Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Updating mission and vision in an increasingly interconnected world: the role of the district
(USC Thesis Other)
Updating mission and vision in an increasingly interconnected world: the role of the district
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
UPDATING MISSION AND VISION IN AN INCREASINGLY INTERCONNECTED
WORLD: THE ROLE OF THE DISTRICT
by
Steven B. Regur
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Steven B. Regur
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research study represents hundreds of hours of collaborative work through
discussions, debates, written exchanges, and heated arguments. I would like to thank the
scores of friends, family, and colleagues who helped shape my thinking and inspired me
to persevere. My mother and father made my research possible.
I must thank my wife for her encouragement and sacrifices. Her support for my
work has allowed me to explore my passions. Further, as a friend and respected
colleague, I always benefit from her willingness to discuss and debate the ideas. Her
input was invaluable for shaping my ideas on the topic.
I would also like to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia, Dr. Stuart Gothold, and Dr. Guilbert
Hentschke for their guidance and encouragement throughout the process. Their feedback
and direction helped define the scope of my work. Likewise, I would like to thank my
doctoral cohort for exploring these topics on a deep and challenging level. Dr. Sebastian
Cognetta played a key role in the process.
For the many people who provided encouragement and guidance I must extend
my deep appreciation. For my business partners Amy McCammon, Kate Bean, and
Lowell Bernstein I thank you for grounding our often lofty ideas in the real world.
Though a Bruin, I am honored to call Dr. David Miyashiro my friend and colleague as he
continues to shape my understanding of leadership. Dr. Shari Albright has been my
professor, my principal, and continues as my model for evolving professionally and
personally. I must also thank Dr. Tony Jackson for his leadership and inspiration. I must
also thank Dr. Jacqueline Perez and Dr. Chris Foster for encouraging me to fight on.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract............................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1
Introduction to the Study ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................ 7
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions......................................................................................................... 8
Importance of the Study.................................................................................................. 8
Limitations and Assumptions ....................................................................................... 10
Definitions .................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER
II.
REVIEW
OF
THE
LITERATURE..............................................................................................16
Introduction................................................................................................................... 16
Organization of Chapter II............................................................................................ 17
Framing the Political Issue ........................................................................................... 17
Influences Driving the Demand for Global Competencies........................................... 21
A Globalized World Viewed with Cold War Educational Policy ................................ 29
What Does it Mean to Graduate “Competitive” Students? .......................................... 29
Approaches to Change: School-by-school v. Policy Handed Down ............................ 33
Limitation to the School-by-school and Policy Approaches ........................................ 36
Including the District as the Setting for Change........................................................... 38
Summary of Research................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER
III.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................44
Introduction................................................................................................................... 44
Sample and population ................................................................................................. 46
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 48
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................... 50
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................. 51
Data Analysis................................................................................................................ 51
Methodological Limitations.......................................................................................... 52
iv
CHAPTER
IV.
FINDINGS
AND
DISCUSSION..................................................................................................54
Introduction................................................................................................................... 54
Setting........................................................................................................................... 56
Participants ................................................................................................................... 57
Descriptive Analysis..................................................................................................... 57
Findings ........................................................................................................................ 58
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER
V.
SUMMARY
AND
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................81
Summary....................................................................................................................... 81
Conclusions................................................................................................................... 82
Recommendation for Future Research ......................................................................... 84
Implications .................................................................................................................. 85
References......................................................................................................................... 89
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Interview Questions ................................................................................ 95
Appendix B: Document Review Protocol .................................................................... 98
Appendix C: Observation Protocol............................................................................... 99
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form........................................................................ 100
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Key Documents Informing Educational Policy for the 21
st
Century.................. 18
Table 2: 21st Century Schools Movement compared to No Child Left Behind............... 20
Table 3: Major International Assessments........................................................................ 24
Table 4: Summary Comparison of Expectations for High School Graduates .................. 30
Table 5: Global Citizenship .............................................................................................. 31
Table 6: Summary of Data Gathering Timeline ............................................................... 50
Table 7: Data for Research Question 1............................................................................. 59
Table 8: Data for Research Question 2............................................................................. 64
Table 9: Data for Research Question 3............................................................................. 70
Table 10: Data for Research Question 4........................................................................... 73
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Summary of Suggested Focal Points for K-12 Schools .................................... 33
Figure 2: Approaches to 21
st
Century or Global Change in Education............................. 36
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the case study is to describe how one large school district in the
United States has expanded their expectations for students based on the perceived need
for graduates to compete in an increasingly global job market. The study summarizes the
processes for establishing districtwide systems to support these expectations.
The case study examines a large, high performing district. Three primary
methods of collection provide the data for the study: (a) review of primary documents,
(b) interviews with district administrators and school administrators, and (c) field
observations. Internal district documents, community outreach documents, and previous
research provide the foundation for the narrative of the case study. Primary documents
supply the background and district policies. To better understand how these policies
translate into practice the interviews with district and school administrators focused on
the practical day-to-day implementation. Field observations of board meetings and a
districtwide data analysis present snapshots of implementation.
Analysis of the data revealed that Mountain School District identified the goal of
all students graduating college and work ready. The goal is expected to help students
compete in the twenty-first century. Back mapped from this goal the district has defined
seven indicators of student progress on a kindergarten through Grade 12 spectrum. The
indicators are based on core content areas and reinforce the importance of standardized
measures. Districtwide systems, reports, and evaluations are aligned with these indicators
kindergarten through Grade 12. The superintendent is a driving force behind the
alignment and reinforces a strong centralized district.
1
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Study
Effective public education in the United States is a moral or economic imperative
and has been a national security for nearly 50 years (U. S. Congress, National Defense
Education Act, PL 85-864). The U. S. Department of Education strives to “to promote
student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational
excellence” (United States Department of Education, 2009). To gauge the global
competitiveness of students comparisons based on international benchmarking of student
performance as well as teacher practices has increased significantly over the last 50 years
(Badi, Jin, & Skemer, 2006). The push for international comparisons of educational
systems is in response to several factors, including interdependent markets, increased
access to communication technologies, and increased international travel (Wagner,
2008a). To meet the challenge of graduating globally competitive students the current
federal policy focuses on students achieving test scores that are purportedly indicative of
core skills and content knowledge that is comparable to international standards (United
States Department of Education, 2006).
Enacted in 2001 the current federal education policy No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB) focuses on improving test scores and closing achievement gaps (USDoE,
2006). Schools are required to have clearly defined standards and annual tests in core
content areas that determine the percent of students proficient in standards. By 2014 the
percent of students reaching proficient levels is expected to increase to 100 % (USDoE,
2006). One of the assumptions of No Child Left Behind is that guaranteeing core
2
competencies in content areas, particularly mathematics and science, will enable the
United States to maintain its competitive advantage (USDoE, 2006). The focus on using
standardized test scores, and the school, district, and state accountability systems built
around the scores as the primary indicators of student achievement, have opponents and
proponents debating whether this approach is helping students compete globally (Linn,
2005).
Narrowing the Focus and Expanding Comparisons
To meet the demands of No Child Left Behind many schools and districts focus
on teaching key or priority standards-based content on the most tested content standards.
Some argue that narrowing the focus on high standards based on the tests is not only
permissible but is actually essential (Schmoker, 2006). International benchmarking
allows researchers to examine the effectiveness of various instructional techniques and
the effects of a more narrowly focused curriculum (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Schmoker
and Marzano (1999) stated that when compared to the practices of other countries scoring
the highest on internationally standardized tests, teachers in countries with higher test
scores may teach as little as a one-third as many topics as those found in United States'
textbooks. One outcome of No Child Left Behind is the narrowing of curriculum to
emphasize core standards.
In response to this narrowing of curriculum many argue that the standards-based
educational reform movement in general and No Child Left Behind is greatly narrowing
the focus of schools (Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003; Kohn, 2010). Educators and
leaders argued that the demands of No Child Left Behind have actually stalled the
3
improvement of American education (Wallis, 2006). Wagner (2008a) argued that
narrowing the focus is leaving a skills and knowledge gap for students in the United
States compared to students in other countries. Zhao (2006) stated that No Child Left
Behind presents a gap and presents incentives for schools to teach standards and
outcomes that destroy the creativity and innovation at the heart of American economic
competitiveness.
The success of standards-based reform and No Child Left Behind remains a
matter of debate, but the goal of students being globally competitive is increasing infused
into the literature and public debate around school improvement and school reform
(Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003; Wager, 2008a; Zhao, 2009). The educational practices
of other nations serve as a source of evidence for all aspects of the argument indicating
the growing influence of international comparisons of student performance, instructional
practices, and system designs. The demand for continued improvement and the need to
help students compete in global job markets compels international benchmarking to
inform and drive decisions at the national, state, and local levels (Schoen & Fusarelli,
2008).
Fragmented Centralization
Within the past 25 years an emerging characteristic of the American school
system is the fragmented centralization of districts, namely the simultaneous
centralization of decision-making authority and decentralization of accountability
(Monohan, 2005;Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Fragmented centralization is noteworthy
because it highlights links between public institutions and the global political economy.
4
Fragmented centralization in terms of U. S. public education categorizes the overlapping
and sometime contradictory priorities placed on school systems by a myriad of
institutions with differing priorities (McDonnell, 2008).
A variety of local, statewide, regional, and federal governmental structures wield
political and economic power over schools (McDonnell, 2008). Local school boards are
slowly experiencing an erosion of their influence; whereby, state and federal officials are
enhancing their authority. No Child Left Behind represents a national policy, an
accountability mandate, and a catalyst for realigning political power for public education
at local and state levels (McNeill, 2008; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2009). Given the strong
accountability measures of No Child Left Behind district-level decision making is
diminishing in some areas, particularly in the area of student outcomes and the mandated
consequences of not meeting adequate yearly progress (Linn, 2005). The debate of
including additional global or twenty-first century skills is occurring more frequently at
the state or federal level rather than in individual districts (Achieve, 2009; Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2009). The demand for students to compete globally is stated
at the federal level (DoE, 2009) but may not be emphasized at local or regional levels
(Schoen & Fusarelli, 2009). Centralized federal accountability measures, which currently
emphasize performance on standardized examinations, remain the priority for the
majority of schools (Linn, 2005). The increasing fragmented centralization in United
States' education may contribute to confusion and a lack of initiative at local levels
(Manna, 2009; McNeill, 2008).
5
International Comparisons
In the past century the assessment of the effectiveness of American schools has
increased compared to outcomes with other countries mainly in: (a) comparisons of
student performance on common assessments and (b) comparisons of pedagogy and
instructional practices in other countries (Stigler & Hiebert,1999). Four major
assessments consistently appear in the literacy regarding comparable measures of student
performance. An referenced national measure of U. S. education performance is the
national assessment of educational progress. The three international benchmark
assessments of educational performance are: (a) trends in international mathematics and
science survey, (b) international student assessment, and (c) progress in international
reading literacy study (National Governors’ Association, the Chief State Officers of
Education, and Achieve, Inc., 2008).
National Assessment of Educational Progress is the U. S. source for information on
mathematics, reading, and science achievement at key stages of education across the
country using nationally established external benchmarks of performance such as basic,
proficient, and advanced) (NGA, the CSOE, and Achieve, 2008). The Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Survey is the U. S. source for internationally
comparative information on mathematics and science achievement in the primary and
middle grades (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Unlike the National Assessment of Educational
Progress trends in international mathematics and science survey defines the testing
framework and related consensus process by involving content experts, education
professionals, and measurement specialists from many different countries (Mullis,
6
Martin, Ruddock, O’Sullivan, Arora, Erberber, 2005). The international student
assessment is the U. S. source for internationally comparative information on the
mathematical and scientific literacy of students in the upper grades at an age, for most
countries, that is near the end of compulsory schooling (NGA, the CSOE, and Achieve,
2008). Unlike trends in international mathematics and science survey and international
student assessment the designed objective of progress in international reading literacy
study is to measure the yield of education systems or what skills and competencies
students have acquired and can apply in these subjects to real-world contexts by age 15.
By focusing on overall literacy skills, including functional literacy such as navigating
multimedia, progress in the international reading literacy study draws from school
curricula and from learning that may occur outside of school (NGA, the CSOE, and
Achieve, 2008).
Global Expectations
The No Child Left Behind mandated assessments of core competencies
purportedly indicate the competitiveness of graduates in the United States (Wagner,
2008b). A number of organizations are calling for a more global approach to education
that prepares students for twenty-first century skills (Asia Society, 2009; USDoE, 2006;
Wagner, 2008a). The skills and knowledge students need in order to be competitive in an
increasing competitive global job market require more than just an increase in the number
of students who are proficient in performance on standardized measures (Wagner, 2008a;
Zhao, 2007). Different interest groups offer varying definitions of what should be
included on the expanded list of competencies. Some organizations define
7
competitiveness by domains such as entrepreneurship, technological literacy, or cultural
literacy (Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2009; Wagner, 2008b). Other groups dislike
the emphasis on competition and focus more on humanistic definitions by emphasizing
citizenship, community service, human rights, and cultural literacy (Eskew, 2008;
Gerzon, 2010; Stewart, 2010). Given the range of views calling for improved student
performance standards the lack of a common definition of global competencies has led to
a spectrum of initiatives claiming a similar goal. The lack of clarity is compounded by the
increasing decentralized fragmentation in public education (Manna, 2009; Schoen &
Fusarelli, 2009.)
Statement of the Problem
Though educational leaders are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of
teaching twenty-first century skills the demand for higher test scores remains the primary
focus. Many districts and schools have no explicit plan for including global competencies
in their expectations for students. For those districts that have such a focus in vision
statements or strategic plans, implementation is not districtwide but is typically in
isolated programs or test cases. Few educational models or examples exist in which
districts balance success with standards-based achievement and maintain a focus on
emerging global skills for all students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to describe one district’s approach to balancing
twenty-first century or global skills with current standards-based achievement. The
process the district followed for establishing and sustaining a balanced approach may
8
serve as a guide to other districts. The research will reveal: (a) the priorities of the
superintendent and district administrators as they relate to the capacity of the district to
implement the plan and (b) the role of equity, conceptually and in practice, in shaping the
implementation of the plan. The primary outcome of the study is to capture the process
one district is using to implement their mission and vision beyond the mandated
outcomes of No Child Left Behind to broaden the role of education as a means to prepare
all students to compete in an increasingly competitive global environment.
Research Questions
1. What influences led the district to include the expectations that students are
globally competitive?
2. How does the district leadership define globally competitive students within
their local contexts?
3. What tangible actions has the district taken to develop globally competitive
students?
4. How is the district monitoring the outcomes of both mandated standardized
assessments and indicators that students are globally competitive?
Importance of the Study
The stage is set for updating the federal and state priorities for education in the
United States. With the fragmented centralization of education governance in the United
States federal and state directives are having an increasing impact on the vision and
mission of school districts. District superintendents and school boards remain the source
of the vast majority of decisions regarding daily practices. Federal and state policy may
9
drive priorities related to funding, but school districts define the scope of work and the
allocation of resources at the operational level. At the national level plans are underway
to increase expectations for student outcomes to include global competencies. The
research will provide a case study of one district that has attempted to anticipate this shift
while still meeting standards-based academic outcomes.
Policy makers will benefit from the implications of the research given the need to
move from political debate to practical implementation. To better realize the lofty vision
of all students becoming globally competitive districts need concrete, practical examples
to help improve current practices. The research will help uncover components of the
necessary resources, time lines, and incentives to implement systematic and sustainable
improvement.
District leaders will benefit from the research by examining the means to
implement a systematic change. Though No Child Left Behind has driven current
practices with mandated assessment and growth targets the race to prepare globally
competitive students will continue. Districts and schools will benefit from the experience
and lessons learned by innovators who have attempted to meet such global demands.
Practitioners will benefit from the vision of a school district that has purposefully
balanced time, personnel, and resources to meet growth targets while still providing
greater expectations for students. The research contributes to an ongoing conversation at
the national, state, and local levels. The study expects to define the performance
outcomes for schools as expectations continue to be updated of what students should be
able to know and be able to do. The investigation will reveal how these expectations will
10
be set and how will districts measure the ability of students to meet these demands.
Limitations and Assumptions
Rather than surveying a range of districts the study offers a limited discussion of
one district. The case study is a snapshot of the approach of one of the nation’s largest
districts contextualized by a body of research regarding districtwide improvement and
reform. The participants have limited perspectives based on their experience level, role in
the district, and commitment to the initiative. With nearly 200 schools in the district the
research is further limited by only interviewing a small fraction of the total employees
within the district. The accuracy to which the participants truthfully conveyed their
intentions may be a limitation as well. The assumptions that drive the case study include:
(a) defining and expecting global competencies will be similar across districts, (b) the
practices of one district can be studied and inform implementation in another district, and
(c) the research regarding other districtwide reforms is relevant and informative.
Delimitations include the selection of Mountain School District. The author
assumes the district provides a relevant case study representative of national initiatives
underway to allow for conclusions that may apply to other districts. Further assumptions
include the notion that the debate around global skills is relevant, timely, and underway.
Definitions
Twenty-first century skills or twenty-first century knowledge: This phrase appears
in a variety of literature regarding the future demands on workers in an increasingly
global job market (Eskew, 2008; Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2008; Wagner,
2008a). At the core of any definition is the need for international knowledge and skills
11
(Asia Society, 2008; Asia Society, 2009).
Achieve, Incorporated: Created by the nation’s governors and business leaders
Achieve, Inc. is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization that helps states raise academic
standards, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability to prepare all young
people for post-secondary academic success. At the 2005 national education summit
Achieve launched the American diploma project network a coalition that has grown to 33
states, educating nearly 80 % of public school students in the United States. The
American diploma project network is committed to aligning high school expectations
with the demands of college, career, and life (Achieve, 2009).
Council of Chief State School Officers: The council of chief state school officers is a
nationwide nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of public officials that heads departments
of elementary and secondary education in the United States, District of Columbia,
Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U. S. extra-state jurisdictions. The
council provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational
issues, seeks member consensus on major educational issues, and expresses their views to
civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public.
Global competitiveness: The demand for globally competitive workers is applied
to the discussion of education, including college, college preparation, and kindergarten
through Grade 12 education. The primary argument lies in the assumption that global
markets are increasingly interconnected, including labor markets. The notion of global
competitiveness assumes that increasing competition with other nations requires U. S.
citizens to improve and add to their ability to compete for jobs with workers from any
12
country (Friedman, 2008; USDoE, 2009).
Goals 2000: President Bill Clinton signed The Goals 2000: Educate America Act
(P.L. 103-227) on March 31, 1994. The purpose of the federal legislation is to help
students achieve their full potential. The legislation included a variety of funding
initiatives, including a strong emphasis on the use of technology to help students achieve
high standards at the dawn of the twenty-first century skills. Many view Goals 2000 as
the precursor to No Child Left Behind.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): In order to compare
students in the United States across states and territories using different standards and
standardized tests, the National Assessment of Educational Progress administered
nationally as a standardized test. The results of the national assessment include periodic
assessment in mathematics, reading, writing, science, and other areas such as world
history and foreign language, which are anticipated in 2012. Though not required of all
students, the National Assessment of Educational Progress represents the primary
national standardized test in the United States.
New forms of literacy: In some of the literature the discussion of future demands
for competencies in the job market and educational settings are offered in terms of
literacy. Such an approach identifies a range of literacy such as technology literacy,
multicultural literacy, electronic media literacy, financial literacy, and literacy in a
foreign language.
National Governors Association: Founded in 1908 the National Governors
Association is the collective voice of the America’s governors and one of Washington,
13
DC’s most respected public policy organizations. Its members are the governors from 50
states, 3 territories, and 2 commonwealths. The association provides governors and their
senior staff members with services that range from representing states on Capitol Hill and
the administration on key federal issues to develop and implement innovative solutions to
public policy challenges for best practices (www.nga.org.).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act by President George W. Bush in 2001 is know as the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. This federal act mandates standards-based education reform
and assessment for all U. S. states and territories. The parameters for spending federal
money to support education, often referred to by the Title of the legislation that
authorizes its use, is defined and described by No Child Left Behind. The legislation does
not authorize national standards but requires states and territories seeking federal dollars
to set standards and define standardized assessments.
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): The Program for
International Student Assessment includes 57 participating countries and represents
another effort to compare student outcomes across countries. The program collects data
on various student, family, institutional factors, student outcome data in the areas of
mathematics, science, and literacy, and the application of knowledge in these areas to
new situations.
Standards-based education reform: In the United States since the 1980s
standards-based reform has increased to become the dominant approach to improving
kindergarten through Grade 12 student performance. The approach demands clearly
14
defined standards of what students should be able to know and do as well as an
accountability system to measure performance. In contrast to norm-reference approaches,
which measure students relative to other students, the standards-based approach requires
all students to reach the same level of predefined proficiency relative to the standards.
Standards-based subject matter: Sometimes referred to as content standards or
just standards the standards-based education reform requires clear statement of the
knowledge and skills that students need to be successful. The standards-based subject
matter refers to the knowledge and skills associated with specific content areas such as
mathematics, language arts, and biology. A system of education that emphasizes
standards-based subject matter places a high degree of importance of quantifying the
ability of students to demonstrate proficiency in standards-based subjects, generally
through standardized testing.
Standardized testing: Standardized tests are tests that are administered, scored,
and interpreted under consistent conditions. Many industrialized countries use
standardized tests as a means of measuring and comparing student performance. In the
United States since the authorization of No Child Left Behind all states and territories
must administer standardized tests in core subject matter areas such as language arts,
science, mathematics, and the social sciences in Grades 2 through 12, including
graduation exams. This reliance on standardized testing is a key component of standards-
based education reform.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study included nearly 50 countries. Precursors of
15
the study included the first international mathematics and science study and second
international mathematics and science study. Rather than continuing to rename the
assessment the study stands for trends in international mathematics and science study.
The study includes student performance on mathematics and science standardized tests
and educational practices such as instructional techniques, materials, and time. The study
compares student outcomes and educational inputs.
16
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The call for continuous improvement is pervasive in educational research
(Schmoker, 2006; Tack & Cuban, 1995), including the increasing demand for global
competencies (Asia Society, 2008; Wagner, 2008a), and there are very few practical
models for districtwide implementation of such an initiative. The mandates of No Child
Left Behind policies drive the priorities for the majority of school districts (Schoen and
Fusarreli, 2009). The very definition of the skills students need to be best prepared for a
future varies across organizations (Asia Society, 2008; Committee for Economic
Development, 2006; International Baccalaureate, 2008; P21C, 2009; Wagner, 2008a;
Zhao, 2009). Despite the political pressure to perform well on standardized assessments,
which has led to a narrowing of educational focus for many districts (Schmoker, 2004), a
few districts and schools are electing to broaden their scope of work.
A select group is complying with national mandates and adding other priorities
for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Many of the examples in the literature are
individual schools, programs, or school-within-school initiatives (Asia Society, 2008;
P21C, 2009, Wagner, 2008a). In the literature are large-scale policy initiatives at the state
and national level (Achieve, 2008; CCSSO, 2008; Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, 2008). What is missing from the literature are case studies of
districts that meet current measures of student achievement and promote innovative
approaches to prepare students for an increasingly globally integrated world.
17
Organization of Chapter II
Chapter II presents a summary of prominent policy and research surrounding the
demand for more globally relevant education. The first section of Chapter II provides a
political framework for the issues, including a brief summary of recent national policy
papers that inform the current trends toward a more globally focused U. S. education
system. The second section discusses the forces driving the demand for a more global
focus through: (a) benchmarking of student performance and (b) economic pressures to
produce an effective workforce. The third section summarizes the various emerging
definition of the more comprehensive global expectations of students. The final section
overviews the role of the district as a venue for change. Included in this overview is what
research indicates are the effective practices for districtwide reform, particularly the key
role of the superintendent as a leader of innovation and change.
Framing the Political Issue
The increasing demand for students in kindergarten through Grade 12 schools to
gain global competencies is not a new initiative. The push for more innovation with a
global focus and the infusion of technology is evident in various policy and position
papers published in the last three decades shown in Table 1.
18
Table 1: Key Documents Informing Educational Policy for the 21
st
Century
Adapted from (Partnerships for 21
st
Century Skills, 2007)
Year Document Source
1983 A Nation at Risk National Commission on
Excellence in Education
1989 National Forum on Information Literacy American Library Association
1991 SCANS Report: What Work Requires of
Schools
U.S. Department of Labor
1996 Preparing Students for the 21
st
Century American Association of School
Administrators
1996 Getting America’s Students Ready for the
21
st
Century; Meeting the Technology
Challenge
U.S. Department of Education
1998 The Nine Information Literacy Standards
for Student Learning
American Association of School
Libraries
1998 National Education Technology Standards
(NETS) for Students
International Society for
Technology in Education
1999 National Technology Education Plan:
eLearning; Putting a World-class
Education at the Fingertips of all Children
U.S. Department of Education
2001 Key Building Blocks for Student
Achievement in the 21
st
Century
CEO Forum Year 4 StaR Report
2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) U.S. Department of Education
2002 SREB Goals for Education: Challenge to
Lead
Southern Regional Education Board
2003 Learning for the 21
st
Century Skills The Partnership for 21
st
Century
Skills
2003 Building a Nation of Learners American Council on Education
and Business and Higher Education
Forum
19
The policy-shaping documents are indicative of an on-going drive within kindergarten
through Grade 12 education to improve, innovate, and adapt to an increasing global
perspective on the outputs expected from the U. S. education system leading to the
current federal policies governing kindergarten through Grade 12 education (P21C,
2007).
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation written in 2001 has dictated
the majority of recent school reform initiatives in the United States with its focus on
standards, standardized tests, and benchmarks of achievement for student subgroups. The
legislation attempts to take into account the need for students to compete globally with its
focus on core academic proficiencies (USDoE, 2006). Opponents of No Child Left
Behind point to data indicating success of the policy to reach the desired outcomes of the
policy’s design (Louis, Febey, & Schroeder, 2005). Even the strongest proponents of No
Child Left Behind admit that policies and practices aimed at improving education must
expand and consider the demands of the twenty-first century (USDoE, 2006).
Schoen and Fusarelli (2009) stated the approach of the policies of No Child Left
Behind to the “21
st
-century school movement” (p. 181). The approach of No Child Left
Behind to address school improvement is based on teacher quality, standards, and testing
the tradition curriculum of the twentieth century. In contrast to this approach Schoen and
Fusarelli (2009) described the twenty-first century school movement as an approach
founded on the belief that education should help students prepare for a rapidly changing
technology-driven society. A more detailed comparison of the two approaches is
summarized in Table 2.
20
Table 2: 21st Century Schools Movement compared to No Child Left Behind
Adapted from Schoen and Fusarelli (2009, p.188-189)
21
st
-Century Schools Movement No Child Left Behind
Driving Forces Business and industry, especially
high-tech
Politicians, civil rights activists
Locus of
Control
Designing and monitoring of
change is handled internally by the
school system
Design and monitoring of change
is conducted by the state
Curricular
implications
More flexibility in content, pacing
and methods; divergent thinking is
valued
Content is standardized, breadth
of coverage is important,
convergent thinking is valued
Advantages for
Students
Learning is individualized,
collective learning and
development of social skills is
emphasized
Test scores assures students,
parents, and employers that
graduates have mastered the
standard course of study
Disadvantages
for Students
Students may not be exposed to as
many topics as they would in the
traditional curriculum, putting them
at risk for lower scores on
standardized tests
Students may suffer from lack of
interest or have trouble retaining
information that is presented in
isolation. Students may lack
creativity and analytical ability.
Measures of
Success
“Authentic” means are favored,
such as projects, performances, or
demonstrations
Achievement is demonstrated
primarily through standardized
test scores
Drawbacks for
Society
No standard course of study, nor
common core of knowledge or
skills, making it hard to compare
school experiences
Graduates possess static
knowledge and may lack
resourcefulness, analytical
ability, and innovativeness to
contribute to a global world
At the core of Schoen and Fusarelli’s (2009) analysis are the assumptions that: (a)
the demands for high school graduates are changing, (b) current practices are not
21
established to meet these changing demands, and (c) policy drives practice. The
conclusion of the analysis is that policy must change at the federal and state levels in
order to allow innovations to take place at the school and district levels. The change
advocated by the twenty-first century movement is to include in the expectations for
students a global relevance or context for the learning (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2009). The
argument for redefining current policies incorporates the argument that risk taking and
experimentation needed to bring about change is stifled in high-threat work environments
(Hagel & Brown, 2002). The current federal accountability system established by No
Child Left Behind is limited and works against the high expectations for student
achievement it hopes to encourage (Zhao, 2007). The current education policy diminishes
or even punishes risk taking, thus the innovation required for improvement is stifled by
the demands to meet standardized measures (Christenson, 2009; Schoen & Fusarelli,
2009). While No Child Left Behind exists within a time line of policy shown in Table 1
that focuses on innovation and global competition some argue that the No Child Left
Behind approach actually works against these goals shown in Table 2.
Influences Driving the Demand for Global Competencies
To better understand the opinions behind the need for change in educational
policy and practices an examination of the influential arguments for a more global
approach to education is needed. Two influences dominate the demand for students to
become more globally competitive: (a) the comparison of student achievement on
achievement tests through international benchmarks, and (b) the demands of business for
better prepared workers to compete in an international, interconnected world.
22
Influence #1: International Benchmarking
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study, the program for
international student assessment, and progress in international reading literacy study
appear most frequently in the literature regarding the achievement tests driving global
comparisons of student performance. The first international mathematics study of 12
countries published in 1967 proved for the first time that international comparisons could
produce meaningful data on student outcomes and on educational contexts (Mullis, et. al,
2006). The Third International Mathematics and Science Study, that included nearly 50
countries in its latest iteration, is a commonly referenced study comparing student
performance and educational practices (CCSSO, 2009; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Now
established as part of the ongoing discussion around comparative performance, rather
than renaming the assessment after each administration, the acronym TIMSS is known as
trends in mathematics and science study (NGA, CCSSO, & Achieve, 2008).
In 2003 46 countries participated in the mathematics and science study, including
13 industrialized countries as well as middle-income and developing countries (NGA,
CCSSO, & Achieve, 2008). The target population of the mathematics and science study
is all students from the upper of the two adjacent grades that contain the largest number
of 9-year-olds and the largest number of 13-year-olds. For the United States, and many
other countries, the population is all fourth grade and all eighth grade students. The
assessment includes five main content areas related to the major mathematical curricular
areas of number, measurement, geometry, data, and algebra (Baldi, Jin, & Skemer, 2006).
The Program for International Student Assessment represents another effort to
23
compare student outcomes across countries (OECD, 2008). In 2006 57 countries
participated in the program, including all 30 countries from the Organization for
Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, 2008). In 2006 the United States
ranked 25th in mathematics and 21st in science achievement on the Program for
International Student Assessment comparisons (OECD, 2008). The program collects data
on various student, family, and institutional factors and student outcome data in the areas
of mathematics, science, and literacy with the application of knowledge in these areas to
new situations. The 57 participating countries represent close to 90 % of the world’s
economy (OECD, 2008). The average U. S. score in mathematics literacy was 474 on a
scale from 0 to 1,000 (Baldi, Jin, & Skemer, 2007). The Program for International
Student Assessment and trends in mathematics and science study provide language for
comparing countries and measuring how competitive U. S. students appear to be.
Progress in international reading literacy study collects data to provide
information on trends in reading literacy achievement of fourth grade students and
provides baseline data for new countries (Progress in International Reading Literacy
Study, 2009). The primary focus of the literacy study is fourth grade reading. Fifty-three
53 countries are scheduled to participate in 2011. The assessment will gather information
about student achievement in reading literacy and information about practices that impact
reading development such as home environment (PIRLS, 2009). A summary of the three
major international assessments outlines their characteristics shown in Table 3.
24
Table 3: Major International Assessments
Adapted from the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School
Officers, and Achieve, Inc. (2008)
PISA TIMSS PIRLS
Sponsor Organization for
Economic Co-
Operation and
Development
International
Association for the
Evaluation of
Educational
Achievement
International
Association for the
Evaluation of
Educational
Achievement
Grades/ages
tested
15-year-olds 4
th
and 8
th
graders 4
th
graders
Subjects Tested Math, science, and
reading
Math and science Reading
Testing Cycle Every 3 years Every 4 years Every 5 years
Last
Administration
2006 2007 2006
Upcoming
Administration
2012 2011 2011
Type of test
questions
About two-thirds
constructed response
and one-third
multiple choice
About one-third
constructed response
and two-thirds
multiple choice
About one-half
constructed
response and one-
half multiple choice
Technical
alignment with
NAEP: Can
scores be
equated to
NAEP?
Little alignment; not
enough to cross-
walk scales and
scores
Significant alignment;
enough for some
researchers to
crosswalk scales and
scores
Unknown
25
Debate remains around the significance of the United States ranking on the
assessments. The international comparison of student performance provides incentives
and arguments to those seeking to improve or change educational practices (COE, 2006;
DoE, 2006; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008; Wagner, 2008; Zhao, 2006). The tests represent a
significant shift in understanding the outputs of schools, educational systems, and
instructional practices. The pressure to perform well on tests has gone global.
Influence #2: Global Economic Pressures
What to do with this information is connected to a second push to ensure that
students are competitive. Schoen and Fusarelli (2008) argued that the twenty-first century
schools movement is driven by industry and economics rather than politicians who drove
the No Child Left Behind approach to school improvement. The argument is based on the
notion that in a flattened social, technological, and economic world (Friedman, 2008) the
workforce demands (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21
st
Century, 2006) require a shift in expectations for high school graduates in the United
States. Several political organizations tasked with influencing policy are publishing
statements, guidelines, and recommendations for improving the education of America’s
future workforce infusing terms such as global, globally competitive, globally competent,
international, work-ready, market skills, and skilled for the twenty-first century (Asia
Society, 2009; IBC, 2009; P21C, 2009; Pink, 2006; Wagner, 2008a; Zhao, 2009).
The main argument for the authorities is that the nature of the world’s global
economy compels educational systems to emphasize different or augmented skills and
competencies that are not the current standard (Asia Society, 2009; IBC, 2009; OECD,
26
2008; P21C, 2009; Wagner, 2008). One aspect that varies significantly between these
groups is how much they emphasize the importance for all students to develop the skills.
Some organizations argue for systematic change as a mandate driven by the call for
equity and equal access (Jackson, 2008); whereas, others argue for incremental change
possibly based on choice or local markets which drive reform (Christenson, 2009). Some
argue for universal expectations of global competencies for all students, as a means of
providing an equitable education. Others argue such a focus is a possible theme or choice
for education, not a necessary mandate for all schools to provide. Looking at how various
initiatives emphasize equity versus competition is an important component of the global
debate (Jackson, 2008).
Associated arguments around the need to be educating more globally competitive
students are rooted in equity in terms of earning potential. For example, a joint report by
the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers of
Education, and Achieve (2008) detailed the performance of the United States on
international benchmarking assessments in economic terms. The report identifies the
demands of a skills-based economy that requires basic competencies in mathematics,
science, complex problem solving, and communication tasks. The linkage between
education and economic growth serves as a compelling force for improving educational
outcomes. For example, based on the analysis an increase of one standard deviation in
mathematics scores translates into a 21 % boost in wages for individuals (NGA, CCSSO,
& Achieve, 2008). From a more macro perspective each additional year of schooling
among the adult population raises a nation’s economic output by between 3 % and 6 %
27
(NGA, CCSSO, & Achieve, 2008). The argument in this case is economic and tied
directly to quality of life, future opportunities, and growth potential (NGA, CCSOE, &
Achieve, 2008).
Baker (2007) argued that international benchmarking has not led to corresponding
economic outputs for countries. The author argued that high-test scores on international
benchmark exams have not translated into economic realities at all. An analysis of the
first international mathematics and science study in 1964 should have indicated that at
least nine other countries should be in a better position that the United States since the
United States scored second to last out of 11 nations. To explore the hypothesis that
international benchmarking was predictive of a country’s success Baker (2007) looked at
seven indicators of national success for the 11 nations who participated in the first
international mathematics and science study: (a) wealth, (b) rate of growth, (c) quality of
life, (d) productivity, (e) livability, (f) democracy, and (g) creativity. Indicators such as
gross domestic product, population growth, the United Nations Quality of Life Index, and
the economy intelligence unit’s index of democracy provide 61 points of comparison for
the United States and the 9 other countries that outscored the United States on the first
international mathematics and science study in 1964. Rather than falling behind these
countries the United States exceeded these countries on 74 % of the indicators (Baker,
2007). An analysis of the Program for International Student Assessment scores indicated
that scoring in the middle ranges is correlated with high gross domestic product and
quality of life indicators. Rather than presenting the conclusion that U. S. students are
less competitive, given the results of international benchmarks, Baker (2007) argued that
28
the data indicates international benchmarks are not predictive of future economic or
social success for countries and focusing on test scores is a distraction from fostering the
creative problem solving that distinguishes U. S. students and workers.
Whether driven by an argument for social equity or economic competition for
students a number of organizations are calling for students to graduate on a globally
competitive scale. Some see emerging globalization as increasingly hot, flat, and crowded
(Friedman, 2008). Wagner (2009a) pointed to a range of factors, based on the
observation, compelling education to adopt expectations for global competencies for
kindergarten through Grade 12 students in the United States. Schleicher and Stewart
(2009) argued that with the increased contact between cultures physically and through
technology business success will be related directly to a person’s ability to interact across
cultures. Gerzon (2010) stated that the future of the very planet is interconnected and
interwoven, and only those who can emerge as truly global citizens will be in a position
to influence ethical, equitable, and forward thinking solutions for problems. For the
market driven education is one of the key levers to influence a country’s economy
(OECD, 2008). Socially the need for equitable practices in education must include access
to human capital and networks beyond content standards (Jackson, 2008). Politically the
demand for updating the effectiveness of education in the United States is a matter of
national concern and a clear imperative (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2009). Ethically the planet's
survival may require an evolution in thinking about global connections (Gerzon, 2010).
Regardless of the motivation behind the argument namely social, political, economic, or
ethical the call for reform in education has gone global. How to answer the call depends
29
on how one interprets the data.
A Globalized World Viewed with Cold War Educational Policy
In direct contradiction to the analysis that the United States is losing its competitive
edge by not meeting standardized benchmarks Zhao (2009) argued that the emphasis on
meeting such benchmarks is stifling America creativity. Zhao cited Stiglitz in that
“economic globalization has outpaced the globalization of politics and mindsets” (2006,
p. 25). Zhao (2007) argued that policy makers are applying a cold war mentality that
requires the United States to stay ahead of them at all costs. The overemphasis on
standardized testing is actually working against national efforts by diminishing the sense
of creativity that has historically been one of the United States’ greatest assets (Baker,
2007; Pink, 2006; Zhao, 2006). The competitiveness of the United States is rooted in
cultural, linguistic, and historic factors that are more connected to our immigration
policies than educational policies (Zhao, 2007). Policy makers are misreading the data
completely competing with other countries on standardized scores that neither correlate
to national economic performance nor do they predict the economic trends of the last
century (Baker, 2007; Zhao, 2009). The perspective acknowledges economic pressures
but interprets the data as an indication for less standardization, not more.
What Does it Mean to Graduate “Competitive” Students?
Two broad camps that overlap are found in the literature motivated by: (a)
international benchmarking and (b) economic pressures. Some argue that American
education is losing its competitive edge as indicated by poor test scores and comparisons
on international benchmarking which indicates the need for more rigorous and
30
competitive standards, curriculum, and assessments. The group advocates a greater
emphasis on rigorous standards focusing on language arts, science, and mathematics.
Another group argues the United States is overemphasizing the results of standardized
testing to the detriment of the mission of producing globally competitive graduates,
thereby overlooking skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, and cultural
competencies. To help explain and clarify these differences several organizations from
the second group are working on definitions, profiles, and standards as ways to
communicate their interpretation of the gaps between what is needed in the current
educational system and what is affirmed in educational policies. Table 4 summarizes four
of the dominant initiatives in the area.
Table 4: Summary Comparison of Expectations for High School Graduates
Framework for
21
st
Century
Learning
(P21C, 2009)
ISSN Graduate
Profile
(Asia Society,
2009)
Global Gap
(Wagner, 2008a)
IB Leaner Profile
(IB, 2009)
• Life and Career
Skills
• Learning and
Innovation
Skills
• Core Subjects
and 21
st
Century
Themes
• Information,
Media, and
Technology
Skills
• Ready for
College
• Knowledge
Required in the
Global Era
• Skilled for
Success in a
Global
Environment
• Connected to
the World
• Critical Thinking and
Problem-solving
• Collaboration across
Networks and Leading
by Influence
• Agility and
Adaptability
• Initiative and
Entrepreneurialism
• Effective Oral and
Written
Communication
• Accessing and
Analyzing Information
• Curiosity and
Imagination
• Inquirers
• Thinkers
• Knowledgeable
• Communicators
• Principled
• Open-minded
• Caring
• Risk-takers
• Balanced
• Reflective
31
The graduate profiles represent an updated set of expectations for students. The
expectations are based on the assumption that previous expectations are incomplete given
the interconnected and technologically advancing global job markets. There is overlap
and parallel language in the four examples, but they are not completely aligned. One
emphasizes problem solving (Wagner, 2008a); for example, while another emphasizes
new forms of literacy such as technology skills (P2C, 2009).
Gerzon (2010) reported a spectrum of indicators of what it means to be a global
citizen for students and for influential and successful citizens of the world. Based on the
assumption that systems and people will become increasing interconnected globally five
levels of competencies provide a framework to inform priorities. The priorities go beyond
knowledge of content area skills or technology skills. Gerzon (2010) provided an
argument for multicultural, international experiences for all students if they are to excel
in the interconnected job markets of the future.
Table 5: Global Citizenship
Adapted from Gerzon (2010)
Citizenship 1.0 Worldview based on one’s self Egocentric
Citizenship 2.0 Worldview based on one’s group Ideocentric
Citizenship 3.0 Worldview based on one’s nation Sociocentric
Citizenship 4.0 Worldview based on multiple cultures Multicentric
Citizenship 5.0 Worldview based on the whole Earth Geocentric
The levels of citizenship emphasize the importance of matching or beating other
countries in terms of achievement on standardized tests. The framing of citizenship on a
32
global scale redefines priorities and general definitions of citizenship based on biological,
historical, technological, and religious interconnections (Gerzon, 2010). Schools will help
students graduate with the skills they need to be successful by exploring cultural
connections and looking at issues from numerous international perspectives.
From global citizenship to technologically savvy expectations for what it means to
compete globally are diverse. The literature defining what it means to graduate from high
school ready to compete in the work force ranges from a better foundation in the sciences
to multicultural competencies. Such a wide range of expectations has created confusion
for some. To clarify the global gap (Wagner, 2008a) in what high school graduates need
and what the public school system in the United States is currently providing, a number
of organizations are exploring theories of action given these profiles and expectations for
students. Though not entirely exclusive from each other three broad categories emerge as
recommended focal points.
33
Figure 1: Summary of Suggested Focal Points for K-12 Schools
Although not exclusive the focal points emphasize different expectations for
students in the United States and, therefore, implicitly define where resources such as
time, money, programs, and personnel should be allocated. Each focal point represents
underlying assumptions about current student performance in light of future expectations.
The predictions are based on interpretations of international benchmark data and
interpretations of global job markets. In some ways the foci are only as strong as their
ability to anticipate the future.
Approaches to Change: School-by-school v. Policy Handed Down
A number of organizations are engaging different sectors of the educational
34
system to support graduate students who are prepared to compete for jobs and participate
in a more integrated global world. The charter school movement, for example, has a
range of school designs that develop an innovative or explicitly international focus. Other
organizations such as International Baccalaureate focus primarily on individual schools
though a few small districts have adopted the model districtwide (IB, 2009). The
partnership for 21
st
Century Skills works with schools and districts providing training and
support for a number of initiatives (P2C, 2009). The Asia Society has created the
International Studies School Network to address the needs of individual schools seeking a
more focused, global experience for staff and students (Asia Society, 2008).
In contrast to the school-by-school approach are larger policy initiatives
summarized by Fusarelli (2009). One example of an organization working in the area of
policy development is the Partnership for Global Learning a division of the Asia Society
focused on furthering the development of global competencies for all students through
partnerships and shifts in policy (Asia Society, 2009). Though interconnected in some
ways with the International Studies School Network this division works on systematic
policy change at the state and federal level. Achieve a bipartisan, nonprofit company
intends to raise academic standards, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability
to prepare all young people for post secondary success. Established by governors and
business leaders Achieve supports policies, standards, and curriculum that prepare
students for a global marketplace (Achieve, 2009). Another centrally influential
organization focused on policy change at a national and state level in this area is the
council of chief state school officers. The council is a nationwide nonpartisan, nonprofit
35
organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary
education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education
Activity, and five U. S. extra-state jurisdictions (CCSSO, 2009). The council provides
leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (P2C) advocates policy changes, participates in
national forums debating shifts in educational priorities (P2C, 2009), and influences the
development of federal and state policies regarding global competencies. These and other
organizations are focused on changing policies and rely primarily on a top-down
approaches to bring about systematic change.
A review of the landscape of organizations advocating a focus on global or
twenty-first century change in education indicates at least three focal points and two
major sectors of change: (a) school-by-school and (b) policy at the state and federal level.
The few examples of partnerships and initiatives at the district level that exist in the
literature (IB, 2009; P2C, 2009) are quite limited in their scope and focus. No case
studies of the largest districts - top 25 in student population size the United States - are
available that provide a systematic focus on implementing a districtwide reform or
restructuring initiative around an explicit global or twenty-first century focus. The case
studies that exist are around specific programs or products placed within school systems
to “extend” or “enrich” core programs. The majority of the efforts for changes are on a
case-by-case or policy level. Current efforts do not target large districts with a system
wide approach. The pressures for change, for the vast majority, are found outside of
district structures shown in Figure 2.
36
Figure 2: Approaches to 21
st
Century or Global Change in Education
Limitation to the School-by-school and Policy Approaches
The policy approach outlined by Schoen and Fusarelli (2009) is based on the
notion that external pressures will improve student results and force school districts to
comply with mandates. Currently No Child Left Behind assumes that policy drives
practice and the increased accountability system will lead to greater student achievement
and more globally competitive graduates (USDoE, 2006). From almost a decade of
implementation the No Child Left Behind policy has yet to deliver the complete list of
desired results (Linn, 2005). Without clear guidance and direction from local educational
37
leaders, which aligns with policy directives, school leaders and teachers are unlikely to
teach or promote the types of pedagogical skills, instruction, knowledge, or leadership
capacities envisioned by proponents of twenty-first century schools (Schoen & Fusarelli,
2008). The primary limit to the policy approach lies in creating change in the day-to-day
practices of educators which are largely influenced by organizational norms that are
driven by local power structures, not necessarily abstract policies (Datnow, Hubbard, &
Mehan, 2002). The policy changes are filtered by states, districts, and other regional
bodies then applied to local political and power structures that may take the shift the
policy away from its original intent (Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002).
School-by-school reforms are seen by some to represent opportunities for
experimentation, research, and development before systematic, large-scale
implementation (Christenson, 2009). Over the past decades calls for school-by-school
reform have created a deluge of external reform designs that focus on school
improvement providing opportunities for innovation and even disruptive changes
(Christenson, 2009). The challenge is trying to discern how to go about adopting
externally developed reforms within a local context (Datnow & Castellano, 2003) since
the power structures surrounding a school may thwart the adoption and implementation
of any reform model. The focus on school change has contributed to a strong and vocal
disapproval of local district practices. School change as even resulted in reform initiatives
that intentionally keep the district from interfering with school improvement by explicitly
limiting their role and conduits for influence and control (MacIver & Farley, 2003). In
contrast to these school-by-school approaches, however, research on major district reform
38
initiatives such as those in Philadelphia, New York, and San Diego indicate the need for
strong engagement in thoughtful, systematic efforts involving the district rather than an
approach that diminishes their role (Borman, 2005). The finding in such large districts is
that schools do not exist in isolation. Schools exist within political, cultural, and
community relational structures that cannot be erased by a school-based model or
initiative (Datnow & Castellan, 2003).
The two dominant approaches - (a) the bottom-up school-by-school approach and
(b) the top-down policy approach - represent two different theories of action for
educational change. Though not exclusive of each other these approaches engage
different levels of decision-makers and stakeholders in the process. There are merits to
both approaches, but the lack of focus on districtwide change is a clear oversight in any
systematic school reform initiative (Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004). Schmoker (2004)
argued that with complex reform models, system overload might be the biggest threat to
genuine improvement emphasizing the importance of collaboration across classrooms
and, most critically, school sites within a school district. Meaningful reform requires
tangible change in the teaching and learning experiences; therefore, the efforts to make
change must connect to behavior and practices at the local level (Schmoker, 2004).
Including the District as the Setting for Change
The importance of engaging the district in the increasing nationwide movement to
nurture more globally competitive students is supported by the research on district
improvement (Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004). The need to engage the district
systematically is supported by the research about the effectiveness of comprehensive
39
school reform designs (Borman, 2005; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). A key lesson learned
from the comprehensive school reform initiatives of the 1900s and early 2000s is the
critical role the district must play for school improvement of any kind (Datnow &
Castellano, 2003). Desimone (2002) identified the district as a critical factor of success
for school change. Desimone (2002) specially identified the need for districts to provide
the institutional authority to schools to pursue reform. The focus on school-by-school
initiatives and policy initiatives are more likely to be successful with models to support
districtwide improvement.
The work of Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004) provided ten topics for engaging
the district based on lessons learned from systematic change initiatives in Canada, United
States, and England. The author's research examined the implementation of change across
multiple large districts with more than 80,000 students and identified indicators for
success or failure in implementation. The 10 crucial components of engaging the district
provide a framework for supporting the initiative to increase the global competencies of
students districtwide: (a) compelling conceptualization, (b) ongoing learning, (c)
collective moral purpose, (d) productive conflict, (e) the right bus or structures that
support the direction of the organization, (f) demanding culture, (g) capacity building or
leadership development, (h) external partners, (i) lateral capacity building or school-to-
school, and (j) focused financial investments. The 10 components provide a framework
for districts reviewing districtwide policies and practices.
Superintendent as a Key Leader in the 21
st
Century
Preparing students for a more global, interconnected future will require district
40
leaders and superintendents to have a clear and cohesive strategy for the implementation
of twenty-first century skills and global competencies. Waters and Marzano’s (2006)
meta-analysis of research indicated a strong relationship between student achievement
and the role of a district superintendent. The authors argued that the leadership of the
superintendent is one of the most important factors in assuring that districtwide
expectations and structures are in place that result in high academic achievement for all
students. Waters and Marzano (2006) identified the following five key areas of
leadership:
1. Goal setting process.
2. Non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction.
3. Board alignment with and support of district goals.
4. Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction.
5. Use of resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction.
Within these responsibilities superintendents have latitude about how to establish these
goals and the process to work with interest groups. What actions that leaders take are
based on his or her specific competencies (Northouse, 2007). Setting the direction and
vision for the organization is clearly one of the main responsibilities for superintendents
to improve student achievement (Datnow, & Castellan, 2003; Northouse, 2007; Togneri,
& Anderson, 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2005).
Christenson (2008) argued that risk taking and disruptive innovations will
ultimately drive educational markets to see significant changes. Disruptive innovations
include products or services that initially challenge established markets with potentially
41
inferior products or services but ultimately shift and redefine entire industries
(Christenson, 200). Such innovations and challenges to established markets in education
can only be enacted by leaders who possess a solid understanding of the educational
systems they must change and an idea of the types of questions they need to ask
regarding these systems if they are to alter them and provide them with direction
(Christenson, 2008). The superintendent must immerse him or herself in a new form of
work that is a combination of technical and adaptive work (Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn,
2004). The new work will require that the superintendent embrace the role of
instructional leader and develop the capacity to lead change while increasing awareness
of global issues and economic trends (Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004). Superintendents
may be key to district efforts to develop coherent strategies to enact reform while
balancing the demands of the No Child Left Behind act.
Summary of Research
Two distinct arguments are driving the political demand for global competencies
in American education: (a) international benchmarking of student outcomes and (b)
economic demands for more competitive worker-graduates. The international
benchmarking argument points out that the United States is not as competitive as it needs
to be regarding measures of student outcomes, particularly in mathematics and science
(Badi, Jin, & Skemer, 2007; OECD, 2008). Some dispute this interpretation and argue the
connection between test scores is not predictive or even correlated to economic indicators
(Baker, 2007; Zhao, 2009b). Rather than emphasizing standardization the suggestion is to
expand the focus on critical thinking and problem solving (Pink, 2006; Wagner, 2009;
42
Zhao, 2009a). A connected, though slightly different, argument is that the world economy
is more knowledge-driven and multicultural, therefore, it demands that education update
expectations and respond by including global competencies for interacting in
international, multicultural settings (Asia Society, 2008; Gerzon, 2010). All three
arguments indicate a need for improving school practices; whereby, there is a range of
opinion about how much of the change is truly different and how much is improving and
expanding current practices (DoE, 2006; Stewart, 2009: Waters & Marzano, 2006).
In response to the demand for graduates to stay competitive in global markets
Schoen & Fusarelli (2008) maintained a contrast between new approaches to setting
educational policy and the current approach to implement the policies associated with No
Child Left Behind. The comparison highlights the different approaches policymakers are
using to attack the two arguments for reform. One approach is for policymakers to clarify
the need for improvement by redefining existing expectations for student learning,
sometimes called the 21
st
Century Movement (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The policy
approach that emphasized the fact that current policies must be expanded and schools
must reinforce current expectations for student outcomes, as outlined by No Child Left
Behind, with potentially more accountability and expectations for mastery of core content
subjects such as mathematics and science (DoE, 2006).
The 21
st
Century Movement dictates two main approaches: (a) designing policy as
a driving force of change (Achieve, 2009; CCSOE, 2008; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008); and
(b) school-by-school initiatives (Asia Society, 2008; IB, 2008: P2C, 2009). A policy-only
approach may leave practitioners with little understanding of how to implement the
43
policies and little buy-in at the local level (Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002). A school-
by-school approach is limited in that the power structures in which a school operates
directly influence practices and may stall reform initiatives without institutional authority
from the district (Desimone, 2002).
Research on school reform movement indicates the importance of including the
district directly in reform efforts (Datnow & Castellano, 2003). Rather than including the
district in the school improvement process as an advisor or stakeholder the district itself
will be more successful if provided a systematic approach to improvement (Borman,
2005). A meta-analysis of district leadership identifies 10 critical components of
leadership (Waters & Marzano, 2006) that could apply to the movement toward a more
globally competent education districtwide.
Strong leadership will be critical to any effort to move toward a move global
framework for education within the roles of the district (Togneri, & Anderson, 2003),
and, more importantly, the superintendent must drive the districtwide goals and focus
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). The superintendent must be willing to take risks, pursue
innovation that may potentially disrupt current practices (Christenson, 2008), and not
merely respond to policies but anticipate and engage in the development of policies
(Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008).
44
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Policymakers at federal and state levels have a number of initiatives exploring
efforts to make kindergarten through Grade 12 education more globally relevant (Henke,
2009). Though school leaders are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of
teaching twenty-first century skills the demand for higher test scores remains the primary
focus of federal and state education policy (Linn, 2005). A select number of schools have
an explicit vision or mission for adding a global focus to their expectations of students,
yet few districts have a systematic approach (Council on Competitiveness, 2006). For
districts that have a focus in mission statements or strategic plans many are not
implementing the plans effectively (Wagner, 2008b). Few examples are available in the
literature in which large districts explicitly focus on measures that indicate a student’s
ability to compete globally after graduation.
The purpose of the case study is to describe and explore one district’s approach to
meeting mandated standardized measures and graduating students ready to compete in
global markets. The following research questions guided the study.
1. What influences led the district to include the expectations that students are
globally competitive?
2. How does the district leadership define globally competitive students within
their local contexts?
3. What tangible actions has the district taken to develop globally competitive
students?
45
4. How is the district monitoring the outcomes of mandated standardized
assessments and indicators that students are globally competitive?
The approach of selecting a district as a case study of districtwide implementation
of the next wave of reform (Henke, 2009) provides other districts a reference point for
their own development in this area. A quantitative study could not provide a similar
measure of depth in its exploration of the processes undertaken by the district to
implement this initiative. Conducting a case study allowed the researcher to examine
influences, perceptions, and action steps involved in the implementation of these efforts.
A case study affords the researcher the ability to engage the district culture as he observes
the relationships between structures, policies, and staff (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 2003).
The use of case studies and other qualitative research models are broadly accepted
and utilized by educational researchers (Patton, 2002). A case study allows for
descriptive data to emerge and multiple themes of the phenomenon to be realized through
the perception of the participants, observations, interviews, and analysis of primary
documents (Creswell, 2003). According to Gall et al. (2003), in conducting a case study,
the researcher establishes a chain of evidence as he collects raw data and analyzes its
themes and patterns. Strong and meaningful links can be made between research
questions and findings.
The potential future investigations and implication on the broad, social context of the
study (Gall, et al, 2003) adds to the power of the research. The usefulness and context of
raw data and the triangulation of data sources support the validity of the findings.
Conducting an in-depth case study of a high performing urban district focusing on
46
developing global competitive students provided the most practical method for gathering
practical information to help other districts evaluate methods for implementing future
initiatives.
Sample and population
Selection of the sample was based on the criteria established in the prevalent
research regarding the range of priorities for graduating globally competitive students
(Asia Society, 2009; CCSSO, 2009; IB, 2008; OECD, 2008; P2C, 2008; Wagner, 2008a).
Expectations for students who are globally competitive can be defined as those skills or
attributes identified by one or more of the prominent profiles developed by the leading
organizations in the field. To be selected for the study the district had to qualify as a large
district in the United States preferably in the top 25 in terms of student enrollment. The
chosen district had to explicitly identify or be recognized for setting expectations for all
students in the district beyond the expectations of success on state tests. The district had
to explicitly identify the goal of graduating students with two or more attributes found in
the survey of global competitive graduate profiles found in the review of the research
shown in Table 4. The researcher further narrowed the definition of a district eligible for
the case study as one located in a recognized high performing urban district currently
meeting state and federal testing targets. The chosen district met the criteria for: (a) being
identified as a large, high performing urban district by state and local agencies and (b)
stating as a priority for all students at least two competencies from at least two graduate
profiles found in the literature, namely life and career skills and ready for college.
The selected Mountain School District is one of the largest in the United States
47
with approximately 140,000 students. The district has almost 200 schools:
1. 25 high schools-Grades 9 through 12 with 44,245 students.
2. 38 middle schools-Grades 6 through 8 with 30,764 students.
3. 130 elementary schools-prekindergarten through Grade 5 with 58,723 students.
4. 1 career and technology center.
5. 5 special or alternative schools with a combined 996 students.
Performance indicators include: (a) graduation rate of 90.37 %, (b) advanced placement
participation: 60 % (2006 to 2007), (c) national merit scholars: 61 (2007 to 2008), (d)
national blue ribbon schools: 33 (1983 to 2007), and (e) average scholastic aptitude test
(SAT) score: 1616 (2007 to 2008). Attendance rates are: (a) Grades 1 through 5: 95.9 %,
(b) Grades 6 through 8: 95.5 %, (c) Grades 9 through 12: 94.9 %, and (d) dropout rate:
2.71 %. Demographic data includes: (a) African American: 22.9 %, (b) Indian: 0.3 %, (c)
Asian American: 15.2 %, (d) Hispanic: 21.5 %, and (e) White: 40.1 %. Roughly 25.8 %
of students receive free and reduced meals. English for speakers of other languages
represent 12 % of students. International students include students from more than 164
countries speaking 134 languages. Approximately 12.1 % of students receive special
education services.
Mountain School District identifies their focus on global competencies in their
vision statement: A high-quality education is the fundamental right of children. All
children will receive the respect, encouragement, and opportunities they need to build the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be successful, contributing members of a global
society. The district has received recognition for their initiatives of graduating students
48
ready for college and the work force at a state and national level. Mountain School
District meets the criteria established for selection in the case study by expanding their
focus beyond minimal state expectations and receiving recognition for improved results.
Instrumentation
Three data collection measures for the case study provided the tools to
contextually and systematically investigate the districtwide efforts to meet standardized
accountability measures and establish a focus on graduating students ready to compete in
a global job market:
1. Primary source document review.
2. Interviews with district administrators and school principals.
3. Field observations.
Primary source documents provided information regarding the district’s expressed
values, policies, and processes for implementing their focus. Interviews with four district
leaders provided data regarding the perception of district personnel on the focus and
processes involved in these efforts. Interviews with principals provided context from a
school leader’s point of view. Observations of school board meetings and data analysis
meeting provided input into the protocol and language used in districtwide
communications and monitoring of priorities.
A document analysis organizer shown in Appendix A provides a tool for
consistent and uniform analysis of core documents. The documents provide the expressed
values and action steps of the district and indications for future steps. The documents
provide the core evidence of whether the district had an explicit priority to meet
49
standardized measures and develop other priorities for outcomes focused on global
competencies.
Following a review of the documents interviews provided information on the
district administrator and school principal perspectives regarding the district work. The
interviews included district and school administrators. Questions obtained information on
four key topics:
1. The perceived importance of current measures of student success.
2. Influences driving the demand for including global competencies as
expectations for all students.
3. The actions taken to date to establish supports for student achievement in both
areas.
4. The measurement of outcomes in both areas.
Uniform interview questions, shown in Appendix B, provide a consistent protocol for
conducting interviews. Four district administrators and eight principals participated in the
interviews. The principals were comprised of four elementary, two middle, and two high
schools. The researcher conducted phone interviews, recoding data through note taking,
and an audio recording session. The combination of notes and audio recordings ensured
direct quotation and nuances of the participant responses were captured and incorporated
more accurately into the study.
Field observations included school board meetings and a districtwide data
analysis meeting. The purpose of the observations was to gather information regarding
the role and importance of the indicators of college readiness in terms of regular district
50
operations. The agendas, language used, and participant interactions provided a source of
data to compare to the information gathered in interviews and through source documents.
An observation template allowed the researcher to uniformly document the observations.
The use of three sources of data: (a) primary documents, (b) interviews of district
and school administrators, and (c) field observations reinforced the validity of the data
collected and subsequent findings. The use of uniform interview and observation forms
improved the accuracy of data gathering. The triangulation of the data allowed the
researcher to identify themes and connections across the data.
Table 6: Summary of Data Gathering Timeline
Research Questions Primary
Document
Review
Interviews with
District
Administrators
Field
Observations
What influences led the district to
include the expectations that students are
“globally competitive”?
Summer
2009
-- --
How does the district leadership define
“globally competitive” students within
their local contexts?
Summer
2009
Fall
2009
--
What tangible actions has the district
taken to develop globally competitive
students?
Summer
2009
Fall
2009
Winter
2009
How is the district monitoring the
outcomes of both mandated standardized
assessments as well as indicators
students are globally competitive?
Summer
2009
Fall
2009
Winter
2009
Data Collection Procedures
The nature of the case study established the framework for data collection
methods (Patton, 2002). The primary source documents regarding the mission, vision,
51
and strategic plan of the district served as the basis for understanding the district’s
priorities. The review of research regarding the district from sources within and from
outside of the Mountain School District provided outcome indicators of districtwide
initiatives. The research articles indicated the importance of including information from a
multiyear narrative in the case study. The interviews provided insights into the perception
of district and school leaders regarding their interpretation of district policies, practices,
and processes. Field observations offered basic information about how these initiatives
and perspectives are implemented in districtwide settings such as board meetings and
data analysis meetings.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher brought a professional background in education to the case study,
which allowed for a broad understanding of the district culture and practices and
influenced how the research prioritized and interpreted the data. The Institutional Review
Board of the University of Southern California granted permission to conduct the study
and approved the methodology. Participants in the interviews provided consent and
approved the research project. The researcher participated in the district’s Institutional
Review Board process that included a review of the procedures and research tools.
Data Analysis
The research used the qualitative method of data analysis delineated by Creswell
(2003). The six stages provided the structure for a systematic and thorough analysis of
the data. In the first stage the researcher organized the data via transcription, scanning,
and typing field notes. The researcher typed and sorted the notes and results from
52
document reviews, interviews, and observations into the category of information they
contained. In the second stage the researcher analyzed the essence and meaning of the
data that allowed holistic reflection of the data. Common themes emerged based on the
guiding research questions. The information was categorized and labeled according to the
actual language of the participants per stage three. The underlying meaning of the data
provided the means to categorize and reexamine common themes.
The researcher strengthened the reliability and validity of the study by applying
data triangulation, member checking, description, and clarification (Creswell, 2003). Data
triangulation ensured that the multiple sources were coherent and the analysis of the
relationships between data collection methods allowed for accurate common themes to
summarize findings. Revisiting the interviewed participants allowed more accurate
documentation of quotations and themes. The comprehensive description provided the
depth of understanding of the constructs of the school district. The forthright narrative
further clarified the researcher’s role and shortcomings of the research.
Methodological Limitations
The case study is limited in that it includes information from only one district.
The review of primary documents included more than 10 years of annual reports,
research internal offices in the district, outside research on the district, community
outreach documents, and Web-based sources including their district portal. The sources
are limited, biased, authored for specific purposes, and to communicate preselected sets
of information. Only four district administrators and eight principals participated in the
interviews. The principals were comprised of four elementary, two middle school, and
53
two high school each with a limited point of view based on their past experiences in the
district. Field observations were limited to two school board meetings and one
districtwide data analysis meetings. The background of the researcher as a highly trained
educator provides bias regarding what information was selected and emphasized in this
case study.
54
CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
Students in the U. S. kindergarten through Grade 12 system are subject to an
achievement gap in core content areas when comparing subgroups nationally and
internationally and demonstrate a global gap (Wagner, 2008a). Students need to be
prepared to compete in an interconnected, flat world (Friedman, 2008). Expectations for
students have increased based on global competition for jobs. Students now need at least
two years of post secondary education to be successful in a global job market demanding
more advanced skills (Education Commission of the States, 2005). Even if the gap in
current standardized assessments were closed the assessments do not measure the
complex communication and thinking skills that indicate success in college (Conley,
2005; Hersch, 2009). The closing of achievement gaps, as measured by international
benchmarks and national standardized measures, does not indicate students will have the
necessary skills to compete on an international level (Baker, 2007; Zhao, 2009).
Two main forces are driving the political demand for an expanded focus for
kindergarten through Grade 12 education: (a) international benchmarking and (b) a more
competitive global job market. The role of international benchmarking to gauge student
performance drives many policymakers to contend that current students and graduates are
losing their competitive edge (OECD, 2008). A similar argument draws a slightly
different conclusion by reasoning that the world is indeed interconnected. The global
market demands a more creative, problem solving orientation, which are not promoted by
standards and standardized assessments (Pink, 2009; Zhao, 2009). Others go further in
55
their statements that problem solving, global competencies, language, and multicultural
fluency are essential to the future success for students in the U. S. school system (Asia
Society, 2009; Gerzon, 2010).
In response to the driving forces three primary recommendations are offered to U.
S. kindergarten through Grade 12 education: (a) emphasize college-readiness and work-
readiness (NGA, CCSOE, & Achieve, 2008; OECD, 2009; DOE, 2009), (b) emphasize
creativity and problem solving (P21C, 2009; Pink, 2009; Wagner, 2009; Zhao, 2009), and
(c) develop global competencies as part of the core curriculum (Asia Society, 2009;
Gerzon, 2010). Though not exclusive the recommendations indicate where schools and
school systems should allocate time, money, and resources based on certain assumptions
about what students will need to be successful after graduation. Based on the assumptions
the dominant initiatives are designed to bring about changes in two main ways: (a)
school-by-school and (b) policy. The approaches are promising but are ultimately
incomplete if they do not incorporate the district in their approach (Datnow, 2004;
Togneri, & Anderson, 2003).
The national discourse about global competition is gaining in prominence and a
variety of initiatives are underway in these two changes to bring about change in
education (Achieve, 2009; Asia Society, 2009; P2C, 2009). What is missing in the
literature is the documentation of a large kindergarten through Grade 12 districtwide
implementing of a twenty-first century global focus. A case study of such an initiative
will help guide and inform decisions as more and more districts become invested in the
idea of enhancing or modifying their current expectations for students beyond state
56
mandates. Four research questions below guided the case study.
1. What influences led the district to include the expectations that students are
globally competitive?
2. How does the district leadership define globally competitive students within
their local contexts?
3. What tangible actions has the district taken to develop globally competitive
students?
4. How is the district monitoring the outcomes of mandated standardized
assessments and indicators that students are globally competitive?
Setting
To explore the implementation of a districtwide implementation of twenty-first
century skills the researcher chose one of the largest school districts in the United States
with established districtwide policies and practices that set expectations for student
achievement beyond state mandates. A review of the literature indicates a variety of lists
of expectations for students to be prepared to compete globally (Wagner, 2008a). The
chosen district has identified and been recognized for its expectations that all students
will graduate college and be job ready. The case study explores the districts’ definition of
those terms in an interconnected world economy and the mechanisms in place to support
their focus. Data collection from October 2009 to March 2010 included a review of core
documents, interviews with district personnel, interviews with school administrators, and
limited field observations. The sources of data provide triangulation of the findings based
on the research question that strengthen overall validity of the case study.
57
Participants
Four district administrators and eight principals participated in interviews using
the interview tool shown in Appendix A. The district administrators included the
associate superintendent for curriculum and instruction, chief academic officer, acting
chief school performance officer, and the chief information officer. The administrators
represent a range of experience levels, including one district administrator who served for
more than 25 years in the district as a teacher, principal, director, and district
administrator. One district administrator was new to the district and served less than 12
months in his position.
The principals who allowed interviews represented a range of experience levels,
including more than 30 years in the district. Two principals were at the high school level,
two were at the middle school, and four were elementary principals. Six of the principals
were male and two were female. One-half of the principals had more than 15 years of
experience with the district. Only 2 principals had less than 5 years in the district. All
interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The transcription process allowed for
coding and collection of patterns across interviews to address the research questions.
Descriptive Analysis
Primary source documents included the district strategic plan, 10 years of annual
reports on progress, 3 internal studies on their progress to close achievement gaps, and a
publication summarizing research on the district conducted by the Harvard School of
Business (2009). The documents provide a clear time line for the decision-making and
policies of the district relative to the research problem. The documents included data
58
surrounding student achievement and the systems established to support district wide
goals.
Field observations were limited and included observations of two board meetings
and an online data analysis meeting. The data analysis meetings connected leadership
teams across campuses through a real-time, online interaction that included voice, screen
sharing, and document sharing. The researchers’ role in these observations was to
document and review the frequency and focus of the concepts of twenty-first century or
global skills as they arose in discussions about student achievement.
Findings
Research question 1: What influences led the district to include the expectations that
students are globally competitive?
A review of the literature indicates two primary arguments attempting to persuade
kindergarten through Grade 12 schools to include expectations for developing global
competencies: (a) international benchmarking and (b) economic indicators that point to a
more globally competitive work environment. The purpose of this first research question
is to explore what led the district in this case study to go beyond mandated state measures
of student outcomes to include a broader definition of success. This line of inquiry
explores whether or not international benchmarking indicators or economic indicators
had an influence. The question explores whether the same influences driving the
conclusions in the literature about policy change are found at the district level in the case
study.
The second aspect of this line of inquiry is exploring who led the movement to
59
define the expectations for student achievement. The literature indicates the need for
including the district as a key player in reform or strategic changes (Datnow, 2004). The
literature indicates the vastly important role of the superintendent as a driver of any
systematic change (Waters & Marzano, 2006). The research question attempts to explore
the driving forces behind the move for higher expectations for students in the particular
district. Table 7 summarizes the data sources associated with the research question.
Table 7: Data for Research Question 1
Research Question Data Needed Data Sources Instrumentation
What influences led
the district to
include the
expectation that all
students are
“globally
competitive”?
Mission
Core Values
Themes in what is
said/written
Propaganda
Marketing
Statements of shared
beliefs
History of the
development of
priorities
Website
Strategic Plan
Annual Updated plans
People/Interviews
Student Achievement
Indicators
Marketing materials
Student parent
Internal Research Documents
Outside Research Document
School Board Meeting
Observation
Interview
protocol
Document
Review
The review of primary documents, including 10 years of annual reports on their
strategic plan, provided the history and process the district used to set its expectations for
students. It was necessary to review the past 10 years since it was 1999 when the process
of defining graduate expectations began. A combination of documented history and
interviews with staff new to the district and those with more than 25 years in the system
60
indicate the district experienced numerous political and social pressures to focus on
providing an equitable education to students over the past decade. The two primary
themes that emerged related to the research question were: (a) local social pressures and
(b) local political pressures were primary influences in defining expectations for high
school graduates.
Understanding how the process began is important in developing the case study.
In 1999 a district leadership team, including district and school staff, consultants, board
members, and hundreds of citizens working in committees, outlined a strategy to raise
student performance and close the achievement gap. Perceived inequities within the
community drove the district to address gaps in student performance correlated with
racial and economic indicators. Local media, parent groups, and nongovernmental
organizations applied pressure through the media to bring about change in the district.
Prior to 1999 two previous superintendents had taken the position with the stated goal of
closing achievement gaps. As indicated by the review of primary documents that
included internal research documents, the gaps in achievement had not changed
significantly prior to the year 2000 and in some cases widened. The gaps in performance
were correlated with racial and economic profiles. This perception, which was supported
by data, was that minority students, particularly those in low-income families, were not
being served by the system. Parents groups and local politicians began pressuring the
district to make significant changes accordingly. The move in 1999 to establish a new set
of expectations for students was driven by social and political factors focused on the
pursuit of equity. There was no evidence the influence of international benchmarking or
61
perceptions of shifting job market demands.
Following the initial visioning initiative in 1999 an analysis of student
performance data indicated two distinct zones for schools within the district. In one zone
student performance was low and had not improved measurably in years. In the other
zone student performance was meeting or exceeding expectations but did not change in
years.
As one district administrator indicated:
We really had – and still have to some extent – two districts in some ways. We
have gaps in performance. We have gaps in access to social capital. We have gaps
in income levels and parent education. By using the data to show the realities in
the schools, we were able to start talking about these gaps in honest, though
painful at times, ways.
A principal represented her reality at the school level based on her experience stated that:
I’ve been with the district more than 25 years. I’ve seen the programs come and
go. This program will fix it. This strategy will make it better. Look, my kids have
real challenges. Real problems. And, yes, race and poverty and violence are part
of the conversation. At least we are starting to talk about the truth. And the truth
is, not all students need the same thing out of school. Some need more of this or
less of that. One approach isn’t going to cut it.
The district leadership team identified over a decade ago the need to allocate
funds differently to the different zones within the district. The superintendent apparently
faced significant political pressure to engage the issue of equity directly. In every
interview conducted each participant identified the superintendent as the force of change
to bring about the action. The demand for closing the achievement gaps was coming from
local groups, parents, local politicians, and some local business, but the superintendent
was the key to bringing the pressures together and putting together a plan of action. Thus
another key theme related to the research question is the critical role of the superintendent
62
in coordinating and leveraging the demand for change. As indicated by all interviews and
supported by outside research, part of this process required the superintendent to lead
difficult conversations about race and socioeconomic status. Understanding the history is
key to the case study since it shapes the way in which the district defines expectations for
students.
Some students were college-bound and other students were vocationally inclined.
A third general education option was in place to get them gone according to one
interview, particularly in the zone of schools serving largely Hispanic and African
American populations. As noted by a district administrator, the issue of race and
expectations for all students to graduate and be competitive in the work place requires the
district to engage in sometimes uncomfortable conversations shown below:
When you discuss the gender gap, you get to say boy and girl. But no one wants
to say white or black. We were taught to be color-blind. For people to understand
that we are part of the problem is painful. That is hard for people . . . unsurfaced
biases and prejudices lead to a decrease in expectations for black and brown
kids…The evidence was clear. We had students who should have been in AP or
honors classes that weren’t. They were not on a “go to college” track. They were
on a “get them graduated and out of here” track. And, a lot of those kids just so
happened to be Black and Hispanic.
The pressure to do more than meet state and federal testing standards appeared in
all transcriptions of the interviews. Two major factors continue to drive the district to
develop their focus on closing gaps in achievement and establishing one set of
expectations for all students. The inequities in student performance were correlated to
geographic zones and racial designation. Hispanic and African American demographics
in high poverty areas were associated with low performance. District leadership identified
the need to address this issue head-on discussing race and performance gaps openly.
63
Closing achievement gaps was determined to be the right thing to do morally as well as
the smart thing to do economically. This push was locally driven and politically charged.
The themes for the first research question are that the drive for the district to update their
expectations for students was: (a) driven at the local level by social and political
pressures and (b) the superintendent was a key factor in driving the change. There is no
evidence from interviews, documentation, or field observations that international
benchmarking has in the past or is currently playing a role in informing the priorities of
the district. There is some evidence that district leaders are concerned that students will
need to compete for jobs upon graduation. The conversations typically discussed a locally
or nationally competitive job market, not necessarily an internationally competitive job
market. There was only one reference in the interviews regarding the development of
world languages or multicultural perspectives for all students. Discussions of the
International Baccalaureate Program focused primarily on high expectations and
outcomes similar to advanced placement. There was little discussion of international
travel, student exchanges, or other indicators associated with global competencies (Asia
Society, 2009; Gerzon, 2010). All interviews focused on the 10 year history and the
pursuit of equity.
Research Question 2: How does the district leadership define “globally competitive”
students within their local contexts?
The district continues to be focused on closing achievement gaps correlated to
race and income, thus the second research question explores in detail the increased
expectations for students. Implicit in this line of inquiry is understanding how these
64
expectations will prepare students for life after graduation, particularly in twenty-first
century or global skills. A survey of the research indicates at least three overlapping
camps for describing globally competitive skills where schools should focus: (a) college-
readiness and work-readiness (D0E, 2006: NGA, CCSOE, & Achieve, 2008; OECD,
2009), (b) creativity and problem solving (P2C, 2009; Pink, 2009; Zhao, 2009), and (c)
global competencies (Asia Society, 2009; Gerzon, 2010). The purpose of the research
question is to understand in which area of the research the district is focused on and how
the district in the case study chose to define globally competitive expectations for its
students. Table 8 illustrates the data sources used to investigate the question.
Table 8: Data for Research Question 2
Research Question Data Needed Data Sources Instrumentation
How does the
district leadership
define “globally
competitive”
students within their
local contexts?
Mission / Values
Student achievement
data
Propaganda
Statements of
expectations
Protocols for
evaluating school
performance
Protocols for
evaluating of
principals
Protocols for data
analysis
Website
Strategic Plan
Annual Updated plans
People/Interviews
Student Achievement
Indicators
Internal Research Documents
Outside Research Document
Board meeting Observation
Online data analysis meeting
Observation of Board
Meeting
Observations of districtwide
online data analysis meeting
Interview
protocol
Document
Review
Field
Observation
Two themes emerged from the interviews and review of primary documents. The
65
district is focused on one set of expectations for all students. Every interview transcript
included the statement or a variation thereof. The most common language used to
describe the idea was the term equity, which is arguably a quantifiable part of the
district's culture. For example, in a 30-minute interview with a district administrator the
term equity was used 12 times. In an observation of a board meeting the term equity was
used 21 times in 1 hour. Several district documents and internal research articles
reference equity as an explicit goal of the district policies.
The second major theme related to the research question is the focus of the district
to produce college-ready and work-ready students. Of all of the findings in the case study
this is the most pervasive given that the term or concept appeared in every document,
interview, and field observation. Key indicators of whether students are on track to
graduate college-ready drive the annual reports and measures of school, principal, and
teacher performance. The goal of all students graduating college-ready is central to the
work of the district.
A review of district documents, including their strategic plan, 10 years of annual
reports to the board, internal research articles, board agendas, and posted website
messages to the community, reaffirm the focus on graduating college-ready students.
Five district service goals provide an overview for the districtwide focus and provide the
framework for organizing the annual update on the strategic plan. The goals are for the
board, superintendent, community, and business to graduate students who are college-
ready. All stakeholders are expected to contribute and work collaboratively to support the
district goals. The strategic plan and the annual report on the strategic plan (2009)
66
identifies the explicit goal of setting high expectations for all students to be college-ready
with specific benchmarks to measure student outcomes throughout their time in the
district.
The focus on students graduating college-ready is clear throughout all levels of
the district. What separates the district from many others with a similar focus, however, is
a specific set of criteria to measure what exactly it means to graduate college-ready.
Seven key indicators set expectations on a kindergarten through Grade 12 continuum. All
district administrators and seven of the eight principals interviewed directly referenced
the indicators as core to the expectations for all students.
1. 1,650 scholastic aptitude test and 24 American college testing.
2. Three on advanced placement exam and four on international baccalaureate exam.
3. Algebra 2 by Grade 11: C or higher.
4. Algebra 1 by Grade 8: C or higher.
5. Advanced mathematics in Grade 5.
6. Advanced reading in Grade 3 through 8.
7. Advanced reading in kindergarten through Grade 2.
Social and political factors on the local level continue to drive the focus on
closing gaps achievement. Connected to the focus is the district’s definition of college-
ready skills. Prior to the focus on closing the achievement gaps the district allowed three
sets of graduation expectations. Schools allowed a different set of expectations for
students to graduate, which was measurable within the two zones of the district,
discussed previously. The seven keys to success listed above define what it means to be
67
college-ready and reinforce districtwide expectations for all students associating equity
with equal expectations. The seven indicators serve as milestones for students, parents,
and schools to decide if they are on track for graduating students ready for college.
During the observation of the data analysis meeting the focus on the indicators defined
the agenda.
As one principal indicated:
It’s nice to be a part of a district that works as a team. We share the same goals [of
getting kids ready for college]. We know where we are headed. The parents and
kids know the expectations, too. I don’t know that everyone wakes up in the
morning and recites the goals, but we all know where we are heading.
A district administrator noted the district has clearly defined performance goals:
We know that students will be expected to know more and do more to compete to
get jobs. State standards are important, but they represent minimal expectations, a
basement . . .We looked at our students who have graduated high school to go on
to college and we wanted to know which indicators we could use to guide student
success.
Later in the same interview the district administrator clarified student performance goals
from district goals:
We are aligned in our work by the five district performance goals. The board, the
divisions of the district office, the areas, down to the school sites look at our goals
to see how we are working as a unified group. The seven key indicators of student
success are our outcomes, our product. We are continually improving our systems
to maximizing the number of students who reach these key indicators.
The college-ready indicators serve as a core reference for what is expected of all students.
Principals indicated they were ultimately judged by their performance on the indicators
and state tests.
Some interviews indicated a range of opinions about what else fits within the
definition of globally competitive students while the goals of students graduating college-
68
ready are reportedly in place district wide. What follows is a selection of quotes to
indicate that while there was a clear central focus on college-readiness there was some
room for discussion about what else might be included in future discussions. One district
administrator indicated the importance of foreign language as part of students being
considered globally competitive:
We have a very successful immersion program. We offer French and Spanish
immersion programs. Our students learn about the language and culture of
different countries. That’s going to be very important in the future. Our parents
really enjoy that program. We always have a waiting list.
A different district administrator indicated geography and cultural understanding as an
important part of being globally competitive:
We serve families from more than 160 countries speaking more than 135
languages. Out students are diverse and represent a multicultural, multinational
population. Being able to navigate within those groups, to adapt and learn about
new cultures is key to being globally competitive. Our students need to learn
about the world, know where people and resources come from. They need to
know about the geography of the world. Cars [car parts] aren’t made in one
country; they are made in dozens of countries and then put together. Our students
work with other students from around the world, right here in our district. That
will be important to their success in the future.
One principal indicated the importance of service-learning and international travel:
We have an excellent program here for students to participate in service-learning
opportunities. Our teachers do a wonderful job of creating projects for students to
implement what they are learning in a real-world context. That is so important.
The IB [International Baccalaureate] framework also helps us always include an
international focus in the work. We host exchange students every year and we
have been able to have many students go abroad as well. That is so important. Our
staff is very committed to make the entire learning experience and international
one.
Those interviewed described their understanding of the seven keys to college
readiness as core to their students being globally competitive. Beyond the references
participants described the concept of students being globally competitive in a variety of
69
ways. Some referred to similar concepts provided by district policies and documents.
Other district and school administrators emphasized different aspects of their
understanding of outcomes for students, including foreign language, geography,
multicultural experiences, service-learning, and international travel. The overall theme
associated with the research question is that the district has equated college-ready with
globally competitive. Some authorities would support this (ECS, 2008) while others
might argue that the focus on more creative problem solving (Pink, 2006; Zhao, 2009)
and global competencies (Asia Society, 2009; Gerzon, 2010) should be considered more
prominently.
Research Question 3: What tangible actions has the district taken to develop globally
competitive students?
Research is clear that reform efforts that focus on schools are limited if the district
is not included in the design (Datnow, 2004). The role of the superintendent to define and
guide the work is key (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Specific supports and systems must be
established for a district to support its goals (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The third
research question explores what exactly the district in the case study has done to support
its stated goal of graduating students who are college-ready. Table 9 summarizes the data
sources associated with this question.
70
Table 9: Data for Research Question 3
Research Question Data Needed Data Sources Instrumentation
What tangible
actions has the
district taken to
develop globally
competitive
students?
Practices at the
district level
Practices at the
school level
Perception of school
leaders
Priorities of district
leaders
Timelines and
expectations for
action
Website
Professional Development
Plan
Strategic Plan
Annual Updated plans
People/Interviews
Board meeting Observation
Online data analysis meeting
Observation of Board
Meeting
Observations of districtwide
online data analysis meeting
Interview
protocol
Document
Review
Field
Observation
Annual reports, data analysis meetings, budget priorities, marketing materials,
principal evaluations, and data collection systems are aligned to measuring the five
performance outcomes of the district as well as the seven key indicators that students are
college-ready. The data collected for the study confirmed the following structures are in
place to support the district’s focus:
1. One set of expectations for all students to be college ready-seven keys to
success.
2. Reporting structures to the school board based on the indicators such as
strategic plan, annual reports, cluster reports, and data analysis meetings.
3. Reporting protocols to analyze data related to the focus such as cluster data
analysis meetings, alignments of indicators to progress monitoring data, and plans to
71
strengthen online reporting mechanisms.
4. Accountability for school leaders based on the indicators such as principal
performance reviews, data analysis meetings, and cluster meetings.
5. Connection to local businesses to update and confirm priorities such as
business round table meetings to discuss job demands for graduates, participation in labor
conferences, and district office professional development with the business community.
6. Community connections to communicate the priorities such as parent
communication meetings, online access to information and data, student-friendly
publications outlining the seven keys, and improvement of online access to resources and
data.
7. Research basis for establishing and improving priorities such as correlation
reports for graduates back-mapped to these indicators, internal research reports, outside
research reports, and correlation to research from other district to inform discussions.
As with the interview questions regarding the second research question, responses
during interviews indicated equity as a driving theme for the systems that support the
district focus. The discussion of equity related to data, data systems, and timely access to
data appeared in every interview. The focus on equity repeatedly came up when
participants in the interviews were asked about what actions the district had taken to
support the focus. According to many of the participants, what the district had done was
focus on equity. For example, one principal indicated that conversations with district
representatives almost always come back to state test scores and the key indicators
collected in the comprehensive data system:
72
They [the district] want to know how kids are doing. They already have access to
the data – they track it pretty well. And, we have access to the data as well so we
can work with our teachers. Overall, it’s a very aligned system. It’s [the new data
system] pretty easy to navigate. Even our veteran teachers – most of them at least
- are on board with looking at the data to make decisions. It’s not an option or a
luxury; it’s a necessity. We can’t let groups of kids fall behind or just write them
off. We can’t just look at clusters of scores or trends. We have to look at the
specific kids and see what is working and what is not. Is this working? Then do
more of it. If not, then don’t. That’s probably one of the biggest changes I’ve seen
in my career: the focus on data.
The observation that the discussions of data are central to the work of the district
is confirmed by district documentation and budget priorities over the last decade. In 2000
the district hired a chief information officer. In 2002 the district piloted a method for
collecting early literacy data through wireless devices. In the following year the district
developed an integrated quality management system to combine instructional data and
professional development, financial, human resource, and other key data. In 2004 to 2005
the district began administering a computer-adaptive test to students of Grade 3 through 5
to identify student needs in literacy and mathematics. In 2004 the district began piloting a
standards-based reporting system.
This evidence is offered to highlight specific actions the district has taken to
reinforce the importance of tracking and discussing college-ready indicators. Interviews,
documentation, and field observations revealed a range of initiatives underway. The
overall theme for the research question is the district has taken two overall actions to
support their focus: (a) establish indicators that are back-mapped from their goal of
college-readiness and (b) align reporting, accountability, and data systems to those
indicators.
Research Question 4: How is the district monitoring the outcomes of both mandated
73
standardized assessments as well as global competencies?
Once an organization identifies their priorities and aligns their resources the next
process is to measure outcomes and adjust accordingly. The final research question
investigated how the district measures progress. The main sources of information for the
data gathering were interviews, documentation, and field observation.
Table 10: Data for Research Question 4
Research Question Data Needed Data Sources Instrumentation
How is the district
monitoring the
outcomes of both
mandated
standardizes
assessments as well
as global
competencies?
Protocols for data
analysis
Priorities for making
decisions based on
data
Timelines for data
reflection
Online tools
Observations of districtwide
online data analysis meetings
Data management system
Strategic Plan
Annual Updated plans
People/Interviews
Observation of Board
Meeting
Website / portal
Interview
protocol
Document
Review
Field
Observation
The district launched an integrated quality management system in 2003 and
piloted a Web-based, standards-based reporting system to measure student progress on
specific state standards and district key indicators. The interview with the chief
information officer indicated that further development of the Web-portal would include a
dashboard of data and instructional resources to support improvement. The time line for
the development of the tool is still in the making. In addition to the assessment systems
the practice of regular data-driven problem solving for district leaders was launched in
2004. Systems are in place or being built. The focus of the research questions is to better
74
understand what is accomplished with the data and what actions are taken based on the
data.
Interviews and documentation provide the following background for
understanding the M-STAT process that serves as a districtwide protocol for data
analysis. In 2004 the district leadership team created a problem-solving team modeled
after the work done by the New York City Police Departments’ computerized crime
comparison statistic system (CompStat). CompStat was designed for precinct captains to
meet regularly to review and diagnosis the crime data in each precinct. Each precinct
captain rotated through the presentation of crime-reducing strategies. By design each
precinct captain attended multiple presentations, including their own to gather strategies
and transfer knowledge across precincts.
Mountain School District’s variation on this approach, M-STAT, began in 2004
with the community superintendents meeting with district leaders to look closely at the
preliminary scholastic aptitude test's participation rates. Specifically, the district wanted
community superintendents to identify what they were doing to increase the number of
African-American and Hispanic students taking the aptitude test. As one district
administrator indicated:
Frankly, there were some tough conversations at first. People weren’t sure how to
really engage in the conversation. There were a bunch of ideas and strategies
thrown out, but not a lot of focus. Finally, we got to the point where we had to
just be very direct. What we were doing for Hispanic and African-American
students in schools that are mostly white? No one knew at that first meeting. So
we all went away with the purpose of finding some answers.
Connected to the initial discussions about preliminary scholastic aptitude test was the
participation of Hispanic and African-American students in honors advanced placement
75
classes. In many schools there was evidence that students who qualified were not being
placed in the honors advanced placement classes. As part of the M-STAT process, the
district developed an identification tool to guide the decisions around honors advanced
placement. By 2008 88.1 % of African American and 84.4 % of Hispanic students took
the preliminary scholastic aptitude test that revealed a significant increase from previous
years.
The M-STAT process provides a forum for continual discussion and analysis of
relevant data. Many area superintendents model the same process with their principals to
discuss data across schools. Data not only includes student achievement data. Attendance,
course enrollment data, and other indicators such as preliminary scholastic aptitude test
participation rates provide evidence of needs and successes to inform the M-STAT
process and focus on improvement. To highlight the importance of the M-STAT process
one district administrator noted during her interview that:
[The M-STAT process] is a big part of my job. I believe it is absolutely crucial to
have honest conversations around data. There are still naysayers out there. Not
everyone loves the process. But if we are going to move forward and close gaps in
equity between races, we have to be able to talk honestly about what the data is
telling us. For students to graduate college-ready, able to get a good job, we need
to ensure all students have access to rigorous content and expectations.
The district used a range of indicators to measure student performance on
standards, including: (a) state tests, (b) standards-based reporting systems currently being
piloted, (c) computer-adaptive mathematics and literacy tests, and (d) standards-based
program-embedded assessment. To measure the global competitiveness of students the
district measured and discussed the seven key indicators: (a) scholastic aptitude test and
American college testing scores, (b) advanced placement exam and international
76
baccalaureate scores, (c) Algebra 2 grade 11, (d) Algebra 1 grade 8, (e) Grade 5
mathematics enrollment data, and (f) kindergarten through Grade 8 reading performance.
The M-STAT process analysis other data such as preliminary scholastic aptitude test
participation, course enrollment data, progress monitoring data, and other indicators, as
defined by the group.
Interviews revealed that the M-STAT process is still in its infancy so agendas and
protocols are still being created. For example, the district is piloting an online meeting
during the school day so teacher-leaders may participate. During the observation of one
of these meetings the focus was on preliminary scholastic aptitude test participation. The
issues of equity, particularly in terms of race, emerged regularly. As follow-up to this
observation multiple interviews revealed a commitment to the process because of the
issues of needing to look at data across school sites and then take action. One district
administrator indicated that the M-STAT process has the potential to keep the district
from getting complacent and falling back into old habits.
In addition to the M-STAT protocol principal evaluations and discussions with
supervisors ultimately point back to the indicators previously discussed and state-
mandated assessments. Staffing and placement decisions are influenced by data
outcomes. The district leaders expressed their continued reliance on data from the
indicators to guide their priorities. Interviews with school leaders indicated less of a focus
on their own job performance related to these indicators given that only two principals
referenced the data when discussing their review process. All eight principals indicated
the importance of looking at student achievement to evaluate how well programs,
77
curriculum, and strategies are working.
The district has four overall mechanisms for monitoring success: (a) integrated
data management system which includes state assessments and data around the key
indicators, (b) districtwide M-STAT process for discussing data, (c) action taken at the
school level based on priorities set at M-STAT meetings, and (d) principal evaluations
tied to data which include state and district mandated indicators.
Conclusion
The case study examined how one of the largest districts in the United States is
attempting to help all students graduate ready to compete in a global market. While the
research indicates that the dominant motivators for the focus on globally competitive
skills in the literature are: (a) international benchmarking and (b) job market demands,
the district did not identify these as their motivating forces. Instead the district focused on
the need to close achievement gaps and ensure an equitable system. One finding
supported by the research was the critical role of the superintendent to facilitate the
process and focus the district. The overall theme in the case study is the issue of equity
driven at the local level.
To clarify what the expectations for students should be, the Mountain School
District clearly identified college-readiness as the goal for all students. The district views
college ready as synonymous with globally competitive. Interviews reinforced the
perception of district and school leaders that college ready is what the job market
demands.
The establishment of one set of expectations for all students is central for the
78
district in the case study. To address the issue of equity the district representatives and
primary documents indicated that one set of high standards for all students is necessary.
Important to the district is the creation of a set of indicators that are back-mapped from
the goal of college-ready graduates. The seven indicators help define college-readiness as
an outcome and as a process that informs kindergarten through Grade 12 instruction
throughout the district.
1. 1,650 scholastic aptitude test and 24 American college testing.
2. 3 on advanced placement exam and 4 on international baccalaureate exam.
3. Algebra 2 by Grade 11-C or higher.
4. Algebra 1 by Grade 8-C or higher.
5. Advanced mathematics in Grade 5.
6. Advanced reading in Grades 3 through 8.
7. Advanced reading in kindergarten through Grade 2.
Having established equity as the motivating force and identify indicators of
college-readiness on a kindergarten through Grade 12 continuum, the district
implemented and is improving a range of actions to support the focus. The overarching
theme for these actions is the fact that they are aligned and ultimately judged by their
ability to graduate students who are college-ready. Seven categories summarize the
actions taken:
1. One set of expectations for all students to be college ready.
2. Reporting structures to the school board based on these indicators.
3. Reporting protocols at the district and school level to analyze data related to
79
these indicators.
4. Accountability for school leaders based on these indicators.
5. Connection to local businesses to update and confirm priorities.
6. Community connections to communicate these indicators.
7. Research basis for establishing and refining these indicators.
To evaluate how well these actions are helping the district meet its goals four
main processes are in place. Time and money have been aligned to develop and improve
an integrated quality management system that includes state-mandated data, district-
mandated data, and a range of other indicators. The data system is built for teachers and
parents to have access, not only a limited few at the district level. The use of an M-STAT
protocol drives district and cluster-level data analysis meetings. The process is adapted
from a model out of the police department in New York and is still in development to fit
the needs of the district. Following M-STAT priorities schools must identify and take
actions that close achievement gaps. The step is connected to the M-STAT process but is
listed here to highlight the expectation of taking action based on the data, not just data
analysis. Principal evaluations are related to state-mandates outcomes and the district
indicators of college-readiness.
The district has equated college-readiness with globally competitive graduates.
Motivated by delivering an equitable education the district has identified indicators of
student success that are more rigorous than state mandates. In a centralized, top-down
way the district has aligned personnel, resources, and protocols to reinforce these
indicators on a kindergarten through Grade 12 continuum. The superintendent is a key
80
driving force coordinating the political and social pressures to close gaps in achievement
associated with race and economic status.
81
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The case study looked at one of the largest districts in the United States that
addressed federal and state mandates and expanded their expectations for all students to
graduate college-ready. With more than 120,000 students in the district the number of
districts have responded to the pressures of the No Child Left Behind policy by
narrowing their curriculum and focusing on fewer indicators of success.
What sets this district apart from other districts with similar mission or visions of
college-readiness is the way in which resources, personnel, and systems are aligned to
this one goal of graduating college-ready students. The district has identified indicators
on a kindergarten through Grade 12 continuum, which includes achievement data and
participation and enrollment data such as preliminary scholastic aptitude test
participation, advanced placement enrollment, and early literacy performance. Rather
than focusing solely on standardized student achievement outcomes the district uses a
range of data to measure success and communicates expectations to parents and students
accordingly. Connected to the gathering of data is the systematic analysis of data that
leads to concrete action steps.
The themes that emerged from the case study are:
1. The superintendent has leveraged the political and social pressures to close
achievement gaps by actually raising expectations rather than narrowing them.
2. International benchmarking and international economic pressures are less
influential than local social and political pressures.
82
3. The district operates in a centralized way by setting expectations and allocating
resources districtwide while allowing some autonomy regarding process at the school
level.
4. The district has one set of expectations for all students based on the concept of
equity. These expectations are communicated on a kindergarten through Grade 12
continuum of indicators.
5. Data analysis is based on common key indicators districtwide in clusters and at the
school level. This data analysis must lead to action.
The themes provide reference points for other districts interested in implementing a
systematic approach to ensure students graduate ready to compete in an interconnected,
global job market. The themes can help guide conversations and help districts lay out a
process for taking action and refining their district policies.
Conclusions
An extensive review of primary documents, interviews, and limited field
observations, indicates the district in the case study is expanding expectations for
students and focusing on equity rather than standardization. The strength of this district’s
approach is clear in the centralized, coordinated approach that leverages their economy of
scale, one of the district’s greatest assets. For example, their extensive integrated quality
management system and the staff to support it cannot be funded or maintained by a few
schools or a small district. In a time of budget crisis and spending cuts many districts are
narrowing their offerings and trimming back district support. The case study offers
lessons in terms of expectations for graduating competitive students and in terms of
83
building efficiencies into district funding priorities.
Core to the vision is the concept of equity. The district has chosen to fund schools
based on student need within two identified zones. Resource distribution in the case study
is not equal but equitable. There is one minimal expectation for all students, which is
college readiness. There are multiple opportunities and settings to reach this goal. Some
students attend full day kindergarten, for example, while others attend half-day
kindergarten based on the zone the school serves. While other districts may implicitly or
subtly differentiate funding, under the leadership of the superintendent, issues of race and
economic status are stated outright in this district. Systems are aligned to address student
needs. Difficult conversations are par for the course.
Though a strong example for other districts there remains significant room for
improvement. The focus on college-readiness represents one domain within the research
around graduating students who are ready to compete globally. Notably absent in the
districtwide expectations for all students is the study of world languages, interactions
with students from other countries, and leveraging the multinational community of
families and business in a systematic way. The emphasis on college-readiness is focus
supported by the literature but will need to expand in definition to include more globally
connected experiences for students as they are more likely to interact in multinational
settings as part of future job expectations. Focusing solely on college-readiness may
narrow the work of schools too much, limiting the skill and expectations for
development. Additionally, the term “college ready” has a range of meanings given the
range of expectations for admittance and graduation in post-secondary education in the
84
United States. The term “college ready” may be leveraged as a focal point, but remains a
vague description of what is expected of the work force that must compete and participate
in an interconnected, multinational workplace.
Further, the lack of emphasis on the development of languages other than English
on a K-12 spectrum represents a significant gap in the overall mission of graduating
students ready to compete in global markets. While it may be unreasonable to expect all
students to graduate fully “competent” in all cultures, this case study indicates a
willingness to overlook the study of languages to the point in which it is not even an
indicator that students are on track. In other words, of the core indicators that students are
on track to graduate “college ready” - and thus on track to compete globally - the
development of a second or third language is not identified as a primary, secondary, or
even tertiary indicator. The concept of language development other than English is
typically relegated to the idea that students have indeed met the “credit requirements” for
graduation or college entrance requirements. Given that in the United States college
entrance requirements may require as little as two years of language study with no
measure of proficiency in that language other than gaining course credit, the notion that
“college ready” is equivalent to “on track to compete globally” is in serious question.
Recommendation for Future Research
In the case study all participants in the interviews referenced the role of the
superintendent as a key force of change. Although the average job expectancy for
superintendents in urban districts is less than 3 years the superintendent of Mountain
School District has been with the district over 10 years. The structure of governance in
85
districts varies significantly in large urban districts from mayoral control to decentralized
systems in which schools shop for services provided by the district. The role of
international and economic pressures to inform district priorities ranges significantly
across the United States based on the observations that further research topics might
include:
1. Are the indicators for college-readiness in the case study appropriate for all
districts or should districts develop their own?
2. What supports can help develop the capacity of superintendents to leverage
local social and political issues in order to infuse expectations for global competencies?
3. Does a decentralized or centralized structure of a district require different
implementation models?
4. How can outside providers and advocates integrate with districts to promote a
discussion on global competencies?
5. How does state policy work with district policy to guide a more globally
competent learner?
6. How can work in other nations inform practices at a district level in the United
States?
Implications
The case study provides a snapshot of one of the largest districts in the United
States. While there are some examples of schools or small districts that are attempting to
go global there are few examples of full-scale, systematic reform for large urban districts.
Pressure from global markets and indicators from international benchmarks are pushing
86
policymakers at federal and state levels to address learning outcomes. Initiatives in the
United States have led to a school-by-school approach to create change and a policy
approach to create change. In both cases direction and guidance for districts is lacking.
Implications of the case study can help inform policymakers, institutions of higher
education, and school districts.
Policymakers must reexamine the assumptions underlying the current mandates
for accountability. At its core No Child Left Behind dictates the eventual goal of 100 %
proficiency for all students based on end-of-course outcome data with a strong emphasis
on literacy and mathematics. This sets goals that will help students compete
internationally and allows states and districts to differentiate the process. Unlike the case
study many schools and districts are standardizing and narrowing what and how they
deliver instruction based on the accountability system. For example, arts and technology
programs have diminished significantly in funding and priority. Many advocate
technology, problem solving, and design skills as exactly what is needed in the twenty-
first century. (P2C, 2009; Wagner, 2008; Zhao, 2009). The collateral damage of No Child
Left Behind may be that the very skills required to succeed are pushed to the background
in the pursuit of standards.
The goal of students graduating globally competitive requires the United States,
not to match the world in standardized test scores but to have products and services that
are differentiated and in high demand. Differentiation in economic markets is a
fundamental macroeconomic concept. The standardization left in the wake of No Child
Left Behind may be working against the goals of educational policy in economic terms.
87
Broader indicators and an emphasis on growth over time may be more useful.
Institutions of higher education can learn from the case study the importance of
what it means to be college-ready. This district identified indicators of student success,
not by college entrance but by college completion. The seven indicators are back-mapped
from students who completed college. This was the district’s work, not that of higher
institutions of learning. Colleges must look at their own student populations and see what
characteristics and indicators are relevant to college completion. Institutions of higher
education can help the kindergarten through Grade 12 system and the policymakers by
working collaboratively to identify key indicators that would ultimately be applicable
nationwide. If kindergarten through Grade 12 education identifies success based on
student performance in college it makes sense to include the expectations of higher
education in the analysis.
School districts can use the case study as a guide to their own reform. One
fundamental point is the need for consistency in the superintendent position. A step-by-
step process is captured within the case study:
1. Identify the ultimate graduation outcome. Include all stakeholders, particularly
business, higher education, and community members.
2. Back-map indicators related to that goal.
3. Align reporting systems to capture and analyze those indicators.
4. Align resources, including personnel and policies to support those indicators.
5. Create a practice of reflection with checkpoints to examine progress on those
indicators.
88
6. Communicate expectations to community and staff in user-friendly ways.
Education is a long-term investment. Given the increasingly interconnected global
security, ecological, social, and economic realities our graduates will face educational
systems cannot respond only to what has been. There must be foresight beyond that of
anticipating policy shifts. The priorities of the educational system in the United States
must adapt more quickly than previously required. A school-by-school approach is too
small and slow to work alone. A policy approach is too vague and contentious to work
alone. In the end it will be district leaders and, more specifically, superintendents who
decide how quickly and how adaptable our educational systems will be. The U. S.
educational success, which is ultimately economic success, lies in the hands of a few
hundred superintendents and their ability to emerge as global leaders.
89
REFERENCES
Achieve. (2009). Achieve, Inc. Retrieved May 10, 2009 from http://www.achieve.org
Asia Society. (2008). Going Global: Preparing Our Students for an Interconnected
World. New York: Author.
Asia Society. (2009). Putting the World in a World-Class Education: A National
Imperative and a State and Local Responsibility. New York: Author.
Badi, S, Jin, Y. & Skemer, M. (2006). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S.
15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International
Context. U.S. Department of Education. NCES 2008-016.
Baker, (2007). Are International Tests Worth Anything? Phi Delta Kappa. (89)2.
Borman, (2005). National Efforts to Bring Reform to Scale in High-Poverty Schools:
Outcomes and Implications. Review of Research in Education, (29).
Christensen, C. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the
Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw Hill.
Committee for Economic Development. (2006). Education for Global Leadership: The
Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S.
Economic and National Security. Washington, D.C.: CED.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21
st
Century. (2006). Rising
above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Council on Competitiveness. 2006. Competitiveness Index: Where America Stands?
Washington, D.C.: CC.
Conley, D. T. (2005). College Knowledge: What it Really Take for Students to Success
and What We Can Do to Get Them Ready. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Putting the World into World-Class
Education: State Innovations and Opportunities. Washington, DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2009). Mission and Vision. Retrieved May 10,
2009 from http://www.ccso.org
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
90
Cubberley, E. (1919). Changing Conceptions in Education. Cambridge, MA: Riverside
Press.
Datnow, & Castellan. (2003). District and school leadership in Success for All schools. In
J. Murphy, & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership for school reform: Lessons from
comprehensive school reform designs (pp. 127-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one
school to many. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Desimone. (2002). How Can Comprehensive School Reform Models Be Successfully
Implemented? Review of Educational Research, (72)3.
Education Commission of the States. (2005). Helping state leaders shape education
policy. Denver, CO, Finance. Education Commission of the States.
Eskew. (2008). Meeting Work Force Needs. Retrieved May 10, 2009 from
http://www.asiasociety.org/education-learning/partnership-global-learning/making-
case/meeting-workforce-needs
Friedman. (2009). Hot, Flat, and Crowded. New York, NY: Picador.
Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn. (2004). New Lesson for Districtwide Reform. Educational
Leadership.
Gall, M.P., Borg, W.R. & Gall, J.P. (2003). Educational Research: An Introduction.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon. April
Gerzon. (2010). Global Citizens. Ebury, England.
Henke, Karen. (2009). Measuring Up in a Flat World. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from
http://www.schoolcio.com/ShowArticle/1004
Hersch, R. (2009). College and Work Readiness Assessment: Teaching to a Test Worth
Teaching to in High School and College. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from
http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/teaching_to_a_test_worth_teaching_to_reformat_
.pdf.
International Baccalaureate. (2009). IB Learner Profile Booklet. Retrieved Jan 15,
2009 from http://www.ibo.org/programmes/profile/
Jacobs, H. (2009). Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisions and Curriculum Development.
91
Jackson, A. (2008). High Schools in the Global Age. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 58-
62.
Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., & Hargrove, T. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of
high- stakes testing. Lanham, MD:Rowan & Littlefield.
Kohn, A. (2010). Debunking the Case for National Standards One-Size-Fits-All
Mandates and Their Dangers. Education Week.
Linn, R. L.. (2008). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state
systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 13(33). Retrieved January 28, 2009 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n33/
Louis, K., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high
schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.
Manna, P. (2006). School's in: Federalism and the national education agenda.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
McDonnell, Lorrain. (2008). The Changing Nature of Federalism in Education: A
Paradox and Some Unanswered Questions. Presentation to the States’ Impact on
Federal Education Policy Conference, May, 2008, Washington, D.C.
McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2006). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
McNeil, M. (2008, March 19). Authority Grab Eroding Stature of State Boards.
Education Week, 27 (26).
Monohan, Torin, (2005). Globalization, Technological Change, and Public Education
(Social Theory, Education and Cultural Change). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mullis, Martin, Ruddock, O’Sullivan, Arora, Erberber, (2005). TIMSS 2007 Assessment
Frameworks. Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Mapping
2005 State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales. Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
92
National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and
Achieve, Inc. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive
a World-Class Education.
Northouse, P. (2007) Fifth Edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Obama, B. (2009). In Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United Sates: Volume
2. Bedford, MA: Applewood Books.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Education
at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2008. Paris: Author.
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21
st
Century Learning.
Tucson, AZ. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=254&Itemid=120.
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills. (2007). The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the
21st Century Skills Framework. Tucson, AZ. Retrieved January 28, 2009 from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=254&Itemid=121
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pink, D. H. (2006) A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the World. New
York: Riverhead Books.
Pink, D. H. (2009) Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us. New
York: Riverhead Books.
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. (2009). Technical Report. Retrieved
May 20, 2009 from http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2011/index.html
Schoen, L. and Fusarelli, L. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the Fear Factor: The
Challenge of Leading 21st-Century Schools in an Era of Accountability.
Educational Policy. 22.
Schmoker, M. and Marzano, R. J. (1999). "Realizing the Promise of Standards-based
Education." Educational Leadership, 56(6), 21-21.
Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping Point: From Feckless Reform to Substantive Instructional
Improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6).
93
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisions and
Curriculum Development.
Schleicher, A. and Stewart, V. (2008). Learning from World-Class Schools. Educational
Leadership. 66(2), 44-51.
Stigler and Hierbert. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers
for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: The Free Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph. (2006). Make Globalization Work. Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc.
Stewart, V. (2010). A Classroom as Wide as the World. In Heidi Hayes Jacobs (Ed.)
Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervisions and Curriculum Development.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School
Reform. (1995) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
United States Department of Education. (2006) Answering the Challenge of a Changing
World Strengthening Education for the 21st Century. Retrieved form website on
Jan 23 from http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness.
United States Department of Education. (2009). Mission Statement. Retrieved form
website on Jan 23, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/mission/mission.html
United States Congress. (1958). National Defense Education Act, PL 85-864.
Wagner, T. (2008a). The Global Achievement Gap. New York: Basic Books.
Wagner, T. (2008b). Rigor Redefined. Educational Leadership 66(2), 20-25.
Wallis, C. (2006). How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20
th
Century. Time Magazine.
Retrieved January 28, 2009 from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568480,00.html.
94
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Zhao, Yong. (2006). “Are We Fixing the Wrong Things?” Educational Leadership.
63(8).
Zhao, Yong. (2007). Education in the Flat World: Implications of Globalization on
Education. Phi Delta Kappa International. 2(4).
Zhao, Yong. (2009). Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of
Globalization. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisions and Curriculum
Development.
95
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions
Estimated Time: 30 to 45 minutes
Interview of District Leaders: Students as “Members of a Global Society”
Questions Probes (if needed)
Scope of
Question
Research
Question
How long have you been with the
district and what leadership roles
have you played in the district?
Background
2
How important is it that K-12
education in the U.S. focus on
“global” competencies for students?
How do you
compare this focus
with “standards-
based” instruction?
Values
1
How do you interpret the specific
“knowledge, skills, and attitudes”
referred to in the district vision that
“All children will receive the respect,
encouragement, and opportunities they
need to build the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to be successful, contributing
members of a global society.”
What is different
about this kind of
(knowledge, skills,
attitudes) from
traditional
expectations?
Opinions
2
What district policies or practices
appear to specifically support the
vision of students being “members of
a global society” ?
Examples at the
district level?
School level?
Knowledge
.
3
96
Questions Probes (if needed)
Scope of
Question
Research
Question
What activities have you used to
promote the district vision with your
staff?
Videos, texts,
professional
development
experiences, travel
opportunities, etc?
Behaviors
3
What role, if any, have policy
initiatives at the state level played in
helping guide the focus on global
competencies?
Which state policy
initiatives stand out
to you as important
regarding this
work?
Opinions
1
What role, if any, have policy
initiatives at the national level played
in helping guide the focus on global
competencies?
Which national
policy initiatives
stand out to you as
important regarding
this work?
Opinions
1
What partnerships have informed this
work?
Non-profits,
educational
“change” groups,
parent groups,
community groups?
Knowledge
1, 2
What kind of events or activities, if
any, have partners contributed to?
Summits, think-
tanks, ongoing
meetings?
Behaviors
3
Are there other schools or districts
doing similar work that you connect
with regarding this work?
Visit each other?
Share ideas or
documents?
Knowledge
1, 2, 3
97
Questions Probes (if needed)
Scope of
Question
Research
Question
What role, if any, has local business
specifically played in supporting this
work?
Summits, think-
tanks, ongoing
meetings or
partnerships?
Knowledge
1, 2, 3
What resources have the district
made available to teachers to support
this effort?
Curriculum
resources? Sample
lesson plans or unit?
Access to off-site
experts?
Knowledge
3
From your point of view, to what
extent are teachers in the district
focus on emphasizing the “global”
aspects of their instruction on a
regular basis?
Majority of
teachers? In what
aspects of their
work?
Opinions
3, 4
How much time is dedicated to
developing and assessing these
“global competencies” in an average
week of instruction?
Specific activities?
Instructional
routines?
Curriculum or
programs?
Behaviors
3, 4
How do teachers monitor the
outcomes of student performance for
both 1) standardized measures as
well as 2) global competencies?
Other than state-
mandated
assessments?
Specific programs or
purchased
assessments?
Behaviors
4
98
APPENDIX B
Document Review Protocol
Title of Document
Date of Review
Type of Document
Author(s)/Decision-
makers(s)
Location of Source
How closely is this
document related to the
research question(s)?
Which question(s) are
addressed?
What level of the
organization is this
document applicable to
(districtwide, clusters,
secondary, primary, etc.?)
Linkages to other
documents
Reflections
Questions for further
consideration
99
APPENDIX C
Observation Protocol
Purpose of Activity
Date / Location
Participants
General Sense
Location of Source
Is this activity
reflective of
policy/mandate
implementation?
What language
indicates a focus on
“global” or
“competitive”
graduates?
Indicate leadership
roles within this
setting that support
the focus
Relationships /
interactions taking
place
For further
consideration
100
APPENDIX D
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research
What are school districts doing to maintain a balance between preparing students
for a global competitive environment and meeting No Child Left Behind
expectations?
You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by doctoral students
Gloria Aguilar Torres, Juliet Fine, Steve Martinez, Steve Regur, Robert Schwartz, Gina
Olabuenaga, Nicole Tempel, and Sebastian Cognetta and led by dissertation chair Dr.
Pedro E. Garcia, Ed.D. from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. The information collected and findings from the study will be part of
the above doctoral students’ dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in
the study because you are a staff member of a high performing district-school that has
demonstrated evidence of meeting accountability expectations under No Child Left
Behind while at the same time implementing strategies to have the students in your
district-school acquire skills which will help them become successful in the twenty-first
century. Your participation is voluntary. Please take as much time as you need to read the
information sheet. You will be given a copy of this form. You must be age 18 or older to
participate.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to identify how districts-schools’ organizational structure
ensures adequate standardized assessment results and grants students access to twenty-
101
first century skills in districts-schools that are teaching or exceeding the federally
mandated student achievement targets while providing a robust education aimed at
preparing students for a twenty-first century work place. The research will pay close
attention to: (a) the process in which districts-schools identify twenty-first century skills
and (b) the development, implementation, and monitoring of their plan to teach students
twenty-first century skills. The primary objective of the study is to offer a template for
other districts-schools seeking to exceed accountability targets while ensuring that the
education provided to students prepares them for the global demands of the work force.
Completion and return of questionnaire, responses, or both to the interview
questions will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
Procedures
You will be asked to participate in a 45-minute interview that will take no longer than 30
minutes. Those who are asked to participate in an interview will do so to provide
additional information on your district-school practices and programs. The interview
should not take longer than 45 minutes. All interviews will be conducted at your place of
work. You may preview the interview questions prior to deciding to participate.
Researchers may observe a variety of interactions on a school campus such as faculty
meetings, general environment, human factors on the site as well as instructional
practices in the classrooms.
Potential Risks and Discomforts
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. You may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to be interviewed. The participant may wish to end
participation in the study or refrain answering interview questions at any time.
Potential Benefits to Subjects and/or to Society
You will not directly benefit from your participation in the research study. As the study is
part of a thematic dissertation group conducting similar studies, the findings from the
thematic group may lead to conclusions to assist other districts-schools in the
implementation of a balance effort between accountability and twenty-first century skills.
Payment-Compensation for Participation
You will not receive payment for your participation in the research study.
102
Confidentiality
Any information that is obtained in connection with the study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. The information collected about you will be coded using a fictitious
name or initials and numbers such as ABC-123. The information that has your
identifiable information will be kept separately from the rest of your data. Only members
of the research team will have access to the data associated with the study. The data will
be stored for 3 years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
Interviews conducted will be tape-recorded with your permission. If you decline to be
tape-recorded you will have the option to still participate in the study. When the results of
the research are published or discussed in conferences no information will be included
what would reveal your identity.
Participation and Withdrawals
You can choose whether to be in the study or not. If you volunteer to be in the study you
may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may refuse to answer
any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator
may withdraw you from the research if circumstances arise which may warrant doing so.
Alternatives to Participation
Your alternative is not to participate.
Rights of Research Subjects
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in the research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study
subject, you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team to obtain
answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff cannot be
reached please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Provost for Research
Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224AA, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, 213-821-5272
or upirb@usc.edu
Identification of Investigators
103
If you have any questions or concerns about the research please feel free to contact:
Dr. Pedro E Garcia thematic group chair for the study.
University of Southern California
213-740-1208
pegarcia@usc.edu
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of the case study is to describe how one large school district in the United States has expanded their expectations for students based on the perceived need for graduates to compete in an increasingly global job market. The study summarizes the processes for establishing districtwide systems to support these expectations.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Preparing students for a twenty-first century global workplace in an era of accountability
PDF
Preparing the next generation of global leaders: how principals in international studies high schools promote global competence
PDF
Embracing globalization and 21st century skills in a dual language immersion school
PDF
A new generation: a new model of education in the 21st century
PDF
Globalization in curricular elements and instructional practices in California schools: A case study
PDF
School-to-work programs in urban districts in the state of California: a leadership perspective
PDF
The role of the school district toward preparing students for the 21st century
PDF
The role of district leadership and the implementation of 21st century skills through professional development
PDF
The key essentials for learning in the 21st century: programs and practices
PDF
Embracing the challenge of growing the “T” in STEM and its role in teaching and learning: a case study
PDF
Bringing the 21st century into California schools: a case study
PDF
Emerging practices for a changing world: a case study of 21st century learning
PDF
Preparing students for the future - 21st century skills
PDF
The influence of globalization, economics, and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education through project-based learni...
PDF
Globalization, student participation in SciFest, 21st-century skill development, and female student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses in secondary schools in I...
PDF
Learning from our global competitors: a comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan
PDF
The making of global citizens through education abroad programs: aligning missions and visions with education abroad programs
PDF
Globalization in curricular elements and instructional practices in California schools: A high school case study
PDF
SciFest and the development of 21st-century skills, interest in coursework in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and preparation of Irish students for a globalized Ireland
PDF
A case study of 21st century skills programs and practices
Asset Metadata
Creator
Regur, Steven B.
(author)
Core Title
Updating mission and vision in an increasingly interconnected world: the role of the district
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/10/2010
Defense Date
04/06/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
21st century skills,district,district reform,education,global,global competencies,global competitiveness,K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest,public
Place Name
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee chair
), Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee member
), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
regur@usc.edu,steveregur@aveson.org
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3369
Unique identifier
UC1184227
Identifier
etd-Regur-3817 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-382321 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3369 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Regur-3817.pdf
Dmrecord
382321
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Regur, Steven B.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
21st century skills
district
district reform
education
global
global competencies
global competitiveness
K-12
public