have
a positive influence on classroom teaching and instruction. They used open-ended
questionnaires to collect data from 809 fulltime public school teachers; 251 male and

46
558 female who taught various grade levels in various rural, suburban, and urban
areas.
Their findings consisted of two major themes in effective instructional
leadership: 1) talking with teachers to promote reflection; and 2) promoting
professional growth. Talking with teachers to promote reflection included the
practice of making suggestions, giving feedback, modeling, giving praise, and using
inquiry and soliciting advice and opinions. Promoting professional growth included
the practice of emphasizing the study of teaching and learning, supporting
collaboration efforts, developing coaching relationships, promoting redesigning of
programs, data-driven instructional decision making, and applying principles of adult
learning, growth, and development to staff development (Blasé & Blasé, 2000).
These leadership practices were found to have “strong ‘enhancing effects’ on
teachers, emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally” (p. 137).
Joseph Blasé found similar results in his 1987 study on teachers’ perspectives
on effective and ineffective school leadership. He collected data from interviews of
40 teachers in urban biracial high schools. The findings indicated nine task-related
themes and five consideration-related themes that were all exhibited by those
principals who were described as effective. The task-related themes referred to
“accessibility, consistency, knowledge/expertise, clear and reasonable expectations,
decisiveness, goals/direction, follow-through, ability to manage time, and problem-
solving orientation” (p. 594). The consideration-related themes referred to “support

47
in confrontations/conflict, participation/consultation, fairness/equitability,
recognition (praise/reward), and willingness to delegate authority” (p. 594).
The results showed that teacher motivation, involvement, and morale were
affected by leadership factors noted above, which in turn affected the teachers’
potential to have productive relationships and interactions with others. In addition,
the findings established a correlation between productive social and cultural school
structures and effective leadership (Blasé, 1987).
The findings of Quinn (2002) seem to be closely related to the other two
studies. Quinn studied 24 schools (8 elementary, 8 middle/high, and 8 high) with the
purpose of identifying the relationship between principal leadership behaviors and
teacher instructional practices. The 24 schools that Quinn studied were located in
urban, suburban, and rural areas in Missouri and were all part of systemic school
improvement project. He collected data from questionnaires that were answered by a
randomly selected third of the faculty at each school.
The results of this study showed a significant correlation between strong
instructional leadership and the instructional practices inventory. Strong instructional
leadership was evidenced by the extent to which the leader provided resources,
supplied instructional support, established clear communication, and visibility. In
particular, the findings suggested that strong instructional leaders impact active
learning and teaching and has even more of an impact on classroom instructional
practices at extremes of engagement levels. In other words, higher levels of
engagement and active learning and teaching were directly related to the behaviors

48
of strong instructional leaders (Quinn, 2002). This is reflective of the power of
leadership to implement school systems in a manner that promotes student
achievement.
Together, these studies suggest that certain leadership factors influence the
thoughts and actions of teachers. Various studies have identified teachers as the
single most important variable which affects student achievement. Therefore,
leadership factors could be considered equally important because of the power of
leadership to influence teachers’ thoughts and actions. This belief is consistent with
the findings of a research summary by Leithwood et al., (2004) which claimed that
“leadership not only matters: it is second only to teaching among school-related
factors in its impact on student learning” (p. 1).
Basic elements of successful leadership practices were identified by
Leithwood et al., (2004) which included a minimum of the ability to set directions,
develop people, and redesign organizations. Setting directions relates to establishing
expectations for excellence and using assessment data to monitor progress.
Developing people relates to providing appropriate support and training to teachers
and others, while redesigning the organization relates to modification of
organizational structures to ensure success. These core elements of successful
leadership practices do not stand alone, but serve as a foundation to build on.
The manner in which these practices emerge and interrelate over time is
neither linear nor formulaic (Jacobson et al., 2005). Therefore, successful leaders
must “constantly recalibrate the contextual conditions and constraints” of schools

49
and make adaptations to create an environment that is conducive to school
improvement (p.611). In other words, successful leaders must know what to do,
when to do it, how to do it, and why depending on individual school circumstances,
which seems to be very challenging. This conceptualization of leadership emphasizes
its structural characteristics; yet it also reflects systems in terms of the what, when,
and how of implementation.
Bolman and Deal (2003) demonstrate that who, what, when, why, and how’s
of leadership are strongly influenced by the “frame” or perspective of the leader.
They studied a variety of theories and approaches that explain the processes of
organizational change and improvement. Collectively, from their data, they
developed four frames of leadership: structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic. These four frames represent variation in the ideas and assumptions of
leaders which influence their organizational behaviors and decisions (Bolman &
Deal, 2003).
Each frame is grounded in different approaches that lend support to different
desired results. Structural leaders are driven by rules, roles, goals, and policies, while
human resources leaders focus their energy on relationships that revolve around
feelings and emotions. Political leaders are mostly concerned with constituencies,
power, and availability of resources, while symbolic leaders inspire through values,
traditions, and culture to create faith and personal meaning (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Bolman and Deal (2003) concluded that effective leaders and effective
organizations rely on all of these frames, which helps to develop a more

50
comprehensive understanding of complex systems. The comprehensive
understanding of a complex system can be likened to the findings of Waters et al.,
(2003) who declared that having the right focus of change and understanding the
implications of the change are the two primary variables that “determine whether or
not leadership will have a positive or negative impact on achievement” (p. 5). The
findings of their research summary further indicated that understanding what needs
to be added, how to build on, and when to expand are crucial elements which
determine the impact of leadership practices on student achievement (Waters et al.,
2003).
The findings of Waters et al., (2003) are based on data that was collected
from a quantitative analysis of more than 30 years of research, an exhaustive review
of theoretical literature on leadership, and over 100 years combined personal
experience of research team members. In an effort to discover the effects of
leadership practices on student achievement, Waters et al., (2003) gathered data from
70 studies involving 2894 schools, 1.1 million students, and 14,000 teachers. Like
others, they found a substantial relationship between leadership factors and student
achievement (Waters et al., 2003).
Overall, the research findings confirm a significant correlation between
leadership factors and student achievement. Research findings also demonstrate how
leadership factors infiltrate all structural and systemic practices in school settings
that directly and indirectly affect student achievement. In their study on high-
performing, high-poverty urban middle schools, Picucci et al., (2002) noted “in every

51
case, effective leaders were essential and instrumental in establishing, shaping, and
maintaining positive school environments that enabled these schools to dramatically
increase their student performance” (p. 41). This sentiment is common in the
literature on school leadership in general, as well as school leadership in high-
performing, high-poverty schools.
Conclusion
Overall, the goal to improve student achievement for impoverished students
of color should be focused on the relationship between leadership factors and the
specific practices previously identified as common practices in high-poverty schools
that raise student achievement (e.g. curriculum and goals, parent partnerships,
professionalism, and collegiality). The literature does not demonstrate how school
leaders develop skills that enable them to effectively respond to various
circumstances. It leaves open the question of how effective leaders know what to do,
when to do it, how to do it, and why. This study hopes to support school leaders in
understanding what needs to be added, how to build on, and when to expand.
Leadership behaviors and beliefs that reflect the research recommendations on
successful leadership practices can potentially improve student achievement in
similar settings.

52
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to identify the organizational structures and
systems that enable teachers to deliver effective classroom instruction in high-
performing, high-poverty urban schools with large concentrations of students of
color. The study further focused on the role of leadership in the implementation of
systems and structures at high-poverty urban schools with high-performing students
of color. Within this context, this chapter provided a detailed description of the types
of data that was collected, how and where it was collected, and from whom for use in
this study. This study met the criteria for applied research which is described by
Patton (2002), as research that is conducted to contribute to the understanding of the
nature of a human or societal issue. As such, the following research questions were
developed:
Research Questions
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 structures and systems 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?

53
Rationale for Qualitative Approach
A qualitative approach was used to address these research questions, which
was most appropriate according to Patton (2002), because it is designed to obtain in-
depth information with “careful attention to detail, context, and nuance” (p. 227).
These questions were further addressed in relationship to the organizational
structures and systems at Stellar Elementary school for this case study. This in-depth
information about high student performance in one high-poverty urban school further
qualifies this research as case study research (Gall et al., 2007; Merriam, 1998).
The richness of in-depth information in a case study is advantageous because
it can bring the case to life in way that statistical methods of quantitative research fall
short of. Advantages of case study research also include equipping readers with more
thorough understanding that may lead to theory development, intervention designs,
or other actions that are not provoked by reading quantitative research reports only.
The descriptive nature of this case study can ultimately produce results that
contribute to the field of educational research and practice in a unique and significant
way (Gall et al., 2007).
Stellar Elementary is the unit of analysis; however, other units of analysis
were contained within the school setting such as individual classrooms, teachers, and
students. Patton (2002) says that “Different units of analysis are not mutually
exclusive. However, each unit of analysis implies a different kind of data collection,
a different focus for the analysis of data, and a different level at which statements
about findings and conclusions would be made” (p. 228). This suggests inevitable

54
variability in the statements about findings and conclusions based on the unique
characteristics of each unit of analysis.
The same research questions were also addressed by sixteen other Ed.D
thematic group members from the University of Southern California (USC). Each
group member chose a different school to study in order to obtain a collective wealth
of detailed data about each school. The schools and individual classrooms may
eventually be analyzed across studies in hopes of discovering some common themes
and patterns that might be effective in other classrooms or schools with large
concentrations of impoverished students of color.
This case study focused specifically on the role of leadership in implementing
systems and structures that support academic success for impoverished students of
color at Stellar Elementary school. The ultimate goal was to be able to say something
about the extent to which the structural and systemic practices helped impoverished
students of color attain desired learning outcomes.
This case study contained factual information about a real school setting
using actual theories and research references; however all names, organizations, and
locations were identified with pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.
Sample and Population
The purposeful sampling strategy was used in this study. The benefit of using
this strategy was the opportunity to obtain a wealth of in-depth, detailed information
about the specific topic that warranted the purpose of the study (Patton, 2002).

55
Hence, Stellar Elementary school was purposively selected for this study based on
the following criteria:
• High concentrations (above 60%) of students of color
• High rates of poverty (75% or more) of students with free or reduced lunch
• High performance indicated by school-wide trajectory of growth by API and
AYP of at least 2 positive deciles in movement within past 3-5 years across
subgroups
• PreK- 12 public school located in an urban area
In order to establish a pool of Southern California schools that met the
criteria, the thematic group members utilized a host of websites such as Just for Kids,
Schools Moving up, California Department of Education, and Great Schools.
Committee chairs, Dr. Stowe and Dr. Rousseau, also helped to establish the pool by
providing thematic group members with additional lists of schools that met the
criteria. After the pool was established, each school had to be investigated more
thoroughly to ensure that it met all of the selection criteria set forth by the group.
Schools that fell short of the selection criteria were not automatically
excluded. Those schools were discussed individually to determine the likelihood of
their shortcomings to significantly impact the findings or conclusions of the study.
Some schools were excluded which further narrowed the pool of schools. Upon
choosing a school, the committee chairs were notified and petitioned for final
approval. After receiving final approval from the committee chairs, the school

56
principal was contacted and presented with a formal letter that explained the details
of the study and requested the school’s participation in the study.
The principal at Stellar Elementary school, Ms. Elmer, responded with
interest and extended a formal invitation to this researcher to utilize Stellar in this
case study. Stellar met the criteria for what Patton described as “extreme or deviant
case sampling” (2002, p. 230). Extreme or deviant cases are chosen because of their
unique characteristics. They are exceptions or unusual cases that present improbable
findings. Stellar is a high-poverty, high-performing school which may be considered
extreme when you compare it to the 7,000 schools nationally that the Department of
Education identifies as high-poverty, low-performing (Kahlenberg, 2001). Stellar
defied the odds by demonstrating notable success in the face of doubt from a nation
that is currently overwhelmed by disparities in student achievement.
Overview of School
Stellar first opened its doors in 1912 and remains the largest elementary
school in the local school district. Stellar is located in a neighborhood where many of
the community residents attended Stellar Elementary school themselves.
Enrollment in grades K-5 was estimated at about 600 students at the time of
the study. Students’ ethnicity was predominantly Hispanic, estimated at 58.9%,
followed by 27.8% African-American, 0.2% American Indian/Alaskan, 1.0% Asian,
and 6.4% white. The percentage of students classified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged was 71.7%, as indicated by those students eligible for free or reduced

57
price lunch. In addition, 28.8% of the students at Stellar were English Language
Learners (ELL’s).
Teachers’ ethnicity was predominantly white, estimated at 61.5%; followed
by 19.2% African-American, 11.5% Hispanic, and 7.7% Asian. Out of 30 teachers,
approximately 28 were fully-credentialed, while 2 were teaching with emergency
credentials. Certificated staff further included the principal, a math and literacy
coach, a school psychologist, a language and speech specialist, a resource specialist,
and a school nurse. They also had a classified behavior aide.
The sample size was relatively small based on the qualitative nature of the
study and the desired outcome of information rich data. This is typical according to
Patton (2002) who asserts that the sample size of qualitative inquiry may appear
small in comparison to the sample size needed for generalization from one sample to
another. Nevertheless, it can be more than sufficient for the purpose of gathering a
wealth of in-depth, detailed information.
Theoretical Framework
Patton (2002) asserts that the framework in which one chooses to operate
determines the focus of inquiry and furthermore drives the interpretation and
meaning of the findings. In this case, societal and educational influences (both
historical and contemporary), were used to examine school site systems and
structures. The role of these school site systems and structures were further examined
in regard to their impact on high student performance at high-poverty schools with
large concentrations of students of color (Figure 2).

58

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework (Ed.D. Thematic Group, 2007)

This is the overall social context that the Ed.D thematic group members used
to develop the instrumentation during a research seminar in the summer of 2007.
Prior to the seminar, the group worked collaboratively to develop topic sentences
that ultimately governed the purpose of the study and subsequent research questions.
This led to a series of discussions and deliberations on various theoretical
frameworks and data collection tools that would adequately address each research
question. Principles from Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning are
embedded in all of the theoretical perspectives that were discussed. “At the heart of
Vygotsky’s theory lies the understanding of human cognition and learning as social

59
and cultural rather than individual phenomena” (Kozulin et al., 2003, p. 1). This
perspective is reflected in discussions throughout chapters four and five that explore
the relationship between theoretical assumptions and the findings of this study. Each
research question is listed below with the specific sociocultural theory of learning
that provided direction for exploration of that question. (Figure 3).

Research Questions Theoretical Framework
1. What are the trends and patterns of
performance among students of color?
Model of School, Teacher, and Student
Level Factors; Asset/Deficit-Driven
Thinking
(Lyman & Villani, 2004; Marzano, 2003)
2. What are the organizational
structures & systems that contribute to
high student performance in high-
poverty urban schools with large
concentrations of students of color?
Model of School, Teacher, and Student
Level Factors; Theories on Successful
Leadership Practices
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Leithwood et al.,
2004; Marzano, 2003)
3. How are the organizational
structures and systems implemented to
support school-wide effective
classroom instruction that promotes
student learning?
Socio-cultural Theory of Learning;
Model of School, Teacher, and Student
Level Factors
(Kozulin et al., 2003; Marzano, 2003)
4. How is the construct of race
reflected in the school’s structures and
systems?
Culturally Relevant Teaching; Critical
Race Theory; Social and Cultural
Capital
(Ladson-Billings, Autumn 1995; Ladson-
Billings & Tate, 1995; Lamont & Lareau,
1988; Lin, 2000)
Figure 3. Research Questions/Theoretical Framework Matrix

60
Data Collection
Instead of some inanimate mechanism, Creswell (2003) maintains that the
researcher in qualitative research is actually the primary instrument in data
collection. As such, the researcher assumed the lead role in collecting data from
multiple sources including: semi-structured interviews, direct observations, and
documents/artifacts. Data was collected during multiple visits to Stellar Elementary
school between October and December 2007 by the researcher, who was further
assisted by fellow researchers and trainees.
Instrumentation
Interviews. The main purpose of interviews is to collect unique information
about a given topic or subject through another person’s perspective. Interviews
provide an opportunity for researchers to enter into the minds of others and better
understand things that cannot be directly observed. Variation among people’s
feelings, beliefs, attitudes, thoughts, and experiences can be captured during the
interview process (Merriam, 1998). This kind of information adds to the desired
depth of description that is required in qualitative case study research.
The semistructured type of interview that was used in this case study was
chosen because of its flexibility in word choice and interview direction.
Semistructured interviews are guided by pre-selected interview questions and ideas,
but can incorporate other interview questions and ideas that the researcher deems
necessary. This allows the researcher to discover or uncover inadvertent information
that may further explain the phenomenon of interest (Merriam, 1998).

61
Thus, four interview protocols were developed by the Ed.D thematic group to
guide the semistructured interviews. This included protocols for interviews with
school administrators (Appendix A), teachers (Appendix B), classified staff
(Appendix C), and parents (Appendix D). Each of the four interview protocols was
developed with different school site participants in mind and further correlates with
information deemed necessary to answer each research question. (Figure 4).
Interview data were recorded by tape recorder, note-taking, and by writing down
information about the interview at its conclusion. Tape records of interviews were
also transcribed verbatim to prepare for data analysis.

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
Question #5 X
Question #6 X X X X
Question #7 X X X
Figure 4. Matrix of Interview Protocol to Research Questions

Observation. Merriam (1998) asserts that observations differ from interviews
because they occur in a natural field setting and provide data from an actual
encounter with the phenomenon being studied. The nature of reporting on a natural

62
field setting or an actual encounter is subject to variation in researcher
interpretations, which observation has been criticized for. However, it was still
chosen as a data gathering method in this study because of its contribution to
triangulation and its unique ability to advance understanding of ill-defined
phenomena (Merriam, 1998).
According to Merriam (1998) observation is best utilized when the
phenomenon of interest can be observed firsthand, when participants are unable or
unwilling to discuss the phenomenon of interest, or in an effort to obtain a fresh
point of view. In this case, implementation of structural and systemic practices at
high-performing, high-poverty schools was observed firsthand. Students were unable
to participate in interviews, but provided the researcher with invaluable information
by way of observation. As an outsider, the researcher noticed things that were
customary to the participants which led the researcher to develop a new and different
perspective than that of the participants.
Field notes were used in this study to record periods of observation which
contained “verbal descriptions of the setting, people, and activities; direct quotations,
and observer comments” (Merriam, 1998, p. 106). These field notes were governed
by observation guides that were developed in reference to leadership team meetings
(Appendix E), classrooms (Appendix F), professional development (Appendix G),
and the overall physical environment (Appendix H).
Artifacts. Document analysis was used as a third method for gathering data in
this case study. Typically documents are prepared independently of the research

63
study in which they are utilized which makes them less prone to limitations
associated with interviews and observations. Merriam (1998) asserts that
“Documents are, in fact, a ready-made source of data easily accessible to the
imaginative and resourceful investigator” (p. 112).
Merriam further contends that certain documents may be appropriate in
qualitative research on classroom instruction such as “instructors’ lesson plans,
student assignments, objects in the classroom, official grade reports, schools records,
and teacher evaluations” (p. 120-121). The researcher collected documents from the
administrator and teachers which included but was not limited to: meeting agendas,
master calendar, schoolwide discipline plan, school site plan, district and school
assessments, professional development agendas, referrals, volunteer schedule,
grading procedures, curriculum materials, and individual learning plans. Figure 5
depicts the relevance of each artifact/document in answering the research questions.
Document analysis helped the researcher to discover meaning, advance
understanding, and reveal insights that were relevant to high student performance at
Stellar Elementary school (Merriam, 1998).

64

Artifacts/Documents
Research
Question 1:
Performance
Trends
Research
Question 2:
Systems and
Structures
Research
Question 3:
School-wide
Instruction
Research
Question 4:
Construct
of Race
Collected From
Administration:

Meeting Agendas X X X X
Master Calendar X X X
Classroom
Configuration
X X X X
School-wide
Discipline Plan
X X X
School-wide Schedule X X
Staff Profile 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
Referrals X X X X
Volunteer Schedule X X X
Grading Procedures X X X
Blank Report Card X X
Collected From
Teachers:

Assessments (ILPs) X X X X
Curriculum Materials X X X
Grading Rubrics X X X
Classroom Discipline
Plan
X X X
Figure 5. Artifact/Document Matrix

65
The validity of and confidence in the findings were strengthened through
triangulation (Patton, 2002). “Triangulation within a qualitative inquiry strategy can
be attained by combining both interviewing and observations, mixing different types
of purposeful samples…or examining how competing theoretical frameworks inform
a particular analysis” (p. 248). A variety of data sources were used along with
multiple theories to address the research questions to help strengthen the study. This
included theories from education, psychology, sociology, and other relevant fields.
The use of thematic group members working independently, but collectively as
researchers or evaluators was also beneficial.
Data Analysis
According to Creswell (2003), there is a general process that qualitative
researchers engage in to prepare for data analysis (Figure 6). The process of data
analysis begins with organizing and preparing data. This can be accomplished by
transcribing interviews, scanning material, typing field notes, and categorizing data
according to the source. All of these procedures were used in this study to organize
and prepare data that was collected from the interviews, observations, and artifacts
(Creswell, 2003).
Attempting to understand the data was the goal in the next step, which was
accomplished by reading through the data. This was followed by “chunking”, which
is the result of the coding process. Further categorization and thematic grouping was
followed by systematic communication of the findings of the analysis. The final step
included interpreting data and assigning meaning to that data (Creswell, 2003).

66

Step 1 - Organize and
Prepare Data
Step 2 - Read Data
Thoroughly
Step 3 - Chunk Data
Step 4 - Design Detailed
Descriptions of Data

Step 5 - Convey Findings
Step 6 - Interpret and
Assign Meaning to Data
Meaning to Data

Figure 6. Process of Data Analysis. (Source: Creswell, 2003)

Ethical Considerations
This case study was cleared by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the
University of Southern California, to make sure that the study fell within the ethical
guidelines of research that investigates human subjects. Issues pertaining to
confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntary participation were addressed by the board.
As such, participation in the study was completely voluntary. Confidentiality of
participant information and responses was explicitly outlined, while participant
identity was protected by the assignment of aliases.

67
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This case study set out to investigate structures and systems that support high
academic achievement among students of color at high-performing urban schools
with high concentrations of impoverished students of color. Within this context, the
findings from a qualitative case study of one high-performing, high-poverty urban
school are presented in this chapter. As the unit of analysis, Stellar Elementary
School was selected based on the school’s population of 60% or more of students of
color; level of poverty of 75% or more of students receiving free or reduced lunch;
and school-wide trajectory of growth in API and AYP of at least two positive deciles
within the past 3-5 years across subgroups.
Based on sociocultural theories of learning, a qualitative approach was used
to enable the researcher to obtain in-depth information about Stellar Elementary
School’s students of color and how they have sustained increases in academic
achievement for over three years now. Data were collected in an effort to answer the
following four research questions:
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 structures and systems implemented to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning?

68
4. How is the construct of race reflected in the school’s structures and systems?
This study examined the implementation of the systems and structures at
Stellar Elementary School that were perceived to promote high academic
achievement with emphasis on leadership practices in relation to curriculum and
goals, parent partnerships, and professionalism and collegiality. Four interview
protocols were developed to collect data from school administrators (Appendix A),
teachers (Appendix B), classified staff (Appendix C), and parents (Appendix D).
Observation guides were also developed in reference to leadership team meetings
(Appendix E), classrooms (Appendix F), professional development (Appendix G),
and the overall physical environment of the school campus (Appendix H).
In addition to quantitative data collected from the CDE website, the third and
final source of data included a collection of various school documents and artifacts.
The use of multiple sources of information allowed the researcher to triangulate the
data which increased the reliability and validity of the findings. This chapter
presented the findings from data collection and furthermore included a detailed
analysis and discussion based on sociocultural theories of learning.
Data Findings
Research Question 1: Trends/Patterns of Performance
The first question to be investigated asked, “What are the trends and patterns
of performance among students of color?” This question was asked based on the
following premise:

69
A school should gather the best available achievement data and analyze it in
the most comprehensive and rigorous way possible to help determine if an
intervention or interventions actually impact student achievement…even in
the absence of formal tests, experimental design, and statistical hypothesis
testing, a school can still collect data that provides valuable evidence on the
impact of their efforts (Marzano, 2003, p.169-171).

Therefore, the researcher focused on trends and patterns in test scores, in
addition to other indicators such as attendance rates, school climate and culture,
disciplinary data, and patterns of placement in special education and gifted programs.
The majority of data pertaining to test scores were collected from standard
school information available on the California Department of Education website. The
most heavily weighted reports were previous results from the California
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) page. This included information on
California Standards Test (CST) scores that were disaggregated in various categories
such as: all students, ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, special education, and
English Language Learners. The information also presented mean scale scores and
the percentages of students who were categorized as advanced, proficient, basic,
below basic, and far below basic. Other significant reports included the
Accountability Progress Reporting (APR) summaries which included Academic
Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) information at the
state, county, district, and local school levels. A final indication of the trends and
patterns of performance for students of color was based on information that was
obtained by the researcher during interviews and classroom observations.

70
An analysis of all of the aforementioned information began to paint an
increasingly positive image of the trends and patterns of performance among
students of color at Stellar Elementary. In 2007, Stellar was the #1 Reading First
School in Cohort 1. Stellar was also one of the Title I Academic Achievement Award
recipients for the 2007-2008 academic school year. Other major findings during the
years studied include:
• The overall API score and gains for students at Stellar Elementary
exceeded the overall API scores and gains at the district and state
levels
• The overall API score and gains for African American, Hispanic, and
economically disadvantaged students at Stellar exceeded the overall
API scores and gains of their same respective subgroups at the district
and state levels
• The API scores for African American, Hispanic, and economically
disadvantaged students at Stellar continuously increased
• The percentage of all students who scored at or above proficient in
ELA and mathematics at Stellar continuously increased
• The percentage of African American students scoring at or above
proficient in math increased in two of the three years studied, and
continuously increased in ELA during all three the years studied
• The percentage of Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students
that scored at or above proficient in ELA and mathematics

71
continuously increased and exceeded district and state level
percentages
• The mean scale scores for African American and Hispanic students
increased continuously in ELA and mathematics
• The mean scale scores for economically disadvantaged students
increased in ELA in two of the three years studied, and continuously
increased in math during all three years studied
• The attendance rate increased, while the suspension rate decreased
with no expulsions reported
• Student participation in the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)
program increased
• Student participation in Special Education programs increased
minimally
Standardized Testing and Reporting
Academic Performance Index
The Academic Performance Index (API) is a number that summarizes the
performance of a group of students or a school based on California’s standardized
tests (EdSource, 2007). It is useful in recognizing broad patterns and trends of
performance over periods of time. Therefore, the researcher used the API score as
one of many tools to examine the patterns and trends of performance of students of
color at Stellar.

72
The 2004-05 academic school year was used as a baseline for this study.
Within that context, the overall API score at Stellar was 727, which included a 31
point increase from the previous year. African American, Hispanic, and
economically disadvantaged student subgroups at Stellar demonstrated increases in
their API scores as well. During the second year of examination, students at Stellar
Elementary demonstrated continued growth in their overall API score, which
increased by 18 points to 745. The API score for the previously mentioned
subgroups at Stellar also increased, with gains that exceeded that of their same peer
subgroups at the state level. In 2006-07, the final academic year that was examined,
students at Stellar Elementary continued to experience increases in academic
achievement. The school API score increased by 31 additional points, for a total of
774 (Figure 7).
In 2005, African American students at Stellar increased their API scores by
36 points totaling 686. This was followed by another increase of 10 points in 2006.
The last recorded API score for African American students at Stellar increased by 22
points to make it 716, which was significantly better than the gains made by their
peers at the district and state level in 2007. African American students at the district
level increased their API scores by only 1 point making their API 659, while their
African American peers statewide increased their API by 8 points for a total of 643
(Figure 7).
Hispanic students at Stellar increased their API scores by 30 points in 2005,
for a total score of 732. They further gained 17 points in 2006 and 33 more points in

73
2007 for a total of 781. This was significantly better than the API scores for their
Hispanic peers at the district level who gained just 4 points to score 686, and
Hispanic peers statewide who gained 9 points to score 665 (Figure 7).
An increase of 25 points moved Stellar’s economically disadvantaged
students to an API score of 710 in 2005. The group further demonstrated a 19 point
increase to 729 in the following year. This trend of improved performance among
economically disadvantaged students at Stellar was even more significant in 2007, as
they outscored their peers at the district and state levels. An increase in their API
score of 31 points moved them to 758, compared to the same subgroup at the district
level that increased their API by 8 points to achieve 681 and statewide by 8 points to
achieve 662 (Figure 7).
API SCORES
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
Stellar Elementary Local District State of California
All Students
African American
Hispanic
Economically Disadvantaged

Figure 7. API Scores from 2005-2007 for Stellar, District, and State

74
The illustration of student performance as measured by API scores in Figure
7 is representative of the wide variation in student performance among students of
color at Stellar. These discrepancies are consistent across other standardized
measures that are presented in the succeeding paragraphs such as mean scale scores
and percentage of students at or above proficient. Hence, the researcher is called to
question the variables that lend explanation to gaps in achievement at Stellar, as well
as other public education institutions with similar trends and patterns. Multiple
variables are examined and discussed in this chapter that are consistent with research
literature on academic success among impoverished students of color.
Percent At or Above Proficient in Mathematics and ELA
The percent at or above proficient is the “percent of students in all grades
tested who took the CSTs for a specific content area, who scored at proficient or
advanced” (CDE, 2007). This study used the percent at or above proficient for grades
two through six in various subcategories.
During the 2004-05 academic year, 34.5% of Stellar’s students scored at or
above proficient in ELA and 45.3% scored at or above proficient in math. In 2006,
the percent at or above proficient rose to 38.1% in ELA and 50.9% in math. In
addition, the percentage of students at or above proficient in both ELA and math
among ethnic subgroups at Stellar was better than that of their peer groups at the
state level. The overall percentage of students at or above proficient in 2007 was
46.8% in ELA, an increase of 8.7; and 54.8% in math, an increase of 3.9 (Figure 8).

75
In 2005, Stellar had more African American students at or above proficient in
math than their African American peers at the state level, with 31.1% compared to
27.4%. However, they scored just below their peers at the state level in ELA with
27.7% compared to 28.9%. In the following year, their percent increased by 6.9 in
ELA to 34.6%; and by 10.4 in math to 41.5%. African American students at Stellar
continued their growth in ELA with 39.6% at or above proficient in 2007. However,
they experienced a decrease in math that brought their score to 37%. (Figure 8).
Hispanic students at Stellar demonstrated higher percentages of students at or
above proficient in both ELA and mathematics than their same respective subgroups
at the district and state level in 2004-05. They scored 34.8% in ELA and 49.2% in
math. They increased their score by 1.7 in ELA totaling 36.5%, and by 3.7 to 52.9%
in math in 2006. Hispanic students were last recorded in 2007 with a score of 45.8%
in ELA and 58.5% in math. These scores reflected greater increases and higher
percentages of Hispanic students at or above proficient in ELA and math than their
Hispanic peers at the state level. (Figure 8).
Economically disadvantaged students at Stellar demonstrated a similar
pattern of higher percentages at or above proficient in both ELA and mathematics
than their same respective subgroups at the state level. In 2006, they increased the
percentage of students at or above proficient in ELA by 4.7 totaling 34.9% and 5.1 in
math totaling 46.7%. They outscored their respective subgroup at the state level
during all years studied. Their scores were last reported as 43.1% in ELA and 52% in
math (Figure 8).

76
As previously stated, there is wide variation among students of color who
scored at or above proficient, which is consistent with the data that was presented on
API scores.

MATHEMATICS
PERCENT AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
Stellar Elementary State of California
All Students
African American
Hispanic
Economically Disadvantaged

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
PERCENT AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
Stellar Elementary State of California
All Students
African American
Hispanic
Economically Disadvantaged

Figure 8: Percent At or Above Proficient

77
Mean Scale Scores in Mathematics and ELA
The mean scale score represents the average scale scores for all students who
took content-specific CSTs without modifications and ranges between 150-600
(CDE, 2007).
In 2005, the students at Stellar averaged a score of 345.2 in math, which was
slightly above the overall mean scale score of 344.96 for their peers statewide. The
mean scale score in ELA was 327.68, which was lower than the overall mean scale
score of 332.2 for their peers statewide. Overall, the students at Stellar experienced
consistent growth in the mean scale score in ELA which increased to 336.68 in 2006
and 344.62 in 2007. In math, their overall score increased to 356.98 in 2006 and
359.96 in 2007. When disaggregated by ethnic subgroups, the mean scale scores for
African American, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students were higher
than the mean scale scores of their same peer groups statewide in both ELA and
mathematics (Figure 9).
When originally measured in 2005, the mean scale score for African
American students at Stellar was 319.58 in ELA, while the mean scale score for
African American students statewide was 317.16. The mean scale scores in
mathematics were similar to the ELA patterns with African American students
averaging 325.7 at Stellar in comparison to African American peers statewide who
averaged 316.64. In 2006, Stellar’s African American students increased their mean
scale score to 327.9 in ELA and 333.2 in math. African American students at Stellar
further outscored their African American peers at the state level with increases in

78
their mean scale scores in 2007 that totaled 331.52 in ELA and 334.34 in math. State
level peers averaged 326.2 in ELA and 330.18 in math.
The mean scale score for Hispanic students at Stellar was 327.78 in ELA,
compared to 312.92 for Hispanic students statewide in 2005. The mean scale score in
math was 349.58 for Stellar’s Hispanic students, in comparison to Hispanic peers
statewide who averaged 324.04 in math. In 2006, their mean scale score increased by
7.48 in ELA to make 335.26 and 7.94 in math for a total of 357.52. In 2007,
Hispanic students at Stellar continued to make significant gains with scores of 344.7
in ELA and 362.66 in math. They outscored their Hispanic peers at the state level
who scored 323.5 in ELA and 340.1 in math (Figure 9).
Students at Stellar that were classified as economically disadvantaged
averaged 338.4 in ELA, compared to an average score of 312.94 for their
economically disadvantaged peers statewide. In math, economically disadvantaged
students at Stellar averaged 338.4, compared to the average score of 323.9 for their
peers statewide. This pattern remained constant in 2006 with Stellar’s economically
disadvantaged students averaging 332.42 in ELA, compared to 320.74 for their peer
group statewide. In math, Stellar’s economically disadvantaged students scored
349.98 in comparison to 336.8 statewide. In the final academic year of inquiry
(2006-2007), Stellar’s economically disadvantaged students outscored their
respective peer group statewide, for the third consecutive year; with mean scale
scores of 338.94 in ELA and 352.98 in math, compared to peers statewide with
322.68 in ELA and 339.02 in math (Figure 9).

79
MEAN SCALE SCORES: MATHEMATICS
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
Stellar Elementary State of California
All Students
African American
Hispanic
Economically Disadvantaged

Figure 9. Mean Scale Scores by Subgroup

Attendance, Suspensions, and Expulsions
Other indicators were used to investigate the trends and patterns of
performance for students of color at Stellar. As previously mentioned, there were no
expulsions at Stellar between September 2004 and June 2007, and the number of
MEAN SCALE SCORES: ELA
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
Stellar Elementary State of California
All Students
African American
Hispanic
Economically Disadvantaged

80
student suspensions decreased. In addition, the attendance rate increased as
evidenced by the decrease in the truancy rate and the number of students with
unexcused absences or tardies on three or more days. In 2004-05, the truancy rate
was 57.77% with 350 students that had unexcused absences or tardies on three or
more days. In 2005-06, the truancy rate dropped to 53.08% with 319 students that
had unexcused absences or tardies on three or more days. The last results were
reported in 2006-07 with the truancy rate down to 37.15% with 227 students that had
unexcused absences or tardies on three or more days (Figure 10). The school is
establishing a downward trend in truancies.

Figure 10. Truancy Rate (Students with unexcused absences or
tardies on three or more days)

81
Patterns of Placement in Special Education and Gifted Programs
There was a slight increase in the number of students identified with special
education needs during the years studied. There were 58 students with special
education eligibilities in 2004-05. That number dropped to 50 the following year, but
increased to 56 in 2006-07. More than half of the students with special education
needs were labeled as speech or language impaired (SLI), followed by specific
learning disability (SLD). The majority of SLI students were Hispanic, while the
composition of SLD students was comparable between Hispanic and African
American students. In the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 academic school years, one
student was identified as emotionally disturbed (ED), who was African American.
However, 5 students were identified as ED in 06-07 and 4 of them were African
American. On another note, the number of students who were identified as Gifted
and Talented (GATE) also increased during the years studied. In June 2007, GATE
enrollment was recorded at 39 students, compared with 18 students in June 2004.
Grossman (1998) suggests that African American, Hispanic American,
Native American, and poor students have been overrepresented in special education
programs and underrepresented in programs for the gifted and talented. This finding
echoed Saddler (2005) who asserts “ Black male students, are three times more likely
to be in a class for the educable mentally retarded than are white students but are
only one half as likely to be in a class for the gifted or talented” (p.44).
These patterns and trends of placement in special education and gifted
programs have been linked with theories on asset and deficit driven thinking which

82
will be explored under the discussion on the construct of race. Reductions in
misrepresentation of special education and gifted students that mirror patterns of
enrollment among students of color at Stellar are explained by Burnette (1998) as the
result of a successful school climate and more accurate discernment between cultural
differences and disabilities.
Summary of Answer to Research Question #1
Multiple measures were used to examine the trends and patterns of
performance based on the premise that a variety of data are needed to understand
how high-poverty schools function to create successful learning environments for
students of color. According to Marzano (2003), patterns can provide schools with
critical evidence on the impact of their efforts to improve student achievement.
Marzano also noted that trends and patterns can provide critical data points that are
required to perform statistical tests of significance in controlled environments.
Despite the absence of an experimental design, the trends and patterns of
performance for students of color at Stellar Elementary reflect a trajectory of
consistent academic progress during the years studied. This was evidenced by a
variety of measures such as increases in state and standardized tests scores which
were disaggregated by API scores, mean scale scores, and percentage of students at
or above proficient. Other evidence included increases in attendance rates; decreases
in the number of suspensions; increases in gifted and talented education enrollment;
and minimal increases in special education enrollment.

83
Research Question 2: Organizational Structures and Systems
The second question that was investigated 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?” The theoretical framework that was used to analyze the findings for this
question is based on Robert Marzano’s depiction of multiple school structures and
systems that must be addressed in order to improve student achievement. According
to Marzano (2003), not only must these factors be addressed, but more importantly
they must be integrated in a methodical fashion to maximize student learning.
For the purpose of this study, organizational structures and systems were
operationalized by the thematic dissertation group as such: structures are those
factors that cannot be easily changed at the school site level. Federal laws and
policies that govern public education are structures that all local education agencies
must adhere to. Individual public schools are accountable for policies and procedures
mandated by Federal and State governments, as well as their local education agency.
Examples such as class size, hiring practices, and budgets are structures that schools
have very little power to change. Systems, however, are a direct reflection of the
people at each individual school. Although many schools have the same systems in
place, the difference lies within the overall management and organization of school
matters. It is this difference in the management and organization of systems that
distinguish effective schools from ineffective schools (Marzano, 2003).

84
Thus, this research study seeks to identify specific structures and systems at
Stellar Elementary School that were perceived to work in a distinctive manner to
produce high student performance. Interviews, observations, and school documents
suggest that assurances based on California’s Reading First Plan were major
influential structures. As a Reading First school, Stellar was required to: fully
implement one of California’s scientific, research-based instructional programs for
reading/language arts; utilize specific assessment tools to measure and report student
achievement; and participate in ongoing professional development as outlined by the
State board. Stellar provided a copy of the California Reading First Plan assurances,
which provided more details about the requirements (Appendix I).
Other organizational structures that were perceived to contribute to high
student performance included standards-based instruction, highly qualified teachers,
and class size reduction. Teachers at Stellar were required to provide instruction
based on California state standards. “In a standards-based system, the learning
standards identify the subject knowledge and skills students are expected to learn”
(OSPI, 2003, p. 21). This was perceived to help offset preconceptions and variation
in teacher’s expectations for certain groups of students to underachieve, by
developing a baseline that all teachers were required to aim for. Smaller class sizes
allowed teachers to provide more differentiated instruction, which is associated with
improved student learning. Interview data suggested that teachers at Stellar were
“highly qualified” in terms of their understanding of the standards and the skills that
students needed to possess to reflect mastery of the standards. During one interview

85
the staff was described as “A phenomenal team of educators who are highly
qualified. They teach content very effectively and are committed to implementing
the strategies from the governors training institute”.
In-depth knowledge of core academic subject matter allowed teachers at
Stellar to more easily manipulate instruction in order to get desired responses from
students. This is consistent with research findings from Peske and Haycock (2006)
who reported that the percentage of students who met or exceeded state standards
increased when teacher quality indices increased, after controlling for student’s
background characteristics. The importance of highly qualified teachers was also
confirmed by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996)
with the emphatic “message that teacher content knowledge and strategies absolutely
affect student achievement, particularly for students in low-achieving, low-income
urban and rural schools” (Johnson, 2002, p. 7).
The systems that were identified as critical elements that are perceived to
contribute to high student performance included the use of data to make decisions,
goal setting, professional development, collaboration, and strong leadership. The
following section provides a brief description of each system.
Data Driven Decision Making
It was evident that one of the cornerstones of Stellar Elementary’s success
with attaining high academic achievement was its continued focus on assessment and
evaluation to determine the strengths and challenges among students as well as
teachers. In regard to data use, one teacher stated, “We use it all the time for

86
everything. We’re always going over it and debriefing to see where we could maybe
have better practices”. Going over the results of state and local assessments and
evaluations provided direction for administrators and teachers at Stellar in regard to
identifying students’ needs, which directly influenced supports and interventions that
teachers’ provided inside and outside the classroom.
Results from STAR assessments, in addition to local OCR and Saxon math
assessments were used to figure out what students knew in comparison to what they
should know. Poor student performance was determined by proficiency scores that
were below the benchmark. Interviews and observations indicated that the results of
weekly and unit assessments were used to influence teacher behavior in regard to
decisions about instructional support and interventions for struggling students. This
was evidenced during one classroom observation, when the teacher first presented
the OCR lesson to the entire class. Then she allowed the class to work independently
on the lesson while she provided one-on-one support for a few students who were
identified as intensive, which meant that their proficiency scores were far below the
benchmark.
Teachers responded directly to students’ needs by making adjustments to
instructional strategies in areas such as comprehension and fluency, which OCR
assessment data showed was a problem area for English learners and African
American students at Stellar. Teachers used alternate instructional strategies to help
students better understand material, which included scaffolding, modeling, re-
teaching, and more opportunities for structured and independent practice. When used

87
in this capacity, the use of assessment data can be very effective in supporting high
academic achievement. This is consistent with Marzano (2003a) who describes how
data-driven decision making is more effective when schools collect direct data and
have a system or plan in place for interpreting the meaning.
Alternate Mondays were designated as the day for teachers to conduct after
school tutoring with struggling students in their own classes. The tutoring was the
most frequently reported source of support for differentiated instruction by teachers.
Other interventions included an afterschool program that focused on vocabulary
comprehension and fluency for English Learners in grades two through six. Sixteen
students met three times per week for an hour with a teachers and an aide.
Assessment data was also used to influence the behavior of the principal, Ms.
Elmer, in terms of determining content topics and activities for upcoming
professional developments. During classroom visits, Ms. Elmer was attentive to the
content being taught and the manner in which it was delivered. Based on that
information, she provided feedback in the area of improving instruction. In an effort
to strengthen teachers’ ability to deliver more effective instruction on specific
content, Ms. Elmer required some teachers to allow a coach to come in and model a
lesson, while other teachers were encouraged to share their experiences about
strategies that were particularly effective with certain material. This is consistent
with Marzano (2003a) which asserts that schools in the business of improving
student learning, should use data that is directly related to student achievement to
guide decisions.

88
The staff all bought in to the use of data for decision making, which
demonstrated their commitment to try to improve student performance. Data team
meetings were facilitated by the literacy coach every six to eight weeks to monitor
student progress and make decisions about content that teachers needed to focus on
during instruction. Ms. Elmer made it a point to continually educate her staff on the
appropriate use of assessment data. She presented various assessment results and
asked her staff to analyze the meaning and implications for classroom instruction. By
keeping the discussion focused on the relationship between improved instruction and
improved student outcomes, Ms. Elmer was reassuring to teachers that the use of
assessment data was not designed as a means to judge teachers. Instead it was
conceptualized as a way to figure out how teachers could be more supportive and
responsive to the specific learning needs of their students.
Goal Setting
Ms. Elmer communicated goals to the entire school community that were
firmly rooted in California state standards. She used the standards to determine
where her students should be, and relied on research based strategies to move
students in that direction. Goals for the school, teachers, and students were directly
linked to assessment data which was Ms. Elmer’s most heartfelt conviction. This is
consistent with the core leadership practice of setting directions in Leithwood et al.,
(2004) which implies that school improvement is supported through the development
and communication of shared goals with the common purpose to ensure academic
success for all students. The structural leadership frame also supports Ms. Elmer’s

89
utilization of goals, policies, and procedures around standards and assessment data to
ensure academic success (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Learning was established as the primary goal and purpose for everyone’s
presence at Stellar. Therefore, Ms. Elmer encouraged a school environment that was
conducive to learning. The hallways were filled with colorful student work samples
and pertinent school information to support student learning. The hallways were also
free of disruptive noise and the pitter patter of running feet. On one particular day,
the only noise that could be heard was the pleasant melody of choir voices on a
compact disc player in the auditorium. The researcher peaked inside to find a group
of energetic young girls rehearsing for the winter holiday program. The anticipation
of the actual performance tickled the young girls as they giggled among each other.
The researcher was overcome with nostalgia, remembering those elementary days of
excitement.
Ms. Elmer also conducted classroom visits on a weekly basis to ensure that
teachers’ classrooms were conducive to learning, which was the primary goal.
Teachers and students were well aware that she could walk in the door anytime and
ask one of the students to explain to her the purpose or goal of the lesson the class
was working on at that moment. Ms. Elmer was known for frequent classroom visits,
which motivated teachers to do their best to appeal to every pupil in the classroom.
Since everybody agreed that learning was the primary goal, continuous student
monitoring and assessment was a logical method to gauge progress toward that goal.

90
The significance of goals was also demonstrated by the commitment of the
administration and staff to meet in the summer, during their vacation time, to discuss
school-wide goals in addition to student and teacher goals. The staff met for one day
during the month of August to analyze the previous year’s assessment results and
develop new goals to improve student performance, with emphasis on subgroups.
The staff reported that Ms. Elmer presented data that was detailed and disaggregated
during the summer meeting, which led to “extremely clear goals”, as one teacher put
it. The effectiveness of this goal setting process was confirmed by Schmoker (1999)
who commented on research conducted by Susan Rosenholtz (1991) which put “goal
consensus-a collective agreement about what to work toward” at the heart of
progress and success (Marzano, 2003, p. 36).
The summer meeting was followed by individual goal setting conferences at
the beginning of the school year in September between Ms. Elmer and each teacher.
Goals for teachers and the school at large were then revisited throughout the year
during grade-level meetings, leadership team meetings, and professional
development.
Individual Learning Goals for Students
Research findings presented by Lipsey and Wilson (1993) in Marzano (2003)
indicate, “that the achievement scores in classes where clear learning goals were
exhibited were 0.55 standard deviations higher than the achievement scores for
classes where clear learning goals were not established” (p. 35). As such, the
researcher discovered that clear learning goals played a major role in the daily

91
routine at Stellar Elementary School. Teachers were required to develop an
Individual Learning Plan (ILP) for every single student in their classroom.
Consistent with the concept of Individualized Education Programs (IEP’s) in special
education, ILP’s included individual learning goals to meet the unique learning
needs of each student. Three goals were developed based on grade level standards.
This included one goal for literacy, one goal for numeracy, and a third goal that was
either teacher selected or an ELD goal for English learners. In addition, the ILP’s
included anticipated strategies to help students attain their goals and listed separate
responsibilities for the teacher, student, and parent for accountability. The principal
and all other certificated staff cited the ILP’s at Stellar Elementary as a useful and
important tool in raising student achievement. In regard to ILP’s, one respondent
commented:
Again this goes back to having a strong and dedicated staff…Once the
message is given to the staff that this is going to benefit your kids, regardless
of what they need to sacrifice, they’ll get it done with very few groans. It’s
amazing that we’ve got about 650 plus kids in school and each of them has
you know a little miniature plan.

In some classrooms, the researcher observed the individual learning plans on
students’ desks. One teacher referenced the ILP on the desk as a constant visual
reminder for herself and the student as to their individual needs and progress. All
students were given a copy of their ILP for parent signatures. A copy of the ILP,
signed by the teacher, student, and parent was kept at home and at school. In a
discussion on challenging goals and effective feedback, the use of ILP’s is one of the
action steps recommended by Marzano (2003) that puts pressure on achievement. He

92
states that “establishing goals for individual students is perhaps more powerful than
setting a few schoolwide goals” (p.46). Student’s ILP goals were revisited and
monitored regularly to monitor their progress. Figure 11 is a sample of an ILP
literacy goal for a 3
rd
grader.

English Language Arts Objective
Goal: Star Smart will identify answers in
text, main idea and supporting details
Standard: Comprehension 2.3 and 2.5
Assessment: OCR Lesson Assessment,
Student Participation, Teacher
Observation
Strategies
Teacher: Small group instruction, Monday
tutoring, Supplemental comprehension
stories/activities
Parent and Student: 5 minute oral discussion
of story in decodable or any library book
Student: Will raise hand to answer questions
during class discussion
Figure 11. Sample Individual Learning Plan: ELA Goal

Professional Development
The term professional development was also used interchangeably with staff
development and teacher trainings, and reported as one of the practices at Stellar that
all teachers perceived as a contributing factor to their high student performance. Two
of the teachers at Stellar were state trainers, which gave the staff at Stellar access to
cutting edge educational policies and practices to improve student performnance.
According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI,
2003), professional development was acknowledged by a growing consensus as “the

93
best hope for changing instruction to improve student learning” (p. 31). High
academic achievement was supported through professional development, which was
a recurring theme cited during the interviews to enhance teacher’s delivery of direct
instruction in the classroom. In addition to student learners, teachers were also
recognized as learners who required more training to improve their instructional
techniques. As such, professional development was accepted as a learning tool, in
which relevant research articles were commonly distributed and reviewed in relation
to the learning needs of their students.
Information reported during the interviews concerning professional
development was corroborated firsthand by this researcher. The topic, “Robust
Vocabulary Instruction” was aligned with the school’s OCR Unit 1 assessment data
which indicated that many students were below proficient in vocabulary
comprehension and fluency. Ms. Elmer started off by reviewing local assessment
results for each grade level before leading into the intended objectives, which were
consistent with the goals established at the summer meeting. The teachers were
grouped by grade level to facilitate the opportunity to collaborate. A packet was
distributed which included a research article related to the “Effects and Uses of
Diverse Vocabulary Instructional Techniques”. The teachers worked together to
complete examples and share out with the group. Mock lesson plans were enacted,
which added clarification of the strategies for implementation for this researcher.
At the end, each teacher submitted a form to the principal that listed at least
two strategies they would implement in their classrooms from the training. They

94
were also informed that a representative from the regional implementation center
would be doing classroom observations as a follow-up. As they left, teachers were
required to submit a form describing two strategies they would implement (Appendix
J) and diligent about completing an evaluation feedback form (Appendix K).
This depiction of professional development at Stellar, addressed common
themes, defined by Liebermann and Miller (2001, p. ix) in OSPI (2003) that
represent effective professional development. The common themes included the:
• importance of explicitly connecting teacher and student learning;
• supporting professional collaboration and collegial accountability
with time and space for conversation, joint action, and critique;
• coupling teaching and assessment practices;
• encouraging the development of a common language through oral
and written communication;
• developing and using structured tools and protocols to guide
discussion; and
• using the real-life events of teaching as the source of professional
development.
(p. 32).

Monday afternoons were specifically dedicated to conducting professional
developments that covered a range of topics every other week. As previously stated,
topics were determined by the results of assessment data that indicated which content
standards students had mastered versus material that students demonstrated difficulty
with. This time was also utilized by the local educational agency for trainings or
presentations as needed. The bi-weekly use of Mondays for staff development
continued throughout the entire school year. Alternate Monday afternoons were
allocated to teachers to use at their own discretion for grade level planning, student
study team meetings, and other collaborative efforts.

95
Collaboration
The research participants used such phrases as: “team players, teamwork
environment, working together as a family, everybody on board, total buy-in,
involved staff, open communication, and brainstorming” to imply that collaboration
was perceived as a significant factor in the school’s systemic approach to creating a
school culture of high academic achievement. Collaborative efforts were
demonstrated through bi-weekly grade level meetings, leadership team meetings,
student site council meetings, and parent-teacher association meetings. Many
teachers were also observed as they met informally to offer guidance and support to
one another, as needed. Quick exchanges regarding implementation strategies were
made in the staff lounge and during free time at staff meetings. The sign-in sheets
from grade level meetings, school site council meetings, and data team meetings also
served as evidence that staff members at Stellar were consistent participants in
school activities that were collaborative by nature.
Collaboration or “collegiality” is most effective in terms of improving
student achievement when it consists of staff interactions that are professional in
nature, opposed to staff interactions that are based on friendship or socialization
(Marzano, 2003). All of the avenues that were reported and observed as
opportunities for collaboration were professional in nature, wherein improved
student learning was the focal point.
The parent collaboration piece appeared to be more social in nature at first
glance. There were postings in the hallways inviting children and their families to a

96
night of stargazing, an ice cream social, and movie night. However, these events
were actually fundraisers that helped the school purchase various necessities that
supported student learning. Other opportunities for parent involvement included a
read-a-thon, staff appreciation, and campus beautification.
Collaboration with parents, however, went well beyond the social nature.
During an observation of a PTA meeting, the researcher noticed how an instructional
piece had been incorporated into the meeting. It was a PTA/parent workshop. The
workshop was entitled “Parents as Teachers”. As parents arrived, they were greeted
with pizza, juice, and water. As they proceeded to their seats, they were given a
packet (Appendix K), which outlined the connection between parents and quality
education for their children. As the presenter guided parents through the packet, she
encouraged participation, solicited feedback, and often repeated or rephrased key
points. The “parents as teachers” philosophy was also evident in the classrooms.
Collaboration efforts with the local community, as well as parents proved to be
beneficial as they volunteered to assist with various instructional tasks.
The physical presence of parents and volunteers in the classroom made
differentiated instruction more feasible because teachers were able to utilize them for
more one on one instructional support. Parents and community partners also
enhanced student understanding and instruction through contributions to various
instructional programs and projects related to music, drama, art, dance, science, and
technology. One parent described the atmosphere at Stellar as an environment that
“involves all parents and students”. She explained how “Ms. Elmer invites

97
everybody to come and help. There’s a lot of team work and community
involvement here at Stellar”.
Efforts to inspire parent involvement were also evident by the “PTA Stars”
that were posted in the hallways and doorways throughout the entire school. The
stars were neon yellow or green and approximately 6-7 inches long with large
colorful print. The print indicated the name of a person followed by the phrase
“joined the PTA”. So a sample star read as such: “Jane Doe joined the PTA”.
Therefore, parents and/or guardians were able to see their own names, embraced by a
star, and posted in the hallway of their child’s school!
The use of the stars could be described as a form of symbolic leadership by
Bolman and Deal (2003). Amidst their description of differing leadership styles, is
one of symbolism whereby leaders utilize symbols to capture attention. The large
size of the stars, situated in all of the hallways and doorways, paired with the bright
and bold neon coloring demanded attention. The association between the star itself
and academic excellence is a cultural value that is natural in America’s public
schools. Therefore, the public display of names printed on the stars coincided with
honorable recognition for parents and guardians at Stellar. This might also fit the
description of a human resource style of leadership, to the extent that the stars
appealed to the feelings and emotions of parents and guardians to evoke involvement
and participation (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Multiple styles of leadership were
observed at Stellar, which are discussed as appropriate throughout the presentation of
this chapter.

98
Leadership
There are no organizational structures or systems that are impervious to the
impact of leadership. As previously discussed in chapters one and two, leadership
may be the single most important factor that contributes to school improvement
(Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano, 2003). Core practices of successful leadership as
defined by Leithwood et al., (2004) include: “setting directions, developing people,
and redesigning the organization” (p.6). In addition to mastery of core leadership
practices, successful leaders must incorporate large repertoires of other practices as
appropriate. It is this frame of reference that guided the researcher in examining the
relationship between leadership practices and student learning at Stellar.
The principal at Stellar, Ms. Elmer, was serving her first term as principal.
Prior to that, she worked as the reading first coach at Stellar. Most of her philosophy
reflected the ideas and premises of Stellar’s former principal of 5 years, who had
been assigned to another local school in need of strong leadership. According to Ms.
Elmer, the former principal “got everybody on board and kind of weeded the
garden”. She referred to the firm position he had to take in terms of change, and the
resistance he encountered in his efforts to reform Stellar. Nonetheless, she described
his efforts as successful, which indicated that she intended to carry the torch for him
with hopes of similar student success. The transition to a new principal appeared to
be seamless, as the researcher did not uncover any data that suggested life at Stellar
was significantly different under the direction of Ms. Elmer.

99
In fact, interview data implied that the atmosphere at Stellar was still very
much a reflection of the former principal’s lead. In describing the strong and
supportive leadership that Ms. Elmer provided, most interview respondents provided
a historical context for this researcher which included mention of the former
principal. The former principal was reported to be a major agent of change, in
comparison to others who came before him that were actually discussed in terms of
obstacles the school had faced in the past 10 years or so. One interview respondent
reported “There’s a much better feel with the administrative staff in the last three to
five years. We’re all on the same page”. Regarding administrators in the past, she
went on to say “The affect on other people, trying to get people involved, other
administrators weren’t able to do that. Not looking at taking care of all groups, but
maybe just one particular group, that was a problem”. This statement is consistent
with implications based on the core leadership practice of redesigning the
organization. It provides considerations about the principal’s attention to staff
motivational factors and the intent to reshape the school culture (Leithwood et al.,
2004). The human resource leadership frame is also useful in explaining how the
principal’s attention to human needs and feelings promoted motivation and
cooperation in the direction of school improvement (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Many leadership practices that were discussed throughout the presentation of
research question 2 can be aligned with Leithwood’s core practices of successful
leadership. Figure 12 illustrates the connections between the actions that Leithwood

100
cited as reflections of successful leadership practices and the actions of the principal
at Stellar.
The principal’s actions described in Figure 12 can also be analyzed in
reference to Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames of Leadership. In general, the core
practice of setting directions can be compared to the structural leadership frame as
they both relate to clear goals, expectations, roles, and rules. Developing people is
closely correlated with the human resource leadership frame in terms of focusing on
relationships, motivation, and supporting people through training and skill
enhancement. Redesigning the organization can be associated with both the political
and symbolic frames of leadership which are really effective in efforts to influence
change or reform. Within this context, Bolman and Deal (2003) would associate Ms.
Elmer’s multiframe approach with greater effectiveness. By their account, people
who employ all four frames will experience deepened appreciation and
understanding of organizations.
Part of Ms. Elmer’s understanding of effective organizations included the
belief that “everybody has a responsibility in the achievement of all the students in
the school”. This belief was reflected by her assignment of all staff members to
school site leadership positions at some point during the school year. According to
Ms. Elmer, creating leaders among the staff helped to increase accountability and
responsibility. One way of doing this was to rotate grade level chairs, which forced
all of the teachers to eventually assume a lead role in examining student performance
and make decisions about ways to increase academic achievement. Some teachers

101
were willing and experienced in assuming leadership roles. Others were a little
resistant, so Ms. Elmer worked with them individually to apprentice the leadership
skills they demonstrated in their classrooms to leadership skills they could apply
school-wide.
Summary of Answer to Research Question #2
The research data indicated that there were multiple organizational structures
and systems working in concert to produce high student performance at Stellar
Elementary. Most notable among organizational structures were policies and
procedures related to assurances based on California’s Reading First Plan. The
assurances included regulations regarding specific criteria for reading/language arts
curriculum, the use of data to monitor student progress, and the use of professional
development to improve instruction. As previously mentioned, other structures that
were revealed as having a significant impact on high student performance included
standards based instruction, highly qualified teachers, and reduced class size.
The most influential systems included: the use of data to inform decisions;
clearly communicated goals aligned with content standards; and the use of
professional development and collaboration as learning tools to enhance teachers’
instructional skills. A portion of the discussion focused on leadership practices and
theories that place leadership at the heart of school improvement. Reference to
leadership practices as a central theme in effective school reform was confirmed
throughout the discussion by Leithwood et al., (2004), Bolman and Deal (2003), and
Marzano (2003).

102

Description of Core
Leadership Practices
Core Practice Matching
Actions
Ms. Elmer’s Actions

Setting Directions

Chart a clear course that everyone
understands, establish high
expectations and using data to track
progress and performance

• identifying and articulating a
vision,
• creating high performance
expectations,
• fostering the acceptance of
group goals,
• monitoring organizational
performance
• promoting effective
communication

• attention to content and
delivery of instruction
• effective communication of
vision and goals
• attention to learning as the
primary goal and purpose
• attention to unique learning
needs of students
• continuous student
monitoring and assessment
• student work samples
• focus on standards and
assessment data

Developing People

Providing teachers and others in the
system with the necessary support
and training to succeed

• offering intellectual stimulation
• providing individualized
support
• providing appropriate models
of best practice and beliefs
considered fundamental to the
organization

• providing good models
• corrective feedback
• coaching
• individual support
• professional development
• teachers and students both
recognized as learners

Redesigning the
Organization

Ensuring that the entire range of
conditions and incentives in districts
and schools fully supports rather than
inhibits teaching and learning

• strengthening district and school
culture
• modifying organizational
structures
• building collaborative processes

• teachers sharing effective
strategies
• teachers observing other
teachers
• focus on standards based
instruction
• attention to unique learning
needs of students
• visibility-classroom visits

Figure 12. Relationship between Leithwood’s Core Practices
and Principal’s Actions

Research findings that emphasized the need to address school, teacher, and
student level factors, in order to improve student achievement, were also examined

103
(Marzano, 2003). The researcher discussed multiple factors at Stellar that were
perceived to contribute to high student achievement. In the next section, these factors
will be revisited in terms of their implementation and subsequent impact on effective
teaching and learning. The importance of implementation was captured by Marzano
(2003) who asserted that “…any school in the United States can operate at advanced
levels of effectiveness-if it is willing to implement what is known about effective
schooling”(p.1).
Research Question 3: School-wide Effective Classroom Instruction
The third question asked, “How are the organizational structures and systems
implemented to support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes
student learning?” Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning guided the researcher
in analyzing the findings to this question. The general assumption is that learning is a
social endeavor that can be enhanced through consideration of both, the social
context and cultural conditions that a child is exposed to.
Unlike the individualistic theory of learning, the Vygotskian approach
emphasizes the importance of sociocultural forces in shaping the situation of
a child’s development and learning and points to the crucial role played by
parents, teachers, peers, and the community in defining the types of
interaction occurring between children and their environments (Kozulin et al,
2003, p.2).

Thus, differences in social and cultural settings impart varying degrees of
knowledge and experience in children. Educators should use the prior knowledge
and personal experiences of their students as a foundation to build upon, whereby
more meaningful and deeper knowledge can be attained in the classroom. The

104
sociocultural framework is further supported by Marzano’s (2003) research on the
characteristics of effective teaching, in which the he implies that consideration of
social and cultural factors contribute to effective classroom curriculum design. This
awareness of the need to connect with students’ social and cultural orientations to
facilitate learning was evidenced by the principal who stated that:
…One of the things we’ve talked about extensively in staff development is
every class is different. Every student is different and what you did last year
with one group of students might not work the next year. You need to make
the personal connection with those students and see what they’re interested in
and to connect to what their prior knowledge is. Do they have any prior
knowledge and if they don’t we need to give it to them. You know, we need
to create those experiences for them.

This statement reflects characteristics of effective teaching as defined by the
results of various research studies, which were reorganized by Marzano (2003) and
categorized into three specific areas. According to Marzano, “The act of teaching is a
holistic endeavor. Effective teachers employ effective instructional strategies,
classroom management techniques, and classroom curricular design in a fluent,
seamless fashion” (p. 77). The effectiveness of instructional strategies was discussed
in relation to the implementation of regular unit intervals, input experiences, and
reviewing, practicing, and applying content. In addition to the degree of order in the
classroom, effective classroom management also referred to the rapport teachers’
established with students. Effective classroom curricular design was related to
teachers’ ability to align sequencing and pacing of content with the specific needs of
students (Marzano, 2003). The examination of factors related to effective teaching

105
that apply to school-wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student
learning were interwoven throughout the discussion of the findings in this section.
Effective Teaching
The researcher collected data which suggested that various systems worked
in an integrated fashion to support effective teaching through differentiated
instruction. The first and most obvious sign of differentiated instruction was the
individual learning plans (ILP) that were developed for each student at Stellar. By
assessing the individual learning needs of each and every student, teachers were
made aware of different areas of focus with different students to improve academic
achievement. ILP’s served as a reminder to all school staff that school-wide effective
classroom instruction was based on the ability of all students to reach their learning
goals. In order to accomplish this, all students received classroom instruction that
supported individual progress through grouping, pull outs, and one-on-one
instruction. The use of ILP’s is aligned with classroom curriculum designs that are
employed by effective teachers. Marzano (2003) states “Teachers must identify
specific aspects of content to be addressed and plan the learning experiences
accordingly” (p. 109).
As previously stated, the ILP’s included three learning goals for each student
that addressed literacy, numeracy, and a teacher selected goal. The goals were based
upon students’ current level of performance in relation to the desired level of
performance, which was aligned with state content standards. As previously
illustrated in Figure 11, every ILP included the state content standard that was

106
connected to the individual learning goal. Although the ILP’s required students to
work on different short-term goals, the researcher was able to see how they were
aligned with common long-term goals according to grade level content standards.
The expectation was for all students at Stellar to cross the same finish line, without
prejudice toward the speed in which they traveled.
The principal played a key role in helping students to reach their ILP goals by
constantly monitoring the implementation of instructional supports. Students were
able to receive more individualized instruction through the use of various supports.
During the day, each class had “workshop” time for approximately 45 minutes.
During this time, students worked independently while the teacher and/or assistant
pulled out three to five students for small group work. The assistants were assigned
to rotate to different classrooms to help facilitate small group instruction. When
assistants facilitated the small group instruction, teachers provided more one-on-one
instruction with students. In addition to teacher assistants that were hired by the
school, community volunteers and parents also served as assistants to facilitate small
group instruction. The workshop time was important because it allowed teachers
and/or assistants to scaffold, model, and re-teach material that individual students
were struggling with.
There were other instructional resources at Stellar that were more defined in
terms of specific subgroups that required additional support. African American
students were pulled out in small groups twice a week for 30 minutes to be tutored in
vocabulary comprehension and fluency. The English Learner support guide was also

107
used as a learning tool with African American students to help develop linguistic
patterns and more in depth vocabulary. For mathematics support, there was a district
math coach who worked with fifth and sixth graders in small groups once a week.
The math coach did not use any paper or pencils. Instead, manipulatives were used to
build concepts and academic language in math.
Collaborative efforts were also responsive to the challenge of delivering
differentiated instruction. Teachers were familiar and highly communicative with the
resource support teacher and each other. The resource teacher frequently conducted
quick classroom observations of direct instruction and offered suggestions for
classroom accommodations and modifications that should be implemented with
struggling students. Grade level meetings were convened informally at least once per
week and formally convened two times per month for an hour to discuss student
assessments, results, and strategies to improve classroom instruction and learning.
There was an underlying expectation for teachers to deliver instruction with
fidelity. During individual goal setting conferences with teachers, Ms. Elmer went
over the teaching standards and communicated what she expected to see when
observing classroom instruction. This helped to establish personal accountability for
delivering classroom instruction that was aligned with the standards, opposed to
instruction that was delivered in some haphazard fashion. This contributed to a
collective group of teachers who participated in grade level planning that supported a
standards based approach; whereby teachers referenced the same set of guidelines to
inform and direct effective classroom instruction. Collaboration was also observed

108
by teachers who supported one another across grade levels as well. A fourth grade
teacher consulted with a second grade teacher on the delivery of a vocabulary lesson,
which demonstrated the teamwork spirit that was reported during interviews.
Besides assessment scores, the researcher found another essential measure of
academic success at Stellar was the level of student engagement and participation. In
general, the staff associated higher student engagement and participation with
evidence of academic success. The extent to which students asked and answered
questions, wanted to answer questions, and participated in class discussions was
indicative of deeper and more sophisticated understanding or a lack thereof.
The researcher observed teachers that were very committed to making sure
every student participated in classroom activities. Some teachers went around the
room methodically and chose students for discussion, while others appeared to do it
more randomly. Even the ones who appeared to do it randomly somehow managed
to include everybody. Although some students periodically zoned out, teachers were
paying close attention so no particular student could be off task for too long. In
Marzano (2003), this practice is described as a characteristic of effective teachers. It
refers to the “withitness” that Marzano quantified as a teacher’s ability to “employ
specific strategies to maintain or heighten their awareness regarding the actions of
students in their classes” (p.102). This was evidenced by the minimal amount of
disruptions the researcher observed in classrooms.
During classrooms observations at Stellar, the students conducted themselves
in an orderly and safe manner, despite the presence of “a visitor”. None of the

109
students demonstrated any remarkable problematic behaviors. There were a few
students who spoke out of turn, and fidgeted in their chairs, but nothing that required
any of the teachers to interrupt instruction. According to interview data, the majority
of teachers handled discipline issues within their own classrooms. One teacher
commented, “Our teachers take care of discipline within their own classrooms. It’s
pretty severe if I send my kids down there and the office knows if I call its ugly
(laughing)”.
Stellar had a fulltime behavior aide in addition to services that were provided
by a local mental health agency to support classroom rules and procedures that were
aligned with the school-wide discipline plan. The staff spoke highly about their on
site behavior aide, who they consulted with and relied upon to help maintain safety
and order in their classrooms as needed. He was reported to be a local resident who
built a good rapport with the students. The staff utilized the behavior aide for day to
day behavioral problems, opposed to the mental health agency that was utilized to
address significant life stressors that affected classroom behavior such as abuse,
divorce, and homelessness. Attention to students’ actions as described by Marzano’s
“withitness” contributed to safety and order in classrooms that was consistent with
the safe and orderly school-wide environment.
Improving Classroom Instruction
Five of six teachers reported professional development as a practice that was
perceived to support effective classroom instruction. Professional development was
paired with assessment data to help teachers identify students’ areas of weakness and

110
provide appropriate instructional supports. Teachers appeared to feel more confident
about their ability to provide effective instruction as a result of some kind of training.
One teacher stated, “I know that the practice and the in-services that we’ve done
have made me a better teacher”. Another teacher stated, “I feel that I’ve been
properly trained on the curriculum that we’re delivering and then I try to practice
everything that I learn at the trainings to apply what I’ve learned. I feel like I try to
teach all components of the program, you know with fidelity, instead of just picking
and choosing different parts”. These statements represent teacher beliefs that the
trainings they participated in helped them to be more effective classroom teachers.
The principal at Stellar supported effective classroom instruction by
providing professional development on topics that were relevant to the needs of the
students. In addition to robust vocabulary instruction, Stellars’ teachers were also
trained on content that focused on comprehension skills and strategies, writing
strategies, and the use of the English learner support guide. These were all aligned
with the areas of need that were documented in the school site single plan for student
achievement. Multiple sources of assessment data were used to determine students
needs such as: state test scores, OCR and Saxon unit assessments, student work
samples, student engagement, and classroom participation to gauge student
achievement. Based on this information, struggling students were identified in
addition to the specific content standards that were problematic and in need of a
more time to be re-taught and learned.

111
An example of this was the principal’s decision to arrange for the district’s
math coach to conduct a professional development on the use of manipulatives in the
upper grades. The researcher was presented with assessment data that suggested that
fifth and sixth grade students were having difficulty with algebraic functions in
particular. So the district math coach conducted training with teachers on the use of
research-based instructional strategies that have been most successful with that
population on that subject matter. By using professional development to improve
teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction in the area of algebraic functions, the
principal was directly supporting effective teaching to indirectly improve student
learning.
Participation in professional developments that focused on improved
instruction also influenced the beliefs of teachers regarding their ability to be
effective teachers. This was demonstrated during the professional development on
robust vocabulary instruction which led to the kind of teaching that Marzano (2003)
says is effective teaching. The principle provided the staff with a vocabulary
instructional framework that employed research-based strategies as evidenced by the
research article that was distributed and reviewed. This is consistent with Marzano’s
assertion that teachers need to be presented with instructional frameworks that
employ research-based strategies. It was also aligned with Marzano’s principles
around the discussion of classroom curriculum design that effective teachers employ.
Conceptual knowledge was identified as the focus of the lesson; Tier II words were

112
chosen for mastery as opposed to Tier I & III; and key features of vocabulary
instruction that facilitate reading instruction were highlighted.
By learning to deliver instruction more effectively during professional
development, teachers witnessed improvements and sometimes unexpected academic
progress with their students. With repeated success of teaching students who many
believed were not teachable, teachers’ attitudes toward certain students’ were
challenged. Their attitudes were challenged because they could not ignore the ability
of underachievers to experience academic success when certain research-based
strategies were employed. Their continued efforts to apply new instructional
strategies, which were research-based, represented attitudes and beliefs that they
have the power to influence student performance. By report, as teachers began to
employ more effective instructional strategies that they learned during professional
development, student performance increased, teacher’s attitudes changed, and more
positive teacher-student relationships began to surface. This was just one example of
how professional development encouraged characteristics of effective teaching at
Stellar.
Summary of Answer to Research Question #3
An exemplary model was revealed in examining the manner in which the
organizational systems and structures were implemented at Stellar to support school-
wide effective classroom instruction that promotes student learning. The researcher
examined variables that Marzano (2003) associated with characteristics of effective
teaching. This included effective implementation of instructional strategies,

113
classroom management, and classroom curriculum design. The findings suggested
that multiple systems were in fact working in an integrated fashion to support school-
wide effective classroom instruction at Stellar Elementary.
Implementation of the systems overlapped so much so, to the extent that it
was extremely difficult to discuss the dynamics of one system without discussing the
others. The principal, Ms. Elmer, was the glue among the systems. Her plan of action
varied depending on the situation, with student learning at the core of all dilemmas.
Other school leaders among the staff followed suit with the utmost regard for
strategies that were characteristic of effective teaching and learning. These
ideologies led to a group of educators who referred to content standards during
trainings and grade level meetings as a starting point for academic excellence.
Desired learning goals were compared to assessment data from frequent and
consistent monitoring which provided crucial information in regard to Stellar’s
efforts to provide more effective instruction. Assessment data directly influenced
decisions related to learning goals, and subsequent direction for professional
development and collaborative efforts in order to improve classroom instruction.
Effective teaching and learning were well supported by Ms. Elmer who was
committed to this model of alignment between state standards and assessment data,
which led to the development of goals, professional developments and collaborative
efforts that improved student performance at Stellar.

114
Research Question 4: Construct of Race
The fourth and final research question asked, “How is the construct of race
reflected in the school’s structures and systems?” Overwhelming statistics on
underachievement among African-American and Hispanic students, in comparison to
white students, suggested that the role of race is significant in relationship to
education. By focusing on the vast differences in academic achievement between
white students and students of color, educators are called to question the extent to
which race influences variance in student performance (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995). Researchers such as Ogbu, Ladson-Billings, and Bourdieu have developed
theories of race and capital to explain how and why students of color receive
ineffective instruction and consequently demonstrate substandard academic
achievement in America’s public school system. Based on this framework, the
researcher explored the implications of the construct of race in student performance
at Stellar.
Patterns of inequity in education have been associated and compared to
patterns of inequity in the acquisition of social and cultural capital, which have
plagued people of color for years in America. However, research supports the benefit
of implementing strategic behaviors to help gain access to capital (Lareau, 1987; Lin,
2000). The connection here is that implementation of strategic behaviors in high-
performing, high-poverty schools can help students of color gain access to effective
instruction. Access to effective instruction is a resource, a form of capital that was
originally denied to students of color, and continues to be divvied out sparingly in

115
high-poverty schools with large concentrations of students of color. Therefore, it is
important to examine and discuss ways in which students of color can attain
unlimited access to effective instruction.
School Climate
The principal took the lead role in sustaining a school climate at Stellar that
was welcoming and comfortable to everyone. Her body language and attitude was
positive which was evidenced by her open door policy, smiles, greetings, and open
communication. One parent described the principal as “friendly and open-minded”.
She went on to describe how the principal was not fixated on her own ways of doing
things and how the principal also made her feel welcome to come to her with new
ideas. This attitude was mirrored by school staff who greeted one another and the
students with warmth and personalization. As teachers entered the room for the staff
meeting in which this researcher presented the initial proposal for this study, they
greeted one another, and also spoke to the researcher who was a complete stranger.
One teacher even extended an invitation to the researcher, along with the rest of the
staff to a pampered chef party.
Ms. Elmer’s style was open and warm, yet formal and clear. The interactions
between the principal and staff, principal and parents, and principal and students
were notably pleasant, but again, formal and clear. During the professional
development, the researcher observed social interactions that were easily redirected
when Ms. Elmer was ready to begin. A couple of teachers didn’t hesitate for a
second to share their teacher’s edition with colleagues who didn’t realize they

116
needed it for the training. The researcher also observed Ms. Elmer and a group of
students watering flowers for their campus beautification project. While they smiled
and laughed, there was conversation about types of flowers students liked and had at
home. They also discussed the work that was required at home and school to keep
the flowers alive and beautiful.
A sense of mutual respect was observed during school and classroom visits,
in which the researcher heard frequent and regular use of basic social phrases such
as: “please, thank you, how are you, hello, good morning, how can I help you, good
job, and we, us, and our”. Staff and students were observed taking turns when
speaking and listening to one another. These simple gestures of acknowledgment
seemed to have a positive influence on the attitudes and overall morale of the staff
and students at Stellar. One indication of students’ feelings about their teachers was
demonstrated through a showcase in the main entrance of the school. Inside the case,
were personal statements from at least 50 or more students on the reason why their
teacher was special to them.
The importance of teacher-student relationships at Stellar was underscored by
the association of a warm and nurturing environment with the characteristics of an
effective teacher. Effective teacher-student relationships are addressed in Marzano’s
discussion on classroom management. He asserts that effective teacher-student
relationships may be the “keystone that allows the other aspects to work well. If a
teacher has a good relationship with students, then students accept her rules,
procedures, and disciplinary actions” (2003, p.91). An effective teacher-student

117
relationship is further quantified by Marzano as the extent to which teachers are able
to strike a balance between dominance and cooperation in their interactions with
students. This refers to teachers’ ability to provide strong academic and behavioral
direction, while simultaneously showing concern for the needs and opinions of
students. Observations at Stellar allowed the researcher to apply meaning to their
descriptions of a warm and nurturing environment.
The researcher was able to observe the teacher who went the extra mile by
showing up to work early and leaving late. The researcher was able to see the teacher
who pursued participation and engagement by roving the room during Open Court
reading and quietly sat down next to a struggling student to whisper assistance while
reading aloud. The teacher was observed who exuded excitement and enthusiasm
through her voice and body movements, which spilled over onto her “little wiggly
worms” who were bursting at the seams to answer questions and move their names
up on the “STAR” board. Parents were observed in the classrooms and on the
general campus as participants instead of visitors. One parent described Stellar as her
“second home”, which was consistent with another interviewee who reported how he
encourages students and parents to say “This is our house!”
A range of indicators reflecting a warm and nurturing environment were used
in reference to descriptions of effective teachers. Nurturing hugs and snuggles, well
prepared lessons and direct instruction were among a long list of indicators reported
during interviews. Caring staff seemed to be the underpinning of the atmosphere at
Stellar. Staff cared enough about the students to go the extra mile; they cared enough

118
to actively pursue participation and engagement with all students; they cared enough
to bond with and get to know all students; they cared enough to respect and invite all
parents into their classrooms; and they cared enough to consistently show up with
enthusiasm and excitement about teaching. This “caring” kind of environment
reflects some of the qualities that Ladson-Billings linked to culturally relevant
pedagogy, which focuses on the important lessons that can be learned by examining
the intersection of culture and teaching (Ladson-Billings, Autumn, 1995). Therefore,
the next section focused on implications of cultural factors at Stellar in relationship
to student learning.
Cultural Diversity
By report, the principal “set a school culture of value of diversity and value
of success for everyone”. None of the interview respondents reported any concerns
about the extent to which teachers engaged and respected cultural differences among
students. In fact, there was a sentiment that cultural diversity was an inherent part of
the schools character. There were some reports of celebrating diverse ethnicities
through food, assemblies, parades, and special lesson plans. But overall, there was
more of a focus on engaging, involving, respecting, and encouraging all students to
improve performance. According to Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) this
interpretation of cultural diversity reduces it to trivial examples and artifacts of
culture, rather than meaningful understanding of different conceptions of knowledge
that effect change in schools in the direction of equity in education.

119
There was a general lack of accountability in response to describing their
personal roles in promoting cultural diversity. Students of color made up
approximately 98% of the student population at Stellar, so there was a general
assumption that all of their efforts supported the needs of students of color by
default. One teacher stated that “I don’t look at kids as kids of color. They’re just
kids. I treat them all the same”. This was consistent with most of the respondents
who discussed cultural diversity in terms of holiday celebrations and key ethnic
figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Cultural diversity was perceived to fall within
the school’s overall culture of success for all students. Stellar had a philosophy that
addressed the learning needs of all students through empathy, respect, engagement,
positive attitudes, and administrative support.
Yet again, research findings from Love and Kruger (2005) support the
disadvantages of this perspective on cultural diversity. They found that “Devaluing
children’s differences do them injustices, however ‘equitable’ treating all children
the same may seem” (p.95). Love and Kruger (2005) also cited research from Paley
(1989/2000) which stated that “…teachers who do not acknowledge race deny
experiences of alienation, which children of color face everyday” (p. 95). This offers
considerations for the huge disparity at Stellar in the performances between African
American and Latino students, which stuck out like a sore thumb in the data. Perhaps
this “everybody is the same” philosophy doesn’t work well for African American
students.

120
However, there were a few respondents who clearly identified specific things
they did to personally promote cultural diversity. This included: taking the time to
connect and learn about each student, and assessing students’ prior knowledge and
the supports they needed to be successful; recognizing a personal lack of knowledge
in dealing with African American students, being more attentive to teacher trainings
on multicultural education, and working to acknowledge and dispel preconceptions;
reading and studying research articles on cultural diversity provided by
administration, and being a lover of academics committed to learning more about
classroom success with culturally diverse students; recognizing race and ethnicity as
an “undertone or undercurrent” that does not explain underachievement but being
important in figuring out how to improve performance. One teacher emphatically
stated “we don’t wait for holidays to discuss different things that families do”. She
pointed out how she discussed the ways in which people are the same and different
throughout the year. She further stated her personal role in helping students to
understand that “what they do is not the same as what everybody else does, but what
they do is just as good as what everybody else does and isn’t that wonderful that we
can do different things but we all celebrate together”. This illustrates how some
teachers at Stellar are focused on ethnic differences in a positive way.
This perception and recognition of cultural differences with added value is a
critical piece in Ladson-Billings’ theory on culturally relevant pedagogy, which also
explains the necessity for teachers to utilize students’ culture as a learning tool to
improve student learning (Ladson-Billings, Summer 1995). This represents an asset-

121
driven approach instead of a deficit-driven approach, which blames poor student
performance on deficiencies within students of color. In Lyman and Villanai (2004),
Valenica (1997) reported that “deficit-thinking is a theory to explain the failures of
economically disadvantaged minority students to succeed in school” (p.117). The
extent to which educators demonstrate asset or deficit driven thinking has significant
implications. Certain attitudes and discriminatory behaviors are results of prejudice
and stereotyping that Valencia (1997) attributes to deficit thinking, which is based on
ideas about genetic and cultural inferiority (Lyman and Villani, 2004). Research
findings further linked these attitudes and discriminatory behaviors with lowered
expectations and subsequent lowered academic achievement (Reyna, 2000). This
confirms the significance and utility in examining expectations which is presented in
the following section.
Expectations for Academic Excellence
High expectations were encouraged through asset driven professional
developments on multicultural education, which focused on instructional strategies
that utilized students’ prior skills and knowledge to improve student learning. High
expectations were also evidenced in the school site single plan for student
achievement, which included a standards based goal to close the achievement gap
between Hispanic students and two subgroups (African Americans and English
learners).
When addressing the performance gap among subgroups at Stellar and what
they should be able to do, the principal referred to the highest scoring subgroup as a

122
benchmark. The highest scoring group of students at Stellar was the Hispanic
students, and the lowest group was the African American students. Within this
context, the principal’s expectation for all subgroups to perform as close as possible
to the benchmark was the annual challenge for teachers. With the benchmark as a
reference, teachers were expected to work together by grade level to develop
instructional plans that addressed the specific learning needs of struggling students.
Since high expectations became ingrained into the instructional plans, it made it
more difficult for teachers to teach to their personal expectations. Instead they
became more accountable for the principal’s expectations for academic excellence.
Summary of Answer to Research Question #4
The researcher explored the construct of race through the examination of
multiple variables which included: school climate, cultural diversity, and
expectations for academic excellence. Overall, the researcher found that race was not
specifically perceived as a differentiating factor at Stellar which might explain some
of the variance in student achievement. Gaps in achievement implied that some
students, namely African Americans are uniquely impacted by some unknown
factors. This gives rise to various research findings that were presented throughout
the discussion by Ladson-Billings and others, which support the significant impact of
considerations of race in explaining variance in student performance.
Summary
This chapter presented the findings of four research questions that were
developed in an effort to learn more about organizational structures and systems that

123
support academic success with students of color. This included an examination of
trends and patterns of performance, identification and implementation of specific
structures and systems, and the construction of race. The findings of each research
question were discussed and analyzed with reference to sociocultural theories of
learning to help facilitate meaning and understanding. Based on the interpretation of
the findings, conclusions, implications for policy and practice, and recommendations
for future research studies are presented in the following chapter.

124
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
CONCLUSIONS

Introduction
This chapter presents an overall synopsis of a research study conducted at
one high-performing, high-poverty urban school with a large concentration of
students of color. A brief summary of the problem will be discussed, followed by the
purpose of the study, corresponding research questions, and a short summary of the
findings to each research question. Collectively, this information will frame a
discussion around conclusions, implications for practice and policy, and
recommendations for future research.
Summary of the Problem
In an effort to improve educational outcomes in America’s public schools,
researchers have studied effective schools and documented specific structures and
systems that contribute to high academic achievement (Marzano, 2003). However,
academic achievement among students of color in high-poverty schools continues to
be significantly lower than that of their white counterparts. This discrepancy in
performance between these students is more commonly referred to as the
“achievement gap” (Ladson-Billings, 2006). As such, this researcher was called to
question why the structures and systems that researchers documented in effective
schools are not working for the majority of students of color in high-poverty schools.
The researcher referred to sociocultural learning theories as an overarching
theoretical framework to guide this study.

125
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the organizational structures and
systems that support high academic achievement among students of color at high-
poverty schools. In addition, the study set out to identify how the organizational
structures and systems are implemented to support effective classroom instruction
that maximizes student learning. In an effort to address the problem, four research
questions were developed as presented below:
Research Questions
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 structures and systems 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?
In order to answer these questions, the researcher set out to conduct a qualitative
case study at one high-poverty urban school where students of color were
experiencing academic success. The following discussion provides the findings and
brief analysis of each research question.
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1. The main foci of inquiry in this question were the
patterns and trends of performance among students of color, which reflected an

126
increasingly positive trajectory at Stellar Elementary. API scores, mean scale scores,
and percentages of students at or above proficient were among the standardized test
measures that indicated an overall increase in student performance for African
American, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students. Additional indicators
confirmed this finding such as: increases in attendance rates, zero expulsions,
reductions in the number of suspensions, minimal increases in special education
enrollment, and moderate increases in gifted program enrollment. The overall gains
that students of color demonstrated at Stellar were at least competitive or better than
the gains of their same respective peers groups at the state level. However, there
were striking gaps in overall achievement at the school level, between African
American students and other students of color at Stellar. On measurements of
mathematics achievement in particular, African American students scored
significantly lower than Hispanics and economically disadvantaged students. African
American students also demonstrated discrepancies in English language arts
performance and on the annual performance index.
According to Marzano (2003), trends and patterns offer feedback for
educators on the impact of interventions to improve student achievement. The impact
of interventions should determine the need for change in continued efforts to
improve student achievement. In this study, trends and patterns of performance
suggested that Hispanics students were the most responsive to instructional strategies
in terms of improvements in performance, followed by economically disadvantaged
students. African American students were the least responsive in terms of improved

127
performance, which speaks to the need for a different type of first teaching to
improve their overall performance, with a particular emphasis on math achievement.
These findings are significant because they provide concrete feedback to the
staff at Stellar on discrepancies in student performance among students of color that
require immediate attention and resolution. These findings provide evidence that
lends support to the need for change in current first teaching strategies with specific
subgroups in order to “close the gap” as stated in their school site plan. These
findings further provide that instructional strategies have been disproportionately
successful in achieving academic excellence among all students. The significance of
the findings of other indicators, such as increased attendance rates, suggested that
intervention strategies have been mostly successful across the board. Patterns of
placement in special education and gifted programs were of particular interest in
comparison to other indicators, and did not reveal any gross disproportions among
students of color at Stellar. This is important because of numerous research studies
on placements in special education and gifted programs, which shows that students
of color are often overrepresented in special education programs and
underrepresented in gifted programs due to deficit-driven thinking (Valencia, 1997 in
Lyman and Villani, 2004).
Research Question 2. Examination of systems and structures that were
perceived to contribute to high student achievement was the goal of this research
question. Based on research, the organizational structures and systems at Stellar
closely mirrored Marzano’s theoretical framework on systems and structures that

128
must be addressed in order to produce more effective schools. The organizational
structures that were perceived to contribute to high student achievement included the
use of scientific, research-based instructional programs for reading/language arts, use
of specific assessment tools to measure and report student progress, participation in
on-going professional development, standards-based instruction, highly qualified
teachers, and class size reduction. The systems that were perceived to contribute to
high student achievement included the continued use of data to drive decisions, goal
setting, professional development, collaboration, and effective leadership practices.
The significance of these findings is in the feedback to the staff at Stellar on
the presence or absence of systems and structures that needs to be in place to
improve student performance. The findings further provide additional understanding
on the factors that are especially essential to improved learning outcomes at Stellar.
Systems and structures that are perceived to contribute to high student achievement
have long been studied and put forward. In Marzano (2003), those studies were
synthesized and presented as school, teacher, and student level factors. All of the
factors are important, but must be selectively addressed according to the needs of
each individual school.
At Stellar, there was a huge focus on the use of assessment data to measure
performance and identify potential solutions to improve performance. Assurances
from the California Reading First Plan and information from the data collection
process implied that the use of assessment data was both a structure and a system at
Stellar. Furthermore, it was consistent with Marzano (2003) who claimed that “one

129
of the defining characteristics of schools producing unprecedented gains in student
achievement (particularly with students whose backgrounds are not conducive to
such gains), is that they rely on data to identify probable successful interventions”
(p.158). This finding is important because it lends support to the continued and
appropriate use of data to inform decisions to improve student achievement at
Stellar. While data did not identify the cause of the problem in student achievement,
it was used to establish the presence of a problem and potential solutions.
Professional development also represented functions of a structure and
system, to the extent that on-going participation in professional development was
mandatory since Stellar was a Reading First school, in addition to professional
development being utilized by Stellar’s principal as a tool to improve instruction at
Stellar. Engagement in meaningful professional developments is one of the school-
level action steps recommended in Marzano (2003) to foster staff collegiality and
professionalism. Highly qualified teachers, also perceived as a structure, were further
connected to the use of professional development to provide teachers with more
content knowledge and therefore, make them better equipped to improve student
learning. This finding validates Stellar’s perception of professional development as
one of the main factors that helped to make Stellar a more effective school.
Triangulated data indicated that teachers employed scientific, research-based
instructional strategies as required by the California Reading First Plan to help
students’ demonstrate mastery of California’s content standards. The standards were
used to guide both classroom instruction and goal development. This particular piece

130
may be the most important factor in improving student achievement according to
Marzano (2003). There is often a discrepancy between the intended curriculum
(standards-based) and that which is actually implemented. Understanding the
significance of this discrepancy may very well be one of the most important findings
because of its striking resemblance to discrepancies in desired student achievement
and that which is actually achieved. This implies that student achievement can be
improved when the intended standards-based curriculum and instruction match that
which is actually implemented.
The principal, Ms. Elmer, understood the importance of clearly
communicating what was supposed to be taught and learned and then measuring
what was actually taught and learned. As the school leader, Ms. Elmer was the glue
that permeated all other systems and structures at Stellar to ensure that students
actually learned what they were supposed to be learning. This is a very important
finding which holds implications for the power of school leaders to evoke change in
the direction of improvement.
While it is important to understand the meaning of the systems and structures
that were perceived to be significant to high student achievement at Stellar, it is also
important to examine the lack of recognition of other factors that were not
emphasized. In contrast to interviews with parents, interviews with school personnel
did not suggest that parent participation was an integral part of high student
achievement. Parents were mentioned more in terms of secondary thoughts when
referring to classroom volunteers to assist with differentiated instruction. However,

131
document analysis and observations suggested that parents were more involved in
student success than personnel had given them credit for. During all interviews,
including those with parents, there was also a lack of recognition of the significance
of a safe and orderly environment, which again conflicted with documents and
observations that suggested otherwise. The researcher interpreted these findings in
two different ways.
First, in terms of parent and community involvement, Stellar should compare
these findings against Marzano’s theoretical framework which was used for this
study to determine the need to further address this factor in their individual context
to support high student achievement. Second, in terms of a safe and orderly
environment, it appeared to be a different scenario. Safety and order in classrooms,
as well as school-wide, presented as a system that was ingrained into the daily
routine at Stellar. The system didn’t seem to warrant much attention because it
functioned as planned. In this way, safety and order was one of the systems that had
been effectively addressed and allowed for staff to move on to other issues.
Research Question 3. This research question focused on the manner in which
systems and structures were implemented to support effective classroom instruction
that promoted student learning. The findings demonstrated that Stellar relied on the
deliberate use of assessment data to influence decisions as a first step to support
effective classroom instruction. Amid a clear vision and definition of academic
excellence, assessment data was used to inform short-term goals for the school,
teachers, and students. Assessment data was especially useful in developing short-

132
term goals for individual learning plans for students. Triangulated data
overwhelmingly pointed to school-wide implementation of individual learning plans
(ILP’s) as a major contribution to more effective teaching through differentiated
instruction. ILP’s promoted awareness and prompted action from teachers to meet
the unique learning needs of students, based on student’s individual assessment
results. The ILP’s helped teachers to identify which students would benefit most
from additional instructional supports such as small group work, pull-outs, and one-
on-one instruction.
Differentiation in the learning needs of students prohibited teachers from
using a one size fits all instructional approach, which is consistent with the
sociocultural theory of learning against which it was compared to in this study.
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning posits that learning is a social process
that is improved when educators recognize and incorporate children’s individuality
(cultural background) within the social context (classroom) (Kozulin et al., 2003).
The use of ILP’s is further consistent with the secondary framework on systems and
structures which purports that “no instructional strategy works equally well in all
situations” (Marzano et al., 2001, p.8); ILP’s were just one instructional support that
were implemented as an extension of the sociocultural and systems school of
thought.
As previously stated, assessment data were also used to inform goals for
teachers in terms of improving instruction. School-wide implementation of on-going
professional development occurred throughout the year to help teachers improve

133
their instructional skills. By all accounts, the trainings that teachers participated in
made a big contribution to their ability to deliver more effective classroom
instruction. Again, within the context of a clear vision and definition of academic
excellence, assessment results shed light on specific content standards in which
students were struggling with and in need of additional instructional supports. This
information was used to inform topics for professional development in an effort to
better prepare teachers to meet the learning needs of students. During professional
development, teachers learned how to more accurately pinpoint content knowledge
that students needed to learn and deliver more explicit and direct instruction
accordingly. They learned how to be more skillful in re-teaching and scaffolding
material for students that needed that extra support.
The significance of these findings rests in the ability of Stellar and other
elementary schools with similar demographics to replicate widespread and proper
implementation of systems and structures that consistently work to support school-
wide effective classroom instruction from the beginning for all students. Providing
students of color with better first teaching experiences that build on the capital they
already possess may be the missing link.
Research Question 4. In this fourth and final research question, the construct
of race was examined in relationship to the systems and structures at Stellar. The
findings demonstrated that the construct of race was mostly reflected in terms of a
“colorblind” approach, wherein race was not perceived as a differentiating factor in
student achievement at Stellar. Instead, there was an overall perception that all

134
systems and structures worked to produce academic excellence for all students.
However, multiple researchers disagree with that approach and further suggest that
consideration of the race factor may increase understanding of America’s historical
failure to provide effective instruction for students of color. Fundamental principles
from critical race theory, culturally relevant pedagogy, deficit-thinking model, and
social and cultural capital framed the following discussion.
There was just a few staff at Stellar that went beyond trivial expressions of
cultural diversity to give real meaning to multicultural differences. In general, the
findings illustrated the tendency for staff to celebrate multicultural differences during
holidays, with food, and by examining key ethnic persons such as Dr. Martin Luther
King. This finding is critical according to Love and Kruger (2005) who studied the
intended and unintended consequences of ignoring race. Educators who fail to
acknowledge and discuss differences among students of color, fail to recognize their
individual needs that derive from experiences of prejudice and stereotyping that they
encounter on a daily basis in society at large. Continuing gaps in achievement may
be partly due to treating all students “the same”, when in fact their learning needs are
not the same. This most basic need for attention to the social emotional state of
students of color due to race related stressors may lead to even more impressive
gains in their performance. This perspective is consistent with literature on culturally
relevant teaching and theories on capital, which support the notion of improved
student performance by tapping into the cultural background or capital that students
of color already possess.

135
Implications for Policy and Practice
Based on the findings of this study, general implications for high-poverty
urban schools that wish to develop effective school-wide instructional practices that
support academic success among students of color are listed below. The implications
reflect specific suggestions for school site administrators and classroom teachers.
School Site Administrators
• Leadership was clearly established as an overarching variable that
permeates the functions of all systems and structures. Thus, school
site administrators need to continue to improve their ability to
communicate clear goals and expectations that everybody understands
and agrees to work toward. They should rely on continuous use of
assessment data to measure progress toward goals and inform
decisions for appropriate implementation of intervention strategies.
• Site administrators should seek to develop people by providing
teachers and other school personnel with appropriate training and
support for success. Professional development must be aligned with
the instructional needs of students. Thus, there must be a focus on
specific subject areas (content knowledge), opportunities for active
learning among staff, and trainings that are sequential and cohesive.
• In order to move schools in the direction of change, school
administrators must constantly reflect on the specific functions of
structures and systems at their site and make necessary adjustments,

136
to ensure that they do not inhibit school-wide effective classroom
instruction that promotes student learning.
• The findings on the construct of race suggested that all persons who
claim to be invested in academic success for all students need to
consider the role of race as a differentiating factor in student
achievement, and furthermore engage in unprecedented discussion
around intervention strategies for African American students in
particular.
Classroom Teachers
• Classroom teachers need to make instruction more effective by using
scientific research-based instructional strategies. Instruction should be
aligned with learning goals that are clearly identified and
communicated with students, such as those included in individual
learning plans.
• Classroom teachers should recognize and incorporate unique cultural
characteristics and social contexts into their lesson plans. In the
process of helping students to develop their academic skills, it is
essential for teachers to further help students build and maintain
cultural competence and critical consciousness. These instructional
strategies reflect principles of sociocultural theories of learning and
culturally relevant and responsive teaching, which contribute to
collective and individual empowerment.

137
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study were the basis of the following recommendations
for future research that are listed below.
• Interview data represented the perceptions of administrators, teachers,
classified staff and parents. Further research should include interviews
with students in order to learn more about the systems and structures
that they perceive as helpful in improving their performance. This
could help with designing specific interventions more tailored to the
student level factors that Marzano discussed.
• In order to obtain more balanced perspectives, future researchers
should conduct interviews with an equal percentage of interviewees
from each group of participants. In addition, future research should
include more observations or opportunities to shadow school
administrators in order to advance understanding of the critical role
they play in managing systems and structures that function to support
school-wide effective classroom instruction.
• Future research studies should focus specifically on race as a
differentiating factor in student achievement. The current study
revealed a colorblind approach in terms of the construct of race. Thus,
research should be conducted on schools that focus on principles from
critical race theory, culturally relevant pedagogy, and theories on
capital to inform intervention strategies that improve student

138
achievement among African Americans, as well as other students of
color.
Conclusions
This case study set out to identify the organizational structures and systems
that contribute to high student achievement at high-performing, high-poverty urban
schools with large concentrations of students of color. It addition, it also focused on
the manner in which these structures and systems were implemented to support
effective classroom instruction that promoted improved student learning. The
researcher did identify the structures and systems at Stellar Elementary school that
were perceived to contribute to high academic achievement. The findings were
consistent with Marzano’s meta-analysis on 35 years of research on general factors
that effective schools address which influence student achievement: school, teacher,
and student-level factors. The findings and implications for practice lend support to
the declaration that the researcher made in chapter one to add to the body of
knowledge.
We now know that students of color are demonstrating significant gains in
academic achievement at Stellar Elementary as well as other high-poverty schools
identified in chapter two. However, there are still significant gaps in academic
achievement among African American students in particular. We also know that
high-poverty schools with large concentrations of students of color have to be more
discerning in addressing the systems and structures that are most relevant to student
achievement with their particular student population. We have more understanding

139
of the manner in which schools serve to intentionally or unintentionally perpetuate
underachievement among students of color. Powerful assumptions from sociocultural
theories of learning offered guidance for schools to move toward more equitable
distribution of effective instruction in this evermore multicultural world we live in.
The researcher concluded that sociocultural theories of learning speak to the
title of this study in terms of “What Really Matters?” Ladson-Billings and Tate
(1995) communicated this same sentiment with the assertion that “we unabashedly
reject a paradigm that attempts to be everything to everyone and consequently
becomes nothing for anyone, allowing the status quo to prevail” (p.62). Thus, things
that really matter are those factors that reflect unprecedented access to unlimited
effective instruction that students of color have yet to experience!

140
REFERENCES
Ali, R., & Jerald, C. (2001). Dispelling the myth in California: Preliminary findings
from a state and nationwide analysis of “high flying” schools (Report No.
UD034762). Oakland, CA: Education Trust West. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED462484)

Allen, W., & Chung, A. (2000). Your blues ain’t like my blues: Race, ethnicity, and
social inequality in America. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 796-805.

Anonymous (1998). A nation still at risk. Policy Review, 90.

Banks, J. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global
world. The Educational Forum, 68(4).

Bell, J. (2001). High-performing, high-poverty schools. Leadership, 31(1), 8-11.

Bell, T. H. (1993). Reflections one decade after a nation at risk. Phi Delta Kappan,
74 (8).

Blanchett, W., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F. (2005). Urban school failure and
disproportionality in a post-brown era. Remedial and Special Education,
26(2), 70-81.

Blasé, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher’s
perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610.

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-141.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. (3
rd
ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burnette, M. (2001). Access and opportunity: Equity in special education.
Leadership, 30(4), 32-33.

California Department of Education (CDE). (2007). 2006 – 07 Accountability
progress reporting (apr). Retrieved July 20, 2007, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/AcntRpt2007/2006

Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
schools. (Report No. UD033460). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440170)

141
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Cochrane, D. (1999). A wake-up call for U.S. educators: The third international
mathematics and science study. Policy Forum, 2(1).

Corallo, C., & McDonald, D. (2001). What works with low-performing schools: A
review of research literature on low-performing schools. (Report No.
EA031549). Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED462737)

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

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Unequal opportunity: Race and education. Brookings
Review, 16(2), 28-32.

Dika, S., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature:
A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.

Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-
performing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-734.

EdSource. (2007). Glossary. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from
http:www.edsource.org/glo.cfm

EdSource. (2007). Standards and curriculum overview. Retrieved April 22, 2007,
from http://www.edsource.org/edu_sta.cfm

Ferguson, R. F. (2002). What doesn’t meet the eye: Understanding and addressing
racial disparities in high-achieving suburban schools (Report No.
UD035541). Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Lab. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED474390)

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. (8
th

ed). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

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

142
Garcia, G. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity:
Understanding and meeting the challenge (3
rd
ed., pp. 3-39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Grossman, H. (1998). Ending discrimination in special education. Springfield, IL:
Thomas.

Haberman, M. (2003). Creating effective schools in failed urban districts. Retrieved
November 25, 2006, from http://www.habermanfoundation.org/

Haberman, M. (2004). Can star teachers create learning communities? To transform
a school into a learning community a savvy educational leader needs to
support the very best teachers. Retrieved November 25, 2006, from
http://www.habermanfoundation.org/

Huber, S. (2004). School leadership and leadership development: Adjusting
leadership theories and development programs to values and the core purpose
of school. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), p. 669.

Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA). (1997). High poverty, high
performing schools. (Report No. RC021099). San Antonio, TX: Intercultural
Development Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED410083)

Izumi, L. (2002). They have overcome: High-poverty, high-performing schools in
California. (Report No. UD035313). San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research
Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469963)

Jacobson, S., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful leadership in
challenging US schools: Enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(6), p. 607.

Johnson, C., & Kritsonis, W. (2006). The national dilemma of African American
students: Disparities in mathematics achievement and instruction. National
Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 20(3).

Johnson, J., & Asera, R. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-
performing, high-poverty urban elementary schools. (Report No.
UD033327). Washington, DC: Department of Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED438362)

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

143

Johnston, R., & Viadero, D. (2000). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement.
The achievement gap. Education Week, 19(27).

Kahlenberg, R. D. (2001). Learning from James Coleman. Public Interest, 144.

Kerry, J. (2004). The promise of opportunity. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(2).

Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V.S., & Miller, S. (2003) Vygotsky’s educational
theory in cultural context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

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

Ladson-Billings, G. (Autumn 1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant
pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7),
3-12.

Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97 (1), 48-68.

Laitsch, D. (2005). Characteristics of high-performing, high-poverty schools.
Research Brief, 3 (6).

Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: allusions, gaps, glissandos in
recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153-168.

Lanich, J. (2005). Learning from the best. Leadership, 20-2.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73-85.

Lee, C. (2004). All students reaching the top: Strategies for closing academic
achievement gaps. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Retrieved November 25, 2006, from
www.wallacefoundation.org

Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 6, 785-795.

144

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2007). Schools. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from
http://lausd.net

Love, A., & Kruger, A. (2005). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in urban
schools serving African American students. Journal of Education Research,
99(2), 87-98.

Lyman, L. & Villani, C. (2004). Best leadership practices for high-poverty schools:
Best practices for schools, (pp. 95-159). Lanham, Maryland:
ScarecrowEducation.

Lyons, J., & Chelsey, J. (2004). Fifty years after Brown: The benefits and tradeoffs
for African American educators and students. The Journal of Negro
Education, 73(3), p. 298.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, Virginia: ACSD Publications.

Marzano, R. (2003a). Using data: Two wrongs and a right. Educational Leadership,
60(5), p. 56-60.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,
Virginia: ACSD Publications.

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

Moses-Snipes, P., & Snipes, V. (2005). The call: The importance of research on
African American issues in mathematics and science education. Negro
Educational Review, 56(2/3).

National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA). (2006). Just for the kids-
California: High school best practice study, 2004-05. Retrieved November
17, 2006, from
www.just4kids.org/bestpractice/study_framework.cfm?study=California

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Third international
mathematics and science study (TIMSS). (Report No. SE059191).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED401127)

145
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2001). Highlights from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R). Retrieved
March 19, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/title

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). (2003). Nine characteristics
of high-performing schools: A research-based resource for school leadership
teams to assist with the school improvement process.

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

Peske, H., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching Inequality: How poor and minority
students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: The
Education Trust, Inc.

Picucci, A., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., & Sobel, A. (2002). Shaping school culture.
Principal Leadership, 3(4).

Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and applications (2
nd
Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Quinn, D. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional
practice and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration,
40(5), 447-467.

Ragland, M. A., Clubine, B., Constable, D., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Expecting
success: A study of five high performing, high poverty schools. (Report No.
EC309141). Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED468010)

Renchler, R. (1992). School leadership and student motivation. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. EDOEA924)

Sadler, C. (2005). The impact of brown on African American students: A critical
race theoretical perspective. Educational Studies, 37(1), 41-55.

146
Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based
education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.

Slavin, R. (1998). Can education reduce social inequity. Educational Leadership,
55(4), 6-10.

Slavin, R., & Madden, N. (2006). Reducing the gap: Success for all and the
achievement of African American students. Journal of Negro Education,
75(3), 389-400.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-
40.

Taylor, J. A. (2005). Poverty and student achievement. Multicultural Education,
12(4).

United States Department of Education (DOE). (1997). Introduction to TIMSS: The
third international mathematics and science study. TIMSS as a starting point
to examine U.S. education (Report No. SE060938). Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED410123)

Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. (Report No. EA032799). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional
Educational Lab. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED481972)

Weiher, G., & Tedin, K. (2006). Minority student achievement. Review of Policy
Research, 23(5).

147
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 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 students’ high student performance.
a. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last
3-5 years to improve student performance?

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

3. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers/students/parents?

148
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.

149
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 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.
a. (Probe) Has your school encountered any obstacles in
maintaining these practices and policies? If so, how did the
school overcome them or maintain them?
b. Which are the three most effective things you have done over
the last 3-5 years to improve student performance

2. What role do teachers play in maintaining a climate in the school that
engages all students and respects cultural diversity?

150

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?

151
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 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.
c. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining
these practices and policies? If so, how did the school
overcome them or maintain them?
d. Which are the three most effective things the school has done
over the last 3-5 years to improve student performance?

2. How would you describe the school climate here?

152
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?

153
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 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?

154
5. How do you describe a good or effective teacher?

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

7. Describe the school’s discipline policy.
a. How does it support the learning of all students?
b. Do you consider the discipline policies fair for all children?
c. Can you give an example of its fairness?

155
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?

156
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

157
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 is 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?

158
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)

159
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)

160
APPENDIX I: CALIFORNIA READING FIRST PLAN: ASSURANCES
II. State Educational Agency (State Board of Education)
Approved Plan
California is eager to implement its Reading First Plan in eligible and
competitively selected LEAs, immediately upon approval of the federal grant. In its
initial year, the Plan provides three opportunities for LEAs to qualify for the
Reading First Program. To participate, LEAs are required to give assurances they
will implement the following three major components of the SEA Plan:
A. Full implementation of scientific, research-based instructional programs as
evidenced by use of the State’s adopted instructional program (s) for
reading/language arts (all programs listed below qualify to meet the criteria of
scientific, research-based instructional programs for the five essential
components of effective reading instruction and include proven instructional
strategies):
Grades K-3 (Students) & K-12 (Special Education Students)
Houghton Mifflin, California Edition, Reading: A Legacy of Literacy 2003
SRA/McGraw-Hill, SRA Open Court Reading 2000/2002

Grades 4-8 (for K-12 Special Education Students Only)
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (Sopris West), Language!
Hampton Brown, High Point
Scholastic, READ 180
SRA/McGraw-Hill, SRA Reach Program
Wright Group/McGraw-Hill, Fast Track Reading Program

B. Use of appropriate valid and reliable diagnostic, screening, and
classroom-based instructional assessments:
LEAs will be provided a recommended list (including both assessments
recommended of the Assessment Committee of The Secretary’s
Reading Partnership Academy and assessments that are curriculum-
linked) of valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, monitoring
progress, and outcome tools to be used by teachers with the adopted
instructional programs. These tools will be selected by the LEA; and
for those selected, teachers and principals will receive training on their
purpose and use during their participation in professional development
programs offered both by the state and the LEA.

161
The State will also provide LEAs, if requested, with 6-8 week
curriculum-linked assessments for the two State adopted K-3
programs.

C. Ongoing professional development, with the first year of training in state
approved professional development programs, for all teachers and site
administrators involved with the students in the Reading First Program
schools:
LEAs will be required to utilize state approved reading
professional development training provided either by State Board
approved providers or California’s Professional Development
Institutes (CPDIs) for Reading for every K-3 teacher and site
administrator the first year of the program or the first year they are
in a Reading First School. These approved training programs
require 120 hours of training for teachers and 80 hours for site
administrators for the first year of the grant. Instruction for
teachers is organized by grade level and is based on the adopted
reading/language arts program used by the LEA. The content
covers the required curriculum of Reading First: the Five
Elements, Instructional Strategies, Types of Assessments (with
emphasis on diagnostic and classroom assessments), and the
Scientific Research on Reading. During the academic year,
teachers and site administrators are given a practicum as part of
their hours, which includes participation in grade level meetings,
additional training (provided by CPDIs and LEAs), time to
analyze classroom and diagnostic assessments, and opportunities
to attend other approved professional development events.
LEAs, who do not partner with the CPDIs for teacher and
principal training, will utilize State Board approved providers for
AB466 and AB75 respectively.

162
APPENDIX J: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION SHEET

163
APPENDIX K: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT/FEEDBACK SHEET

164
APPENDIX L: PACKET FOR “PARENTS AS TEACHERS” WORKSHOP

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This case study examined what is known and what is not known about academic success among students of color at one high-performing, high-poverty urban school. Based on a sociocultural theory of learning, the study focused on identification of systems and structures that were perceived to contribute to high student achievement among students of color. In addition, the study focused on the extent to which implementation of systems and structures supported school-wide effective classroom instruction. Other theories around race, pedagogy, systems, and capital contributed to the exploration of four research questions aiming to find out more about educating students of color in high-poverty schools.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of what really matters: Examining educational leadership and student achievement

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Wells, Jeanique (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/02/2010

Defense Date 04/21/2008

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

Tag high-performing,high-poverty,OAI-PMH Harvest,students of color

Language English

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member), Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee member)

Creator Email jeaniquw@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1254

Unique identifier UC1155827

Identifier etd-Wells-20080602 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-75257 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1254 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Wells-20080602.pdf

Dmrecord 75257

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wells, Jeanique

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